Archive for the ‘mainstream media’ Category
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 »
Saturday, June 14th, 2008
Passed by this yesterday, one of the many banners hanging on street lamps.
Two almost exactly identical banners hanging from every street lamp for a block.
So here’s where it doesn’t make sense.
1) Why two? If you really had to waste money putting a banner outdoors, wouldn’t one do the trick? Or does placing them on either side of a street lamp guarantee double the eyaballs?
2) Why every street lamp? Why not every alternate one? When I drive past by the time I see the first one and look up more closely, it’s the third street lamp anyway.
So essentially, they could’ve either done one banner on every alternate street lamp and spent a quarter of their budget, or done it over a larger area (ie four blocks) and spend the same amount of money.
Or they could’ve just contacted animal, dinosaur or bird enthusiasts online and invite them to come and spread the word. It’s not like putting up street lamp banners are any more measurable than doing a blogger outreach exercise.
I bet the ad company is laughing its way to the bank.
Tags: advertisements, advertising roi, dino trail, Singapore, street lamp banners, traditional advertising, traditional media, wasted advertising
Posted in Marketing, Photos, Singapore, mainstream media, social media | Comments Off
Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008
After what happened last week, I was quite pleasantly surprised to get a very considerate sms from a reporter this morning, saying he was concerned about disrupting me and asking for a good time for him to contact me.
A few things done right:
- He knew who I was, definitely had read my blog and referenced things I said in context both on my blog, Twitter and at the IDC Conference.
- He had clear questions and obviously had done research on the topic.
- He did not seem to just want to hear a quotable soundbyte, but just asked questions and answered. (Note: It doesn’t matter to me if he got off the phone thinking I utterly wasted his 5 minutes and didn’t give him a good soundbye, the point is that doesn’t come across to me)
- He offered to send me a draft of what his phrasing of what I said would be via email
Again, it’s not that I’m some big shot in the space, it’s just the other party being nice and well…. a human. Not just someone digging for information or a soundbyte.
Unlike the previous two reporters, if this particular journalist asks me in future to recommend him a blogger in a different niche, say food or technology, I will definitely be more than happy to do so because I know he will treat that person with courtesy and respect that I think anyone should get.
Here’s hoping more journalists learn from these experiences.
Tags: idc conference, journalist blogger relations, journalists approaching bloggers
Posted in Singapore, mainstream media, twitter | 3 Comments »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008
At the IDC Conference, Directions yesterday, I said Generation Y doesn’t read the newspaper. And MediaSlut picked up on it asking what newspapers can do in response. Coincidentally, Today ran an article today about the state of Singapore’s journalism.
Before, I begin, a clarification:
I did not mean to say that my generation doesn’t read news. I think we do. Just not the papers. The question at the panel was whether online is the new “it” in media, and coming from a communications standpoint, of course it is. Is there another medium that has more messages sent and received than online?
We don’t spend half an hour thumbing through the papers in the morning, we’re reading the latest Harry Potter in e-book format on the train.
We don’t spend 3 hours a night watching tv after coming home. We’re watching tv online, chatting to people, working on homework and maybe even playing a game.
In an advertising class I was once told “think about where your consumers spend their time”. I spend 75% of my waking hours online. That pretty much guarantees that if your message is restricted to traditional media, I’m not going to see it.
I know MediaSlut isn’t asking me about why I don’t read the papers. But I feel you have to understand that to move forward. Some are more specific to me, some are general for Generation Y.
Why I don’t read the papers
1) News finds me. I don’t mean it’s offered to me on a platter, but that if it’s a particularly relevant piece of news, someone is going to blog about it, send me an email with an URL attached or just tell me about it on MSN.
2) I need my information to be relevant. Let’s say I can read 10 articles a day. These 10 need to be relative to me (ie marketing or communications related). Reading 10 articles in my niche adds much more value that reading 10 articles (or more) about unrelated happenings in the world. Put another way, an economist is going to find relevant articles about changing interest rates or inflation much more valuable than the latest way to use Twitter. And vice versa for me. So to either the economist or myself, it makes more sense to subscribe to a blog or someone who talks about that niche or to just Google “changing interest rates today”, as opposed to flipping through 10 pages of unrelated text.
Points #1 and #2 are very important. Firstly, the papers are no longer a convenient source of news. Secondly, even if I did have a copy of the Straits Times hanging around, I wouldn’t thumb through it because I know only 10% (or less) of what’s in there matters to me. I can see ten headlines in my RSS reader and pick the one article that is relevant, in a fraction of the time it will take me to flip through 10 articles (including ignoring the disruptive ads)
3) Papers are slow. It’s not their fault, I know. Papers are published daily, not hourly, I get that. But explain to me how I hear about an Outram MRT shooting via Twitter, check out the CNA website and it’s not there? Yes I know CNA’s Twitter mentioned it, but sorry, dead man found at Outram MRT is not the same as man shot at Outram MRT.
4) Gen Y wants different things. I have no empirical evidence for this, but a communications professor told me once in school that what the newspapers publishes and considers “news”, is not what the public wants to read and considers “news”. He was comparing the front page of Digg to the front page of any newspaper. I think there’s some truth in there. How much, I don’t know. But one of my RSS feeds is to del.icio.us’s front page, and not that of the Straits Times.
So what can print do?
In all honesty, I don’t have the answer. I cannot think of something, that if present, would make me read the papers. But here are a couple of minor suggestions.
1) Speed. If I read about it on Twitter, please have it on the CNA website so I can verify that it’s true and read the truth.
2) Accuracy. If you can’t be fast, at least be accurate. If a man was shot, please say he was shot, not just “dead”. Shootings don’t happen every day in Singapore, post the tweet 3 minutes later if you have to, but make it representative.
3) Convince me of your value. Unrelated sources commenting on unrelated topics? Sorry, not buying it.
4) Be accessible. If I Google something and it directs me to a Straits Times link which then asks me to be a subscriber (free or otherwise), that’s it. I close the window and move on.
5) Be human. I wanted to present on this at Pecha Kucha night. Traditionally, journalists were immense gatekeepers of the media. I’m sorry to say that’s not it anymore. Maybe that explains my interviews yesterday. I’m “just another peon” to be interviewed by the venerated gatekeepers, and the peon should be honoured to have his name in the press. Sorry, doesn’t work that way.
Does MSM still have a place?
I think it does. As much as I’m a social media advocate, some things just don’t fly. I always use this as an example: NTUC (or Wal Mart) needs newspapers. That’s where their “aunties” find out about the deals and coupon clippings. I understand that. As long as this demand is there, MSM will have it’s place.
I’m going to come back to the point I was trying to make at Directions. This demand is not there for my generation. We don’t interact with MSM the same way people 10 years older do. If you sit up there looking at your old model and think “Oh it’s your loss, you ignorant younger generation”, I think you’re very mistaken. As I mentioned, I can think of nothing that newspapers can do to make me turn back to print. The question is what can you do to engage me online? Hint: subscription isn’t the way.
Incidentally, the issue of censorship of non-freedom of the press etc isn’t an issue for me. I know how Singapore works and that’s fine. Just make up for it in other areas.
Referring again back to the article in Today, “State of Sinapore Journalism”, there’s advice for the five stakeholders for journalists/newspapers. I have issues with two:
1) Readers
Read widely and hold Singapore newspapers to the standards of international publications such as Financial Times and The Economist. Make yourselves heard to the news organisations
Make ourselves heard? No. How about newspapers make yourselves heard and engage us instead? The biggest threat to newspapers is not that we think they’re substandard. The biggest threat is if we’re indifferent to them and don’t notice either way. And I guarantee you it’s easier to click that little “x” on my Firefox browser and switch to an alternative source online, than to write an email to the editor to make myself heard.
2) Advertisers
Look beyond readership figures. Shift your advertising dollar to newspapers with premium brand names held in high regard by the community
Yes, look beyond the readership figures, but I think it’s presumptuous to write as if the corporation’s ad spend options are between newspaper and newspaper. If I were to remove my ad spend from newspapers, they’re moving somewhere else entirely. If I were to move advertising to a medium with “premium brand names held in high regard”, maybe something like CNet would be a better option than Digital Life.
These are my thoughts. I don’t speak for the whole of Generation Y, and I’m sure there are many people who will take opposing views, so let’s hear them! Comment away!
Tags: accuracy of news, alternative news sources, are bloggers the news journalists, generation y and newspapers, is print obselete, is twitter a news alternative, journalism's future, mainstream media, mediaslut, msm, news from twitter, newspaper relevance, newspapers future, print future, print's future, reading newspapers, slow news, speed of news, state of singapore journalism, twitter journalists
Posted in Marketing, Media, Singapore, mainstream media, twitter | 14 Comments »
Saturday, April 19th, 2008
This is thought #4 from yesterday’s quick thoughts on the IDC Conference. But I think it’s the most time sensitive so I’ll get to it first.
I’m a fairly young “serious” blogger. By that I mean my blog has only existed for about 100 days, though I’ve had a “webpage” as they called it back then, since 1996.
In the past 100 days, I’ve loved it when people drop me a message to say they’ve read my blog and find it interesting or they’ve heard about what I’ve done at Social Media Breakfast: Singapore or stuff like that. It’s lead to great conversations, new networks, new friends and even a couple of internship offers. I’m glad that at least some people within my niche feel like I’m adding value to this community, and are willing to talk to me about it.
In last couple of days, though, the ugly side of social media has begun to rear it’s ugly head with people I don’t know adding me on Facebook (without even telling me how or why they know me) and one person demanding for stuff on Twitter, from his/her very first tweet to me.
Needless to say, I categorised these instances as spam and just ignored them.
But then, yesterday took the cake.
Two separate journalists talked to me, one in person at the IDC conference and one over the phone. The first simply came up to me, did not introduce the topic she was writing about, did not ask if I knew anything about the topic she was writing about, or if I would like to say anything about it and just leaped straight into asking me questions.
The second called me while I was having dinner, didn’t ask if it was a good time to talk, but at least identified how she got my number.
Firstly, isn’t this communication 101? You’re calling someone you want to get something out of. The very least you can do is be courteous.
Second, both these journalists clearly have no idea who I am, and what I blog about. I know because both their pieces were on topics with absolutely nothing to do with what I blog about. Why would I be a relevant person to get a comment from? I told the second journalist that I had no idea whatsoever about the content she was asking me about and I didn’t feel like I was the best person to comment. It’s like asking an engineer in to comment on the latest healthcare procedures.
Did they bother to do their research? Or was it just easy access to a blogger - any blogger - that they could milk for a comment for tomorrow’s news? Are they presenting a proper quote with proper representation to the public that actually pays money for that paper?
I’m going to borrow a question from Michael Netzley:
What happened to the journalistic ethic and the grand claims that journalists are different because they actually research their stories and get independent confirmation of the facts?
Reuben, who I was having dinner with, heard my side of the conversation and clearly knew I had no idea what the phone “interview” was about, and told me I should have just said “I’m sorry, I’m having dinner”. On hindsight, I should have, but I didn’t want to be rude.
But I am very certain, that in this case, my extended courtesy to these journalists were not reciprocated in any way whatsoever.
So let me get this out of the way: I do not blog for publicity. I do not need or want to be quoted in the press, especially when it is in no way related to me. I don’t do this for money, I don’t care about fame. I’m here to add value to my immediate community and to spread the word about social media, be it in personal or business use. My goals are community, awareness and education.
Now I’m not a big shot in this space. And I don’t need anyone to treat me like one. If anything else I am astounded by the appreciation people have shown me so far. But I do ask that you show me the basic courtesy when it comes to contacting me.
The one thing I am conscious of in my blog is my personal brand. Yesterday I made the mistake of commenting on issues that I probably shouldn’t have. I don’t know how the articles will come out It could be good for my personal brand, it could be bad. For all I know i come out sounding like a genius in tomorrow’s papers. It doesn’t matter. That’s why I feel the need to post this at 5:20 in the morning, so that you know I’m not writing this in response to whatever comes out in the press later today.
I would like to think these were isolated incidents, and that we have many, many professional journalists out there who hold themselves to a professional code (which apparently is something they pride themselves on). Either way, this has been a learning experience for me, albeit one that has left a bitter taste in my mouth, and it’s not going to happen again.
If this incident means taking some backlash from the journalism community, by all means. I could’ve easily sat on this and kept quiet, let the articles get published and just wait it out, but I think bloggers need to be aware of this.
I personally find it marginally amusing that for all the concern about “control” and “responsibility” and “messaging” and “amateurism” etc in social media, I find these exact things lacking in mainstream media.
Or am I being naive to believe they should exist there in the first place? Because my takeaway from these two instances is that they don’t care about the story, much less me. Grab a contact, get a quote or comment, publish that piece of text regardless of the accuracy, reliability and credibility of the article or the source.
Related Links:
The whole discussion about blogger outreach is in For Immediate Release #336 at around 18 minutes. I think everyone who is considering connecting with any blogger needs to listen to this carefully before going down that path.
Also, you can read about Bryan Person’s frustrations with lazy PR pitches, and draw the similarities easily.
In the interest of full disclosure, another reporter who I met at the IDC Conference was fairly decent and asked if I would be interested in contributing to that particular newspaper. Whether or not that actually happens, I want to lay this out publicly so that other bloggers out there can read this and learn from it.
Tags: basic communication, basic courtesy, blogger journalist relationships, blogger relations, communication 101, idc conference thoughts, journalists approaching bloggers, know your audience, reporters approaching bloggers, social media breakfast, social media conversations, social media niche, social media spam, ugly side of social media
Posted in Blogs, Singapore, mainstream media, social media | 7 Comments »
