Brooker: Loser Generated Content

Charlie Brooker is a legend. Pretend crowdsouring is lame. I also like use of the term 'dickshoe'.

 

 

TV advertising used to work like this: you sat on your sofa while creatives were paid to throw a bucket of shit in your face. Today you're expected to sit on the bucket, fill it with your own shit, and tip it over your head while filming yourself on your mobile. Then you upload the video to the creatives. You do the work; they still get paid.

Hail the rise of "loser-generated content"; commercials assembled from footage shot by members of the public coaxed into participating with the promise of TV glory. The advantages to the advertiser are obvious: it saves cash and makes your advert feel like part of some warm, communal celebration rather than the 30-second helping of underlit YouTube dog piss it is.

Witness the current Oxo Factor campaign. According to the website: "Has your Family got the OXO Factor? It's 2009. There's no such thing as 'the OXO Family' any more. We're all OXO Families! That's why we asked you to film your family performing the script for our new TV ad, for the chance to see yourselves on TV, alongside some of Britain's other brilliant families." Or "other insufferable arseholes", depending on your point of view.

End result: a bunch of wacky-doo show-offs titting around in their kitchens, each reciting the same script, which they're not allowed to deviate from. They can perform it "ironically", and indeed they all do, which somehow only makes it more horrible still: the Oxo family of 2009 may display faint traces of corporate-approved subversion, provided they adhere to the corporate-approved screenplay. Lynda Bellingham's fictional family of yore might've been insipid, but at least they weren't willing participants in a macabre dystopian dumb-show.

Phone ads are worse. Everybody's "brightdancing" according to The X Factor break bumpers. "Brightdancing" consists of shooting a video of yourself waving your mobile around while being filmed by a Talk Talk website gizmo which turns the glare from your mobile's screen into a ribbon of light. It's less creative than choosing which colour iPod you want for Christmas. "Brightdancing". Jesus.

Then there's Josh, the simpering middle-class mop who's apparently "forming a supergroup" for T-Mobile. According to the official story, Josh was strolling down the street one day when a T-Mobile film crew asked him what he'd do if he had free texts for life. Rather than pointing out that "free texts for life" means dick-all in a world containing the internet, Josh burbled something about forming a band. A few weeks later and gosh oh crikey that's precisely what's happening! And we're all invited! Hey everyone! Join Josh's Band!

As well as TV spots recounting the irritating story of Josh and his "volunteers" (Yikes! They're busking in an open-top London bus! Bonkers!), there are YouTube videos of Josh's utterly spontaneous and not-at-all-stage-managed musical quest. The group has its own song, which you're encouraged to perform and upload yourself, hastening humankind's slow cultural death in the process. The recurring melody sounds suspiciously like a seven-note ringtone, while the lyrics speak vaguely inclusion and connectivity – y'know, the sort of thing they guff on about in mobile phone ads. The third line is "I call up all of my friends". Why call anyone? You've got free texts for life, you prick.

It's so clumsily contrived it wouldn't fool a hen, yet we're meant to welcome this "supergroup" as an authentic grassroots musical phenomenon. On MySpace, Josh (or whoever's controlling him) claims, "It's a shame so many cynics think this band is completely manufactured."

So it's a genuine people's movement, then? And this band doesn't contain any paid-for session musicians? And that song wasn't written by professional tunesmiths-for-hire? And the lyrics weren't penned by some dickshoe at Saatchi & Saatchi? Hmm. Piss off, T-Mobile. Stop trying to "crowdsource". You're embarrassing yourselves. Scram. And empty that bucket on your way out.

Posted via email from cjlambert's posterous

Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road

Crikey News

Posted via email from cjlambert's posterous

Gattung & Chicks on Boards

Riding the XT media storm, former Telecom CEO Theresa Gattung has hit the publicity 'go' button before the release of her book 'Bird On A Wire' next week.

 

At a time when I was at business school and wobbling out into the workforce, having a woman at the helm of the biggest company in New Zealand made a huge difference. The gender split was roughly 50:50 in our lectures and we girls never once thought there was such a think as inequality in the workplace. Theresa was a shining light of "you do the work, you get the job." Ann Sherry at the helm of Westpac, Dame Sian Elias as Chief Justice and Helen Clark as Prime Minister backed up this theory, followed by Gattung ranking at 23rd most powerful women in the world by Fortune in 2006.

 

So what's happened?

 

Archival analysis indicated that of a total of 1366 corporate directors, women constituted 88 (6.44%) directorships. Women held 64 non-executive (4.69% of total directorships), 23 executive (1.68% of total directorships) and one alternate directorship. The findings indicated that there were only five women CEOs and only five out of a total of 240 New Zealand corporate boards achieved gender equality. Women on NZ Coporate Boards 2008

 

1.68% of executive directorships! So when Gattung comes out criticising the low-level of scrutiny the current CEO is receiving and addresses the issue of pay parity, there's a little more to it than 'sour grapes'. I don't blindly endorse leaders because I have the same plumbing as them and I certainly think Gattung made errors in the top seat. I do think she has unique experience and hasn't received the credit she has deserved.  There are challenges that are unique to women,  it's looking at the figures and realising that things are out of whack. Good work Theresa.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted via email from cjlambert's posterous

Relevance, Interactivity & Accountability

Christopher Vollmer  wrote in the journal Strategy+Business. 

“Advertising has evolved from an interruption—grabbing attention for a product or brand—into an experience, an application, a service that the consumer actually wants. This new marketing model doesn’t shout; it listens and learns. And relevance, interactivity, and accountability are its essential ingredients.”

You can't push campaign through social communication tools. People will tune out. 

I know you can't make money that way under your existing structures. Both client and agency are struggling with this at the moment but struggle with it you must. 

You need to change your business model. There's no question about that. It's just a matter of being prepared to upskill yourself and apply the logic of the fragmented media reality to your business or organisation.

Madison Avenue legend Rosser Reeves (pictured) publicly boasted how one client spent $86,400,000 over the course of 10 years “on one piece of my copy.” 

Those days are over.

Further reading: Is Marketing a Strategic Resource or a Procured Commodity?

 

 

Posted via email from cjlambert's posterous

You Can’t Datamine With No Miners

I’m very pleased to see the social media return on investment (ROI) debate being taken to the next level with more sophisticated discussion coming from strategists such as @briansolis @thebrandbuilder and @loic

 

Those of you that have worked in direct or database marketing will know that the real problem with collecting so much customer data is not in the ‘getting’ or the ‘having’ but in the ‘using’.

 

I used to work for a nationwide retailer with 350 stores collecting scan and consumer data. We would often joke about the paranoia from customers about the detailed information that we kept on them and that we as big brother “know what colour undies you wear to your store.”

 

Truth was—the information got swiped into the database at point of purchase and, for the most part, that’s where it stayed. Most companies in New Zealand have cut back on their marketing teams and dedicated, in house analysts are rare as hen’s teeth. A lot of large retail operations, like banks, have moved to generalist marketing teams that work on a project basis to save costs after the recession. Most simply don’t have people with the time or the skill set to sit and mine data and make meaningful business decisions with it. Not to mention record cleaning and system convergence issues.

 

One of the most insightful analysts that I’ve worked with on consumer purchase data spends most of his time doing historical, reporting work. His company isn’t resourced to have him doing more than the bare basics in his 40 hour week. There’s nothing wrong with that but I think some of the hype on dynamic product customisation and customer segmentation is just that- hype.

 

Retailer Tesco have done some very sophisticated card-based marketing work over the years and customised store offers based on real-time store data. What the glowing case studies forget to mention is that Tesco had up to 100 full time analysts mining the data and managing communications back through buyers, promotions and store teams. That’s a huge investment and one that most companies are not (and maybe should not) make.  You have to look at the total business case.  

 

Be straight up with companies and let them know the true resource commitment upfront. That includes community managers, trainers and analysts.

 

Yes there’s a big mine out there, but you need miners. Not software applications, real people with lights on the heads.   

 

Further reading: ROI: How to Measure Return on Investment in Social Media @briansolis

Posted via email from cjlambert's posterous

Trust in others -NZ Data

Trust in others
New Zealand Social Report 2009

Definition

The proportion of the population aged 15 years and over reporting that people can "almost always" or "usually" be trusted, in the Quality of Life Survey.

Relevance

Trust in others is an important indicator of how people feel about members of their community. High levels of trust facilitate co-operative behaviour among people and contribute to people’s ability to develop positive relationships with others.

Current level

In 2008, 78 per cent of New Zealanders aged 15 years and over said that people can be trusted, a similar proportion to that recorded 2006 (76 per cent). Those who said that people can usually be trusted made up the largest group (60 per cent), while those who said that people can almost always be trusted made up 17 per cent. The corresponding figures for 2006 were 58 per cent and 18 per cent, respectively.

Figure SC3.1 Proportion of people reporting that people can be trusted, by level of trust, 2006 and 2008

Source: Quality of Life Survey 2006; Quality of Life Survey 2008

Age and sex differences

The proportion of New Zealanders aged 15 years and over reporting that people can be trusted was similar for males (78 per cent) and females (77 per cent). Eighteen per cent of males and 17 per cent of females agreed that people can almost always be trusted, while 60 per cent of both males and females responded that people can usually be trusted.

Young adults aged 15–24 years (74 per cent) were slightly less likely than people aged 25 years and over (78 per cent) to report that people can be trusted.

Ethnic differences

People of European ethnicity reported a slightly higher level of trust in people (79 per cent) than Māori (75 per cent). Pacific peoples (72 per cent) and those of Asian ethnicity (71 per cent) had the lowest proportions who said that people could be trusted.

Figure SC3.2 Proportion of people reporting that people can be trusted, by ethnic group and level of trust, 2008

Source: Quality of Life Survey 2008

Socio-economic differences

Across all income levels, a large majority of New Zealanders indicated that people can be trusted. Overall levels of reported trust increased with personal income levels. People with incomes over $100,000 reported the highest overall level of trust (84 per cent), while people with incomes of $30,000 or less reported the lowest level (76 per cent).

Figure SC3.3 Proportion of people reporting that people can be trusted, by personal income and level of trust, 2008

Source: Quality of Life Survey 2008

Regional differences

Across all New Zealand’s big cities, a large majority of New Zealanders indicated that people can be trusted. Reported levels of trust were highest in Wellington (87 per cent) and lowest in Manukau (68 per cent).

International comparison

New Zealanders’ level of trust in other people in 2006 compared well with those of people in European Union countries in 2005, and to that of people in Canada in 2003. Out of 25 OECD countries for which there was data, New Zealand had the sixth highest reported level of trust in other people.¹¹¹

New Zealand’s reported level of trust in other people (76 per cent in 2006) was above the median of 56 per cent for these 25 OECD countries. Norway had the highest reported level of trust in people (87 per cent) followed by Denmark and Sweden (both 84 per cent). Canada (53 per cent) and the United Kingdom (55 per cent) reported lower levels of trust in other people than New Zealand.

 

Source

http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz/social-connectedness/trust-others.html

 

Posted via email from cjlambert's posterous

To Food Show Or Not To Food Show

When I was brand manager for a national supermarket brand, I remember organising many a trade show. The proposals would come in and I would always decline them. Then those higher up the totem pole would approve them and I’d get stuck trying to figure out how to feed thousands of people with little plastic cups and spoons.

Because that’s all you do at most trade shows.

Feed and water people. Trade shows can be fantastic and a great way of introducing certain new products to market. You have one major issue though.

Clutter. Big time clutter. They are usually jam packed with people and the demonstrators have no time to sell the benefits of your product. You’re also generally grouped by category (e.g. wine) so customers jostle down the wine row knocking back thimbles and have no idea what they just sampled.



Things to think about:

If you’re going to do a show GO HUGE and invest properly. A half-baked stand will do very little for you. Macs Brewery often do full bar tap installations and take over the whole corner of a convention centre. As a customer, you know that you’re having a Macs brand experience. Think of the stand cost like buying a section of land. You still have to build a house, plumb the loo and throw in some furniture. Staff, marketing collateral, samples and AV equipment can soak up budgets pretty quick. Allow 4-5 times the stand cost as a starting point. Corporate stands often run at 20 times.

Demonstrators are salespeople. Make sure the people on the stand can sell. Make sure they pitch the product, then give the sample. You’re not there to feed people and hand out free stuff!

Consider demonstrating outside your category or industry. Do food at a home show. Do pet food at a baby show. At least you’ll be different and not get lost in the clutter.

Retailer demonstration packages are generally far more cost effective. Most supermarkets will let you demonstrate starting from around $50 per store. Smaller retailers will let you demo for free. Why pay for an exhibitor site with little customer engagement?

Don’t attend because everybody else is. I used to often hear “but our competitor is going to be there so we have to have a presence". Rubbish. Let them have it and go somewhere else, why shout over each other?

Founder of the advertising sampling movement Claude C Hopkins (1866-1932) says it best:

So with sampling. Hand an unwanted product to a housewife and she pays it slight respect. She is in no mood to see its virtues. But get her to ask for a sample after hearing your story and she is in a very different position. She knows your claims. She is interested in them else she would not ask. And she expects to find the qualities you told.