Opinion
- What's in a name?
  
  In this guest post, Moensie Rossier wonders about the power of names for brands and marketers.
  
  Brands have been having a bit of fun with names lately, not to mention a fair bit of success. Interbrand just named a headhunting firm Cloak & Dagger. And ‘Share a Coke’ showed how much power there is in a name.
  
  The Coke campaign effectively short-circuited the usual mechanics of communication. It undoubtedly stroked people’s egos. But, I believe, its success stems from the fact that it directly and automatically affected people’s behaviour, rather than doing so indirectly by shaping attitudes.
- Best ads from Super Bowl 2012
  
  The Super Bowl is all done and a team from North America won. But as well as some sort of sporting event, it’s the world’s biggest advertising showcase. See the best of them right here… and please tell us what you think.
- How to debunk media myths
  
  In this post, UWS’s Ullrich Ecker, John Cook and Stephen Lewandowsky argue that cognitive science can help PRs form strategies in managing media misreporting.
  
  A growing cohort of commentators has bemoaned the descent of contemporary political “debate” into a largely fact-free zone.
- How about simply focusing on what consumers want?
  
  In this guest post, Peter Mountford argues that brands should think more about what is really going on for consumers
  
  Who here is hoping their favourite brand of toilet paper is going to be organizing a flash mob on their way home from work today?
- What the Optus web copyright victory means
  
  In this analysis first published on The Conversation, RMIT’s Marita Shelly examines the implications of Telstra’s defeat over the online rights to the AFL broadcast deal
  
  This week’s Federal Court ruling that Optus customers are able to view sporting matches minutes after they are streamed live without breaching copyright is a landmark decision that alters our understanding of copyright law, and has significant implications for the AFL’s broadcasting rights deal.
- Does Gina Rinehart’s bite of a chunk of Fairfax make her an oligarch?
  
  In an article that first appeared in The Conversation, Mark Rolfe wonders whether the mining magnate’s move could turn Fairfax into something resembling America’s Fox network.
  
  Australia’s richest person Gina Rinehart has moved to increase her stake in Fairfax Media, owner of The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and a number of radio stations. Rinehart has already shown her desire to play a role in public life, campaigning against former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s aborted mining tax. She has also demonstrated a willingness to make media investments to ensure her pro-business worldview is promulgated.
  
  What does this latest move by Rinehart mean?
- Gillard's Australia Day crisis
  
  PM Julia Gillard’s media adviser Tony Hodges has been forced to resign over the Australia Day tent embassy debacle.
  
  It came after it emerged he had revealed opposition leader Tony Abbott’s whereabouts, leading to both politicians being rescued by police in ugly scenes.
  
  Mumbrella editor Tim Burrowes and advertising practitioner Jane Caro debate the topic on Weekend Sunrise’s masters of Spin segment:
- The biggest cock-up I made in business
  
  In this guest post, Chris Savage urges agency staff to live the brand.
  
  I still shudder when I think about how incredibly stupid I was when I made the biggest stuff up of my career. And then, 18 years later, I did it again. Do not make this mistake with your clients. Ever.
- Hey Groupon. Thanks for fucking up email
  
  In this guest post, Daniel Monheit warns that group deal overload is devaluing email marketing
  
  Email marketing used to be fabulous. Back in the heady days of 2010, brands would work hard to build up well qualified databases, upon which they’d bestow carefully crafted correspondence filled with information, offers and incentives. The recipients, of course would be delighted: “Oh look! An email! From one of my favourite brands! And it’s 40 cents off at Woolies this week!”.
- The staggering sway of Harold Mitchell
  
  The Power Index today names Aegis Media chairman Harold Mitchell as the most powerful person in Melbourne. Andrew Crook profiles him.
  
  Harold Mitchell takes pride in dispensing with the niceties. When The Power Index visited his South Melbourne private office before Christmas, fresh remains were scattered all over the boardroom table.
- Share a Coke with… the moronic masses
  
  The most-read story on Mumbrella last year, with not far off 100,000 page views, was a fairly humdrum yarn about the launch of Coca-Cola’s name-on-a-bottle campaign.
  
  The headline, “Coca-Cola puts people’s names on bottles in ‘Share a Coke’ campaign”, though hated by any self-respecting sub-editor, was loved by Google. And in rushed what can be politely described as the public.
- Assumptions kill creativity
  
  In this guest post, Gual Barwell disagrees that the sales success of the Old Spice social media campaign was overstated.
  
  Yesterday’s post from Cathie McGinn suggested the Old Spice campaign failed to connect with consumers. Based on the facts and figures, I disagree.
  
  What Old Spice and Wieden + Kennedy has done and done phenomenally well is to create a franchise.
- The SMH's readers (are wrong) editor
  
  We are now about five months into the reign of Australia’s first readers’ editor. And I don’t think it is working.
  
  It struck me at the time of Judy Prisk’s appointment to the Sydney Morning Herald that the fact that her boss was editor-in-chief Peter Fray was not going to be ideal if she was going to be the independent voice of the reader.
- The emperor's new fragrance: Old Spice’s campaign failure
  
  In this guest post, Cathie McGinn slays a sacred cow of 21st century marketing – the highly awarded Old Spice campaign.
  
  One of the biggest myths of recent times (by which I mean a story of great heroism and triumph we’d all like to believe but deep down know to be untrue) is the Old Spice social media campaign. It’s been much lauded and awarded as an example of outstanding content, a creative and collaborative way of connecting with consumers and driving a record increase in sales.
- How reliable are radio ratings?
  
  In this guest posting, Jason ‘Jabba’ Davis wonders how accurate radio ratings can be, since the data is collated from handwritten diaries.
  
  So, the radio ratings season gets underway tomorrow. After a well-earned break, Australia’s commercial radio stations will renew their obsession with figures to see how many of us are listening. Are they winning or losing the ratings war?
  
  The much feared radio survey is the only way to measure the success or failure of a station’s playlist, talent, promotions or even good old Black Thunder crosses. With six-figure salaries riding on the make-or-break nature of ratings, just how accurate are Australia’s radio survey results?

40,000 online conversations about Kings Cross Clare Werbeloff

Kings Cross bogan Clare Werbeloff has already been discussed online more than 40,000 times, according to a calculation released today by social media monitoring company Buzz Numbers.

According to the company, since Werbeloff’s breathless retelling of a shooting that she didn’t actually witness went viral last Monday, at least 41,186 conversations have occurred online on Australian websites.

Although many PR agencies no longer use an equivalent media value figure, BuzzNumbers says that if this metric is used, it would was worth $200,000 in equivalent advertising dollars on Australian websites and social media destinations alone.

Around 41% of the more than 41,186 online conversations about her took place in social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter, whilst a further 27% of conversations occurred on blogs and forums, and 12% on news sites.

BuzzNumbers CEO Nick Holmes a Court said: “She is this year’s Corey Worthington. It just shows how powerful a medium the social web is.”

May 25th, 2009 at 10:40 am

Comments

Ross
25 May 09
11:17 am

Corey, who?

Tim Bennett
25 May 09
11:54 am

You know, Corey Worthless.

John G
25 May 09
12:03 pm

It’s hard to get excited about 41,186 meaningless ‘conversations’.

Steven Noble
25 May 09
12:08 pm

“Although many PR agencies no longer use an equivalent media value figure”

That’s one way of putting it. Another would be:

“Although advertising value equivalents (AVEs) have been completely discredited and the Public Relations Industry Association forbids its members from using them under its code of ethics”

Sue Parker
25 May 09
12:20 pm

This whole scenario could well be a well contrived PR plot to expouse the ostensible relevancy of the power of social media for dialogue to the brainless masses who have nothing better to do.

41,186 conversations – wow!! I wonder what metrics are available to report the analysis of the IQ levels of the 41,186 !

Simon T Small
25 May 09
12:23 pm

“With the Internet and reality shows, regular people like you are hitting it big and becoming the toast of the town. While there’s no giant door you simply walk through to stardom, there are some steps you can take in order to give yourself some added exposure. Read on to learn how to become a celebrity.”

http://www.ehow.com/how_238711.....brity.html

John Grono
25 May 09
12:27 pm

Sue. My specialty is media research and audience metrics. There are no firm data available. At a guess … collective IQ approaching 10,000 … how does that sound?

Anthony
25 May 09
12:34 pm

It’s misleading to give social media an ad value. Both Twitter and Facebook are free sites and the conversation threads can’t be bought. I realise that Buzz is trying to translate the space into “advertising speak” but marketing managers looking at this space for the long term need to determine value by the size of the community following the brand, their willingness to interact and the quality of conversation that the brand has with them. If they do it well, they’ll measure it in sales not ad dollars.

Ben Shepherd
25 May 09
1:32 pm

Hrm don’t see the relevance of this.

Given there was probably 400,000 offline conversations about it.

Still – what does it really mean to anyone? After every weekend there’s probably 40,000 discussions about Collingwood losing online and off. I wouldn’t say that “shows how powerful a medium the social web is” it just shows people like talking about things.

Walter Pike
26 May 09
4:30 pm

I am sitting in Johannesburg preparing for a radio interview, and I will talk about the 41 000 conversations and the millions of views of the video. (I wont be talking about footie)

This incident is a huge demonstration of the power of social media, its intensely relevant, and the conversations have gone far further than what a chat in the pub would have, and we can measure them. Of course it shows that people like talking about things. Exactly that’s the point.

Well it looks as if the Ostrich effect has a firm hold in Aus

Ben Shepherd
26 May 09
4:56 pm

What’s the point of measuring it though? last week there were 41,000 ‘discussions’ around Clare Bogan. The week before it was Keyboard Cat. The week before it was I Like Turtles Zombie kid. Next week it’ll be something else

So what? Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean it has any value.

I fail to see how this is a demonstration of the power of social media. Fame seeking or just plain stupid people have become pop culture icons for short periods forever.

Brad Eldridge
26 May 09
6:01 pm

Has Keyboard Cat been around for a week!?!

I only saw it today – loser

John Grono
26 May 09
6:09 pm

Ben, I couldn’t agree more. Why do we measure TV programmes – because we know that week-to-week the audience rarely varies by more than 10% so we can plan and buy in confidence. Same goes for magazine titles – we know they’ll be there next issue and doing the same sort of humbers.

As for Clare – by the time you’ve counted it, it’s all over red rover, until “the next big thing” comes along in a week or two.

Ben Shepherd
26 May 09
6:40 pm

Clare is the same as The Simpson’s ‘I Didn’t Do It’ episode.

Everyone jumps on it and thinks it’s hilarious and awesome, Bart records a song with MC Hammer, he’s on Conan etc … then a week later everyone is over it due to how inane and pointless it is and it becomes embarassing and tired even for the most committed bandwagon jumper.

Ben Shepherd
26 May 09
6:42 pm

may i also add it’s impressive to see the business dev. acumen of the social media guys to take something as flimsy as a bogan viral and turn it into a product/service sell.

Walter Pike
26 May 09
6:43 pm

When you measure Social Media you measure how conversations are spreading, nodes of influence etc. Conversations that are actually happening, people taking action.

What are you measuring with magazines, TV? You measure audience, how many people COULD HAVE have seen your Ad? Huge difference.

What this lady said or did is irrelevant, that she is a sensation is relevant, that the story spread is relevant, how it spread is relevant, why it spread is relevant.

John Grono
26 May 09
7:10 pm

Walter, I agree that ‘measuring’ social media is about conversations. Measuring ‘traditional’ media is about OTS. I agree that these are huge differences.

However, the ‘hughest’ difference between ‘traditional media’ and ‘social’ media’ is runs on the board. Without tracking ‘nodes of conversation’ (what we used to call water-cooler talk) traditional media have managed to build the majority of the biggest brands in existence (apart from Google. which is a genuine phenomenon). Somehow I think the existing media must be doing SOMETHING right.

As you point out it comes down to relevance. What Clare did and said IS irrelevant. Just as the ‘conversations’ generated will be irrelevant in a week or two. The fact it spread is a quirk of human curiosity – social media allowed a rapid spread of that curiosity – which is just wonderful. But what outcome was there – none. It was irrelevant – just some (pretty) harmless fun. It does NOT mean that the ‘success’ of Clare to generate a momentary spike in ‘buzz’ will work for a brand communication campaign. People will see straight through it – zero ‘buzz’. AKA … irrelevant,

Walter Pike
26 May 09
9:48 pm

Jon

But it is a changing era, remember that marketing was only created in the 1960′s and brands in the true sense were around a lot earlier as well.Marketing is about as old as television.

I must refer you to Y&R fundi John Gerzema and his book called the Brand Bubble in which he talks about the massive difference between what brands think they are worth and what consumers think brands are worth. (and waht brands think they are worth is actually irrelevant) Also to the writings of Seth Godin where he describes the different eras before during and after advertising. (meatball sundae)

Many of the key assumptions of advertising are just no longer valid.

Thats not to say that those massive brands that have switched up to 80% of their budgets into online are right, just because they measure effectiveness and action not OTS.

The real power of online is word of mouth, and ok in this case the story that spread via WOM was so what – the fact that it spread is the big thing. Far faster, far further, and far cheaper, than any conventional campaign ever invented.

I am not saying that there is no value in conventional media, at all, but its role is changing, television is already a support medium not a primary medium in some markets.

John Grono
26 May 09
11:02 pm

Walter – the excitement IS the phenomonal change and the sheer pace of it. However, one has to be careful not to get swept away in the excitement. Thanks for the references I am a bare pass on them so have some reading to do.

Could, you please enlighten me as to which of the massive brands have switched up to 80% of their budgets online – because I simply can’t think of who they are. Or is this hyperbole.

The POTENTIAL to harness WOM online is massive. It is however, still just potential as far as I can tell based on results (apart from hits, downloads and chatter) – I want to see firm brand-building results over a period of time. Again, please enlighten me. Many pundits believe that you CAN’T harness WOM. The vey fact that it is an ill-defined collection of disparate people with an unforeseen common interest that rises like a Phoenix dictates this (i.e. Bogan Clare). That which cannot be harnessed has little or no value no matter how large the numbers are. Further, some of the gloomier pundits believe that attempts by marketers to ‘invade’ the social media space with advertising messages is the antithesis of the whole raison d’etre of social media, and could damage brand equity – though myself am not that gloomy and think we need to experiment to find the ground rules and boundaries . But always remember the old adage “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”.

Dan Brian
26 May 09
11:43 pm

Tim you are so bloody right, the questions Star initially raised plus the incredulous cameraman retelling (that shot was framed for that ad from two different angles), and the dramatic body language of Clare all flag a good ol STUNT. The truth will come out eventually and you will be vindicated. Where there’s smoke in PR it’s usually followed by mirrors