Packard hope to stand out, in what is increasingly an extremely crowded market, be selling their tablets in a range of colours. At first it seems like a weak strategy to take on the might of Apple, but it may turn out to be an interesting tactic.
As the majority of tablets which aren’t from Apple all run an Android OS, Packard Bell could be giving themselves an opportunity to differentiate themselves by offering colour customisation.
It also signals an interesting shift at who tablets are being postioned towards. As with most new technologies tablets were scooped up by the early adopters – the kind of technology geeks that wait for hours outside Apple stores to get the latest product first.
However it appears tablets are starting to be aimed at a wider consumer audience. It will be interesting over the coming months to see whether we begin to see a change in how tablets are publicised by PR agencies and marketing departments. It may herald a shift away from articles about technical specifications and a move towards stories which have lighter and fluffier angles.
Adidas’ miCoach app was launched a while agi with a bit of a bang through a high-profile advertising campaign featuring a string of the brand’s star athletes. According to the company spiel, the app allows people with smartphones to turn their device into a personal trainer. The award-winning miCoach app is itself a piece of marketing for Adidas, but no doubt the aim of the advertising campaign was to create an online buzz through Twitter and YouTube and help the video go viral, much in the same way Nike’s World Cup advert did earlier this year.
The online buzz which the Adidas spot was intended to create would have helped drive people to Adidas’ website and towards the iPhone application. Even with so many stars crammed into a one minute spot the advert was far from epic despite the potential, in fact it only generated just over 200,000 views compared to Nike’s effort which was seen well over 20 million times
Adidas also managed to get a couple of decent hits in some top publications through a bit of PR work. There were stories featuring Adidas’ sponsored athletes including Chris Hoy on the Daily Mail Online, Andy Murray in the Sun, and David Davies (swimmer) on Skysport.co.uk. Now some nice hits, but the miCoach is not the narrative of the story, it merely gets a scant mention at the end. The launch of the app also managed to generate a bit of coverage in the marketing, tech and some high-profile titles, and it also continues to be mentioned in various fitness related articles in the press.
Don’t get me wrong the app is a fantastic idea and a great way for a sports brand to connect with its market and build brand loyalty. However the whole communication plan for the app has been below par compared to the amount of potential the app presents; therefore the app would be best promoted through a digital campaign.
The campaign is all about using the app to reach the top of your game and becoming the best you can be. The advertising implies that these top athletes are helped in their quest for excellence by the miCoach app and therefore indirectly by Adidas. In order for the marketing potential for the app to be reached I would launch the miCoach challenge through a digital campaign.
The focus of the campaign would be a mission to turn ordinary people into the best athletes they can be. Adidas would find people with average fitness around the country and then over a course of three/four months these people would use the miCoach app to train with the aim of improving their fitness. People from different areas of the country would be chosen who compete in different sports. The variance in gender, geography, and sports would help engage a wide audience throughout the UK.
The central focus of the campaign would be a microsite with interactive features, such as blogs and vlogs from the competitors who could talk about their training with a personal slant. People could comment on the blogs/vlogs and offer encouragement and ask questions. Addidas’ sponsored athletes could also be filmed training with the competitors and the videos put on the site. The athletes could answer questions and host webcasts from the public sent in through Twitter, email and text.
Various social media applications can be embedded into the site including Twitter and Flickr, where the competitors could engage with their followers. Adidas’ sports scientists would track the progress of the competitors throughout the period the campaign is taking place, and the winner would be the person who has improved their fitness the most. As a follow up challenge they could all participate in the London Marathon and the person who finished first would be crowned the ultimate champion. The marathon lends itself to a great digital campaign as the competitors could be fitted with GPS in order to track their progress throughout the marathon.
The microsite would help build a community around the miCoach app and help allow it to become the focus of the marketing campaign instead of in the background. People are bombarded with so much marketing that is becoming easier to ignore, so therefore brands need to think creatively in order to connect with their audiences.
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?
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.
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.
On the surface of it Waitrose’s latest marketing plan to match Tesco on 1000 branded goods seem a little bit strange.
The scheme has been backed up with a heavy TV, press, outdoor and email advertising campaign, and the launch of the price match has also received a number of mentions in the media.
Waitrose has carved itself a lovely niche in the market by offering quality premium goods, which is different from the low cost strategy of Tesco and Asda. It seems strange Waitrose wants to try and compete with the bargain supermarkets as it is already an extremely competitive end of the market; and an end that seems to demand a constant slew of the advertising in order to keep market share intact.
The timing of the price match is also bizarre. Why launch it now when the economy has recovered and not during the recession when value for money was high on the agenda? Also the thrust of this campaign is that they will match the price of Tesco, not beat it, not undercut them, not actually save anyone any money, so they are offering no unique benefit for people. It also does not match of the other several branded products that supermarkets offer.
A Waitrose shopper has been willing to pay a bit more for their weekly shop in a trade of for quality, they are the Marks and Spencer yummy mummy who are doing their big weekly shop.
So trying to position the supermarket in the same bracket as Tesco, one that is competitive on price, may also damage the brand’s reputation of quality.
However I think this campaign will work. It helps reassure existing customers they are not being ripped off by paying over the odds for the same items, and it will also help to draw in new customers as well. I can imagine this campaign has been launched after a lot of research in which the main finding was that people are intrigued by Waitrose but are put off because of the perceived high price of their goods.
But 19 years ago my mother, a regular Asda shopper, thought she would give Tesco a whirl after hearing it was a little bit better than Asda and just as cheap. So off to Tesco she went to do her regular weekly shop and to her horror she discovered that it had cost her over £10 more. She agreed that some of the goods were better, but she has never been back to Tesco to do her main shop since that day.
So the price match may work in dragging extra people in Waitrose, but once they discover that their shopping costs more the majority will soon revert back to their normal cheaper supermarket.
But a few may enjoy the experience and the food within Waitrose that they may decide to keep on shopping there. So I think this bold strategy will work for the company as it tries to snatch more market share in the ultra-competitive world of supermarket retail.
Now the Tories have the perfect attack on Ed Miliband and therefore the Labour Party. We have already seen a number of protests and strikes from unionised workers and as we all know major cuts will be coming in October, this will lead to more industrial action.
It gives the Tories a narrative to attack Labour and it gives the media a story. It is an extremely powerful message and one that is already no doubt being fleshed out by Tory strategists.
The Tories can paint Ed M as being indebted to the unions. It will be an extremely powerful line, one that will almost certainly be picked up by a media that is sympathetic to the government, and a message is likely the resonate with the pubic. Instead of people such as Bob Crow (head of the RMT union) becoming the cause of annoyance and figures of hate, it will become Ed Miliband and as such the Labour Party.
Although people will be angry at cuts to their services, they also get angry when their lives are disrupted. Look at the recent strikes by RMT workers that put a stop to large sections of the London Underground. People do not care about whether ticket offices remain open, what they do care about is that their journeying around London was disrupted. If the action of unionised members affect people’s lives the Tories will try to get Miliband to denounce them, if he does not they will say it is because they got him elected. This is not a new strategy, but it will be more powerful on Ed and will be more powerful because of the cuts that will be coming. It may help deflect some of the public anger away that is coming the Tories’ way and shift it onto Labour.
So how does Ed Miliband and Labour combat this forthcoming attack? Simple it needs to tell a story why the unions are striking and link it back to direct decisions the government has made.
Labour has to get across that they support the unionised members because they are ordinary hard-working people who are merely opposed to vicious cuts imposed by the coalition. Another powerful counter is that members are not striking to save their jobs but to protect the services that everyone in our country rely upon. That they do not strike because of some dogma, they strike to try to save the services that people need, unlike Tory cuts which are driven by a party doctrine.
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.
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?
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?
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.
David Cameron and George Osborne - the two men behind today's Emergency Budget should be happy at the way it has been positioned
The government has been quick to announce it is cutting its PR and communication budget but what is interesting is the PR of the cuts.
The Emergency Budget is set to be announced today, just as promised within 50 days since the election.
The Government believes it is going to have to make severe cuts to get the country’s finances back in order. The government have tested the public with the earlier announcement of cuts of £6bn of cuts. These were merely just the non-controversial start, ID cards and Quangos are not going to upset too many people and they allowed the government a chance to gauge public opinion.
But we are likely to see the true scale of the cuts in a couple of today’s budget and also further cuts likely to come in the Autumn.
Cuts in the public spending are always going to be controversial, so PR has been vital in order to try to position the government favourably.
The focus of the Con-Dem Government’s media activity has been about the economy and specifically about the need for cuts. They are trying to convince the public – and essentially voters – that the cuts are necessary, the cuts are Labour’s fault and the Con-Dem coalition are saving the economy and the country from tougher times in the future.
The first focus of this PR campaign started before the election with the Conservatives attacking Labour about their handling of the economy. But Luckily for the Conservatives a political consensus had formed about the need for cuts, this allowed the message to be accepted by the public.
Then after forming a government the Conservatives attempted to show the public that the tough decisions they will have to make are merely down to Labour. Stories were fed to the media about how bad the economy and public finances were and how it was all down to Labour. Examples of this are Ministers proclaiming black holes in the department’s budget, the Liam Bryne’s ‘No Money Left’ letter, etc. The strategy then moved onto the consequences of not making cuts, for example Nick Clegg claimed it would not be progressive for future generations to pay for our spending. We have seen in interviews and speeches over the past few weeks time after time government ministers telling us tough times lay ahead, severe cuts will have to be made. They have not given the public details but are merely preparing them for the budget. The public now believe cuts are necessary and that severe cuts are going to be made in today’s Emergency Budget.
We have also had leaks about certain aspects of the budget to try to prepare the public for the cuts and tax rises that will be announced later today – for example a rise in VAT is widely anticipated and if it is confirmed today it will not be a shock.
Overall the Conservative’s communication strategy has been good and they way they have positioned today’s budget, its cuts and tax rises has been top-notch
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.
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.
A product that insults people may make them think twice about buying it.
There are many ways to insult someone, but one of the easiest ways is to call them lazy. So it seems pretty daft that a brand would insult a consumer and then expect them to buy their product.
But this is exactly what this product called ‘Very Lazy’ does – it insults people.
At first glance the product sniffs of quality. I love how the label does not take over the packaging. It lets the attractive natural colour of the produce dominate and as a result it works well.
But they have got the branding of the product so very wrong. No-one likes being called lazy. We all may be a bit lazy from time to time but who in all honestly is proud to be called lazy. So why would a consumer want to be associated with laziness. Products are supposed to make people feel good.
I can see why such a name may work for a product like this, people have busy lives so they don’t want to come home from a long day at work and start cooking a lengthy gourmet meal. People with modern lifestyles want food that is quick and easy to make, but also is tasty and nutritious. The product tries to position itself with good food that can be made speedily and easily. But there are far more positive associations of speed and ease that could be attached to the product.
‘Very Lazy’ is a horrible name for the product. It may as well be called ‘Sloth’ or ‘Can’t be Arsed’ or ‘Idel’.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
People 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.
Companies have cut back on their marketing expenditure during the recession but the government has done the opposite. Government ad spend during the previous financial year was a record £211m, up 35% on the year before. This has helped someway to plug the gap that has been left by a shrinking of commercial advertising spend. Now of course the advertising and media industries must be terrified that if the government cuts back before we are out of the recession they are going to be in trouble.
There has been a recent trend that government ad spend shot up in the run up to a General Election. So it may be lucky for advertisers and the media there will be a poll next year.
Accusations have been thrown at the current government of increasing ad spend in the run up to the past two elections, in particular the last three months before the polls open. Have a look at the lovely graph I made, the orange bars show COI’s advertising spend in the financial year before the elections held in 2001 and 2005, both of which were held in May.
Figures show in the run up to the 2001 General Election advertising spend was £60 over three months. This was double what it was the previous year and almost half of the year’s entire budget. £16m was spent in January 2001, this rose to £16.4m in February and ad spend ballooned to £30.2m by March.
And amongst the 15 campaigns that were launched was a £3m campaign targeting benefit fraud. Why not have a watch yourself of some vintage government advertising…
Fair enough you might say, we have to target those dam benefit cheats and this advert may put the frightners on them. However the government was accused of not even targeting the campaign at those likely to commit benefit fraud. Panorama used a couple of media analysts to show that press ad expenditure was almost all in the ‘quality press’. Titles such as The Times, The Telegraph were used while The Sun, The Mirror and The Star were largely ignored. I’m not in trying to flare up a class war, but those likely to commit benefit fraud would probably favour the tabloids. So the message was accused of being targeted at those key middle class voters, the ones who’s support would win a second term for Labour.
Reassuring voters
Opponents have accused the government of trying to sneaking party propaganda into publicly funded ad campaigns. It’s not a new argument, Tony Blair levelled the accusation at the Tories in the build up to the 1987 election. But are sexual health, binge drinking, drugs and knife crime ads merely launched to reassure worried voters the administration is taking action on issues of public concern? Are they about reassuring the middle classes or are they intended to help solve the problem? Take the government’s new climate change campaign (picture at top) is this meant to help persuade people Global Warming is a serious issue or is it meant to reassure the green vote and persuade skeptics that the government is taking climate change seriously?
There are two arguments that critics throw at the government. The first is that government launch campaigns (like the benefit fraud spots) to reassure skeptical voters and not really to try and tackle the problem. However surely this cannot be said of the majority of government advertising campaigns, which are launched to try and tackle serious problems. Adverts are needed for public sector recruitment, to inform of new or changing laws or change people’s opinions about serious social issues. Adverts launched by the NHS about spotting strokes or quitting smoking cannot be viewed as political and are genuine attempts to help solve serious problems.
However the other and perhaps more damaging criticism is that the government jacks up it spend in the year preceding an election in the hope that a blitz of advertising will create the impression of furious government activity, in doing so persuade sceptical voters the government is working hard and tackling sensitive issues that are of concern.
Ad blitz in 2010?
Of course if advertising spend does jump again – particularly after last year’s record spend – it will lead to huge criticism of Gordon Brown and his government, especially as the public debt is at a record level. But with an election being held in either May or June the polls will have been closed for some time before the COI publishes it annual report in July, therefore the government may not have to worry too much about the backlash of ramping up its ad spend from now until the election. But an indicator that the government is beefing up its spend will be obvious to all. First the award of accounts after a number of pitches and then the inevitable bombardment of campaigns that will hit our TVs, magazines, radios, billboards, bus stops, buses and newspapers in early 2010.
Mark Lund, the chief executive of COI, recently told Campaign: “Government campaigns can help save lives and save money.” Well Gordon Brown may be hoping a government advertising blitz in the build up to the 2010 Election will help save Labour MPs and save his government.
People 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.
