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?

TiVo to miss year one target

TiVo will narrowly miss its modest first year sales targets for Australia, its backer has admitted.

The digital video recorder, which is being marketed in Australia by Seven Media Group, will sell less than the targeted 40,000 units, a spokesman told today’s Australian Financial Review.

Althoguh the unit is among the most technically advanced on the market, it is relatively expensive at $700, and only offers the free to air channels.

June 16th, 2009 at 8:00 pm

Comments

Dan
16 Jun 09
11:56 pm

I don’t know what it does, how it does it differently or how it can help me.

The name “Tivo” has been used for years in U.S. shows but with now understanding of it’s use – why would I pay for it?

All I know is Harvey Norman tried to plug it for a month and that’s it. Bad product – too late in the game. Give up guys.

Dan German
17 Jun 09
10:45 am

The choice on Foxtel is so much better.

TVAnon
17 Jun 09
10:49 am

What did you expect the unit to offer? Foxtel?

$700 is not expensive compared to other PVR’s on the market. It’s one of the most user friendly PVR’s with no ongoing subscription fees to access the content.

It has a full EPG of better quality than the Freeview 7 day EPG currently broadcast with the digital signal.

TVAnon
17 Jun 09
10:59 am

Let’s do the math.

Tivo $700 flat fee, forever.

Foxtel equivalent is $800 for 1 year.

IQ2 (for HD) $200 + $480 ($40 month basic package) + $120 ($10 month for HD channels)

If you’re using the PVR properly you would have more than enough content available from free-to-air.

Aimee
17 Jun 09
11:55 am

TVAnon…I can’t help but beg to differ that there would be enough FTA content to record on your TIVO. The technology may be ahead of the rest, but the ability to only record off the FTA stations would be a massive drawback to purchase.

There’s a reason why STV homes are viewing more TV per day on average than non STV homes and I would strongly argue it comes from the great programming on offer through Foxtel. Even IQ homes are watching even more television than the non-IQ homes, be it STV or not. So on the whole, why would you buy a PVR that could only do half the job, if its sole purpose (and I’m aware of other capabilities) was to be to record television?

gus
17 Jun 09
12:38 pm

Get a TiVo.. get a lesson on TiVo…. get someone.. a stranger … to show you TiVo.. you will never ever look back. And for the one flat fee it’s an absolute bargain.

dave
17 Jun 09
1:46 pm

Aimee – very well put. TiVo is an amazing product, but it’s only as good/worthwhile as the content it can access. The reason it’s shthot in the US is because it can record from a ridiculous high number of channels and there’s so much content available.

The product here (correct me if I’m wrong) is a dumbed down version of it’s far superior American cousin and coming to market a few years too late.

Tom
17 Jun 09
2:04 pm

Dan, you may want to try it before you knock it. I’ve had a Tivo for almost 4 years (prior to the official launch I had a unit bought from the US with a PAL tuner in it for this market) and it has changed the way I consume TV. You can set it up to access all free to air (including digital) as well as download shows from Tivo to your PC, iPhone and other media devices (or the other direction).

The system is easy to use and if you actually try it will change the way you watch TV (I now only watch sport and the odd news live – the rest is taped to watch when I want to watch and best of all allows me to easily skip all the crap commercials).

The IQ provides very similar functionality and gives you access to Foxtel.

adam
17 Jun 09
2:10 pm

I only bought one of these last week….$700 is a cheap cost for something that I now own forever.

I can go online and set up my recording from work, download movies, and watch TV whenever I want.

I had foxtel and most things were re-runs anyway, except live sport. And most of which such as AFL, League, and Cricket on can get on free TV anyway.

b
17 Jun 09
2:31 pm

Adam, TVAnon and anyone else who would like to make calculations on a “forever” basis, who are you kidding? If the digital age has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that any piece of digital equipment that we buy has a limited shelf life and is then outdated, outmoded, needs to be replaced with a superior model (a must have for all consumers) or the technology is changed making it obsolete. So your calculation with a “forever” included fail from the start since most consumers are savvy enough to know that the way to calculate value is to say that the $700 is for the next two years at most.
Sure, you may be able to use it for more than two years, but how many people here have had the same mobile phone for the last five years?

Aimee
17 Jun 09
2:42 pm

Adam – would be interesting to know how long ago you had Foxtel?
Foxtel prides itself on having first runs, premium programming and investing in top notch local productions, miles ahead of its beginnings.
If the current industry has shown us anything, it is the Foxtel channels that are continuing to soar because of their committment to their viewer to deliver what they want when they want it. So its this content I would be more interested in being able to access rather than restricted to FTA because of a one-off investment.
Technology changes at the rate of knots. And you’ve now – as you said yourself – have this for life. Is it more fool you?

The Buyer
17 Jun 09
2:55 pm

Some of the comments left here read suspiciously like planted testimonies to paint Tivo in a positive light.

TVAnon
17 Jun 09
3:34 pm

Aimee – you’re obviously someone who works for Foxtel – no one else would use STV instead of PAY TV.

‘b’ – a Tivo for 2 years is still half the price of the cheapest PAY TV equivalent. The lifespan of a Tivo would be similar to a PC purchase rather than a mobile phone.

I subscribe to Foxtel, but most people can get much better value out of a good PVR.

Andy McKeon
17 Jun 09
5:10 pm

I worked for Goodby in San Franciisco when we launched TiVo in the USA in the late 90′s and I had one of the first boxes. Alongside the internet and mobile phone i think it’s one of the best technological breakthroughs in years.

Watch what you want, when you want and – you can skip through the crappy ads. And 99% of them are rubbish.

It worked across both cable and free tv. Brilliantly.

So why, in tiny Australia, nine years later, do we have this inferior version? Or, the need to buy both an IQ and TiVO? Politics? Land grabs?

Australians have been completely stiffed.

Dan German
17 Jun 09
5:12 pm

I’d also point out that with Foxtel, I can record commercial free movies on a half a dozen channels. If I see a movie on FTA channels, I avoid ‘em.

It should be noted that IQ is very cheap to install now. I think there is a free IQ promotion on at the moment. So yes, regular monthly payments, but oh so worth it.

Something like 80% of homes in USA pay the cable/sat bill.

Basil Scrotum
17 Jun 09
6:45 pm

Hmmm.

One half of the comments on here seem to come from the TiVo marketing Dept., the other half from FoxTel’s.

Raise your IQ by 20+ points – throw your TV out altogether.

GW
22 Jun 09
3:01 pm

The answer is you are all correct.
What we needed and never got, was FoxTiVo.
The Foxtel content is great but the interface and functionality of IQ is terrible in comparison to TiVo. TiVo is the best tech I have ever used for TV, for the 5 plus years that I have been using it, but TiVo available here at retail is only FTA, therefore not enough content.
The answer is both.

Michael
24 Jun 09
8:34 pm

I use selectv, i dont record i dont care, my box is satellite + digital free to air and cost me only $99 once plus $44 monthly subscription, tivo only fta $700 its a no brainer

WinC
29 Jun 09
11:59 pm

TIVO may be a good and easy to use product with good functionality, but I agree with the person who made a comparison of US and OZ channels. We only have a handful of free to air here, so much less use for TIVO than in US. I use a PC for my viewing needs, running Vista. I can schedule recordings, watch TV (can do 2 channels with a dual TV tuner card), watch DVD (can add Blu-Ray), listen to music, surf the internet, run Office….blah blah blah, and it cost me less than $500! TIVO is overpriced for what it can do.

Anonymous
1 Jul 09
4:44 am

i dont work for foxtel or tivo, both are overpriced, $700 for tivo and an ongoing rip off from foxtel.
Think about that for a minute