Has The World Gone Bonkers?

Ok, this post raises something very unsavoury but I just couldn’t get this thought out of my head all day. Sometimes I just think the world has gone completely bonkers …

Most of you have probably shaken your head at the absolutely ridiculous situation where parents are banned from taking photos of their own children in public for fear of paedophilic activity. If you want something to shake you head at, something that is completely over the top, then check out examples of parents banned from taking photos of their own daughter at the park or a father banned from taking a picture of his daughter playing netball.

Not enough? Then check out the 82yo grandma banned from taking photos of an EMPTY POOL!

It’s just crazy. But, and just maybe I can’t see it, there is a real threat being kept at bay here and that I should be thankful that my son and other kids are being watched vigilantly by authorities.

However, I shook my head when I read about Johnson’s Baby Channel which is running a competition where parents send in videos of their children having fun in the bath for the chance to win $10 000. Check out this kid below … his laugh made my smile.

Can someone please tell me how is ok to post videos of naked kids for the whole world to see but it is unacceptable to take photos of fully clothed children playing sport (for family albums).

Don’t get me wrong, I think the channel and what Johnson’s are doing is a great way to connect mothers. But how long will it be before some bright spark decides that this is just as bad as taking photos of your kids in public and puts pressure on YouTube to take down any videos like this? After all, Facebook banned photos of mothers breastfeeding their children and that is one of the most natural things ever!

Technorati Tags: Johnson's Baby Channel,FaceBook,YouTube

Direct Mail: The Cool, The Lazy and The Stupid

I have received a couple of pieces of that old war house lately, direct mail, and the thing that struck me was how they covered the whole spectrum between great and shithouse. The great one I shared with Nathan Bush, Another Advertising Wanker, and so I invited him to provide in post comments on my direct mail experiences of late.

Nathan says “Generally I try to avoid the letterbox as the Dollarmites puzzle books have been replaced by Commonwealth Bank debt collector threats. But when Oyster told me about the post he was writing I took a little more notice.”

The Stupid – BUDGET Direct

First cab of the rank was a piece of mail that turned up that carried no identifying markings. In the address window it read “You Have Been Specially Selected” and when I opened the envelope it was addressed to “Dear Resident”.

Wow, really? So special am I that they don’t even know my name! I couldn’t wait to see the offer and I was pleased to read that my suburb has fewer than average car insurance claims and that I should turn over to see what they could save me. I wasn’t surprised when the examples the provided didn’t include any from the ACT.

The culprit, Mark Deighton, General Manager of Sales, BUDGET Direct.

Nathan Bush reckons “This also includes letters from politicians. Why do they put it in envelopes instead of on pamphlets? So that they get you excited and then let you down. Kind of like an election.”

The Lazy – Foxtel

Second comes a combo piece from Foxtel. I have been a long subscriber to Foxtel and I received a refer a friend offer but then a few days later receive another “Dear Resident” letter encouraging me to subscribe! WTF?

Interesting to note that the one actually addressed to me as a subscriber was just signed off by “The Foxtel Team” (and not even a fake signature) but the one encouraging me to subscribe carried a fake signature from Patrick Delaney, Executive Director – Sales and Product. Seriously Patrick, how lazy can you be to not even cross check the database to take out existing subscribers?

Nathan Bush reckons “And there's nothing better that I like than watching football from the comfort of my home while texting the score to those living without Foxtel. I'm not going to recommend my friends get Foxtel - it will take the fun out of it for me”

The Cool – Centrebet

This piece of direct mail is seriously cool and I received it because I have a Centrebet account. The envelope contained a DL sized card and 3 tattoos. The card outlines that I would receive a free $10 bet if I sent Centrebet a photo of me wearing the tattoo at any sporting event in 2009. Each month’s favourite photo receives a free $100 bet and if I can jag a pic with a celebrity then I will go in the draw to win a free $1000 bet on the AFL or NRL grand final, two tickets to one of the grand finals plus $1000 for a charity of my choice.

What a great idea and I know Nath is a big sports fan so I asked him if he had an account and if he got his tattoos? He has an account but sadly, did not receive any tattoos. Last reports still have him waiting by the letterbox like a dog who has lost it owner. So, sharing the love, I sent him a tattoo and here he is proudly wearing it at the Broncos v Storm game last Friday night.

I am saving mine for the Socceroos v Uzbekistan World Cup qualifier next week in Sydney. I have one more tattoo left … free to good home. Let me know.

Nath says “It is a bloody big tattoo. Tho only place it would fit was up my arm or across my backside. My girlfriend chose the arm. Despite the embarrassment caused by sitting in a grand stand with a bunch of bigger guys with real tattoos - this was actually quite fun.”

I would however have liked to see them integrate some social media on this one. They could have set up Twitter, Flickr and Facebook accounts and posted pictures of people with their tattoos. Hey Centrebet, there is still time …

Oh, and please see if you can get Nathan Bush his tattoos. You don’t have to worry about him winning any money from the free bets because he is a Raiders supporter.

Finally, Nath says “The element that differentiates the stupid and the lazy from the good is offering something that no other medium can. The stupid and the lazy examples could have easily been emailed or brochured as they showed little creativity or relevance for the DM medium. On the other hand, Centrebet delivered a brand experience via the mail which surprised and excited me. It brought this idea and experience to my door, and to my attention, in a way that no other medium could. That is the power of DM.”

Does anyone have any examples of Cool, Lazy or Stupid DM experiences or want the last tattoo?

How To Suggest An Idea

I often come up with new ideas just out of thin air that I think might work well. At the “light bulb” moment I obviously haven’t put too much thought into it and haven’t critically analysed it. But the idea is kinda like starting a fire. Unfortunately I have worked in a few places where the fire gets a bucket of water thrown on it people who are keen to tell me why it can’t be done and why it won’t work.

A fire needs TLC. It starts out small but you need to blow on it, nurture it and add more fuel (and do it all in the right order) before it can be something useful. If you show someone a fire that is in its infancy, with a very small flame and a few bits of dry grass then they will tell you it is useless. And they would be right because it isn’t big enough to cook on or to keep you warm. However, give it some TLC and it can become a very useful thing indeed.

Granted not all my ideas are top shelf but I think a work environment should encourage people putting their ideas forward and we should all be watchful of staff who have a bright idea and encourage them and work with them to flesh it out. Fleshing it out doesn’t mean we are committing to it … we are just exploring it to see if it has some potential to become something useful.

I use an egg timer to combat the bucket of water throwing co-workers. It is built on a technique that a former boss of mine used to use at our annual Think Tank. Her name is Lou Mayo and she used to be my boss at Australian Business Academy. At our Think Tank we used to have a session where any employee could suggest any idea and the group could only contribute positive things to that idea for the first 5 minutes.

It meant that all ideas had a chance to have some kindling put on them and a nice big blow of air to kick start them. Some ideas caught fire and were implemented. Others needed a serious bucket of water but it meant that we at least explored people’s ideas and gave them a chance to catch on. All in an environment where they felt confident to put their ideas forward because they knew that the buckets of water were not waiting in the wings.

So now I have an egg timer on my desk and whenever I have “a bright idea” that I wish to talk through with someone then I tell them that I am getting the egg timer out and that they can only contribute positive things for the first 5 minutes.

Once the egg timer goes off then it is fair game for a bucket of water. We can take a step back and critically analyse it.

Fosters Defaces Australian Flag

You would have had to have been paying very close attention but if you were you would have seen the disgusting defacement of our national flag by Fosters.

It is something that companies in England have done for a while and it is something of a necessary evil (well sort of). Companies produce English flags, but put their logos on them, and then give them away or sell them cheap with the result being that lots of houses and cars would fly the English flag and patriotism would be displayed. It always made for a great spectacle around World Cup time.

However, it never sat well with me. A country’s flag is one of its most purist symbols and there are rules governing its use both in order to protect it and what it represents.

You may remember Dick Smith (2001) landing himself in hot water for defacing the Australian flag and breaking the rules when he used it on the packaging in his grocery line.

He got busted because the rules are set out in Australian Flags, released by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Under the heading "Commercial use of the flag or flag image” it states explicitly and unambiguously, (quote):

The Australian National Flag, or representation of the flag, may be used for commercial or advertising purposes without formal permission, subject to the following guidelines:

> The flag should be used in a dignified manner and reproduced completely and accurately
> The flag should not be defaced by overprinting with words or illustration

You can see why Dick got himself in hot water.

So, last Friday night, as Marcus North became the 18th Australian to score a century on debut, the camera panned to a section of the crowd with Aussie supporters in it … and there it was, a jubilant fan waving an Aussie flag with the Fosters logo emblazoned across it. Clearly in breach of the guidelines of its use.

With the Australian team sponsored by VB and the South Africans being sponsored by Castle (a South African beer), I couldn’t help, in my cynical mind, wonder if this was some sort of ambush marketing and that Fosters reps were handing out Fosters sponsored flags for supporters to take into the ground and display.

Or maybe it was a poorly executed attempt to strengthen the overseas perception that Fosters is the beer drunk by all Australians.

Are you disgusted by it as much as I am or do you think that all is fair in love and war?

Why Even Bother Blogging?

Matt Granfield over at Zakazuhka Zoo wrote the other day that "Daniel Oyston, my favourite Canberra-based writer since the late (great) Matt Price, wrote a lovely little piece yesterday about the rules of social media engagement - the ones that have been made up by social media commentators along the way. He questioned whether we should try and follow them, or just give up and let the marketers do what they want." ... and that "He knew the answer of course"

awww shucks Matt, thanks for the nice comments. Matt's right though. I did know the answer but I thought it was an important enough topic, considering some recent marketing debacles, to start a conversation on it. And that's the thing ... I wanted to start a conversation. Not just tell people what I think they should know. That's because I don't think I know everything and I am keen to get your views and opinions.

But to do that I believed that I needed to write a post that didn't cover everything so that people felt they could add to the conversation. I had to hold back a little.

I took this approach because there are a few blogs that I read which leave me feeling like I have been reading a news bulletin (Mumbrella the nice exception of course). Too many blogs are lecturing me and I get to the end of the blog and think "wow, they have written so much and covered so many points that I don't have anything to contribute". I then move onto the next blog. It seems that some writers need to take the opportunity to impart onto me everything they know.

Lee Hopkins wrote in a comment at a recent Laurel Papworth post that "... in the same way that television news presenters are not allowed to express an opinion but just read the teleprompt, so as social media pundits our duty (if one can be so high-browed as to call it that) is to report what is happening in our space."

If that is true then blogging will become about as social as watching news on television (granted that it will be more targeted and more timely). Just because people have the ability to leave a comment doesn't make it social. People can write a letter to the station but no one considers that social.

I was pretty upfront with Lee and told him that line of thinking is ridiculous.Surely Mumbrella has that covered? Our job in the social media space is to start conversations. If your friends just spoke to(at) you about what was happening and provided no opportunities to have a proper conversation then you would stop hanging out with them.

Lee responded "But Daniel, surely if a “sermon” is offered from the pulpit of a blog that is an invitation to converse? Just like we are doing here?". I don't think it is. In fact the defintion of a sermon includes "a long, tedious speech". Nothing about a conversation. In the true sense of a sermon, inside a church, there is never a conversation with the community that follows it.

To make matters worse, Julian Cole notes in the comments on his current post that "Bloggers love talking about the same topic though, that is how they all get their linklove on."

Combine that with the sermon/lecture approach and you have a problem. If bloggers are all talking "at" me about the same thing, and those things are news, then I really don't see the point of subscribing. This is definitely a trend. Keep and eye out for it next time you log on to your RSS reader and keep a little tally of the number of blog posts that talk at you rather than seriously crafting something that starts a conversation. Also, keep a tally of the number of posts that talk about the same thing. Double points if you catch any that do both.

Read any guide on how to write a blog post and any worth their salt will advise you to finish the post with a question or something else that will invite comments. Darren Rouse at Problogger notes in a post last year that with regards to conversation "often the real action happens once your post is published and being interacted with by readers and other bloggers."

Don't get me wrong, I have fallen into the sermon/lecture trap once or twice in my short blogging career. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but looking back at my posts that received very few comments it is obvious that I was talking at you rather than starting a conversation.

Are the so called rules of blogging changing because bloggers are too lazy to put some real though into writing a post that adds value and instead would rather provide news on something we have read on 4 other blogs or just lecture us on what they think we should know? How many times have you fallen into the trap in your eagerness to show everyone who reads your blog just how much you know?

Why Must We Obey Social Media Rules?

Over the last few weeks we have seen some campaigns and actions in the social media space that have pushed the boundaries. You would have to be living under a rock to have missed the whole Witchery and QLD Tourism sagas. Both of these pushed (or broke the boundaries) in terms of what some of us argue are the rules of social media.

Additionally, Julian Cole and Laurel Papworth have both provided some other examples of individuals (not companies) that have pushed the boundaries of social media.

Julian recently wrote about how "Cash for comment is alright in Social Media" and that there is currently a trend amongst Youtube Vloggers (US) that transparency is not a rule of social media. Laurel recently wrote about "Twitter: Bots gone bad" and interruptive ads on Twitter.

Peter Wagstaff, Zac Martin and I also briefly touched on this subject in episode 84 of the Marketing Today Podcast where I wondered whether in the future, brands will set up Twitter profiles and quickly harvest loads of followers with the aim of spamming them. So what if people block them? They can easily set up loads more profiles and repeat the process (especially when people auto-follow).

The argument of "brand reputation" may stand up in regards to large and reputable companies but these are not necessarily the ones who spam anyway. The risk of brand damage certainly doesn't stop us getting spam in our inboxes.

In Lauren's case, she received an apology. But what I am starting to see is a lot more examples of companies breaking the so-called rules and I am not so sure the consequences are all that much of a deterramt. For example, it can go one of three ways.

1. A company breaks the so-called rules and then pleads ignorance but still benefits (QLD Tourism),

2. A company breaks the so-called rules and benefits (Withchery, Vloggers), or

3. A company breaks the so-called rules, gets caught, and just says "sorry" and everyone gets on with it but they still benefit (@wibbler).

I posed the question on Julian's blog that "For a while some of us have been noting that the rules of social media are being defined by those that practice it (by that I mean active bloggers, twitter users etc) in the hope of keeping the corporate/brands from “polluting it” … but maybe the cracks are starting to appear?"

You will note that each of the 3 scenarios still results in a benefit being received by the company/person breaking the so-called rules. So my question is - why would they bother taking much notice of the so-called rules? Can we build stronger defences or should we resign ourselves to these new channels being polluted just like TV, Radio and Newspaper?

How Can Social Media Help Attract Volunteers?

Fire crews prepare themselves in Stanley before heading into bushland to

fight fires near Beechworth. Picture: Ben Swinnerton on news.com.au

This post is a little long but if you really want to help change the world and use your marketing and social networking skills then read on.

While the post is long, the conversation is definitely one that you can contribute to and where you might just help save someone’s life next time such a tragedy occurs (bush fire or other).

At time of writing, at least 750 homes have been destroyed across Victoria and 3733 people have registered with the Red Cross after evacuating their properties. The number left homeless is expected to be far higher, the Red Cross has said.

The social media space is hot on the situation. news.com.au reports that “on Facebook a number of groups have been set up to support the victims’ families, the Country Fire Authority (CFA), and communities under threat from blazes burning across the state. The most popular Facebook group is one titled “Applaud the CFA heroes & empathise with the victims of the 09 Vic bushfires” and has 4861 members as of 4.38am (AEDT)”

"Just give a thought to the CFA and a Buck or 2 if you can. Even a Lamington. Cause those people are working in Hell," said MySpace user Gonzo.

It is fantastic, that as usual, Australians (many of whom must be doing it tough in the economic climate) have been so generous with donations of money and goods. This support is essential to help families rebuild their lives.

Only a few weeks ago a colleague of mine, who is a CFA volunteer, told me that their local brigade is in membership deficit. He asked me if I thought social media could help their local brigade attract more members, particularly young adults. I told him that I was sure it could but not sure exactly how but that I would give it some thought.

So how can social media help? Well we all know that prevention is better than cure. The reality is that the current donations and support treat the symptoms. Will the fact that social media is being used result in more donations? Probably not. Hope I am wrong.

We also know that many organisations that carry out important community work are lacking in volunteers. I am going out on a limb here but would hazard a guess that many of those existing volunteers, such as those in the CFA, are drawn from non-marketing backgrounds and may not know what else to do to attract young volunteers other than conducting letter box drops and open days.

If that is too much of an assumption, and you know otherwise, please contribute to this conversation and let us know what others have done to attract volunteers, particularly young adults.

I have a few ideas myself but I don’t want to lead the conversation any more than this post. If you have an idea, please comment, don’t be scared that it might not be a “perfect” idea because it may just get others thinking about how to refine it. Also, don’t limit your thinking to the CFA and the current situation. Offer ideas that any volunteer organisation might be able to use.

So, the question I want to ask you is “How can volunteer organisations use social media to attract volunteers, particularly young adults?”

Hey Fitzy! Not all Gamblers are Losers

I am a regular reader of The Fitz Files by Peter FitzSimons in Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald. It is a cracker read and always filled with interesting stories and round-ups.

However last Saturday I was left confused, and slightly pissed off, by a rant that he opened with entitled "Punter born every minute". You can read it here. I really encourage you to take a minute to read it as it provides important context to what I am about to write and it isn't very long.

Fitzy has so missed the mark by generalising about who sport gamblers are. For us marketers, if you generalise about a market in the same way then you should be embarrassed.

He rants that if we disagree with his assertion that anybody who gambles is a "loser" then we should "sit down and shut up". Show some manners Fitzy, you are being ignorant.

Let's examine this a little more. Before that, some disclosure. I like a punt. Sometimes it is footy, sometimes it is horses and sometimes I go crazy wild and put it on a multi-bet (woo hoo watch out!). I follow two golden rules. 1 - Never bet more than I can afford to lose and 2) I never gamble to make up for my losses.

Sure there are problem gamblers in Australia but to imply that the majority of gamblers are throwing away their mortgage, grocery or rent money is just ignorant. To flat out tell me that I don't care to acknowledge that I am pissing my money up against the wall is just dumb. I know a lot of people who punt like I do and all quite happily service their mortgages and feed themselves and their families. Fine upstanding members of the community and not a "loser" as Fitzy so eloquently portrays.

Consider this. Have you ever been to the movies? We'll you just pissed your money up against the wall! "No I didn't, I paid to be entertained by a movie" I hear you say. Aaah, now we are getting somewhere.

You see, part of the problem lies in the product and the tribalism that footy promotes. The fact is that not very many people at all, outside of their own supporters, really cares about the product of a Sunday afternoon game on TV between, for example, the Raiders and Bulldogs. But guess what? Throw $10 on the game and suddenly you are riding every tackle, bust and kick! It actually makes what was a very boring product suddenly 1000 times more exciting. And you might just win a few bucks. In contrast, have you ever won money by being entertained at the movies?

Or have you ever been to a game? Sure the atmosphere might be better but are you pissing your money up against the wall because you could have watched it for free at home or through the Fox subscription that you have already paid for? Not at all, you go because the excitement of a game is better than watching it at home. Being their makes the offering better. That's what having a punt on the footy is like - it enhances the offering.

I mean let's face it, crowd figures at League games are embarrassing and one of the major reasons is the price of tickets - particularly to take a family and maybe feed them while they are there (don't even think about on of those $8 bourbon and cokes!). While I agree with Fitzy that in the long run nearly every gambler will lose money, he loses sight of the fact that many people gamble not just because of the chance to win a few bucks but because it increases the value of the product - it makes it more interesting for the consumer.

Maybe the focus should be put on the administrators to deliver a product that the public sees greater value in and which will bring back crowd figures to League games. Maybe then they will get more of the supporters money through gate receipts than having to chase their money through gambling operations.

PS - I still love The Fitz Files and will read it as soon as I finish Carlos' sports crossword.

Should a Blogger Contribute or Create?

Since I started this blog I have usually had a post idea or two in my pocket for when the time comes to write a post. However this week the three post ideas I have are taking a little longer to develop than I had anticipated ... so I was stuck with no pearls of marketing wisdom to impart on you!

It occurred to me that I often contribute interesting view points (well I think so anyway) to conversations on other posts that I could, instead of contributing to the conversation, hold back and develop the idea/point into my own blog post.

An example is a comment I made at Consumer Psychologist where Adam Ferrier commented that "I think people with a history in social media who want careers in marketing and communications should get educated in the broader aspects of human behaviour and marketing. Please. Some of the comments people are making in this space are at best naive".

You can read my comment here. As I was writing the comment I almost stopped and kept it to develop into my own post but then decided that would be against one of the general concepts of blogs - to create conversations.

So I am wondering, do you wrestle with the same problems? Do you often start to write a comment on someone’s blog but then keep it for your own post development? Do you have a trick where you can contribute and create at the same time?

Is Television Actually Killing Itself?

I see lots of proclamations that traditional media is dying with dwindling viewers/listeners/readers and that traditional advertising doesn't work. I am not sure if this is true or not but cannot see in the foreseeable future that radio/tv/newspapers will fall over all together.

However, it occurred to me, that in the case of television, that maybe it is the TV stations who are to blame for the spruiked decline. And maybe this is linked to reality TV.

I think TV stations are lazy and are too happy to trundle out some shitty reality TV shows. In turn, I think the viewers are bored of the same concepts and if others are anything like me then they don't know which show they are watching because half of them look the bloody same! So I don't bother watching TV as much.

Here is an example - Bondi Vet. You won't check it out but if you want to click here. WTF! Who cares? This show sounds so boring that it will be lucky to make it into a 2nd season. Is it really that different from other animal shows such as RSPCA Rescue or Animal Hospital (I think that is what they are called :)

Hey TV execs ... no wonder people turn off and advertisers are jumping ship. Wake up to yourselves! Create some good shows and people will watch them. If a restaurant serves shitty food do expect that the customers will return? Of course not. So stop serving up shitty shows. It is not a hard concept. If you can't grasp that concept then maybe you should check out this link.

However, as more and more advertisers jump ship, then does the space left, which is occupied by less advertisers, actually become an easier space to advertise in? Will advertisers get better returns because there is less clutter?

Ok, that's enough of a rant. Here a a few things to round off with ...

MARKETING TODAY PODCAST

Wags has asked me to provide some regular content to the podcast. It was born from a suggestion that he incorporate a social media moron award into the podcast. He suggested back that I should do it myself! So I will and am about to record my first segment after I finish reading this blog. I will be talking about a bloke doing 200kmh on his motorbike and David Armano's recent efforts. Be sure to check out the Marketing Today podcast here ... not because I will be on it but because Wags and the gang do an outstanding job.

CANBERRA SOCIAL MEDIA BREAKFAST

I got in contact with Stephen Collins of acidlabs to instigate a Canberra Social Media Breakfast (ala Friday coffees in Sydney and Melbourne). If you are in Canberra, or know of anyone who is, and would be interested then we will be starting this Friday at Cream in Civic. Check out the event here.