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?

Starlight ad takes away kids’ dignity

Charity advertising is generally bombproof when it comes to criticism, but I wonder if the Starlight Children’s Foundation has gone too far with the half page ad in today’s Sun-Herald.

It features two sad-looking children, both holding up hand-made signs saying “Choose me”, along with the heart-rending message: “With limited funds, we’ll have to choose which seriously ill child deserves happiness more.”

Yet my first reaction on seeing the ad is not the compassion one should feel, but anger at the emotional manipulation. By being asked to hold up the signs, it feels like the kids are being exploited in an entirely undignified way.

The fact that this is an organisation that recently helped spend nearly $15m on building a web site compounds things.

One can only hope that the kids in the images are actors.

Tim Burrowes – Mumbrella

April 12th, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Comments

Mandi
12 Apr 09
5:27 pm

A friend works for Starlight, we’ve had discussions about how difficult 2009 is going to be thanks to the downturn economy and the bushfire and flood appeals. Apparently they did it extremely tough after the tsunami and know exactly how detrimental a natural disaster can be. Obviously they have decided to ramp up their advertising to get their hands on some of the $900 that all retailers are vying for. I can understand how those involved would want a campaign that went for the jugular. I agree with you Tim, I’m not comfortable with the emotional manipulation but at the same time I hope it works.

At lunch today we started discussing charities and it was noted that the calls for donations were increasing. However we also noticed that in the cases when we’ve had to decline, the callers have been more than understanding. I know personally this has given me a bigger guilt trip then this ad ever could. I know when I’m doing a bit better again I’ll be donating twice as much next time they call.

Sharon M
12 Apr 09
8:17 pm

I agree with Tim, this is simply appaling. Has their power gone to their heads, are they trying to play God? Theoretically, what would the criteria be to choose one child over another and who would have this power? S

michael david leach
15 Apr 09
9:19 am

Tim

Absolutely agree – I had this discussion with my wife when we saw the ad in the newspaper that day. I wonder whether this ad might actually backfire and produce the opposite effect to that which was intended.

The approach was poor taste and exploitative – presumably asking the children to produce the signs and then “look sad” for the camera.

Without denigrating Starlight in any way, who are a wonderful charity and provide a very worthy service for the holistic care of children with severe medical conditons, they provide “distraction therapy”, not medicine.

Louise
15 Apr 09
12:18 pm

I agree, the advert is distasteful and upsetting.

I had a small brother with cancer and I’d hate to think what he would’ve thought if he saw that advertisement…

How would a child feel if they didn’t get their wish and were terminally ill? That they were not only dying but also not worthy?

anonymous
15 Apr 09
12:57 pm

When everything in the paper is doom and gloom, I see this and I just want to turn the page faster.

The work that Starlight does is incredible and this ad does not do them justice. It does nothing to show me how Starlight brightens the lives of these kids.

I’d rather see the good that Starlight can do. Give me a REAL story. Give me an old-fashioned coupon in the ad showing what my money can buy me to help.
Tick the box, cut it out and send it in with a cheque.

Real stories and a coupon work harder than any guilt trip.

Nathan Bush
15 Apr 09
1:42 pm

*shakes head*

AdGrunt
15 Apr 09
3:18 pm

They are an admirable organisation, but their board has some large personalities with “interesting” ideas.

It takes a strong hand to steer them from their wilder ideas and in this case that hand seems to have slipped.

Are GPY&R still their pro-bono agency?

Anonymous
15 Apr 09
7:03 pm

Sorry to be posting under ‘anonymous’ but…I worked at Starlight for a few years and had my soul destroyed by the people AdGrunt’s so aptly named ‘large personalities.’ Unfortunately they don’t seem to live in or understand the real world and use their work as a means of bullying people and bolstering their egos.
I too saw the ads and felt turned off but wrote those feelings off as sour grapes on my part so interesting that others have felt as manipulated and turned off as I did.

adam hunt
16 Apr 09
7:55 am

Emotional manipulation is the criteria of a successful ad.
For me the issue is whether the kids pictured are talent, or actually sick kids.
If they’re not talent, then this one’s a pretty murky grey area for me – as I think it’s a very powerful message. This one troubles me as it’s somewhat exploitative – I think it’s got a foot on each side of the line of acceptability. It’s a tough ad for tough times.

AdGrunt
16 Apr 09
10:28 am

Adam
I agree most cause-related advertising, by dint of their business model, are emotionally charged.
However I can’t recall any charity of worth, let alone a kids charity, stoop to such blatant “give us your money or the kid gets it” emotional blackmail.
Starlight is / was a happy, positive organisation that prided itself on bringing happiness and relief via distraction therapies. They did some lovely ads last year which have been around a while. This is an ugly turn for the worse.
Anonymous – feel good about the great work you did, in spite of the personalities.
The proof will be in the donation pudding…

adam hunt
16 Apr 09
1:24 pm

I think we’re in agreement Mr Grunt. This ad troubles me – although not as much as the Child Abuse stuff on Gruen did last night. And on those ads – commenting in Creative Choice in AdNews, Emil Vrisakis from Spin quoted disgusted child abuse survivors who absolutely hated the commercial (any chance of a link please Tim?)
I think the Starlight donation pool will be as eagerly awaited as the sales results from Naked’s Fake Jacket Girl.

Anonymous
16 Apr 09
2:30 pm

Whilst I agree that emotional manipulation is part of every ad campaign, this just feels very distasteful. Starlight don’t use actors they use “real” sick children. There is no way this ad would make me want to donate. We have to ask don’t we…… why are they in such a financial crisis? Have other charities had to resort to such tactics?

mumbrella
16 Apr 09
2:50 pm

Hi Adam,

Unfortunately I can’t offer a link to the AdNews piece because their current model for their site is a paid subscription one.

By the way, I’ve noticed that some people with Starlight email addresses have joined our newsletter mailing list in the last 24 hours or so, so I guess they’re aware of this conversation. Hopefully somerbody from the organisation might choose to post a comment and let us know a little more about this one.

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella.

michael david leach
16 Apr 09
3:37 pm

Short term donation results might be one thing – long term brand damage may be another. This execution is so at odds with the organisation’s ethos and mission of “fun therapy” (to steal Camp Quality’s line), that is hard to imagine that any good will come from it. We simply cannot reduce the measures of success to one dimension of “did it provoke a response?” if you also disenfranchise a large proportion of the audience.

For some brands we should never confuse effectiveness and controversy. In this case you can see how the agency’s objectives can be misaligned to the client’s (even though they approved it presumably).