So here we are dear readers, a new decade starts but this time without all the bangs and whistles of the start of the last 10 years. For my first column of the new decade I thought I would provide you with my own musings on things that may or may not happen in the media 2010.
Let’s start with television and unfortunately this will not be the year that reality television dies. This is the year that will see the mother of reality shows finish in the UK as the last Big Brother will screen over the summer months. BB started out as a genuine genius of a programme idea. An experiment to see how strangers would cope living together for a long time in a confined environment. It is now just a way to get on the front cover of Nuts so will not be missed. However this year the celebrity talent show will continue unabridged.
The big question will be who replaces Jonathan Ross once he leaves the BBC in July. My predictions are for Mark Kermode for Film 2010 and watch this space to see if Chris Evans returns to TV for the chat show. Simon Cowell will continue his dominance having now agreed the deal to take X Factor to the US as both presenter and producer, thus moving him closer to becoming a modern day King Midas. The real story of this year however will be 3D television. Just as you thought you had got your heads around HD TV along comes 3D TV and having seen a set, trust me you will want one.
On the airwaves radio will continue to be dominated by the BBC. It will be interesting to see if whether Radio 1 actually gives Chris Moyles his cards as it is reminded of its remit as a youth music radio station not a speech station. On Radio 2 Chris Evans has allegedly been told he can loose up to a million Wogan diehards but what his audience will be will be the source of many columns in the Daily Mail.
So finally to newspapers. Last year was an annus horribilus for all sectors of the press both national and regional. However throughout last year there were some highs as well as the lows. Yes London lost its two main free evenings but now the Evening Standard is both free and still currently exactly the same quality as the old paid for no one is complaining. We also now have Russian oligarchs owning papers in the way they do Premiership football clubs. So don’t be surprised if Alexander Lebedev extends the Standard empire and buys the Independent.
I am sure that 2010 will bring many twists and turns for the world of media and as consumers you will have more choice and more say on what you choose to consume with the little spare time you have. Oh and lets not forget we have a general election to look forward to as well so I know how much you are all looking forward to all that political advertising. Happy New Year readers.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Friday, 18 December 2009
X Factor, ITV and Simon Cowell
So the winner of the X Factor, Joe McElderry, is now filling the tabloids with headlines and suprisingly fighting this year for the Christmas no 1. However he is not the real winner of the X Factor, no he should not fool himself. On current X Factor run rate he will have as much chance of playing in butlins holiday camps in two years time as he does playing Las Vegas. There are two real winners from this yeas X Factor the first being ITV themselves.
ITV has had a terrible time of it over the last few years. It has seen revenues decline and decline and it took over 7 months to find a new chairman with many drop outs despite an astronomical salary on offer. However its new Chairman, ex Asda boss Archie Norman, must be now looking forward to his Christmas turkey thanks to the success of this year’s X Factor. The reason behind all of this, as with everything, is money and in this case advertising revenue.
The final of the X Factor in the UK this year was expected to generate £20 million of ad revenues for ITV, yes £20 million just for the final. Spot rates for the final were an alleged £250,000. Overall the X Factor is expected to have generated over £100 million for ITV this year.
However whichever way you look at it the overall winner always has been and always will be the man on the end with the waxed chest. Yes the big winner is always Simon Cowell. Cowell’s appearance fee’s alone for the series are estimated around the £5m mark. He is also the major owner of the format and gets paid for that and through his production company Syco he is also paid for production fees. This adds another estimated £2million. So his personal take home from this year’s X Factor is estimated at £7million. However this is small potatoes compared to his US deal where he is lead judge on American Idol. This is a reputed $125 million (£75m) for the next two series.
This of course is just part of the his total incomes, add in Britain’s Got Talent and the little matter of all the revenue from the acts now signed to his record label and I start to get lost at the potential income. All I do know is that the other day the entire top 10 were either acts that were signed to Cowell or had appeared on X Factor within the last few weeks. With that sort of power it looks like X Factor will be here for a long while yet. So have a good Christmas dear readers, Mr Cowell definitely will.
ITV has had a terrible time of it over the last few years. It has seen revenues decline and decline and it took over 7 months to find a new chairman with many drop outs despite an astronomical salary on offer. However its new Chairman, ex Asda boss Archie Norman, must be now looking forward to his Christmas turkey thanks to the success of this year’s X Factor. The reason behind all of this, as with everything, is money and in this case advertising revenue.
The final of the X Factor in the UK this year was expected to generate £20 million of ad revenues for ITV, yes £20 million just for the final. Spot rates for the final were an alleged £250,000. Overall the X Factor is expected to have generated over £100 million for ITV this year.
However whichever way you look at it the overall winner always has been and always will be the man on the end with the waxed chest. Yes the big winner is always Simon Cowell. Cowell’s appearance fee’s alone for the series are estimated around the £5m mark. He is also the major owner of the format and gets paid for that and through his production company Syco he is also paid for production fees. This adds another estimated £2million. So his personal take home from this year’s X Factor is estimated at £7million. However this is small potatoes compared to his US deal where he is lead judge on American Idol. This is a reputed $125 million (£75m) for the next two series.
This of course is just part of the his total incomes, add in Britain’s Got Talent and the little matter of all the revenue from the acts now signed to his record label and I start to get lost at the potential income. All I do know is that the other day the entire top 10 were either acts that were signed to Cowell or had appeared on X Factor within the last few weeks. With that sort of power it looks like X Factor will be here for a long while yet. So have a good Christmas dear readers, Mr Cowell definitely will.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Who owns the brand?
This week i was asked by one of Archant's divisions to give a presentation to the some of the marketing team of a major printer manufaturer. They were looking at how they could use digital marketing methods to increase customer contact and response. During the debate a theme that has become very prominant across many industries came to light, that being giving your consumers a voice in your business.
In recent months we have seen both British Gas and Eon create customer panels to help them seem more open and to put custmers needs at the heart of the business. Asda in October extended its customer panel and gave members direct influence on buying decisions which is a brave move.
Letting customers tell you more about what they think about your business is never easy from an internal point of view as you might hear things you and your board may not want to. However, as i pointed out the the print company, if a person has stuck their neck out and gained approval for spend, often in the hundred of thousands mark, they are already a beliver, These people have already put their respective necks on the line with your products and so could become valuable brand evangelists in their own right and should be seen as an asset not a liability.
So from consumer panels to simple messgae boards bringing your consumers more into your own business can bring far greater rewards than the oft percieved risks.
In recent months we have seen both British Gas and Eon create customer panels to help them seem more open and to put custmers needs at the heart of the business. Asda in October extended its customer panel and gave members direct influence on buying decisions which is a brave move.
Letting customers tell you more about what they think about your business is never easy from an internal point of view as you might hear things you and your board may not want to. However, as i pointed out the the print company, if a person has stuck their neck out and gained approval for spend, often in the hundred of thousands mark, they are already a beliver, These people have already put their respective necks on the line with your products and so could become valuable brand evangelists in their own right and should be seen as an asset not a liability.
So from consumer panels to simple messgae boards bringing your consumers more into your own business can bring far greater rewards than the oft percieved risks.
Friday, 13 November 2009
The PR Stunt
November is traditionally the time of the year when many of that poor breed we call marketers have to start thinking about next years budgets. In these troubled times, even those fortunate enough to have 7 and even 8 figure marketing budgets are being forced to think of new, innovative and lets face it, cheaper ways to make their brands stand out.
As I have said many times before and in many different forums, this is no bad thing. It is very easy for marketers to rely on the same plans year after year and not really think about what they could do that is new and would create a real buzz and noise in their target marketplaces for their brands. One proven way of doing this is the PR stunt but the problem with such stunts is that they can go spectacularly right and just as easily go spectacularly wrong.
Let’s take one that went right. This year saw the best ever example of the PR stunt from our cousins down under. Tourism Queensland created the “best job in the world”. This was in effect a global tourism campaign disguised as a recruitment drive. The buzz that followed this piece of genius meant that hundreds of media organisations from around the world covered the story generating more than £40m worth of worldwide media coverage. In the end 34,000 people applied and one lucky chap from Hampshire got the job.
Now lets remember one that went wrong, or right depending how mean you are feeling. Richard Branson has spent a lifetime practising the art of the PR stunt and most have been very successful. Admittedly him waterskiing or standing on plane wings have become a little tired in recent years. So I was mildly amused when his attempts in 2007 to promote Virgin America by bungee jumping cum abseiling down a Las Vegas Casino from the roof. Unfortunately for Branson half way down he slammed into the side of the building, ripped his trousers and was gently let down the rest of the way where he quickly removed himself to the hotel without speaking to the press. Of course all of this was in the full glare of press and TV and created lots of the intended coverage but arguably of the wrong kind.
So if you get it right you can get massive amounts of positive brand coverage for little outlay. However if you get it wrong it can go very wrong. This problem has been exacerbated by the rise of social media online with thousands of passionate people happy to tear your brand reputation to shreds via Twitter, Blogs, Facebook et al.
There are few rules for PR stunts but If you are thinking try to think whether what you are planning will entertain and make people talk both online and offline. Most importantly be honest and make sure the brand is remembered as much as the stunt. Oh and try not loose your trousers in the process.
As I have said many times before and in many different forums, this is no bad thing. It is very easy for marketers to rely on the same plans year after year and not really think about what they could do that is new and would create a real buzz and noise in their target marketplaces for their brands. One proven way of doing this is the PR stunt but the problem with such stunts is that they can go spectacularly right and just as easily go spectacularly wrong.
Let’s take one that went right. This year saw the best ever example of the PR stunt from our cousins down under. Tourism Queensland created the “best job in the world”. This was in effect a global tourism campaign disguised as a recruitment drive. The buzz that followed this piece of genius meant that hundreds of media organisations from around the world covered the story generating more than £40m worth of worldwide media coverage. In the end 34,000 people applied and one lucky chap from Hampshire got the job.
Now lets remember one that went wrong, or right depending how mean you are feeling. Richard Branson has spent a lifetime practising the art of the PR stunt and most have been very successful. Admittedly him waterskiing or standing on plane wings have become a little tired in recent years. So I was mildly amused when his attempts in 2007 to promote Virgin America by bungee jumping cum abseiling down a Las Vegas Casino from the roof. Unfortunately for Branson half way down he slammed into the side of the building, ripped his trousers and was gently let down the rest of the way where he quickly removed himself to the hotel without speaking to the press. Of course all of this was in the full glare of press and TV and created lots of the intended coverage but arguably of the wrong kind.
So if you get it right you can get massive amounts of positive brand coverage for little outlay. However if you get it wrong it can go very wrong. This problem has been exacerbated by the rise of social media online with thousands of passionate people happy to tear your brand reputation to shreds via Twitter, Blogs, Facebook et al.
There are few rules for PR stunts but If you are thinking try to think whether what you are planning will entertain and make people talk both online and offline. Most importantly be honest and make sure the brand is remembered as much as the stunt. Oh and try not loose your trousers in the process.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
The Guardian, Trafigura and the right to publish
Last week a colleague sent me a link to a story on the media guardian site the likes of which I have never in over 14 years of working in the media. The key extract of which can be read below:
“Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.” “Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.”
As you can imagine having read that I like thousands of other were intrigued as to what it was all about.
It turns out that British oil trader Trafigura had been hit by a lawsuit by 30,000 Africans claiming that they have been affected by the alleged dumping of toxic waste on the Ivory Coast. Trafigura reacted by hiring libel layers Carter Ruck who slapped injunctions on every media outfit to stop them reporting this.
An MP, Paul Farrelly, then tabled a question in Parliament about this injunction and Carter Rock responded to all threatening with action if anyone covered this question. This goes against hundreds of years of press freedom to report what MP’s say.
Luckily the editor of The Guardian Alan Rusbridger is not only a very clever journalist he also has an excellent understanding of social media. Having signed off the baffling story on the guardian website on the Monday night he personally tweeted on twitter the following: "Now Guardian prevented from reporting parliament for unreportable reasons. Did John Wilkes live in vain?"
Within hours twitter and the blogsphere had gone mental. By the Tuesday morning and a front page lead, the web was in melt down and by lunchtime Carter Ruck and Trafigura had caved in.
Unfortunately for Carter Ruck the internet is a whole new world. Following Rusbringers tweet, a follower of his Richard Wilson put two and two together and searched the parliament website where details of all questions are held. He then saw what it was, did some further web searches and tweeted the whole lot. This was then picked up, passed on and on and the rest is social history.
It was the speed of this that was astonishing. Wilson had made his comments by 9 o’clock and by 10 the well known political blogger Guido Fawkes had blogged on it. By 10am on Tuesday morning even Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg tweeted the following: "Very interested concerned about this #trafigura / Guardian story the LibDems are planning to take action on this."
This is the best example yet of the growing gap between those that understand old and new media and communication. Today the modern consumer is completely empowered by digital and social media with a wealth of knowledge at their fingertips and a desire to know what is being kept from them. Brands and publishers should take note of something that as Rusbridger himself says will no doubt become an MBA case study in the future.
“Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.” “Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.”
As you can imagine having read that I like thousands of other were intrigued as to what it was all about.
It turns out that British oil trader Trafigura had been hit by a lawsuit by 30,000 Africans claiming that they have been affected by the alleged dumping of toxic waste on the Ivory Coast. Trafigura reacted by hiring libel layers Carter Ruck who slapped injunctions on every media outfit to stop them reporting this.
An MP, Paul Farrelly, then tabled a question in Parliament about this injunction and Carter Rock responded to all threatening with action if anyone covered this question. This goes against hundreds of years of press freedom to report what MP’s say.
Luckily the editor of The Guardian Alan Rusbridger is not only a very clever journalist he also has an excellent understanding of social media. Having signed off the baffling story on the guardian website on the Monday night he personally tweeted on twitter the following: "Now Guardian prevented from reporting parliament for unreportable reasons. Did John Wilkes live in vain?"
Within hours twitter and the blogsphere had gone mental. By the Tuesday morning and a front page lead, the web was in melt down and by lunchtime Carter Ruck and Trafigura had caved in.
Unfortunately for Carter Ruck the internet is a whole new world. Following Rusbringers tweet, a follower of his Richard Wilson put two and two together and searched the parliament website where details of all questions are held. He then saw what it was, did some further web searches and tweeted the whole lot. This was then picked up, passed on and on and the rest is social history.
It was the speed of this that was astonishing. Wilson had made his comments by 9 o’clock and by 10 the well known political blogger Guido Fawkes had blogged on it. By 10am on Tuesday morning even Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg tweeted the following: "Very interested concerned about this #trafigura / Guardian story the LibDems are planning to take action on this."
This is the best example yet of the growing gap between those that understand old and new media and communication. Today the modern consumer is completely empowered by digital and social media with a wealth of knowledge at their fingertips and a desire to know what is being kept from them. Brands and publishers should take note of something that as Rusbridger himself says will no doubt become an MBA case study in the future.
Friday, 25 September 2009
Product Placement
A few months ago I wrote in my column in the Eastern Daily Press newspaper about the digital Britain report from the then culture secretary Andy Burnham. He has since been replaced and a lot of his initiatives are slowly being undone by his successor Ben Bradshaw. For example six months ago Burnham said that lifting a ban on product placement in TV programmes raised "very serious concerns ... blurring the boundaries between advertising and editorial" – following a three-month consultation.
Six months is of course a lifetime in modern politics. So I was not that surprised when Bradshaw has now come out and said that he accepts lifting the ban and unveiled a new consultation process. The reason given for this is that “the climate has changed”. Now I know its now autumn but it has not changed that much.
The reality is that this is no surprise. I have written about product placement many times, my favourite being Bond films which are the kings of product placement. If you have the DVD there is a good drinking game around how many times an obvious placement is seen, from an Omega Watch to the classic Aston Martin.
Product placement is now also the norm on America television. Tune into American Idol and you will see Cowell and his American counterparts all drinking Coca Cola with the cup prominent on the jury’s desk. The thing is, because we get so many American shows here in the UK it is happening in the UK already. Most American shows use product placement to earn a bit of extra cash and so when they are shown here, as they largely are, we see it.
There has also long been a market in UK television in giving product for free to be used as props. This has always been a way of getting around the ban on placement and for brand owners, as you did not have to pay to have your label in shot just give free samples, it has been cheaper.
So now they are looking at finally catching up with the rest of the world, will we see Carlsberg in the taps of the Rovers Return? Probably. However it’s not the great money spinner you might think. An early estimate puts the value of product placement to the commercial television market at around £100m a year. This is nothing compared to a total TV ad revenue of nearly £3bn a year.
The problem is that the placement will no doubt still have to be subtle which means it not in your face and so cannot command a premium price. However ITV in the first half of 2009 made a pre-tax loss of £105m and all commercial broadcasters would welcome any new source of revenue.
Six months is of course a lifetime in modern politics. So I was not that surprised when Bradshaw has now come out and said that he accepts lifting the ban and unveiled a new consultation process. The reason given for this is that “the climate has changed”. Now I know its now autumn but it has not changed that much.
The reality is that this is no surprise. I have written about product placement many times, my favourite being Bond films which are the kings of product placement. If you have the DVD there is a good drinking game around how many times an obvious placement is seen, from an Omega Watch to the classic Aston Martin.
Product placement is now also the norm on America television. Tune into American Idol and you will see Cowell and his American counterparts all drinking Coca Cola with the cup prominent on the jury’s desk. The thing is, because we get so many American shows here in the UK it is happening in the UK already. Most American shows use product placement to earn a bit of extra cash and so when they are shown here, as they largely are, we see it.
There has also long been a market in UK television in giving product for free to be used as props. This has always been a way of getting around the ban on placement and for brand owners, as you did not have to pay to have your label in shot just give free samples, it has been cheaper.
So now they are looking at finally catching up with the rest of the world, will we see Carlsberg in the taps of the Rovers Return? Probably. However it’s not the great money spinner you might think. An early estimate puts the value of product placement to the commercial television market at around £100m a year. This is nothing compared to a total TV ad revenue of nearly £3bn a year.
The problem is that the placement will no doubt still have to be subtle which means it not in your face and so cannot command a premium price. However ITV in the first half of 2009 made a pre-tax loss of £105m and all commercial broadcasters would welcome any new source of revenue.
Friday, 28 August 2009
RIP The Londonpaper
For anyone who does not live in London, the announced closure of the News International afternoon freesheet thelondonpaper will not mean much. However for anyone living in London, or who goes to London regularly, the closure will see the end of a product that will be genuinely missed.
The title was launched in 2006 in direct competition to Associated's afternoon freesheet London Lite. This heralded the much media discussed "freesheet wars" and also mountains of wasted newsprint. The circulation of thelondonpaper alone is over 500,000 copies a day and add that to the morning Metro and the Lite and you have way over 1.2m free newspapers being taken to recycling centres daily.
When I was Director of marketing for our London newspaper division, one of my favourite sights was seeing tubes full of school kids reading free newspapers. Ok they may not have bought them but it proved to me that the touted "print is dead" theory is of course rubbish. Print is and will not be dead as that showed. Those kids wanted to read it because it was free, put into their hands so they did not have to go out of their way, and it gave them content in a style that they wanted, celebrity focused with light news digests.
The title had some great concepts, from a column from a different reader every day, to having regular columnist sch as gay about town pushing equality in the capital. Some commentators have said that the closure is no great loss as there was no quality content of note in the title. This i believe is missing the point. The title created a readership from nothing and was well read. Unfortunately that readership does not come cheaply.
The paper has over 60 staff excluding all hose who hand it out daily. That 500k print run is not cheap to say the least and news int announced that it had made a pre tax loss of £12.9m in this year alone.
Questions remain as to whether the London Lite will follow or now it is the only afternoon title it will improve its revenues and consolidate its position. Although i hope that Associated will take advantage of its new sole position and gain enough revenues to secure a long term future for the Lite especially now they have sold the Standard. The freesheet wars have been a brave and costly adventure but certainly it proved if only to me that our appetite to read is not diminished - just in a format we want.
The title was launched in 2006 in direct competition to Associated's afternoon freesheet London Lite. This heralded the much media discussed "freesheet wars" and also mountains of wasted newsprint. The circulation of thelondonpaper alone is over 500,000 copies a day and add that to the morning Metro and the Lite and you have way over 1.2m free newspapers being taken to recycling centres daily.
When I was Director of marketing for our London newspaper division, one of my favourite sights was seeing tubes full of school kids reading free newspapers. Ok they may not have bought them but it proved to me that the touted "print is dead" theory is of course rubbish. Print is and will not be dead as that showed. Those kids wanted to read it because it was free, put into their hands so they did not have to go out of their way, and it gave them content in a style that they wanted, celebrity focused with light news digests.
The title had some great concepts, from a column from a different reader every day, to having regular columnist sch as gay about town pushing equality in the capital. Some commentators have said that the closure is no great loss as there was no quality content of note in the title. This i believe is missing the point. The title created a readership from nothing and was well read. Unfortunately that readership does not come cheaply.
The paper has over 60 staff excluding all hose who hand it out daily. That 500k print run is not cheap to say the least and news int announced that it had made a pre tax loss of £12.9m in this year alone.
Questions remain as to whether the London Lite will follow or now it is the only afternoon title it will improve its revenues and consolidate its position. Although i hope that Associated will take advantage of its new sole position and gain enough revenues to secure a long term future for the Lite especially now they have sold the Standard. The freesheet wars have been a brave and costly adventure but certainly it proved if only to me that our appetite to read is not diminished - just in a format we want.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)