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?

A triumphant night of Masterchef coverage at Telegraph Towers

Sydney’s Daily Telegraph appeared to be inhabiting something of parallel universe last night – one that was not occupied by more than 4m TV-watching Australians.

But nonetheless, after the biggest TV audience of the year watched Julie win the first Masterchef Australia, the Tele rushed to announce that Poh had won.

“It was a case of third time lucky for the Adelaide artist who initially didn’t make it past the first audition,” burbled The Tele.

And apparently, Poh “returned one last time to claim victory over mother-of-three Julie Goodwin”.

Rather intriguingly, the story even contained delighted quotes from Poh in which she revealed that she described “was stunned by the verdict but happy to embrace it”.

Apparently Poh told the Tele that her experience of winning was “surreal”.

Not half as surreal as reading the website was was for the Tele’s readers.

Well. Done. Everyone.

(Hat-tip for this image @neerav)

July 20th, 2009 at 9:45 am

Comments

heather ann snodgrass
20 Jul 09
10:01 am

and then there was the herald sun, jumping the gun last week, announcing chris getting booted off a half hour before it actually aired:

http://twitpic.com/aix0x

at least *they* got it right…

Tom Dodson
20 Jul 09
10:04 am

Huh..I can see them announcing the wrong winner early. But the quotes? Wow… must be some heads rolling at Tele towers this morning..

By the way, did anyone else notice the dress the female host (you know, the boring one that repeats everyone else’s statements) was wearing? More of a corset…

Mark David Moran
20 Jul 09
10:14 am

Wow – I can’t believe they stuck the quotes in too. It is one thing having multiple stories ready to roll, but surely you would leave the quotes blank until they actually said something.

Do they really think the reader is that thick? That is poor….

Emily
20 Jul 09
10:49 am

Channel 10 obviously provided the outlets with quotes for either scenario so they could have both articles complete and ready to go.

Either that or they are statements she made in a different context – they dont actually comment on winning. If that is the case thats poor form from the Tele.

Sully
20 Jul 09
10:55 am

And the “traditional Media” are concerned that Blogs and social media are proliferating poor journalism in terms of content accuracy?

indiancurry
20 Jul 09
11:33 am

That’s hilarious

Francis
20 Jul 09
1:57 pm

I was a little surprised when i saw the DT story about 15 mins after MCA finished last night. I was a bit more surprised to see Poh’s quotes, and even more surprised to see Julie’s congratulatory message to Poh.

Then I saved the page and sent it to Media Watch before DT took the story down and replaced it with an amended story (with the same posting time of 8.57pm).

Simon T Small
20 Jul 09
1:58 pm

Gold

Adam Paull
20 Jul 09
2:01 pm

The news that a media outlet writes two stories covering two possible scenarios is nothing earth shattering – but the fact that the story contained quotes from a happy winner and gracious runner-up is the big deal here. Where did these quotes come from? A Channel 10 press release? From the contestants themselves? (“Just pretend you won – how do you feel?”) or were they just made up by the Tele?

Where ever they came from, this is a huge eye-opener on how our media outlets “create” the news.

We might only be talking about a television show in this instance, but if this is how “real” news is gathered, then the Tele has some very serious questions to answer.

Anonymous
20 Jul 09
2:02 pm

Hi Rhys,
As per Louise’s email. I am keen to explore what job opportunities are available at the moment. Are you be around to catch up for a coffee and chat in the near future.

Thanks
John

Tom
20 Jul 09
2:03 pm

I see a Mediawatch opener coming up.

Monica Aleksander
20 Jul 09
2:19 pm

Classic – a few heads will be rolling.

Tom Dodson
20 Jul 09
2:20 pm

Hmm John, think you may be commenting in the wrong window there buddy.

AC
20 Jul 09
2:34 pm

Why are people surprised that the Daily Telegraph journo’s are reporting inaccurate news stories? Don’t they do it on a daily basis

Adam Paull
20 Jul 09
2:44 pm

@AC – Yes they do, but this is the first time we have proof!

Kathy Lipari
20 Jul 09
2:53 pm

Hi, this is Kathy Lipari, Online Editor for The Daily Telegraph.

The story was posted due to a technical error. It was up for less than ten minutes. There was good reason why two stories with two outcomes existed in the first place. As with every reality show where the winner is kept secret, news organisations need to prepare themselves for either eventuality. And so on Friday we interviewed both Poh and Julie who were asked to answer as if they had won and as if the other had won. This is where the quotes came from – we did not make them up. We have apologised for the error.

Simon T Small
20 Jul 09
3:00 pm

Thanks Kathy, appreciate the response.

Sully
20 Jul 09
3:08 pm

Much respect to Kathy Lipari for the response from The Daily Telegraph.

Good to see a straightforward answer.

Adam Paull
20 Jul 09
3:24 pm

Kathy, I appreciate that there was a production error but that doesn’t make what the Telegraph did any less palatable. You still had a journalist sit down with contestants and conduct a pretend interview with all parties in on the deception. The quotes were not genuine, and they still aren’t genuine even now that the show has aired.

I fear that this represents the tip of the iceberg as far as news gathering in this country is concerned – not just at the Tele, but all news outlets. The fact that a television program can orchestrate such a charade and there being NOT ONE media outlet questioning the arrangement is of great concern to the Australian public.

If this is what you are willing to do for Channel Ten, what are you prepared to do for governments and other corporations? Do commercial arrangements dictate the way news is reported? These are the big questions that your little “production error” asks and is something that the media consuming public really need answered.

Great Strategy
20 Jul 09
3:31 pm

If this was what Hartigan was talking about “original content” (http://mumbrella.com.au/news-l.....ginal-7294) then I would prefer the less-than-original content that non-news websites serve

Go online newspapers!

karalee
20 Jul 09
3:56 pm

Agree with Simon and Sully. Kudos to Kathy for the response from the Daily Telegraph.

Paul
20 Jul 09
3:56 pm

I love reading blogs but when i want the truth i look to the traditional media for accuracy. I think its a huge mistake to try for the exclusive or the to be first with the story at the expense of accuracy.

I understand Kathy’s position and the pressures that the larger organizations are under to try and deliver the news faster than the blogs but surely thier reputation for accuracy is more important. Disappointing.

Johnny Rotten
20 Jul 09
4:13 pm

Yeah, thanks Kathy.

Masterchef contestants will no doubt be well trained in how to extrapolate on how they would have felt/would be feeling, if X was going to happen.

After all, throughout this entire show they’ve had to describe how they felt at certain points *in the present tense*, so it can be cut in and used to build suspense.

Andrew Yoole
20 Jul 09
4:43 pm

I’m with Adam Paull on this one – it’s refreshing to hear an honest response from Kathy at the DT, but it still doesn’t excuse the fictional story masquerading as real news. There was NO need for the story to include quotes from the winner if no genuine quotes were available. A standby story could have been written declaring the winner, with quotes cited as “when interviewed before the finale, Poh said…”

This story was a blatant lie. What else does the Telegraph lie about?

Kirsty Gilford
20 Jul 09
5:36 pm

Kathy the article was up for more than an hour and more importantly it was posted approximately ten minutes BEFORE Masterchef finished. It ruined my viewing but then confused me when Julie was announced as the winner on tv. I was elated but it was too late the masterchef finale had already been spoiled for me.

Rog
20 Jul 09
5:51 pm

The Daily Telegraph – never wrong for too long either!

Billy C
20 Jul 09
6:19 pm

So two articles were written one which was a pretend article and one which was correct but at the time they didn’t know which was correct. This doesn’t really sound like journalism to me. Why didn’t channel 10 just embargo the result and have the interviews in the late afternoon a few hours before the broadcast?

Caitlin McCulloch
21 Jul 09
10:50 am

The story was up for a lot longer than ten minutes though. It says it was posted at 8:57, yet I posted a link to it on my Twitter account at 10:25pm saying how suprised I was that it was still up.

And the excuse that they need to be prepared for either outcome is a bit ridiculous – why not just wait until there is an actual outcome and write a story then?

Dodgy from the Tele and Channel 10

mumbrella
21 Jul 09
11:33 am

Hi Caitlin,

Now you come to mention it, you’re right about the story being up much longer than the ten minutes being claimed. If you look at the iPhone screen grab above, that was at 9.42pm.

To give the Tele editorial team their due, it may have been that they attempted to take it down after ten minutes, but it stayed cached for longer. Can any technical experts tell me if that’s plausible?

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella

Robyn
21 Jul 09
2:52 pm

Hi to Kathy and other readers – this story not be allowed to go quietly, there it a lot at stake for us readers and indeed the entire Australian public here.

Firstly, this statement: “The story was posted due to a technical error. It was up for less than ten minutes. ” The (recorded) evidence suggests otherwise. Why make this mess worse?

2. You have an automated Content Management System (CMS), which can be overridden. When the Poh story was taken down, it was not immediately replaced with the Julie story, it was a ‘file not found’ (for quite some further time). Surely this is time for an apology (or don’t you think we are watching?) Well by this stage thousands were, it was post-Masterchef entertainment.

3. As several people above have pointed out, when the ‘correct’ story went up the time was not changed. This is the sort of thing a child might try on (on a bad day).

4. The quotes. For goodness,sake, what has happened to the rules of journalism? I agree with Andrew Yoole and Billy C, the story should have been written properly and then embargoed. Your CMS has a clock.

5. 100% agree with Adam Paull on this and all his comments: “I fear that this represents the tip of the iceberg as far as news gathering in this country is concerned – not just at the Tele, but all news outlets. The fact that a television program can orchestrate such a charade and there being NOT ONE media outlet questioning the arrangement is of great concern to the Australian public.” As you say, Adam, they have no doubt done this before, but this is the first time they’ve been caught with their pants as far down as they can fall.

6. Has anyone seen a NewsCorp publication reporting not only the error but apologising for this lapse of ethics? (Not saying they haven’t but I have not seen one.)

7. How can they suggest that they wish to charge for online content – indeed, paid content is the be the saviour of the news industry! – when these are the dishes we are served? I for one am not prepared to pay for such stories and practices, and I doubt many others would either.

I’d rather choke on the cholesterol and fat-laden chocolate dessert, personally.

PS to Tim – most CMSs have a ‘clear site cache’ button. This would remove a deleted story immediately from the Tele’s servers – it could get stored in some smaller caches en route for a while, but very unlikely in larger ones that refresh very regularly, and almost certainly not for 2 hours. It also does not explain the intervening ‘file not found’ period. However someone from an ISP might be able to add more to this.

Mike Watkins
21 Jul 09
3:15 pm

hilarious

Anonymous
21 Jul 09
3:33 pm

Robyn, you’re not entirely correct regarding the caching. Major websites like the Tele’s use large caching systems based overseas, and they cannot necessarily be cleared that easily. So it’s like the story could have been removed within 10 minutes as stated, but it might still appear on the recipient’s end for quite some time.

Robyn
21 Jul 09
3:39 pm

Thx for the heads up on that, Anon. Still doesn’t explain a whole heap of other things though, especially the ethical questions. (or why it went up before the program finished). Cheers.

mumbrella
21 Jul 09
3:39 pm

Hi Robyn,

Just on point number 6: The next day’s Tele did mention the error.

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella

Adam Paull
21 Jul 09
5:04 pm

It was a disappointing episode of Media Watch last night which only gave the stuff-up a passing smirk. They missed a golden opportunity to dig deeply into the mechanics of the media – it’s rare that we see proof of their shenanigans, so to dismiss it with a wry smile and then spend so much time on yet another “PR survey” story (a topic they’ve been beating to death this year) was a let down.

This is not just a about a silly little publishing mistake about a frivolous TV show, there are much bigger questions here – questions that really need answering.

mumbrella
21 Jul 09
5:14 pm

Hi Adam,

Although it fell quite well for Media Watch’s Monday episode in terms of topicality, they appear to mostly have the show locked down by the end of a Friday, so I suspect that they didn’t have time to do much more with it.

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella

A Littlemore
21 Jul 09
5:17 pm

I assume media watch had some regional North Queensland local paper editor that made a typo or paraphrased a press release they needed to focus on for the 10 mins.

Adam Paull
21 Jul 09
5:39 pm

Locking a show down three days before it’s recorded?? How very old media!

I knew it would be a bit of a stretch (I’m long time ago ex-ex-ex-TV person) but to blow it off as a cheeky “gotcha” without mentioning the fake interview was a dropped-ball in my opinion.

I agree with Mr Littlemore above – MW has spent far too much time picking over fairly trivial matters this year. Daryl & Ozzie used to do it so much better in the original “Media Watch”! (If you’re under 30, ask your parents…)

Luke
22 Jul 09
11:44 am

Do you people whinge about syndication, claiming it’s fraudulent, too?

I fail to see how ethical concerns are breached when you’re dealing with a situation where there is only ONE provider of information (Fremantle/Ten) and they strictly control that flow – including, from what I’ve heard, a lot of NDAs and associated cloak-and-dagger. I’ve no love for the Tele, but this is an easy mistake to make – if anything, the posting on the web is the failure, not the process of writing the stories. Had it been in the hardcopy version, there’d have been more strict subbing at work – if the Tele is anything like the SMH, there just ain’t that level of care given to online posting.

Member of the public
23 Jul 09
9:13 am

Which just goes to prove the existence of a parallel universe – one inhabited by people (like me) who (somewhat naively no doubt) work on the assumption that if newspapers/the media don’t quite report the truth, then they still make some attempt to seek it out, and what would appear to be a significant proportion of the media (and probably their mutually-dependent bedfellows, politicians).

Don’t you guys/gals ever wonder why most of you have lost our respect? Why we don’t buy your papers anymore? But no, it seems the end justifies the means….

You might have our eyeballs (some of the time) but you don’t have our wallets.

Adam Paull
24 Jul 09
1:04 pm

@Luke – What if this was the Government instead of Channel Ten? What if the story was vital to the National interest? Should media outlets bow to every demand of those “controlling” the news? Should news be manipulated like this in the first place?
These are the big questions that need answering.

In this case the story was just a TV show, but it demonstrates how media in this country, and therefore us as well, are being manipulated.

Another consideration here is credibility. When you start an interview by telling your subject to pretend they’re in a certain situation, you lose all credibility – and you don’t sell papers without it.

Great Strategy
24 Jul 09
2:26 pm

i guess that’s an issue.. they aren’t exactly selling papers anyway.. as you were.

Ben Shepherd
24 Jul 09
2:32 pm

I’m not sure that’s true Great Strategy.

Exileskip
24 Jul 09
3:38 pm

I recall leaving a Waratahs game 3-4 years ago before Del was busted and being handed my free copy of the Tele with a back page story including the line “Del was spotted in a Paddington bar after the game deep in conversation with blah blah blah….”. This was about 3 minutes after the final whistle!