-
Opinion | Features
Why is advertising so much better in New Zealand than Australia?
Ok, so this isn’t a new observation.
But it really hit home after I watched some TV ads for a kiwi supermarket yesterday that advertising in New Zealand is so much better than much of the crap that is being served up in this country at the moment.
Why is it that Colenso BBDO Auckland can turn something as bland as a supermarket chain into a brand I almost like, while Australian agencies succeed only in either irritating me (Coles) or passing me by unnoticed (Woolies) because the ads are so average?
My memo to your boss
So let me guess?
You really want to come to Mumbrella360, but you’ve got to justify the time and cost to your boss?
Good news! I think I can help.
Woz not great
In this guest post Tony Prysten argues that the thousand dollar price of seeing out-of-touch Apple co-founder Steve Wozniack on his Australian tour was a waste of money.
This week, for the cost of two iPads (yep, two) I went to the Woz Live conference in Melbourne. I was not impressed.
What the hell is transmedia?
From advertising campaigns to online video series, the term ‘transmedia’ gets quite the work out. But what does it actually mean? Cathie McGinn trawls the media landscape for a definitive definition.
Transmedia, all media and multiplatform are terms often used interchangeably when referencing modern storytelling techniques. Yet, depending who you speak to, there are distinct differences between them.
According to industry experts Encore spoke to, the key elements that define transmedia can be summarised as follows: platform, time, audience, adaptation, and creative collaboration.
Innovation is the remedy for the ailing magazine industry
With magazine circulations plummeting, FHM closing and rumours rife on future ownership of ACP Magazines, Paul Merrill says the only way forward is launching new titles.Eight years ago in the UK, nearly a quarter of all magazine sales came from magazines that were less than four years old. In Australia, the figure was slightly lower, but still significant. Today, the situation is very different. For a start there are so few new magazines. Yes, Masterchef briefly flared, and Top Gear made an initial impact. But Grazia and Alpha fizzled, and now ACP has shelved their plans to launch Elle.
More than a game: broadcasting the Olympics
The 2012 London Olympics will be the biggest televised sporting event of our time. Brooke Hemphill discovers the logistical challenges and technical requirements of producing the event.
From July 27 to August 12, the Australian media will go sport crazy as the Games of the XXX Olympiad, aka the 2012 London Summer Olympics, unfold. The games will be the most televised sporting event of our time as broadcasters look to master every manner of technology at their disposal.
The Voice - Australia's best example yet of social TV
In this guest post, Sputnik’s Rodd Messent has a theory on why audiences have taken to The Voice .I am an addict of Channel Nine’s hit show The Voice. Such is the extent of my addiction I seriously think my housemate might kick me out of our apartment for the semi-frenzied yelling and tweeting that ensues in our lounge room each time the show airs.It’s the first time in almost three years that such disagreement has resulted in less than civil behaviour towards one another, and it’s made me think it might be a microcosm of the large volume of online debate about the show and, correspondingly, an explanation for its success as a social TV experience.Why brands are the US Army - and culture jammers are the Viet Cong
In this guest posting, Dave Burgess, who painted ‘No War’ on the Sydney Opera House, claims that ‘amoral’ advertisers have copied his idea.
Culture jamming is a 28-year-old term coined by the San Francisco-based band Negativland, who declared that the ‘Studio for the cultural jammer is the world at large’.
Branded content is dead. Long live branded content
In this guest posting, Anthony Freedman argues why branded content is making a comeback.
A few short years ago, probably concurrent with the advent of the PVR, a new term emerged within the marketing communications industry; branded content. This was really synonymous with advertiser funded TV shows where programming was created by brands and deals struck with networks to broadcast them.
There were varying degrees of success with this model.
Shock advertising: 30 ads that would give Australia's ad watchdog a coronary
Is shock an underused weapon in Australian advertising, asks Robin HicksToday, Sydney agency The Cabana Boys used an image of a mouth sewn together to shock people with the idea that problem gamblers lie to conceal their habit. Is it the most disturbing image ever? No. Will it get banned by the Advertising Standards Bureau? No. But it did make me wonder why shock is not used more often in Australia – and not just by charities and government bodies. (WARNING: NSFW)
The making of ratings blockbuster The Voice
Jason Mountney goes on the set of Channel Nine’s talent search series, The Voice, to see how the format, based on an international franchise, has come together. What ingredients have gone into making this certified hit that’s rated more than two million viewers on three consecutive nights?
Mike Goldman has one of the toughest jobs on the set of the Nine network’s new talent show, The Voice. He not only has to narrate the show, but also keep the audience from losing their enthusiasm as they realise shooting TV programs takes a lot longer than the one-hour bursts they see in their lounge rooms. A lot longer.
Nine problems stopping The Global Mail from getting an audience
While it’s a shame The Global Mail has failed to make an impact on the media landscape, the signs have been there for some time.I love the concept of a well resourced, philanthropically-funded independent news site. Anywhere in the world, that’s a rare and wonderful thing. In Australia even more so. So I hope that Grame Wood gets to see his investment make a difference.
And I have no inside info on whether Monica Attard’s sudden departure is linked to the site’s failure to find an audience so far.
Regardless, here are nine areas they can easily start to address:
Journalism’s new model?
Does the launch of philanthropically funded news site The Global Mail signal a new era for journalism or is the model destined to be a passing fad, asks Cathie McGinn in this article first published in Encore magazine.With little fanfare, philanthropically funded news site The Global Mail launched in February this year.
The online-only title received a generous five-year funding commitment from businessman Graeme Wood, founder of accommodation website wotif.com, who donated $15million.
Five things that make a great suit
In this guest posting, Gareth Collins argues that the role of a great account manager is to make the work betterI’m surprised at how many suits I meet who don’t know their role in the advertising business. The question ‘what does an advertising account manager or director do?’ is frequently met with answers such as project manager, relationship manager, plate spinner or go between … and those are the nice ones.
Success is judged on the ability to manage a process, be strong administratively and get stuff done. And while a good suit needs to do all of these things brilliantly, if these are the traits that define a great suit, then I’m in the wrong job.
What the hell is transmedia?
From advertising campaigns to online video series, the term ‘transmedia’ gets quite the work out. But what does it actually mean? Cathie McGinn trawls the media landscape for a definitive definition.
Transmedia, all media and multiplatform are terms often used interchangeably when referencing modern storytelling techniques. Yet, depending who you speak to, there are distinct differences between them.
Online Aussies: ‘We won’t pay for news’
A large majority of Australians say they would not pay for online news, a survey suggests.
According to a poll of more than 18,000 Australians released today by Pure Profile, only 5% said they would be willing to pay for “high quality articles”. A further 7% said they would be willing to pay if there was no advertising. 10% said they would not pay because the quality of online news was unimportant to them, while the vast majority – 78% – said they would simply refuse to pay for online news.
The figures echo similar ones in a Harris poll carried out in the UK released earlier this week which also suggested than only about 5% of online users would be willing to pay for news content.
The findings are potentially significant because major online media owners, including Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp have signalled their intentions to attempt to start charging for content.
However, Ed Smith, chief commercial officer of News Digital Media in Australia, has argued that surveys of this kind depend on how questions are asked. Smith tells today’s SMH:
“If you ask them yes or no, everyone says no. But if you do more in-depth research about what they consume, where and why and how they would be prepared to pay for it, you see very different results in line with our strategy.”
September 25th, 2009 at 11:06 am
-
-
Follow Us
-
Email Newsletter
Latest Jobs- Digital Performance Manager (PPC) – iProspect Sydney – immediate start - Walsh Bay, Sydney
- Client Services Director - Melbourne
- Client Service Director - Melbourne
- PR Senior Account Manager - Travel/Tourism - Sydney
- Qualitative Apprentice – Rare trainee level role - Melbourne
- Qualitative Apprentice – Rare trainee level role - Sydney
- Content Editor - Sydney CBD
- Digital Account Manager - Sydney
- Account Manager - Design - Melbourne - South
- Series Producer - Pyrmont
Comments
25 Sep 09
11:15 am
Agree (to an extent) with Ed Smith. You ask anyone if they’re willing to pay for something they currently get for free, the vast majority will say no.
Then again, that might be because the vast majority of people are unwilling to pay for something they currently get for free.
Do we really need research to tell us this?
25 Sep 09
11:19 am
My question is, what percentage of the survey sample actually pay for ANY news? IE do they subscribe to a newspaper / Business publication / sports channels on TV?
What percentage of regular paying consumers of news said yes and how many said no?
What are their views on bundles? Will they pay for a paper and a bit extra for online? Or vice versa?
Anyone?
25 Sep 09
11:21 am
I meant sports new / sky news / international news through cable tv…
25 Sep 09
11:30 am
Am I paying for news now? no.
Will that change in future? no.
25 Sep 09
11:52 am
It will be interesting to see what happens to ABC News Online’s market share if punters have to pay to use news.com.au. You can’t really argue that the ABC lacks quality.
25 Sep 09
11:57 am
Am also interested in what type of payment model they are actually considering implementing – that will be a big factor in my consideration my being willing to pay or not – subscription vs micro-payments vs other?
I have no problem paying for quality journalism.
In fact I would prefer to pay with money I can ‘see’ as opposed to being paid for by my eyeballs to advertisers with online display advertising.
Hard to justify not paying to read a good article by a good writer (qualified journalist or otherwise) for less than the cost of an SMS text message?
25 Sep 09
11:58 am
Good point Matt…
25 Sep 09
1:16 pm
I prefer the model of:
Free = loaded with advertising
Paid = NO ADVERTISING
But I will NOT pay for it and then have to deal with the barrage of online advertising too.
25 Sep 09
1:52 pm
In Debating 101 we learn to dismiss, challenge and ridicule the source of information which conflicts with our point of view. I wonder when News Digital will accept unless there is added value, people will not pay for what they can get for free. Question the research all you want, but I’d have a plan B in place.
And stop using The Wall St Journal as proof positive that people will pay for content. Most News Limited publications have a populist editorial approach, so the comparison is questionable.
25 Sep 09
2:06 pm
A majority of news stories are full of doom and gloom, death, murders, kidnappings, disasters, economic implosions and so on. Who in their right mind wants to pay for that?
I get most of my news from Twitter and the network of blogs I read, which span most corners of the globe.
I’m not paying now and won’t be in the future. The Age etc are websites I visit least.
25 Sep 09
2:11 pm
Hello,
Steve Browning, head of Corp Affairs for NDM here.
If you’d like more insight into News’ thinking, you can read Richard Freudenstein’s speech to PANPA here
http://www.newsdigitalmedia.co.....Speech.pdf
Cheers
Steve
25 Sep 09
2:27 pm
News.com want to make money selling news, that’s fair, but I think they’ve missed the boat. They’re not in a tiny two newspaper market now – they’re in a world market and the competition actually means they have no market power. So I think they should try it and see. But I’ll put my money on it being a pretty short lived experiment.
25 Sep 09
3:21 pm
Well, as a freelance journalist who writes for many of these news sites, I’d certainly like ANYBODY to pay me for my work.
You write for a mainstream newspaper, they then “own” your stuff, can run it as they like on any of their websites, profit from the advertising, but the author gets nothing.
Soon as it goes online it becomes “public domain” and anyone can knick it.
Hardly seems fair, really!
Having said that – for want of a foot in either camp – I wouldn’t pay for websites either.
25 Sep 09
3:27 pm
I’m buying into this debate late so apologies if this has already been pointed out; but I just can’t see the average Herald Sun reader paying for online news. The Wall Street Journal comparison and model just doesn’t stack up.
25 Sep 09
3:35 pm
Define “high quality articles”
If you mean long-form expert journalism, this is precisely the editorial material which does not translate well from print to online.
25 Sep 09
3:40 pm
I don’t understand … we already pay for news on fairfax, news, ninemsn etc. It’s called ads. The current debate is akin to Channel 7 saying they’ll start charging us to watch.
25 Sep 09
3:44 pm
News have every right to ask for payment, as is evidenced by Brians comments. However it wont work, people will not pay and unless News discovers a new way to monetise the net they will eventually become extinct.
Unfortunately news are looking at this, from “newspaper eyes”, effectively they are just doing the same thing theyve always done..which is sell a subscription/home delivery… but times have changed…unless a new vision appears its all over. Beter sell my shares now at a 30% loss rather than 100% loss in 5 years.
25 Sep 09
3:53 pm
Steve, thanks for entering the debate here and linking to the speech. I have to say it was the most considered speech I’ve seen on the topic from News Limited and the first not to have me guffawing at the arrogance and ignorance on display.
Previously, the speeches by Brendan Hopkins and John Hartigan displayed a distinct misunderstanding of how the web works and were advocating a subscription model – not based on providing something unique, of true value and significantly different to the free alternatives, as Freudenstein says – but because the search engines were “breaking into their homes and stealing their content” or because blog have “limited intellectual value as to be barely discernible from massive ignorance”.
They clearly displayed that they didn’t understand how the internet economy and the sharing of information works and were building a case that the existing news sites were worthy of charging for because it just wasn’t cricket any other way.
Freudenstein seems to have grasped that free news isn’t a crime, it is the default setting on the web; and that to get off the default setting, you need to provide something of greater value and quality to motivate the consumer.
What I wonder is whether NDM realises how big the challenge is to differentiate News Media’s online product and proposition from the free alternatives.
Matt Granfield raises a great point – the ABC is the biggest threat to a paid news model. If commercial news media starts petitioning for a curb to the public broadcaster’s ability to provide free, quality news – as James packer did in his tirade against the BBC in Glasgow last month – then the backlash will be immense. Freudenstein used the example of Sky TV providing a different and better service to BBC television to justify the fees, NDM has a similar and potentially greater challenge.
25 Sep 09
3:57 pm
PS:
http://www.jonathancrossfield......orant.html
25 Sep 09
4:05 pm
But aren’t you paying for the ABC online through your taxes? Isn’t it a rose by any other name?
25 Sep 09
4:21 pm
Kimota,
I can’t speak for Brendan Hopkins, but your criticism of John Hartigan couldn’t be more wrong.
You say that Hartigan didn’t talk about “providing something unique, of true value and significantly different to the free alternatives”.
In the first minute of John’s speech to the National Press Club, he said
“I believe people will pay for content if it is:
- Original…
- Exclusive…
- Has the authority
- and is relevant to our audiences”
In regards to your pondering whether News ‘realises how big the challenge is’, I refer you to the summation of Richard’s speech –
“But make no mistake, News fully recognises the scale of the challenge.
We do not expect people to pay for something that isn’t worth it.
That applies to everything we do – not just online.
But we have the belief in our product and the weight of our history and experience behind us.”
Cheers
Steve
25 Sep 09
5:44 pm
Hi Steve,
On rereading his speech, I agree that John Hartigan did indeed call for an improvement in journalistic practice in order to justify charging. But he also attacked the search engines, news aggregators and blogosphere without which any news service – paid, innovative or otherwise – is doomed to fail.
To quote him…
“The most profitable sites, in fact the only ones making serious money are the sites that aggregate news, like Google and Yahoo.
They pay nothing for content produced by newspaper journalists but make money by supplying it in easily searchable forms online.
The major media outlets have encouraged them to take a free ride on our content.”
http://mumbrella.com.au/hartig.....e-web-7306
He then goes on to slam search engines, news aggregators and blogs – despite the fact that without them, traffic to news sites would plummet. They’re not stealing content, they’re giving you extra eyeballs, extra readers and helping people find your content – for free. They’re not stealing any more than the Yellow Pages is stealing business from you by making money off helping people find your phone number. Search engines aren’t plagiarists, but the online version of the newsstand. Are newsagents to be criticised for making a profit on distributing your papers?
If Hartigan is actually advocating News Media develop something new and far greater than their current offering in order to live up to that claim, as Richard Freudenstein did, then I withdraw that part of my criticism of him. But this new proposition needs to be far more persuasive, though, than merely better journalism. Decent journalism is the cost of admission to be taken seriously on the web – and the cost of admission is free.
The Wall Street Journal example works only because it is specialist information with particular relevance to a niche audience that traditionally has no problem spending money to stay ahead. How other mainstream news sites achieve that same level of relevance, innovation and originality is a major challenge. even though NDM say that they know it is a major challenge, I’m not convinced they know how big the challenge is yet if they continue to attack the infrastructure they will need to incorporate into any successful online strategy – search engines, news aggregators and blog buzz.
Cheers as well (it’s Friday beer time after all)
Jonathan
But to think that search engines, news aggregators and blogs won’t be playing a role in any successful new venture by directing readers to that news content is incredibly naive.
25 Sep 09
5:46 pm
Eeek, comment fail, not deleting a paragraph after I signed off.
25 Sep 09
6:13 pm
For quite a long time I’ve thought that there ought to be a way to tip people in “micropayments”.
Anyone who uses Secondlife would have a basic understanding of what I mean.
The consumer would go to a banking site and pay something like $20au…
This would translate into, for example, a thousand micro dollars.
Then, if you go to a website or blog and like a persons work, then you pay them
whatever you feel is a nice amount… it could be ten to fifty points.
This system would also work for musos who’s music you listen to online and why not tip people for their tweets too, if that makes you happy?
Micro payments might not seem like much, but anyone who’s seen Brewsters Millions might understand the possibilities.
25 Sep 09
10:37 pm
Micropayments?
Why not an all out Electronic Trading Scheme where I can swap two News Ltd bikini galleries for one month of thepunch ?
28 Sep 09
12:39 pm
1] No-one will pay for free press. Not now, not ever.
2] When I pay my taxes the government promises to provide ABC news services for free. It’s always been like that and it always will be.
29 Sep 09
9:54 am
Tim, it’s time we put this ‘pay for news’ question to the ultimate test?
From 1st November Mumbrella introduces a subscription fee.
Pay the fee you get access. Don’t pay the fee, no more Mumbrella.
29 Sep 09
10:26 am
Hi Freepress,
Thanks for the suggestion. If anyone, anywhere, is going to succeed, they’ll need the right technical platform and an enormous marketing budget. If you’d like to help me out with those, I’ll be delighted to give your experiment a go.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
29 Sep 09
11:57 am
I think my choice to pay for online news will be largely influenced by the quality of content and the presentation; good quality news presented in a neat and uncluttered format equals my subscription.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks