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?

Will Pepsi’s social media gamble pay off?

Pepsi is taking an enormous gamble this year by relinquishing the Superbowl ad spot it has held for 23 years, instead trading it in for a $20m social media campaign.

But with only 250,000 actively engaged Facebook fans compared to Coke’s 4 million plus, Ideaworks’ head of digital Aden Hepburn ask, will it work?

January 5th, 2010 at 4:15 pm

Comments

Titus
5 Jan 10
5:33 pm

Of course it will work (that is, get more fans registered), people will jump on almost any bandwagon. One has to wonder why 4 million people have declared themselves fans of Coke. The question is, will the campaign sell more Pepsi? Pepsi is a pretty good cola, but has a crappy brand image, Coke is a pretty ordinary drink, but has great brand presence. I’m not sure Pepsi will ever close the gap created by US government policy during WW2.

Scott Taylor
5 Jan 10
7:01 pm

Or they could just wait a few years and buy Twitter for $20 million

larry
6 Jan 10
10:10 am

it is scary to see that after 2 years of relentless salesmanship and half truths marketing people are starting to buy into some of these ridiculous social media scams.

meeda
6 Jan 10
10:41 am

This is a great move by pepsi… it was time for a change. This will drive the product across a more international market as well, and with hit the younger generation also.

larry
6 Jan 10
11:31 am

“250,000 actively engaged Facebook fans compared to Coke’s 4 million plus”

can i ask who wrote this article a question – what does ‘actively engaged’ actually mean?

let’s walk through what is required to become a fan on facebook.

1. click ‘become a fan’

end

after that – where is the active engagement? what is this figure based on? how many people that are ‘fans’ of something have done anything more than just click ‘become a fan’. It’s like saying that everyone who has once said to someone or thought to themselves ‘gee this tastes good’ is a brand ambassador/advocate.

i always thought metrics used in marketing where things that mattered commercially … not irrelevant ambiguous things like ‘friends’ ‘fans’ ‘retweets’ etc.

Jamoe
6 Jan 10
1:38 pm

…And do these people become fans by finding the brand and adding it because they like it? or does Pepsi have to spend more money on Facebook ads in order to prompt them to become fans from there?

Adam Beaupeurt
7 Jan 10
2:45 pm

It’s not just about the fans, well in the US anyway – the campaign is aimed at users sharing an idea and persisting their ‘friends’ to vote for their particular project, where the projects with the highest number of votes receive funding. Once these users share this information on their social networks – they have created their own personalised Pepsi advertisement on their page. I believe this campaign will have phenomenal success in the US, not just with the amount of applicants, but down to brand awareness, the philanthropic perception and to sales.

If it is successful, don’t be surprised to see it launched in Australia within 6 months. Currently Australia’s campaign is a dumbed down, yet more complex version of the above.

Peter Applebaum
7 Jan 10
6:08 pm

Bravo Pepsi. They laughed / sneered at Galileo too!

Rather than initially try to debate the merit – & quality – of their social media strategy, perhaps it’s prudent to consider the ROI of Pepsi’s previous Super Bowl TV advertising. Sure it had all the ad types tittering (maybe even twittering if they were truly evolved) but did it move the propensity to buy &/or sales needles? I’m not sure. But the good people at Pepsi are no doubt pretty smart so for them to walk away from the jewel in the US’ advertising crown something must not be working. So what to do.

Tipping $23 mill into social media IS a ballsy thing to do. But what responsible marketer can afford to ignore or merely dabble in something that has captivated 100millions of people? There are many ways to support the worth of an integrated & strategic social media program. The problem is, because social media is so new too few people have the experience or understanding to be able to do so convincingly.

Google ‘Social Media ROI’ and read some or all of the 2.8million articles / blogs / case studies and then talk to me about scams and half-truths.

Digital Buzz
8 Jan 10
12:57 pm

@ Larry

I think the whole “engaged” thing came from Igor on ViralBlog, they run a social media agency / tracking app (not sure how they actually calculate – almost looks like it’s just their fan number!). But I agree with the 1 click = fan doesn’t really equal an “engaged fan” and not sure how that was equated. But I’m sure some would argue on FB that with the ability to broadcast into your stream as they like once you are a fan that they are engaging you on a frequenty basis.

larry
8 Jan 10
1:03 pm

Peter – you don’t, by chance, have involvement in a company that is operating in this social media space do you?

OMG you do.

Well there you go.

larry
8 Jan 10
1:05 pm

Digital Buzz – that’s the problem right there. We accept terms like ‘engaged’ but the people saying it don’t really know what it constitutes.

“TV is great because Jim at blahblog said it engaged hundreds of millions and I’m sure that is true.”

I’m not saying either is correct, or whether there’s even a Blahblog or a Jim that works there … but I am sure we can do better than this.

Digital Buzz
9 Jan 10
1:33 am

@ Peter

You can actually see the twittering responses from last years superbowl here: http://bit.ly/FSsp (on NY times) – interesting to see they run 2 ads – one at the very start with almost NO tweet response on the west coast and then another at full time that gets noticed on the east coast, but still NOTHING compared to Hulu + Career Builder

Food for thought.
Cheers
Aden

Digital Buzz
9 Jan 10
1:34 am

Hmmm, did I just say twittering responses… clearly it’s too late to be awake!

Peter Applebaum
10 Jan 10
6:14 pm

Aden, that’s a great chart. Having said that, I’m amazed that there was any meaningful mention of ads in the twittersphere at all. I mean c’mon, we think what we do is important but in the scheme of things it’s an irrelevance to the vast majority of people – particularly compared to watching the Super Bowl.

Re engagement Larry, I completely agree with you that measuring this via the number of friends / fans / followers / views you have on social media platforms is questionable. While they’re important metrics, it would be like saying, well ,150 people walked in to my shop today. OK, but how many people bought?

While there is still much to learn, the proven key to effective social media programs – & yes, I proudly run a company in this space – is putting an on-going, longer-term strategy in place that incorporates tactical implementations to maintain / build engagement leading to sales. Plus, of course integrating with other marketing activities.

I’d be interested in your thoughts, Larry as to what Pepsi should do instead of investing in social media.

Larry
10 Jan 10
11:09 pm

i’d probably use the money to invest in a better core creative concept personally – one that can work across all channels. pepsi hasn’t had one for years.

it appears (from an onlooker so take it for what it’s worth) that pepsi is doing what it think is ‘cool/clever’ and maybe hasn’t been as diligent as it could be in working out what the real potential end gain could be.

Belinda
11 Jan 10
2:22 pm

Maybe if they were really going for the philanthropic angle, the best action would be to stop creating a product full of sugar (or chemical sweetener) and completely lacking in nutrients, that is contributing to an obesity crisis in the Western world.

Elliot Kleiner
11 Jan 10
3:14 pm

To Belinda – I’m intrigued by your input, albeit that it’s quite a bit off the point. Please qualify your remarks by directing us all to the public statement, doubtless one that you’ve found somewhere in Pepsi’s marketing and advertising history, where Pepsi makes the distinct claim that it’s products are “nutritious”.

Your right to have your say is not in question here, just a pointer that it’s probably the wrong forum to push your medical agenda. Staging your views from atop a biodegradable fruitbox would probably reduce the carbon footprint applied by your use of the Internet. I like your assertiveness though. You believe skim milk has less carbs than full-cream don’t you? Hhmm!

To Larry – You speak strongly against Pepsi’s market research prowess, its courage to “test & measure” then act upon the data in a pragmatic way while you fail to table any real substance in your argument. Never let the facts get in the way of a good Blog!

I wonder if the reason why you can’t boast Pepsi among your clientele might be 50/50 between your adherence to “the old ways”, an inflexibility to embrace modern methods just because you don’t know them very well, and your “punctuation deficit disorder”. Just kidding Larry – we’re all friends here I’m sure Pepsi knows what its doing, specifically when perusing the latest and greatest ways to engage a demographic that is probably primarily teens. I’m the first to admit that I have no data to back this next comment up, however, I’d bet real money that more teenagers use social networking sites than watch football.

To Peter – Thumbs up to you pal! You qualify your remarks with facts that you obviously make your living on, and aren’t hiding that fact. Integrity and professionalism such as yours will get points of view across further and faster than most who hide behind anonymity. I’m sure your client base is confident in what you’re doing for them.