Archive for the ‘mainstream media’ Category
Friday, June 26th, 2009
Mars & Venus
Ogilvy’s Digital Influence team held another Open Room, titled “Journalism’s from Mars, Social Media’s from Venus” and after tonight, I think it’s clear that the problem they have is the problem everyone (businesses, schools, non-profits, the music industry, etc) is having. They were sitting on a model that was working for the last 50 or so years, have been blind-sided by the sudden tidal wave of social media and not only are they not scrambling to catch up, but they’re actually holding on to the old world for all that it’s worth.
As with panels, I was fully prepared for some of the audience to be un-accepting of some young (and even worse, enemployed) punk telling them what the world is like. And it was no different this time, which is fine with me, it makes life exciting! How awfully boring would it be if everyone just nodded their heads and agreed.
I think it was a really interesting discussion. There was as much uncommon ground as there was common, and it’s painfully obvious both sides have to learn from each other. Monetisation is not a dirty word, but neither is trusting a fellow blogger. I think we have to move away from our normal worldviews that content creating is done for passion (for bloggers) or that the man on the street (or the Tweeter on Tweetdeck) is less reliable and/or credible than the journalist.
Thinking about “journalism” from the point of breaking news and real good opinion pieces is one thing. But I think we need to think about where the money comes from. Thinking about subscription models and what not is fine (even though they won’t work), but as Thomas Crampton brought up, mainstream media has enjoyed the monopoly on reaching people and advertising for a very long time, and companies are just beginning to realise that they can bypass the “middleman” entirely, thus crippling the revenue model. Will it provide them the reach? Probably not. Will it provide them the influence? Barack Obama’s YouTube channel suggests yes (yes yes I know it worked in tandem with traditional media).
As a closing comment: someone said that old habits die hard, referring to the staying power of traditional media and being used to opening that Sunday edition of the paper over a slow and leisurely breakfast. Here’s a thought: my “old” habits from the old world started changing by the time I was thirteen, and many were gone by the time I was seventeen. Radio, once a nightly listen for the dedication show, is an afterthought, so are magazines. TV serves my purposes when I want it to, newspapers have flown out of the window, music exists in the form of mp3s, not cds. The only “old world” habit I maintain is the reading of books.
My point is this: as much as old habits die hard, to the new generation, new habits form at an alarming speed that the world has never seen before. When, if ever, has a generation been influenced so quickly and successively like from the transition to Friendster to Facebook? That’s not just the speed of platform change, but the speed of diffusion from half a world away. When and how fast did we take up texting to replace calling? The speed of change is crazy. Geographical boundaries barely exist anymore. And I would ask people who believe in the “old habits” to take a look at their children, their nephews, their nieces or anyone under 20 and tell me how many of their “old habits” they see replicated in them, and ask how different the world will be in five or ten years, and if now’s the time to think about that change, or cling on to “old habits”.
Tags: advertising, barack obama, Books, credibility, dedication show, digital influence, facebook, friendster, generation y, geographical boundaries, journalism's from mars, magazines, monetisation, monetization, mp3s, music, newspapers, ogilvy, old habits die hard, old world, open room, radio, reliability, social media's from venus, staying power, subscription models, thomas crampton, trusting bloggers, tv, youtube
Posted in Blogs, Events, Gen Y, Media, Singapore, mainstream media, social media, twitter | 10 Comments »
Wednesday, May 13th, 2009
Hot on the heels of yesterday’s post on the poor value proposition of newspapers, I saw an article from the weekend by Thomas Crampton expressing his outrage at the New York Times and International Herald Tribune when they erased their archives, and all of his journalistic work on them.
First of all, dear New York Times, great work on wasting that Google PageRank of 9 that you’ve built up over the years from all the inbound links. Or maybe you’re taking a page out of the Associated Press and find inbound links to your news a copyright infringement.
Then, Thomas goes on to explain how Wikipedia is grappling with the sudden loss of these archives. Think about it: Wikipedia (and any source that has linked to these archives over the last few years) suddenly finds their information sources gone.
So tell me something. Why are newspapers, who for so long were the “gatekeepers” of information (key word being “were“), doing such a poor job of their gatekeeping?
Tags: archives, associated press, copyright infringement, google pagerank, inbound links, international herald tribune, new york times, newspapers downfall, poor value proposition of newspapers, thompas crampton, Wikipedia
Posted in Poor Practices, mainstream media | No Comments »
Tuesday, May 12th, 2009
Newspaper Fail
One year later from a somewhat controversial post explaining why Generation Y doesn’t read newspapers and if the newspapers can do anything about it, I’ve come to realise more and more how ineffective newspapers are, compared to online news sources and blogs.
Firstly, let’s state the obvious that physical newspapers cannot be searched easily, as compared to bookmarking and saving a link online.
Next, even if there were links online to the news articles, it usually ends up in one of two ways:
1) The link expires when it is transferred to their archive section or some similar movement (Ever bookmarked a page to find it’s not there anymore? That’s what happens)
2) They try to make you register with them after the “free access” period has expired. Whether or not they try to charge is another issue, but registering for news which is essentially free, is ridiculous.
With such a poor value proposition (information can’t be found, or is hard to access), is it any wonder we’re turning more and more away from newspapers? Yes, there are some mainstream media news sources that are doing a good job online as well. That’s fine and good, but the industry as a whole doesn’t seem to be getting it’s act together.
Add in the Associated Press threat of legal action against bloggers who wrote about news and linked to them (which incidentally, actually helps the papers), and you just wonder if newspapers and mainstream media are enjoying themselves walking backwards instead of progressing
Tags: ap, archive, associated press, bookmarking, controversial, free access, generation y, ineffective, mainstream media, newspapers, poor value proposition, register on newspaper sites, search newspapers
Posted in Poor Practices, mainstream media | 5 Comments »
Thursday, March 19th, 2009
Nicholas is the latest (and recurring) victim of being quoted out of context by the Straits Times, and smartly uses his blog as a medium for transparently setting the record straight.
You can read the full account at his blog, but one disturbing point here is the “journalist” who talked to him on the phone, wasn’t even an author of the story. I was once contacted by a “journalist” who used a hotmail account. Something fishy?
I mentioned back in February that journalists taking quotes out of contexts for the sake of sensationalism and selling papers are indirectly part of the problem that faces newspapers.
From that post:
How many of us, who will be communicating with the media in five, ten, fifteen years, will have unpleasant instances with journalists, combined with the rise of digital media and distribution (yes, it will happen), and begin to avoid the journalists whenever possible?
How many journalists will continue to, for the sake of a “story”, mold their “angle” at the expense of a good, professional relationship with the person at the other end of the interview?
How long before this we see a “blacklist” of journalists guilty of consistently shaping a story to suit their angle, and use that as a warning system to other communication professionals a la Chris Anderson’s PR blacklist?
I am beginning to think, at least here in Singapore, it might be time to start up that “blacklist” (and to be fair, a “whitelist”), so that all of us bloggers (and corporate communicators) can at least have a reference point when someone cold calls us on the phone, or sends an email, and know who to avoid and who to talk to.
It’s no different from checking our reviews for a product/service before making a purchase decision. Just as I want to know what I’m buying is a good product, I want to know the person on the other end of the phone is trustworthy. If the media industry will not hold themselves to the high standards that come with being the voice of and to the masses, then we may well have to hold them to it.
For now, here’s what I would advise bloggers to do:
- After giving an interview, type a blog post detailing what you said and if possible a transcript of it, even before it goes live.
- Insist that the journalist link to you or that specific blogpost so that the context is clear and transparent.
- After the article goes live, blog about it again and compare how true it stayed to the original context.
(Credit to the Digital Media Across Asia class for bringing up some of these points in discussion a few weeks ago)
It may not be a huge help, but at least to the people who read your blog, you can build the understanding and credibility that being quoted out of context might destroy.
Tags: bad journalism, bloggers, corporate communication, geekonomics, journalist blacklist, journalists, mainstream media, quoted out of context by straits times
Posted in Poor Practices, Singapore, case studies, mainstream media | 3 Comments »
Sunday, March 8th, 2009
My mum showed me this article from the Straits Times a few days ago, with the headline: “Blogs’ reach limited: Study“, stating that mainstream media is still the key source of news and views, at least socio-politically. (Straits Times: It literally took me just about four minutes to find the link to that page. Why doesn’t Google pick up your stuff and why is your archival system so bad?)
So what I want to comment on, is this paragraph:
Mr Tan compared the several thousand readers who tune in to socio-political websites The Online Citizen (TOC) and The Wayang Party Club to The Straits Times’ circulation of nearly 400,000 and its readership of 1.3 million.
Without going on all day, here are my quick thoughts:
- I suppose newspapers being awesome have nothing to do with the numerous newspapers shutting down worldwide. (Here are some Google search results)
- Of the 400,000 circulation, how many people actively care about the “socio-political” commentary?
- Straits Times has a “readership” of 1.3 million, which means the 400,000 circulation is roughly passed along three times. Or in the case of my family, seven of us (including the dog) have access to the Straits Times, but maybe one person reads it regularly. (The dog used to eat it regularly. Talk about consuming the news.)
- I suppose the “readership” applies to army camps where they have one copy of it but it’s shared by 30 people, most of whom don’t manage to get their hands on it
- The websites with “several thousand readers” (why no figures?) are actively being sought out, compared to newspapers.
- The people seeking out that content are particularly motivated and highly engaged in the source material
- If I were in an organisation (non-profit, cause, school, company, government), I’d easily trade 5,000 newspaper “readers” for 1 person actively searching for my content
- Reach means nothing.
What are your thoughts? Are articles like this just plain in denial? Or is there really something here?
Tags: actively seeking out content, Blogs, Google, mainstream media, newspaper circulation, newspaper readership, newspapers, newspapers shutting down, reach, Singapore, socio-politically, source of news, straits times, straits times archival system, straits times archives, the online citizen, the wayang party club
Posted in Media, Singapore, mainstream media | 9 Comments »
Friday, February 13th, 2009
Diane Tucker of the Huffington Post picked up an old article of mine where I had basically said there was close to nothing papers could do to get me to read them (at least physical copies) because of how easy it is to either find, or be pointed to, news online.
One very valid rebuttal from the comments (and indeed, one that Diane Tucker alludes to in her post) is that mainstream newspapers need to be around to publish news online in the first place, in order for us to be pointed to them. Additionally, the advantage of the papers is the depth and analysis that can theoretically be reaped, which can offset the speed of online news.
All good in theory, but I still have an issue. Yesterday there were two people who were talking about how they were interviewed by mainstream media, and how what they said were either taken out of context or edited in such a way that their original points weren’t made in the original manner.
First of all, let me say, I get it. That’s their job. No one wants to read about a “fine and dandy” newspaper piece. If that’s the tone of the article, somehow it’s in the journalists’ interest to try their best to switch things around and make it more “newsworthy”.
But here’s the thing: As more and more of these instances happen, and more and more of the people interviewed use the internet as their “channel” to get their side of the story out, how much beating will journalists (and by extension, newspapers) credibility take?
How long will it be before all of us being interviewed bring along a Flip cam to record the entire interview, and then repost that online as raw footage to capture the essence of what was said, and use it as a comparative study with the shadow of that essence that journalists twist it into? It is already so easy to create original content and post it up online, and can only get easier as technology improves. Will this have to be the new way of “fact checking” the media?
How many of us, who will be communicating with the media in five, ten, fifteen years, will have unpleasant instances with journalists, combined with the rise of digital media and distribution (yes, it will happen), and begin to avoid the journalists whenever possible?
How many journalists will continue to, for the sake of a “story”, mold their “angle” at the expense of a good, professional relationship with the person at the other end of the interview?
How long before this we see a “blacklist” of journalists guilty of consistently shaping a story to suit their angle, and use that as a warning system to other communication professionals a la Chris Anderson’s PR blacklist?
Of course, I don’t write this post saying everyone in journalism acts this way. As with every profession, there will be the irresponsible and the responsible. Fortunately (or unfortunately, for journalists), that industry is one that is under scrutiny right now, and such acts are not as easy to get away with.
I’ve had great newspaper articles in which I was quoted as a source, and I would not hesitate to help when such a relationship is built on trust, but the more I hear about people being disappointed about how journalists have twisted their words, the more I feel wary about journalists I don’t know.
It’s not about control of the message anymore. In a few years, when it’ll be easy enough to set up a [Company X] channel, it might not even be about reach anymore. The temptation of bypassing mainstream media channels can only grow, and how responsibly or irresponsibly the mainstream media “gatekeepers” act, may well be a determining factor on how big or small that temptation is.
Tags: chris anderson, comparative study, diane tucker, endangered newspapers, fact checking the media, flip cam, gatekeepers, Gen Y, huffington post, journalists, PR blacklist
Posted in Poor Practices, Singapore, mainstream media | 3 Comments »
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008
Travelocity Gnome
I was watching The Amazing Race last week (can you believe it’s in it’s 13th season?) and in this particular challenge, contestants had to locate a Travelocity Gnome, hidden in the city. It’s brilliant because it’s perfectly relevant, and incorporated not just as product placement or sponsorship, but as an actual part of the game, as opposed to being shoved down my throat. (Hear that, Rock Band 2?)
Personally, I had only tangentially heard of Travelocity before this, but the Gnome is a great idea! If only “he” blogged… don’t see any sign of it on their homepage.
What other examples of media convergence have stood out for you, be it positive or negative? Did it eventually lead you to interacting with the brand? Why or why not?
(image source)
Tags: media convergence, product placement, the amazing race season 13, travelocity gnome
Posted in Media, case studies, mainstream media | 2 Comments »
Friday, August 8th, 2008
Going back and re-reading the comments from the Magnum post both here and the replies on Plurk, I’ve been thinking a little bit more about the Magnum ad.
1) Does aspirational advertising work?
We know what this is, they teach this in school. Subject A uses product X for benefit Y, so you can be like subject A too. Smart, sexy, whatever. Does it work? Reading through the comments it would seem that the association of Eva Longoria with being sexy and stuff works although at the same time it’s mentioned that surely we can’t believe that eating multiple Magnums gets you her figure. So what gives?
2) How much of it is celebrity endorsement?
This comes up because the comparisons between the Magnum ad, and Utt and the Brands ad came up. In a sense it’s a fair comparison. The Brands ad is everywhere and Utt is fairly popular, but does Eva have more “celebrity pull” than Utt does? Or maybe it’s just easier to reach out and buy a $2 ice cream? Or maybe again this has to do with textbook marketing: get someone “in line” with the brand so that it works.
3) Would non-traditional advertising have worked?
More specifically, would social media have worked? A plurk dialogue page? A blog? A platform for Magnum lovers to share their experiences? An “ideastorm” like page for people to suggest flavours? Or for a product like Magnum, was the best way to really throw themselves out there with traditional means?
I’m not actually trying to make a point here. Just further points that have hit me since posting and reading the great, great comments that have come in that have further inspired me to think about the issue further. Do you have more?
Tags: eva longoria, magnum advertising
Posted in Marketing, Uncategorized, mainstream media | 2 Comments »
Monday, July 21st, 2008
A couple of weeks ago I was at Ad:Tech and besides meeting some companies who treated us like idiots and some that didn’t, there was a pretty decent talk by three creative directors with their own set of “Five golden rules” in advertising.
The first and the last creative directors gave typical rules like stay true to the brand etc. Very advertising in the ’90s or web1.0. Now one of them gave five points that were much, much more relevant to this day and age:
- Understand your consumer
- Own an issue, stand for something
- Spark & manage a conversation
- Involve your audience
- Aim for impact
Alright understand your consumer and aim for impact are normal, but while the other two were talking about transmitting one-way messages, at least he mentioned “conversation” and involving the audience.
If you’re paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to an agency to do your advertising, wouldn’t you rather it be an interactive, engaging effort instead of one of 2 million “impressions” that registered in their peripheral vision for all of two seconds? Because if you’re still engaged in the transmit model (i.e one way monologue) as opposed to conversation and two way dialogue, it seems like a waste of time. Especially if your demo is Gen Y.
Tags: ad:tech, advertising, advertising advice, conversation marketing, creative directors, engaging your audience, five golden rules, gen y demographic, one way monologue, reaching out to gen y, Singapore, transmitting messages, two way dialogue
Posted in Gen Y, Marketing, mainstream media | 4 Comments »
Tuesday, June 24th, 2008
I’m writing this with Singapore in mind, but I think it could work anywhere.
Rubin and I had a discussion tonight about bands in Singapore, whether they’re talented or not, whether they could make money or not, etc etc. Towards the end of the night I needed to blog and turned to him for inspiration and he said “write about the local music scene”. Brilliant.
So here’s social media for the local music scene.
1) Get repeat plays.
One of the podcasts I listen to mentioned recently that in the music industry, frequency is your currency. So you get people to play it as many times as you can. Give it away free to everyone on MySpace, give it free to the polytechnic radio stations, give it free to the university Campus Radio stations. It doesn’t matter if you’re making money out of it at this stage, just give it free.
I can’t say how many times I haven’t liked a song on first listen, but it grows on me after three or more listens. I’m sure it’s the same for many other people.
2) Pimp yourself.
In a lot of ways, the local music scene is like the local blogosphere. There’s a lot of crap in there, but there are gems too. So how do you get people to notice you? Make yourself searchable. That means pimping up your website, going on MySpace, maybe creating a fan page on Facebook, whatever works. When someone hears your band name and goes home to search for you, you’d better turn up on page one of Google.
Case in point: Origami. I think that’s how it’s spelled because I was only walking past, but I liked their rendition of Kelly Clarkson’s Miss Independent, so much so I wanted to get in contact with them and offer to try to get their track on Campus Radio. So I come home, Google Origami and zilch. How do I help you get your music out there when I can’t find you? Do yourself a favour. If your band name is called Hystericks Stickz, change your name to something Google-able. That advice is free.
3) Get help.
No, don’t get someone to buy you a $30k ad on national radio. There are free (or at least cheap) ways to go about doing it. There are many, many polytechnic or university students out there who would probably be willing to help put your name out there or build you a blog, or pass your cd on to three friends. What could you offer them in return? Well that’s up to you. But remember: your most loyal customers are also your best.
Finally, a disclaimer: All this only works if your music doesn’t suck. As with everything else, content is king. If the content you’re producing sounds like screeching and/or cawing, no amount of publicity is going to help you.
So, now that you know all that. You want a social media/digital strategist to help your band out? Start a conversation with me. Here, Plurk, Twitter, Facebook, whatever works for you.
Tags: blogosphere, campus radio singapore, facebook, Google, myspace, origami, pimp yourself, Plurk, self-publicity, singapore local music, singapore's local music scent, smu campus radio, twitter
Posted in Google, Search, Singapore, Social Networks, collaboration, community, mainstream media, social media, twitter | 5 Comments »
