Last October I posted about two social media strategy models I had been working on. The first was Response and the second was Broadcast.
Taking on the advice of Gavin Heaton and Kate Richardson I have made some slight adjustments to the Response model. While I would recommend reading the original post, the key differences are the addition of measurement on behalf of the marketer and recognising the circular nature of this process.
So far, not that interesting. The campaign is okay, not really purple cow material but certainly not too bad. What I did like was the approach taken to encourage people to submit entries. Readers of men’s magazines Ralph and Zoo were told if they submitted an entry with a copy of the magazine in the video, they would receive a free slab of Carlton Dry. A great incentive to encourage people to enter competitions, particularly those with high levels of engagement.
Unfortunately it seems they have decided to ignore the submission I entered before the deadline. One email address I attempted to contact them on was rejected and the other has gone ignored. Can anyone put my in touch with someone behind the campaign? I want my free slab of beer.
If not, the half a day I spent making the videos means I have enough pent up anger to never buy Carlton Dry. Ever.
If I dropped the suggestion that Julian Cole and Jye Smith do more than just blog together, am I financially liable if it is deemed slanderous? Is Blogger?
If you do sue me all you’ll take is my beer money for the next fortnight and maybe a weekly train ticket but maybe something I should be thinking about.
Can my law peeps help?
Unless anyone objects..?
I don’t know what it is, but lately a lot of content that has had me in tears. I feel like someone finally understood my sense of humour and is tailoring productions to meet my comedic needs. The latest is a series of posters by Craig. Pretty funny stuff. But turns out the idea and even the copy belongs to Chris.
If he were a brand I’d tear him to shreds. I don’t know where my moral compass stands in regards to non branded/commercial content. I’m leaning towards not cool.
But what’s is cool is the response. I’ve seen a few online, but here are two I spotted walking down Chapel Street today.
Admittedly they weren’t quite as funny as the originals (or fakes) but love the user generated responses that a popping up everywhere. Couldn’t get a better high resolution version, maybe if they’d written less and printed it bigger they would get more coverage online?
But what is rad, one of these was from a local bakery who wanted Craig to to join a club they started. For ten minutes work, what a great idea for a small business.
He smiled and asked what question I was up to.
Yet another example of the University demonstrating just how far behind they are.
The fact I was actually on Facebook because the tutorial was terribly boring is irrelevant.
Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Of course it depends on your objectives. So when Avril Lavigne’s Girlfriend video (not available to Australians) passed Evolution of Dance for the All Time Most Viewed video on YouTube earlier this year, it’s hard to argue her video had the same viral qualities because she cheated.
When a campaign runs a microsite with a video on the front page, you can earn millions of pageviews. This doesn’t mean the content has been spread, especially not virally.
Therefore you can’t measure if a video has gone viral just on hits. Instead look at how many people are talking about it and ultimately their influence on those listening.
Side note before I start, how fucking awesome are the ABC? Not only are they producing the best television content in Australia but they’re doing a killer job in the transition from old to new media. Podcasting, online content, iView. Awesome. They continue to lead the way, in fact my second ever post 18 months ago said something similar.
Anywho, in the show, Lawrence was looking at some techniques for picking up girls. One guy suggested the use of phonetic ambiguity, which is when you say something that can be interpreted as something else but more subtly.
The example they used was the term “below me”, which can sound like “blow me”. So when you say to a girl about something being below you, she’s apparently meant to drop to her knees.
I’m struggling to see this actually work but more interestingly has it been done in marketing before?
Or can you think of your own to use in a TVC or radio spot?