Archive | Media RSS feed for this section

Should brands ignore their bad press?

22 Nov

News broke earlier this month that Amazon were selling a how to guide for paedophiles on its online bookstore, however after receiving a bit of a backlash in the media and on Twitter the book was promptly removed. Various journos were looking for comment but were faced by an Amazon media blackout. Claudine Beaumont of the Telegraph displayed her displeasure, she Tweeted ‘Utterly hacked off at Amazon press office. They’ve stonewalled journalists all day on this ebook story. Why bother employing PRs?’ Rory Cellan-Jones of the BBC responded by Tweeting: ‘totally agree re Amazon…but bet they’ll be on the phone about an e-Christmas any minute…’.

It’s not particularly surprising that journalists were ignored, as this is a controversial story and Amazon’s higher ups were no doubt concerned that by responding they could make the situation worse. By not commenting they may have also hoped to take the sting out of the story and push it down the news agenda.

Amazon’s communications team have to assess whether ignoring the journos and the story would do more damage than responding to the story. But as the festive season is fast approaching Amazon needs to get as much media coverage as possible in order to drive sales. But by angering the media they will be doing themselves no favours among within media circles  and may find it tough to sell in their news to these journalists.

Now, it’s sometimes a PR’s role in a crisis to make sure nothing is said to make sure a situation doesn’t become worse, and fair play to Amazon’s communication team if this was the plan, as they did it pretty well. But now as the media has moved online and social media has exploded is it not better to be involved in the bad news debate about your own brand, rather than ignoring it and hoping it goes away? Is the silence worse than wading in and potentially saying something that could do damage to the brand?

Is the X Factor sacrificing the public’s trust for ratings?

8 Nov

As she fell to the floor of the X Factor stage and had a hissy fit, the hopes of the nation rose – could this be the week Katie ‘The Weasel’ Waissel finally got knocked out of the competition. But alas it was not to be, the most hated girl in Britain lives to sing another week.

But although it all kicked off on Twitter/Facebook/Blogs and in the mainstream media, it should not come as a surprise to anyone why the judges chose to save Waissel. PR is more important to the X Factor than real talent will ever be. Waissel is a controversial kooky character, who generates publicity for the show, which helps keep viewing figures high and in turn generates more revenue. Despite spelling her name in a daft way, Treyc Cohen, is like watching beige paint dry, she is frankly boring and as such has not received the same attention and media coverage as other contestants.

Some in our industry say all publicity is good publicity. Yes, the scandal of the judges keeping Waissel in the show may keep people interested for a short while, but it will do serious long term damage to X Factor’s brand. We are told the X Factor is about finding a new singing sensation, and as the less talented but media friendly acts are spared at the expense of the talented, people may begin to feel they are being manipulated and lose faith in the X Factor brand.

It is the same for any brand who are operating across any sector, trust is so important. If organisations begin to sacrifice their principles for desperate attempts to get in the media it will affect their long term credibility among their audiences and markets.

How to pass the buck in the media

28 Oct

The longer I work in the communication biz I cannot look at a story without thinking who has placed it and the reason it is in the media. So when I saw an interesting story in the BBC earlier titled ‘Local Councils in England have £14bn in reserve’ it got me thinking.

The BBC ‘learned’ about the information so it has obviously been leaked to them, but for what reason and by who?

So you have to ask, what will the people reading the story think when they read it, also who benefits from this story and what they are trying to achieve by placing it?

We only have to go back a week and to the Coalition’s Comprehensive Spending Review. Now there were a lot of cuts that were announced by George Osborne, but the deepest of the cuts will fall on the local government budget at almost 30% over four years. With these deep cuts in the local government budget the Coalition’s strategy was to pass the tough decisions onto local councils, and as such help divert public resentment away from themselves.

However the Coalition has got a lot of bad media coverage nationally and locally about their decision to cut local government spending by so much. The BBC story is an attempt to deflect responsibility back onto local councils. By saying they have money in reserve and implying their coffers are bulging, the strategy behind this story is to once again put responsibility back on local government and show the public that any cuts are their own decisions and not that of the Coalition Government.

So this gives a reason why this story is in the media and also demonstrates that someone from within the government has given the BBC this information.

Will women walk if Nike continues to support sponsored athletes like Rooney and Woods?

11 Sep

Legendary Romanian tennis player Ilie Năstase had just won his second Grand Slam, triumphing over Nikola Pilić in straight sets at Roland Garros to win the 1973 French Open. He won the US Open the previous year and was now the World’s number one tennis player. So he seemed like an obvious choice to be paid to wear Blue Ribbon Sports’ new tennis shoe.

He was the first person the company endorsed and he would be the first in a long line of winners and champions that the company would align itself with. But Năstase was also a notorious womaniser, he was named by Maxim magazine in its top ten “Living Sex Legends” list, reportedly having slept with over 2,500 women. This was a sign of things to come for the company, as he would be first in a long line of their winners and champions who would cause sexual scandals. When Năstase’s career petered out in the late 70s Blue Ribbon Sports turned to a new tennis star. The company signed up John McEnroe in 1978 and in the same year renamed itself Nike Inc.

Sponsoring the world’s greatest athletes is a massive part of Nike’s marketing strategy and they now have sponsorship deals with thousands of sports stars and sports team around the world. And just like Ilie Năstase did, a raft of Nike’s sponsored athletes have caused scandal recently with lurid tales of their private lives.

A string of Nike’s athletes have been involved in murky sexual dealings recently. Wayne Rooney reportedly slept with vice girls, Tiger Woods cheated on his wife with a string of women, Christiano Ronaldo fathered a love child, Ashley Cole is now divorced after bedding a number of women, and Frank Ribery solicited sex from an underage prostitute.

But what happens to the public’s perception of Nike when their athletes go bad, does it adversely affect Nike’s brand and reputation and have a knock on effect on their sales?

Nike seem bullish about their long term sales prospects, they reckon by 2015 its revenue will have risen by 40% to $27 billion. But in the short term there has been a massive hit on one of their brands, sales of its Woods branded golf merchandise has slumped, this come at a time when golf apparel sales overall are on the up. But is this sales slide due to Woods’ infidelity or the fact he has not been playing as much golf, and when he has been playing he has not been winning?

So there seems to be a short term hit on one of Nike’s brands but what is the long term damage? Nike has stood by their athletes, generally releasing statements saying it is a private matter for the stars. But by standing by their athletes – and effectively not condoning their behaviour – is the company doing serious damage to its brand in the eyes of the public and specifically women?

We look at the actions of Rooney and Cole who have allegedly wronged their other halves, Coleen Rooney and Cheryl Cole, who are both role models and are viewed very positively by women in the UK. Would Nike supporting athletes such as Cole and Rooney have more of an effect on whether women choose Nike over its rivals, or does Nike’s association with top women athletes have more of an effect? What would be the stronger influence in the mind of women when choosing a sporting goods brand, is it positive role models the brand associates itself with or the brand not condoning the sleazy antics of its male athletes?

How the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ has been positioned

24 Aug

'Ground Zero Mosque' protesters

There is a right old kick off in America about a muslim community centre and mosque planning to be built a few blocks away from the site of the World Trade Centre.

As Charlie Brooker puts it:
Millions are hopping mad over the news that a bunch of triumphalist Muslim extremists are about to build a “victory mosque” slap bang in the middle of Ground Zero.

The planned “ultra-mosque” will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin’s call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for “victory” is.”

The way the development has been framed by its opponents has been a fantastic piece of PR positioning. The term ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ provides a media friendly soundbite that sticks in people’s minds. It is a term that creates a powerful picture and one that stirs up emotion and controversy. Although the building is not really a mosque  and will not be built at Ground Zero. In fact it will be built nearly 200m away and will be community centre which will include a swimming pool, gym, theatre and various sports facilities.

Now the media has run with this story because it provides a fantastic narrative for them, it is controversial and there are two very vocal opposing sides of the debate.

24: action/drama or advert/drama?

12 May

 

Just one of the many shots of a Dell computer shown in TV show 24

 

I am becoming a  brand geek. While on a marathon session of watching a box set of 24, I couldn’t help but notice a brand after brand popping up on screen.

In my defence it is not hard to notice brand after brand after brand on 24 – it is a television show that is particularly heavy on product placements.

In earlier seasons of 24 Apple paid to have its Mac computers splashed across our TVs. In season one Jack and the fellow good guys used Macs and the terrorists and associated bad guys used computers with a Windows system.

Two giant computer makes, Dell and Hewlett-Packard, have paid to have their brand placed into series four of the show. Practically every time a computer in the Counter Terrorism Unit is shown, which is the main setting of the show, you saw Dell or HP logo.

This is the perfect association for both of these American companies. Not only are HP’s logo and Dell’s logo continually flashed at people, but they are creating a perception that their computers are cutting edge. They are showing consumers their computers are capable of tackling some of the most technologically advanced terrorists that the US of A has faced, they perform some of the most complex computing tasks at top speed and they do it all without crashing.

Now both HP and Dell have paid huge amounts of money to have their brand used in this way in the show. But I was shocked when star of the show Jack Baeur (a Federal Agent) has to hide out in a house. Now he needs a computer. This is the transcript from the scene:

Tony ‘What kind of communication do you need?’

Jack ‘A wifi and a hardline.’

Tony ‘Ok we will go back to my place.’

Jack ‘OK, thank you Tony.’

Tony ‘Wait til you see it before you thank me.’

 

An old school Dell computer being used by Jack Bauer in 24

 

When we get to the house we see Jack using a retro Dell system. It seems bizarre that Dell – who clearly have paid to have their logo shown in the series – would want people to associate their brand with outdated equipment and characters being derogatory towards its brand.

‘Jade Goody’ effect may save BBC Radio 6 Music

5 Mar

6 Music has received unprecedented publicity over the past few days when the news that it may close broke

In a round-a-bout way the threat that the BBC may shut down 6 Music could be the best thing to happen to the niche radio station.

The threat of the axe has provided an enormous amount of publicity for 6 Music. Suddenly everyone is talking about 6 Music. Our televisions, papers, magazines, social networking sites, forums, news websites and blogs, have been taken over by news and opinion about 6 Music.

The same thing happened when Jade Goody received the news she has cancer last year, she received far more publicity and coverage in the media when she was on her way out, and the same is now true for 6 Music.

Although the mainstream media broke the story about the possible closure of 6 Music, new media has taken the story over. The station seems to have a vocal core of supporters who are behind the online campaign to save it.

For a station with such a small audience the coverage has been nothing short of extraordinary. The loss of another digital BBC station, Asian Network, seems to have been drowned out by the mainstream because of this digital campaign to save 6 Music.

BBC Radio 6 Music has become a major trending topic on Twitter

However it is only natural that a digital campaign is behind the plan to save the digital station. Various campaigns have been set up on Facebook and a trending topic has been launched on Twitter. The publicity and online activity for 6 Music is great news for the station as its brand is being talked about on websites where you will find a chunk of its core demographic.

The hype around the station has been helped by a string of celebrities who have popped up to defend the station. Phil Jupitus, Lauren Laverne and Lily Allen have all had their say as to why the station should not be closed.

The celeb endorsement not only gives a chance for the mainstream media to keep the story alive and keep promoting the brand, but the endorsement is also picked up by their followers on social media.

And as people’s behaviour is hugely influenced by celebrities, 6 Music should be seeing a spike in listeners tuning in.

The closure is just about the most positive news that 6 Music could hope for as it attempts to increase on its 620,000 weekly listeners and maybe justify its existence.

The rabid defence of the network and the coverage in the media and on social media has so far been sensational PR for BBC 6 Music. And with this publicity it may make people think again about the station – not only the listening public but also BBC bosses.


Carbon creative should battle for behaviour not attitude change

5 Feb

Act on CO2 has launched various advertising campaigns over the last couple of years

Act on C02’s advertising may seem like it is a bit of a mish-mash of different deliveries but as an initiative launched by a mish-mash of government departments it is understandable.

Although there is a single theme running through all the campaigns – getting us all to think about our impact on the planet and getting us to lower our carbon footprint – there has been a variety of creative executions.

They offered us up a visually stunning creative image with muddy footprints showing everyone has a carbon footprint.

They then moved onto a simple message, with simple solutions, offered up through a simple delivery with ‘Save money, save energy’.

They showed how to save the planet by saving water with ‘Save water’.

Then a bedtime story played on our guilt by suggesting we will leave an apocalyptic future for our children if we don’t ‘Change how the story ends’.

And now we have the latest campaign which asks us to ‘Drive 5 miles less a week’.

The campaign that sticks out is the advert with the dad and his family. It is by far the least creative of the bunch, its delivery is not as powerful, its message is not a strong, but it is by far the best advertising of all the campaigns.

It is entirely focused on trying to change behaviours and not on the far greater challenge of trying to change people’s attitudes of climate change. Although there are snippets of encouraging a change of behaviour in the other adverts, their core theme is the wider picture of global warming.

Everyone has heard about the climate change and some may feel strongly about it, but the majority are indifferent to it. It is not relevant to their lives or they may not be able to see what impact climate change could have on them.

The creative powerhouses washed over my mum, she didn’t scoff at them nor did she turn into an eco-warrior, it just didn’t produce any strong emotion, it genuinely didn’t effect her. But the adverts with the dodgy dad made her take notice. The advert will help lower carbon emissions through the back door as what it was asking us to do was achievable, it is relevant to people and it offered a benefit -saving money.

Climate Change is such a massive issue and it is easy for people to feel overwhelmed by it, but the dad advert is by far the best as it empowers people instead of making them feel powerless.

Two-faced Tory marketing mantra

22 Jan

Latest Tory billboard campaign which was
rumoured to have cost the party £500,000

While Euro RSCG London may be getting a bit of a boost from the Tory party at the moment it is safe to say that the industry is going to take a battering if they assume power in the General Election.

George Osborne has said the Conservatives would cut the government’s advertising spend immediately if they are voted into power. He called the current spend ‘poor value for money’ and ‘excessive’. Gordon Brown said he would also cut the government’s marketing spend by a quarter but many have a horrible feeling the Tories want to go much further.

David Cameron echoed the views of his shadow chancellor by saying the current spend was ‘irresponsible’. You would get the impression that the Tories had a clear scepticism of the merits of marketing, PR and advertising from their less than positive comments. So it came as a surprise when Dave revealed that his party would spend the maximum legal limit of £18m on marketing during the upcoming election campaign. They are also expected to spend many more millions on marketing in the run-up to when the election is called.

And of course they have already released a string of high-profile and  expensive campaigns in the past six months or so. You can get an idea how much they are plowing into their campaign from their furious marketing activity and from a string of articles found on marketingmagazine.co.uk (here are just a recent few) – ‘Tories look to recruit General Election brand manager‘, ‘Labour campaign funding on the slide as Tories launch poster offensive’ , ‘Conservative Party poster accuses Labour of class war’, ‘Conservative Party target younger voters with Spotify ad campaign’.

Kingsmill ‘Confessions’ like that annoying drunk girl at a party

2 Jan

While out the other night on a belated birthday celebration my mind wandered back to the infamous Kingsmill Confessions campaign that broke in October last year. A strange time to think about this particular piece of advertising but the campaign has played on my mind since the first day that I first gazed upon it.

A young lady wandered by and caught my attention, there was something about her that you couldn’t help but notice. Her hair was bleached brighter than the sun, she wore sparkly blue disco hotpants that belonged in the 70s at an ABBA concert and worst of all she was horrendously out of it. She stumbled her way round the club, trying to engage with people with a dance or a grab or a bellow into their ears.

The way she presented herself reminded me of the way Kingsmill presented itself with the Confessions campaign. In a worthwhile attempt to connect with the public Kingsmill quite frankly embarrassed itself.

Now the lady was certainly a memorbale character and when I went outside for a spot of fresh air and a cool down I heard a couple a lads having a bit of a snigger about her, at least she was noticed you might say. It is the same with the Confessions advert. It annoyed me to my core but I couldn’t help but notice it. Marketing Magazine also showed us that the pubic couldn’t help but notice it as well. One week in November last year the advert had the fifth highest recall amongst the public in their AdWatch section.

Like the girl, the advert may have been noticed but it was all the wrong reasons. And thinking about the advert throws up all the questions that surfaced when it broke. Bread is far from naughty so why would people want to confess about it? Are people really that passionate about bread? Do people love the brand enough to want to actively seek it out and engage with it online? At a time when people are more conscious than ever at what they eat and don’t want to feel guilty about their food, why would Kingmill want to position its bread as sinful and naughty?

In all fairness to Kingmill it was a brave attempt to engage with their audience and try and build some warm feelings and community around the brand. But for this type of engagement to work there has to be a legitimate reason for a person to be engaged. People need to feel passionate about the brand or passionate about something or someone the brand is associating itself with. It will also work splendidly if there is a clear benefit for the consumer such as the offer of a prize or discount.

You have to feel that the way the girl at the disco presented herself she would ony get picked up at the end of the night if the lads had no other option, just as the way Kingsmill presented itself with this campaign it would only get picked up if it was the last loaf on the shelf.

Will brands be leaving the Woods?

9 Dec

Two of the trio of champions have been causing trouble for Gillette.

There is a bit of rumbling in the press that Tiger Woods’ love of mistresses may cost a fortune in future careers earnings as sponsors look to distance themselves from the golfer.

 

 

The media are having fun with the news that Gatorade have dropped him due to his alleged flings with several women and the subsequent scandal it has caused.

He signed a deal with Gatorade in 2007 for what is believed to be worth $100 million over five years. But they announced they are set to axe their Gatorade Tiger drink, however the PepsiCo brand says the decision to drop the drink was made months ago, the scandal is just a happy coincidence they say.

Woods also has deals with Cadillac, Accenture, AT&T, TAG Heuer, Electronic Arts, Nike and of course Gillette, that have helped him become the world’s first dollar billionaire sportsperson, according to Forbes. All these sponsorship deals and endorsements actually make up 90% of Tiger’s income.

Nielsen, the US TV ratings and advertising measuring guru, says there has been a Tiger Woods advertising blackout since two days after the scandal broke. Despite the research by Nielsen, Woods’ sponsors say they have not changed their advertising plans have said they are sticking with their media schedules.

One brand to stand by their man is Nike who issued a statement backing Woods last week.

But out of all the brands I feel sorry for Gillette, they are having a right old tough time with their sponsors of late. We all know Thierry Henry was a very naughty boy, and it seems that Woods has been a very, very naughty boy. They must be nervous that a scandal will break about Roger Federer. Behind his squeaky clean image Gillette must be terrified he is actually a crack addict who he enjoys nothing more than kicking puppies and is having a sordid affair with Sue Barker. My money is on the affair.

In the eyes of the sponsors Woods is damaged goods and they will no doubt be scrambling to get away from anything to do with him. It was his golfing ability that made his name but it was a nice-guy family image that built his brand to allow him to become a billion dollar sportsman. But in my very humble opinion what Henry did is far worse than what Tiger has allegedly done. Tiger’s cheating is nowhere near as bad as Henry’s. These men have lucrative sponsorship deals because they rose to the top in their particular sporting arena. They became the best of the best. Gillette sponsors them because they are champions. They were not chosen because of their apparent wholesome family image but they have both been endorsed by brands as they symbolise excellence, winning and success. They have been sponsored because of their profession and not their private life.

Tiger may have cheated in life but Henry cheated on the field of play, he cheated in his profession, and this is worse in my mind. Henry handled he ball not once (perhaps forgivable), but twice in order to direct it onto his foot, onto William Gallas and into the goal. It was a clear breach of the fair play ethos of what football, being a sportsman and a role model should all be about.

Henry and Woods are sponsored by Gillette because they are sportsmen, but Henry’s conduct was terribly unsportsmanlike. While Gillette stood by Henry and backed him up almost immediately they have so far remained quiet on Woods, they are no doubt waiting for the scandal to reveal its full extent. Their silence on Woods’ behavior is likely to mean that they will be dropping him or at least scaling back their use of him in their marketing activities. But if they were to drop anyone it should be Henry for his reputation has been damaged beyond rehabilitation. If anything would make me consider boycotting Gillette it would be because Henry and not Tiger Woods.

Does being Tangoed lead to Beastiality?

12 Nov
Tango - suck bull's udder

Would you want to suck on a bull's udder after seeing this ad?

Over 80 nutters have had their complaints against a trio of Tango posters thrown out by the advertising watchdog.

The three posters in question have the following taglines -

1 “Too much Tango made me suck a Bull’s udder”.
2 “Too much Tango makes your guffs smell like oranges. Seriously I just did one.”
3 “Too much Tango made me shave my nan. Innit.”

The ads are aimed at me, as I am a male aged 17-25, and even though I fit snuggly into this category I am not a particular fan of these spots, however I am going to fight their corner.

The complaints levelled at the ads are laughable, the majority of the nutters moaned that the ad was unsuitable as it suggested oral sex with a bull. I don’t know what they were thinking, that perhaps people would look at the ad and have a sudden urge to find the nearest bull. Maybe they saw the ad and then being a good consumer binged on some Tango, the rest may be but a dizzying blur but they woke up in bed next to a bull and an udder in their mouth. If this happened than maybe their complaint would be justified, if a poster or Tango made me do that I would be pretty upset too.

Although a little immature there is no malice or serious sexual meaning in the trio of these cheeky ads created by London agency BBH. Although it’s good news the PC brigade hasn’t got these adverts banned by the Advertising Standards Authority, I for one hope that we never have to see them again. They may have promoted the fact you get a little more Tango for your money but the copy doesn’t speak to me and it feels like it has been written by someone three times the age of the target audience. It has an air of something an annoying uncle would say.

As a believer in advertising freedom of speech I pronounce: ‘I do not agree with what Tango say but I will fight to the death for their right to say it.’

Matty’s marketing revolution for social media

6 Nov
10635_162426683078_51212153078_3660464_3120771_n

Nike has used football to create a massive Facebook following for its brand

Branding on social networking sites has reached new levels on sophistication with companies setting up Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. This has allowed people to become connected with their brands and allows companies to touch with their market.

I am going to use Nike as my case study on Facebook and Twitter as what they have done has top notch. Nike has been clever on Facebook and has set up a ‘Nike Football’ Facebook page, reinforcing Nike’s association with football was a good move as people are more passionate about football than they are about Nike. For marketing on social media to be effective brands have to imaginative and think if ways they can enhance people’s lives. Nike has put training videos, photos and football updates on their page that will engage people and keep them returning. It has also cleverly associated itself with their sponsored star players through updates on their performances, videos of them and links to their own Facebook Page etc.

Now onto Twitter, Nike Golf have set up a wonderful page. They have updates, news and behind the scene pictures of their sponsored players and links to their Twitter page. Also questions that are asked are quickly answered so there is a conversation with the brand and its Twitter followers. They are inviting people into their community and allowing them to connect with the brand. But at all the while at the same time showing of their stash and marketing their brand.

Marketing Potential

But I think there is further potential for marketers and brands to exploit social networking potential. Individual’s Facebook and Twitter profiles have a huge amount of personal information on which can be used by marketers. On Facebook people list their favourite books, films, TV shows, sports, activities, interests and also their membership of groups and fan pages. This kind of detailed information on millions of people is a market researcher’s dream.

If a program could scan people’s profiles it could then allow advertising to be targeted at individual profiles, concentrating their message on the right people and not using a scatter gun effect that may mean their advertising is irrelevant to many of the people it is seen by. They could advertise by popping up in the person’s news feed, a wall post or by sending them a message and on Twitter companies could Tweet an advertising message at people.

Privacy Issues

There may be a bit of concern with privacy but people have published this information and therefore it is public information. People live their lives around these sites, they are so heavily invested in them that they would not leave them. Also people may feel the advertising would be invasive but no more than adverts that take over your computer screen or television adverts that are uninvited into people’e houses everyday. 

Think of the potential – I am suffering my a severe bout of Manflu, so I put a status update in my Facebook ‘Matt has a cold and is feeling unwell’. Now this would be picked up and advertising for Lemsip, Vicks or Nurofen would be targeted towards my Facebook profile.  

It is no different to standing in the middle of Leicester Square after a night out a screaming ‘I need to get home!’ Now you would be grateful when a taxi-man, a limo chauffeur,  a train, bus or tube driver came up to you and offered you their services.

Spoon full of Jedward is the medicine for ITV

2 Nov
jedward

The X Factor's ratings have skyrocketed due to Jedward's 'John Sergeant' effect

The X Factor’s ratings have been sky high this year and media analysts are predicting bumper ratings and bumper advertising revenue for ITV this Christmas. And what are they saying is the cause of the higher viewing figures? That’s right you get guessed it, the terrible twosome, John and Edward Grimes. 

Broadcastnow is predicting a 20:20 Christmas present from X Factor to ITV. They expect up to 20 million people to tune in for the finale which would mean an extra £20 million for struggling ITV.

Certain media analysts are putting the jump in people watching down to the ‘John Seargeant’ effect they boys have had. As I predicted in a previous post the hype surrounding the lads has been great publicity for the show and has helped ramp viewing figures up.

High profile performances from some of the world’s top artists will have undoutbaly helped X Factor attract more viewers, but many a expert say Jedward is the casuse of the X Factor’s ratings boom.

Media agency PHD’s broadcast director Andy Spray told broadcastnow.co.uk the boys were having a big impact: “It’s brought the show back to being about entertainment, which in turn generates more press. If the twins make the final, there could easily be 20 million plus watching.”

X Factor has not only seen inflated viewing figures but also a surge on the X Factor’s website and with a separate show on Sunday viewers have more time to vote for the favourite act, which means more money generated through phone lines and the red button.

And now The Sun says it has a bit of proof that Simon Cowell is actually a fan of the boys. Publicly he’s the boy’s fiercest critic, he leads the nation in their hatred of the young Irish twins. It is his criticism that is fueling the hype surrounding the lads, he is making sure the press have something to report on and making sure they get an abundance of column inches. And in doing so ensuring the X Factor has free publicity and remains in the spotlight. 
  
You never know he may genuinely hate the boys, but I very much doubt it. The boys would have never made it to the live finals without the support from Cowell. He knows the industry inside out and he would have known from the off the boys would be an entertainment and PR sensation.

Cowell will only want one thing this Christmas and that is John and Edward to make it to the final. After all he’s an executive producer of the show and his production company, SyCo, produce the X Factor. Higher ratings this time round means more money for Cowell and his company to produce the show next time round.

NHS strays into political advertising

29 Oct

NHS campaigns have a habit of catching people’s attention by creating harrowing scenes, using powerful imagery or landing a shocking message. But while browsing the Manchester Evening News’ website I came across this piece of advertising from a coalition of Greater Manchester PCTs that caught my eye.

NHS Pic

The NHS flash ad on the MEN website (left turns into right)

The advert is promoting the supposed benefit of introducing a minimum price on a unit of alcohol and links to this website (which bizarrely has no mention on minimum alcohol pricing). This is a strange piece of NHS advertising as it’s political. Should the NHS be advertising to try to promote a change in the law? They have strayed into political advertising and this is not the kind of stuff we usually see from them. Their advertising is normally limited to public health advertising and the occasional recruitment campaign. 

I suppose it grabbed my attention after the all the commotion the British Medical Association created last month by calling for a blanket ban on alcohol advertising in the UK. The BMA want two things – marketing alcohol to be banned and a minimum price per unit of alcohol.  

It is fair enough for the BMA have their say on the issue of binge drinking as they are a pressure group, but the NHS is a government organisation and you would think they would be only allowed to advertise government policy or messages the government wants to promote.

Moirgate: Update

23 Oct

There’s still no advertising around Jan Moir’s column on MailOnline. I wonder how long it will be before brands begin marketing around a Moir piece again? It could be some time and even when someone does there will be an inevitable backlash against the company, orchastrated of course through cyber space pretty much in the same way Moir was targeted. 

It has been fairly lonely around a Moir piece as of lately due to her controversial views on the former Mr Gatley

It has been fairly lonely around a Moir piece as of lately due to her controversial views on the former Mr Gatley.

 

 

So as I like a bit of a gamble, I have decided to place odds as to when a company will take the plunge and agree to their product being shown next to Jan Moir’s smiling face. 

* 1 week : 480/1
* 2 weeks: 267/1
* 3 weeks: 156/1
* When the Advent calendars go up: 114/1
* By Christmas Day: 113 /1
* By New Year’s Eve 2010: 10/1
* Never ever: 5/1

Disclaimer : These odds have absolutely no meaning whatsoever, I cannot take any bet you may want to place as I have little money. Please go to a reputable bookmaker to satisfy your all your Jan Moir related gambling requirements. 

It’s not going to be easy selling ad space next to a Jan Moir piece from now on

16 Oct
n148711373519_9962

Jan Moir's article on Stephen Gatley has caused an advertising blackout on the Mail Online page around her piece.

The Daily Mail’s sales team must be looking forward to getting back to work on Monday. It’s no doubt been fun trying to sell advertising space in the paper and on the website with the Credit Crunch and recession, but now they also have to deal with the fall out from a gay-bashing columnist. 

As you probably have heard Jan Moir made some pretty incentive (that’s putting it nicely) comments about Stephen Gatley and the wider gay community.

The general gist of what she was trying to say is that Stephen Gatley’s homosexuality somehow led to his death and as such it brings into question civil partnerships.

First her comments about Gatley: “And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy. After a night of clubbing, Cowles and Gately took a young Bulgarian man back to their apartment. It is not disrespectful to assume that a game of canasta with 25-year-old Georgi Dochev was not what was on the cards.” 

And now her opinion on gay marriage: “Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael. Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately’s last night raise troubling questions about what happened.”

A lot of people became enraged and as such there has been a barrage of criticism in the media, on the blogs, Facebook and Twitter. This in turn has led to a record number of complaints being made to the Press Complaints Commission. But does the Daily Mail really care if the PCC takes up the case, let’s be honest it’s a fairly toothless organistion with limited powers.

What is really going to worry the management at the Mail if there is a backlash from companies and a drop in advertising revenue. Brands have been quick to disassociate themselves with anything to do with Jan Moir after a well orchestrated Facebook campaign published telephone numbers of companies advertising around Moir’s piece. Marks and Spencer and Nestle demanded their advertising be taken away from around Moir’s column on the website, even though the Mail’s online team promptly removed all advertising from the page after it became apparent that her article hadn’t gone down too well. 

Time will tell what the ramifications for the Daily Mail will be. I can’t imagine any brands will want anything to do with Moir, it’s a fair assumption that the space around her articles will be ad free for some time.

John and Edward are a PR dream

11 Oct
091005_p_johnedwardglamour1

X Factor's dynamic Dublin duo John and Edward

You would think that John and Edward were professional puppy killers or they invented cancer by the way they have been vilified by the media and become hated by large swathes of the population. Although disliked/hated/despised (delete as appropriate) by many, it’s lucky for the Irish duo that X Factor’s
producers seem to have taken a shine to them. 

And of course the pair are no doubt loved by the producers as they are a PR dream. The lads are a media sensation, they have created a press frenzy for the X Factor that none of the ‘talented’ singers have done. They have dominated the tabloids and every TV columnist has lined up to take shots at them, in doing so only fuelling the public’s hatred.

The strongest emotion we have by a long way is our love to hate and the public really seems to hate these boys. But all this hatred is just fantastic news for X Factor’s producers, who will be wishing these boys stay in the competition for a good few weeks.

The longer they do stay in the competition the longer the show will keep hold of people’s attention. When people talk about the X factor they are talking about these two boys. Just check out Facebook, John and Edward are a hit and have generated far more interest than any of the other big names in the competition – Olly Murs, Stacey Solomon, Lucie Jones, Danyl Johnson or Joe McElderry.

There are quite a number of groups that have cropped up in honour of the lads, here is a selection of just a few – ‘We HATE John and Edward’ (by far the most popular with over 80,000 members), ‘GET JOHN AND EDWARD OUT’, ‘john and edward the wankers that got through’ (my personal favourite) and ‘JOHN AND EDWARD SHOULD DIE’ (bit harsh). And to demonstrate how ‘popular’ they have become and to satisfy my apparent urge to draw graphs I have plotted each act’s biggest group/page by number of members (as of 8.30 11/10/2009) on Facebook.

XFac graphPeople may wonder why John and Edward made it to the live finals, Louie may have been accused of choosing them because they are Irish, but the main reason why are still in the X Factor is because of the producers. The longer the dynamic duo stay in the X Factor the longer the public will hold interest in the show and the higher the viewing figures will be which will be make the X Factor’s producers very happy indeed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 412 other followers