Archive for the ‘Poor Practices’ Category
Tuesday, June 16th, 2009
I chanced upon the banner ad rates offered by one Singaporean company awhile back, and saw that a prominently placed banner ad goes for S$4,000 a week, with the promise of “reaching” millions of “eyeballs”.
In Seth Godin’s book “Purple Cow”, there’s a chapter called “law of large numbers” where he bought 300 million banner ads for US$600. That’s more than one banner impression for one person in the United States. The result? He made a loss. Selling $500 of merchandise in total. He doesn’t specify what merchandise, but does it matter?
To break even on S$4,000 a week, you need to sell:
- 8 16gig iPhone 3Gs (about one a day)
- 10 Amazon Kindles (about 1.5 a day)
- 50 Xbox games (about seven a day)
- 400 movie tickets (just over 50 a day)
and that’s on revenue, not profit.
The flipside of this is of course, there’s no guarantee that some people of the 300 million saw the ad, and bought the merchandise some time later, thus making it untrackable. But isn’t it the same as any TV, radio or print ad you buy anyway?
Do you think you’re going to do better than Seth Godin’s case study? I’m going to leave the parallel of “reach” and “eyeballs” to traditional media to you.
If you’re in marketing, you’ve probably heard of the old adage “I know half of my marketing doesn’t work, I just don’t know which half”. The good news is if you’re employing banner ads in your marketing “arsenal”, they automatically fall into the half that isn’t working.
But that’s just one case study, if you’re buying banner ads, I’d like to ask you: How have they worked for you?
Tags: amazon kindles, banner ad, eyeballs, iphone 3G, law of large numbers, millions, movie tickets, online marketing, print, profit, purple cow, radio, reach, revenue, seth godin, tv, xbox
Posted in Marketing, Poor Practices | 2 Comments »
Wednesday, May 27th, 2009
As everyone knows by now, Singapore has it’s first H1N1 case, a schoolmate of mine from SMU (I don’t know her name or who she is). She came back from a business study mission to New York, and I was on a similar trip two years ago in 2007, and many of my friends were on trips before, during and after that.
So when the media gets hold of information that
a) The H1N1 case is a student from SMU
b) She was on a business study mission to New York
What do they do? Call/email/sms/instant message anyone and everyone they know who has ever gone on the trip, regardless of which year it was. I personally was contacted for information, so too were other friends who were on the previous trips, and not this year’s. They then start asking for the phone number of the professor in charge.
Look. If you want to do responsible reporting, do responsible reporting. Call the hospital, ask the doctor how she is, ask the ministries if we’re prepared for the flu, whatever. Don’t sensationalise reporting by finding out facts that don’t matter, and don’t harass people who have nothing to do with it!
You know the rules. You want a comment, call the school, not the students.
And for goodness sake, leave the poor girl alone to recover in the hospital. It’s bad enough she has to go through the trauma for having the virus, the last thing she needs are vultures circling around her door, phone and anywhere else to get every juicy tidbit of information that matters.
By the way, Channel News Asia, there’s no point being on Twitter which is meant for instantaneous messaging, if you break the news almost five hours after it’s out.
Tags: business study mission new york, h1n1, h1n1 singapore, singaporean press, SMU, vultures
Posted in Marketing, Plurk, Poor Practices, SMU, Singapore | 15 Comments »
Friday, May 15th, 2009
Shill:
a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
– from Dictionary.com
Singapore’s “first ever” Tweetup (#sgtweetup) happened tonight at Geek Terminal, and I say “first ever” because Claudia and Kelvin already had a Tweet Tuesday sometime back, and even though it wasn’t branded as a tweetup, make no mistake, it was.
Even before reaching the event, I got updates via Twitter about models appearing for some Supermodelme tv thing and alarm bells already went off: Is this a social media event or an event gathering social media people with a hidden agenda? Evidently, it was the second, and from the tweets, people didn’t like it.
Also, on the way there, I saw the following tweets with no relevance to the event (but using the #sgtweetup hashtag) from the event venue and one of the organisers. Hashtag hijack?
Hashtag Hijack
Within ten minutes of entering the premises, I had these “models” handing me their namecards, followed by the real world equivalent of “kthxbai” as they moved on in search of the next person to hand out their namecard to.
Let me borrow a picture from Ingrid’s post to illustrate what happened:
Model Namecards
And if you check out their profiles on Twitter, you’ll find that the models have no pictures, no tweets or one tweet, almost as if they were handed their Twitter accounts just prior to the event to capitalise on it.
Model Twitter
Model Twitter
Let me just say that such “shady” event organising really makes social media take a step backwards. In a world where we’re all asking for more transparency and more authenticity, there is no room for hidden agendas to “taint” the impression of such events. As I said on Twitter, it’s not about the models, it’s that having a hidden agenda of using a tweetup to push and broadcast a commercial entity is repulsive.
I’ve written about trust issues in the local blogosphere nine months ago, and it’s almost painful to see it come full circle.
Just as a closing point, I’ve been feeling for awhile that local social media events need to change. It’s all fine and good that anyone and everyone can organise a tweetup or impromptu meeting, but I think we need to focus on building up events with credibility, where people know what they’re getting into, and can make informed decisions. Events where you appear and have a curveball thrown at you…. not so much.
What do you think about the “first ever” tweetup? Is there a space for social media shilling at events? Are there too many events?
Edit: Because word is going around about the organiser @CarlGriffith not knowing about the models and that the event venue sprung it last minute, I don’t know what went on but 8 hours before the event, Andrew Peters, listed as an administrator for the event, posts the following on Facebook:
Surprise
Now maybe the models weren’t the surprise, or the admins didn’t communicate to each other, I don’t know. But it reads that way to me. I didn’t actually say Carl personally was at fault, the issue is that as a whole the shill leaves a bad impression.
[Full disclosure: I am on the team for Social Media Breakfast | Singapore and obviously being a local social media event organiser and social media enthusiast, I do have a vested interest in how the public perceives and reacts to social media events.]
Tags: #sgtweetup, personal profit, publicises, self-interest, shill, social, social media event, tweet tuesday, tweetup
Posted in Poor Practices, Singapore, case studies, community, social media | 19 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 »
Friday, April 17th, 2009
Shill Alert
Awhile back I was talking to a friend who I went to school with, and she was telling me about a social media training session by an “expert” who was teaching them how to use social media to monitor their brand. This apparently covered the usual Google Alerts, as well as some of the more popular forums here in Singapore. So I asked the obvious question: “When’re you going to start participating?”
“Oh. We have to pay more for training for engagement.”
Say what?
I’m definitely not against having training for engagement. It’s way too easy to do the wrong thing when commenting on a blog, using Twitter, using Facebook or just replying on a forum. Not to mention there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution for participation, and it’ll have to be customised to fit your company’s needs, which will differ from industry to industry, and even within industries, between companies.
Here’s the thing though. If I were an agency or a self-proclaimed “expert” (a term I really don’t like), I’d love it if a company contacts me and doesn’t include a request for engagement in the “training package”. Great for greed, great for money.
It’s like going to an agency and asking for something “viral” just because it’s the latest buzzword, but not having an inkling what it’s actually about, and when the agency comes back to you with an idea which is far from viral, you won’t know any better and have to take their word for it. Do you really want to take that kind of risk with your money these days?
So I think as a client, do yourself a favour and do some research on what your agency should be offering you and what you should be asking for. And if you don’t know enough and don’t have the time to know about, at least bring someone on board in your company who can tell you when your agency or “expert” is obviously shilling you.
Tags: agency, brand monitoring, buzzword, clients, engagement training, facebook, forums, google alerts, inline engagement, monitoring your brand, one size fits all, participating on forums, participation online, risk, shill, Singapore, social media expert, social media monitoring, twitter, viral
Posted in Poor Practices, Singapore, social media, social media business | 6 Comments »
Thursday, April 2nd, 2009
It’s not often I get annoyed to the point of blogging, but this takes the cake. I’m going to post a few emails I got in the span of one day, and you can draw your own conclusions. I’ve chosen not to reveal the name of the PR person (though i will say his/her job title is senior account executive), the event or any such details this time round.
First mail, 12:45pm (click to view larger image):
Bad PR First Email
By the way, the event is tomorrow at 10:30am. So I’m given 22 hours notice.
So I can’t make it because I have a major presentation tomorrow, here’s my reply:
My Reply
The next email I get is at 4:12pm, asking me to invite friends/bloggers on their behalf:
Bad PR Second Email
Okay. I’m in class so I don’t reply instantly. Nice to see that they would like to get the message out to “as many people as possible” but they do that at 4pm the day before.
Third mail, 6:18pm, asking if I would like to write about their event even without attending it:
Bad PR Third Email
That’s the kicker. I don’t have a relationship with this person, I’ve never been contacted by this agency before, what makes them think this is an appropriate way to approach me?
One thing for everyone entering the social media scene to keep in mind: not all bloggers are going to be like me and choose not to disclose the identity. There are many others who will plaster your name, agency, client’s name and event and get it all the bad press you need before the event even gets off the ground.
Comments?
Tags: agency, bad pitching, bad pr, bad press, client, event, poor practises, relationships, social media
Posted in Poor Practices, Singapore | 12 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 »
Monday, February 16th, 2009
Last week I made a trip down to Queensway Shopping Centre here in Singapore to replenish my supply of contact lenses. Just to put things in perspective for people not in Singapore, a third of the shops on the first floor are optical shops, a third are for shoes, and the last third are clothes stores. So it’s the perfect place to go for any of these three categories of consumer items.
To cut a long story short, I walked one round around the first floor and walked into almost every optical shop , and was quoted anywhere from $41 to $48 for a box of contact lenses, depending on the quantity of boxes I intended to buy. Eventually I reached a shop that offered me $42 for 4 boxes, told her I’d buy 8 boxes if she brought the price down, and got them for $40 a box. Pretty ok deal.
Here’s the thing, I don’t understand why different shops would bother setting such different prices, when all the consumer has to do is spend half an hour walking around to get price comparisons. It’s literally “perfect information” to borrow an economics term, at least within the building.
Wouldn’t it be better to just throw out the bullshit, get straight to the point and give a good offer from the get go? Why play hard to get? Why not start out with a good price and get $320 of sales, instead of risking the consumer walking to the next store three shops away, and letting them get that $320 in revenue? Is it worth that extra profit margin ($41 vs $42?)
I mean the contact lenses are exactly the same from shop to shop, the only differentiator being price.
Maybe when times were good, people would rather go to the first shop and just pay the money and go. Now I think consumers are even more concerned about getting a better “deal”, and it would be better if small businesses like these, start realising that.
Just for reference, this is the shop that gives you good deals for contact lenses:
No.1 Queensway
#01-50
Singapore 149053
Tel:6474 7717
Tags: buy contact lenses, perfect information, queensway shopping centre, Singapore
Posted in Poor Practices, Singapore, case studies | Comments Off
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 »
