Sunday, May 31, 2009

Paid for content “inevitable”
The move by online publishers to introduce subscription-based news content is inevitable but will only be successful if content is targeted and the price is right, according to industry analysts Frost & Sullivan

Mmm, as Bruno would say "Ich don't think so"
You're joking me right? Has anyone at Frost and Sullivan seen the internet? Bottomless pit? Multitude of content to choose from? And, the sweetest and juciest part- if someone decides to make something 'paid for', some other company sees an advantage in making exactly the same content available for free. There's already been a lot of commentary about the Facebook example- if it became paid for the majority of members would just move to something else. One article here.

Don't even start to think about blogs as a way out of paying, where more and more people look to for opinion on news stories, but rather think about the concept of piracy - 41% of all software is pirated. A huge massive figure and a testament to the nature of people v IP.

It's looking like the software, movie and music industries appear to have gotten that chestnut "under control" and I don't think news would be any different. Yes there are some properties seeing some traction in a paid for model, but in the end you can get the content anywhere if you look hard enough and know the right search string.

Frost and Sullivan, you got the wool over your eyes. Yes, some people are honest and they'll pay, but the internet is anonymous. Which means most people won't pay because they cloak themselves in the fact that they can be dishonest because no-one knows who they are and that, Frost and Sullivan, is the bott-om line.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Angry applicants attack Doritos

B&T: Furious competition applicants have attacked FMCG brand Doritos over the handling of its ‘You make it, we play it’ ad promotion. Online forums, including Doritos’ YouTube site, have been inundated with comments from angry applicants claiming that they were unable to submit their ads due to a frequently crashing competition website.
One comment on the YouTube site read: “A lot of us have been robbed of the chance to compete in a fair competition.”

Doritos, I told you you were fucked. Thanks for over delivering.
Bashing post 1
Bashing post 2

Exploitation of poor souls trying to get their 15 inches of fame. Not cool Doritos, not cool.
If you don’t set up proper management systems, to handle the influx of content, what’s the point? 2,000 videos is a bit of a shitload, considering the US version got 5,000. Makes our participation stats a whole lot higher, but not very cool when you forget about the people who matter the most- the audience.

It makes me sad to know that these campaign planners come up with all these ideas for the brand –

  • Let’s find the audience in the right channels and show them our ads
  • Let’s get the audience to make more ads. Make content for us, spread our message amongst their peer group
  • Then we’ll give some of our audience the fame they seek
  • And then we’ll not put any effort into receiving the content, making sure our audience is actually looked after when they put in effort to contribute to our brand.

I feel sorry for the people who put in such effort. Forget that this is bad for the campaign, what about all the UGC activations in the future? Shame on you Clemenger BBDO for giving all advertisers a bad name.