-
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 marketingEmail 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?
Fairfax ‘could drop newsprint’ when broadband rolls out
One way for Fairfax to raise its profits could be to eventually stop printing its newspapers and transition readers to a paid online model, says broker Merrill Lynch.
The comments come in an analysis of the newspaper sector reported, ironically, in Fairfax’s Sydney Morning Herald today.
The analysis looking at the effects of the planned national broadband network on publishers, says that costs would fall by 45% if Fairfax drops its print editions and that it would need to persuade readers to pay $12.50 a month to receive its output online. As well as the SMH, Fairfax owns The Age in Melbourne.
According to Merrill Lynch, Fairfax – with the strongest mastheads – would have the best chance at making such a strategy work while West Australian Newspapers, now controlled by Kerry Stokes, is worst positioned.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:31 am
-
Follow Us
-
Email Newsletter
Latest Jobs- PHP Web Developer - Melbourne, VIC
- Senior Marketing Consultant (1367) - MELBOURNE
- Sr Designer/Group Head (1366) - MELBOURNE
- Account Executive (freelance) - 1365 - MELBOURNE
- Group Account Director (1364) - MELBOURNE
- Account Director (1363) - MELBOURNE
- Account Executive/Manager - 1360 - MELBOURNE
- Account Director (1358) - MELBOURNE
- Project Manager (Design/Web) - 1355 - MELBOURNE
- Graphic Designer (mid-weight) - 1361 - MELBOURNE
Comments
28 May 09
10:13 am
Huh, they needed an analyst to tell them the facts that are staring them in the face? They don’t need a crystal ball for this one, a rearview mirror would provide enough!
Oh, and small typo Tim – newpapers, but maybe it was your subtle message – new papers??
28 May 09
11:30 am
“it would need to persuade readers to pay $12.50 a month to receive its output online.”
How does that work?
28 May 09
11:40 am
…and so it begins
28 May 09
12:21 pm
Thanks, Annette typo corrected. Never wrong for long is my (borrowed) motto…
28 May 09
1:13 pm
It’ll be a bit of a stretch to ask Sydneysiders to pay 12.50 / month. They’ve treated their online audience like children for ages and I’d say that they’ve a lot of goodwill to recover before they can start charging for the celebrity shite, reposted internet memes and lifestyle/ sport gumf they’ve served up to now.
28 May 09
2:11 pm
The recent PWC report (“Moving into multiple business models”) suggests that people *might* pay for online content, but with an important caveat:
“Free content is abundant online and consumers would choose free content when the quality was comparable or sufficient for their purpose”
So you’d have to ask – just how unique is the SMH and Age content when all other sources of news, sport, entertainment and business are taken into account?
WSJ.com currently offers subscriptions for US$1.99 per week (about A$2.50 per week). Makes $12.50 a month seem a bit ‘exxie’ …
28 May 09
4:51 pm
SMH is lucky that i read their stuff for free – and even then, its only just hanging in there.
In between the increasingly tabloid editorial, the controversial offensive extremists like Miranda, and the intrusive advertisements that they can’t even sell at full ratecard listing, fairfax is lucky to keep its readers.
The hardest question is do i spend a buck and a bit on a paper or a share? Yeah, neither – they’re going nowhere without a big change, which they won’t be able to pull off.
Oh, and if you think charging is going to work, you have absolutely no clue. But hey, we know that already from all the cash you pumped into F2
28 May 09
5:12 pm
Good luck fairfax. You have no chance.
No newspaper has succesfuly moved into a pure online model from a print model. Web traffic decreases enormously. Loosing the branding that a print mastheead gives an online product is incalculable.
Fairfax must then provide readers with something that they are unable to find elsewhere and is valuable enough to pay for.
That would mean unique editorial. Naturally as a news organisation Fairfax covers things that no one else will cover and provide for free? Oops. My fault. Every other media will provide it for free so maybe Fairfax will do it BETTER.
But of course they won’t. Their journalistic ranks have been decimated. They have no product that people are willing to pay for. After all, the AFR is a walled garden. last I heard they had 6,000 or so paying online subscribers. The AFR couldn’t exist as an online model so why on earth could the SMAGE? It’s even less specialised.
Bottom line. Whatever the SMAGE want to do in new media the ABC will do equally professionally and with even better resources.
This rubbish is so typical of an analyst who obviously has no real publishing experience. LOL Bankers.
Look at the great job they are doing over at CMH……
Fairfax must make the SMAGE work without the net or end up trading in an unprofitable print business for an unprofitable online business.
Someone from Fairfax willing tell me how wrong I am?
28 May 09
6:02 pm
Yes, Carrob, your “comments” are little more than a rant. Frustrated journalist much?
28 May 09
6:41 pm
No Peter.
Succesful publisher that once worked at Fairfax. It’s not a rant as much as a statement of facts. Perhaps you could show me using some of that smug fairfax superiority (which is kinda like that Channel 9 superiority, which I see is working out for them REAL well at the moment), exactly what the plan at Fairfax is?
The operating margins on the SMAGE are a “couple of percent”. And you’re going to lose at least another 20% of your classified advertising next year. That makes the mastheads unprofitable. Faced with decreased revenue you will be forced to cut costs further, but that is not a limitless exercise.
I am just a smart guy who understand the media business. And the SMAGE is not something I would invest YOUR money in.
But the delicious irony of all this is the head in the sand attitude of the people who work at Fairfax. When this thing falls over (and it will), it’s going to be catastrophic.
News is better placed. Basically because they have traditionally had 2/10 of bugger all of Fairfax’s classified advertising marketshare per masthead. On aggregate News may have more classified advertising but it’s spread over many titles and they have been forced to build a more efficient publishing model that is less reliant on classified advertising per title.
Fairfax on the other hand has had the rivers of gold and the internet is going to kill it. What people fail to take into account is that a successful classified advertising business needs lots of other classifieds around it. The decline of classifieds is not linear. It’s simple. I place my classified because there are loads of other classifieds around it and ipso facto there must be lots of buyers reading it. Once you reach the tipping point almost all will go at once. I don’t think Fairfax is too far from that point. In fact, the only classified advertising that is saving them is vendor paid advertising. And that is an entirely different kettle of fish. Vendor paid advertising allows your friendly local real estate agent/recruitment agent to place large ads using their client’s money. There is an enormous amount of wastage in those ads, as their primary purpose is not to sell a house/fill a job. It is to promote the Real Estate or recruitment company. And consumers are wising up to it. Think about it. Why do most houses in Sydney get sold by auction? Becasue by LAW you have to pay for the advertising of the property in advance. It’s a sweet deal for the agents!
Anyway like I said. My comments are not a rant as much my way of explaining to the simple folk like “Media Analysts” at investment banks just how they are living in delusion land.
But please Peter. Explain to me how I am wrong and how this strategy will work?
28 May 09
6:56 pm
Fairfax! Don’t lose your standing as the largest “handheld” data provider.Otherwise it would mean no more mornings in the sun, toast in hand, a cappuccino, and my favourite boardsheet spreadout before me. It’s always been my respite from technological gadgetry.
28 May 09
10:23 pm
Carrob
I guess I wouldn’t describe myself as a “smart guy” so I hope you’ll just bear with me here…
Maybe I’m missing something, but I didn’t see this report as having been written by Fairfax…it’s an analyst report. And I think they were talking about 10 years down the road. Who the hell knows what anything to do with media will look like then.
I don’t know of anyone at Fairfax who believes people will pay for news content online (except maybe the folks at AFR, but that’s another story). And I think everyone also agrees that the newspapers need to survive, even if they are in a different form, which I think is likely.
But I am somewhat mystified by the vilification directed at the Fairfax websites – they attract the biggest audiences and continue to grow traffic, they have the longest time on site and pretty much everything you get in the paper you can get online (in addition to all the tabloid stuff that people seem to freak out about). It’s fair to question the business model of free content, but from a consumer perspective, what’s the problem?
28 May 09
11:17 pm
M,
Understand what you are saying, but my scarcasm is directed (in equal parts) to investment bank analysts who write these reports and Fairfax managers who believe in them.
I am not villifying Fairfax’s websites. The fairfax websites are OK. I don’t hate them. They are about as good as most other newspaper websites worldwide. In an Australian context they are very good. I am simply saying that as of yet, no Newspaper that has closed has managed to hold on to their online audience as the print edition closes.
I am not some online evangalist or rabid newspaper lover. I am, at heart a publisher. And as a publisher I can only see a broken publishing model with the SMAGE. I would love to see Fairfax adjust to the new reality of newspaper publishing but fear that this is unlikely to happen in the case of Fairfax.
If a mumbrella reader can come up with an example of a newspaper that has managed to grow it’s audience share when the print edition closed I would like to hear of it. My point is that the online brand benefits enormously from the offline brands presence. It’s the newsagency marketing, it’s seeing other people reading it. It’s the logos that are everywhere. The effect that these offline activitie have on the online brand that helps it’s growth. If you were to pay for this sort of promotion for an online brand only you would probably come up with a value of (say) up to $100M a year. That income would need to be recouped online.
I cannot do anything but question the ability of a newspaper to hold this audience if the print edition dies.
It will be a tragedy if the fairfax newspapers die. But the only way out for Fairfax that I see is to be able to run the company with at least 20% less print revenue for the business. And for Fairfax I fear that would be a bridge too far.
All that brings about this clutching at straws speculation. Bottom line we live in a world where the amount of content on the net doubles every six months. Online yields will continue to fall in this all supply and no demand scenario. Which is what breeds the tabloid nature of the faifax websites in relation to their more staid and measured print editions. So people look at other revenue streams, such as charging for online content. Which we all seem to agree that at present there is no value proposition for that.
Which leads me back to my original point. In a world of rich online media Fairfax are not providing the sort of rich, online content that consumers MAY pay for.
And if it’s news? The ABC will do it better. For free.
29 May 09
1:09 pm
The only way paying online for news is going to work is if all the media companies do it at the same time.
The question is HOW?
Surely News Ltd wants to make money online as badly as Fairfax, but both are scared that the second they start charging everyone will just go to the free online paper in their market.
Then even if you get the big media outlets to be on the same page and charging similar rates at the same time, you still have all the small start ups that would compete.
I don’t think anyone has figured out a business model here that will work.
29 May 09
1:22 pm
And of course, even if the major publishers got together to do that (one subs passport that does for multiple sites?) that would look dangerously like a cartel and attract the attention of regulators.
29 May 09
2:04 pm
With newspaper profits dropping rapidly, it’s no surprise publishers are looking for alternatives. However I don’t think online paid subscriptions are the way to go. I agree with the previous posts – why would people pay to get information when they can go to another online source and get exactly the same news for free.
I’m standing up for the print media on this one. In my opinion, a society without newspapers is simply wrong. Fairfax and the other major publishers should be doing all they can to revive public interest in reading newspapers – not just speculating to throw in the towel because profits have slumped.
On the other hand, perhaps it’s time that the government stepped in on this one to prevent newspapers sliding into oblivion. The French government put forward the scheme to offer free newspaper subscriptions to everyone who turns 18 years old. Maybe the Australian government should look into a similar scheme which would revive the newspaper industry and prevent publishers from packing up shop and running to the internet ?
29 May 09
4:17 pm
The Government is never going to subsidise newspapers, Gemma, and why?
Because the Government hates newspapers. Newspapers hold Governments to account more than any other news source. They have the space to do the in-depth reporting that makes Governments look bad.
Those in power are crying crocodile tears over newspapers. Once they’re gone, pollies will have much more of a free kick all round.