Archive for the ‘TV’ Category

The Beeb attacked again – why, we ask?

August 16th, 2010 by Rik

Another week, another debate over the BBC’s role in the commercial marketplace.  This time the row has returned to Project Canvas, the BBC’s internet-meets-television venture. It’s currently being developed in partnership with ITV, Channel 4, Talk Talk and broadcast transmission group Arqiva. This time it was the turn of Virgin Media to take the BBC to task, calling on Ofcom to investigate the venture on the grounds that it will “significantly and irreparably harm competition“. Once again, we find ourselves on well trodden ground.

Last year James Murdoch launched a really quite amazing attack on the BBC, claiming that “the scope of its activities and ambitions is chilling”. It’s worth reading that back and reminding yourself that this is from the man set to inherit the reigns to one of the world’s most powerful media conglomerates. And now that BSkyB has purchased Virgin Media, we can surely expect to see plenty more anti-BBC rhetoric coming from both camps. BSkyB itself is no stranger itself to concerns over market dominance, so just how much credibility should we, as consumers and license fee payers, attach to these concerns?

As far as BSkyB and Virgin Media are concerned, the BBC is harming competition across several of its platforms. The BBC was arguably the first to realise the huge potential in video-on-demand services, for example, and stole a march on its rivals with the launch of the iPlayer back in 2007. James Murdoch was again quick to voice his concerns, claiming that the iPlayer was launched as a “pre-emptive intervention” aimed at “squashing competitors” in the broadband TV market. Just a few months ago, the BBC came under fresh criticism (again, from James Murdoch) for looking to strike a deal with ITV and Channel 4, amongst others, to share content on the iPlayer platform.

Presumably Mark Thompson hasn’t been holding a gun to anybody’s head during these negotiations, which would theoretically result in more people accessing ITV’s and Channel 4’s content. It’s easy to understand why BSkyB would be concerned over the potential success of such a deal, but isn’t that just the nature of business?

The fact that the BBC is answerable to the BBC Trust gives its competitors the opportunity to play this same debate out in the newspapers which, with their vested interest, are happy to peddle the issue. If it is the job of regulatory bodies such as Ofcom and the BBC Trust to protect the interests of consumers and citizens and to promote competition, surely they should be encouraging the fact that the license fee contributes towards such innovation. And if that makes the wider industry up its game, all the better.

[top]

The price of PR

July 26th, 2010 by Louisa

I’m a little behind on my TV viewing but last week I had the pleasure of settling down on the sofa to catch up on the new series of Dragon’s Den, which returned to our screens a fortnight ago. It’s a wonderful concept – you get to snigger and marvel at some of the more ludicrous ideas a la X Factor, but because it’s about ‘business’ you feel totally vindicated about watching.

True to its form the first episode included some howlers, such as a strange lighting system for street signs, which received the dubious accolade of being named the worst idea ever to be presented on the show. It also saw some exciting ventures that received investment from the Dragons including a Devon-based vineyard owner that was looking to fund his fractional concept – selling plots of the vineyard to consumers for a number of years, resulting in their own-brand sparkling wine  - I rather fancy a bottle of Dom Osmondignon, if I say so myself. http://www.pebblebed.co.uk/

However, the over arching success story of the first episode was Kirsty Henshaw, a young entrepreneur looking for investment for her frozen dessert business, which was borne out of her son’s food intolerances: http://www.worthenshaws.co.uk/. She clearly knew her stuff and had managed to get intent from the UK’s largest supermarket for a trial. The Dragons were clearly very, very impressed and it became obvious that a bidding war would ensue. She eventually ended up accepting a deal from ice cream aficionado Duncan Bannatyne and Reggae Reggae sauce success story Peter Jones. An excellent result for her business. Or is it?

My ears pricked up during her pitch when she asked for £65,000 for “branding and PR”. This sounds like a lot of capital for a fledgling business, but when you start breaking it down, you realise that it will soon diminish. Branding doesn’t come cheap so taking a reserved estimate you can expect that she would part with around £35,000, leaving £30,000 for PR, not to mention that she also needed to find the money to increase stock, so actually the PR budget would probably be even less. Given that the product is new and very different to the norm she would firstly need a trade PR campaign to introduce the dessert to the market and encourage buyers to list her. Once achieved it is likely she would want also to invest in consumer PR – spreading the word amongst the people that she wants to give her pudding freezer space. This is a huge task and one that certainly wouldn’t fit within the very modest budget that had been earmarked. This reminded me of a jewellery designer a few series ago that thought she could invest £500 a month in PR, but you have to ask yourself, what’s the point? You may as well save your money as £500 is not going to create a strategic campaign that delivers on the bottom line.

My point is that it seems many people have an unrealistic view of the price of PR – evidently some of the Dragons included. Only Mr P told her that £65,000 wasn’t enough and tried to offer her a further £35,000. I’m sure that behind the scenes, once the cameras have been switched off, the money that changes hands is actually very different to what we, as viewers, see. But even so it’s a depressing time for the PR industry when business stalwarts are undervaluing our market.

[top]

In case you haven’t seen it yet: Nike’s World Cup Ad

June 11th, 2010 by Andrew

With the World Cup kicking off today, I thought I would share again the absolutely brilliant Nike 2010 ad. If you thought that the Nike World Cup advert of 1998, showing the Brazil squad playing an elaborate game of ‘pass and move’ in Rio airport, was pretty darned impressive, then you’re in for a real treat.

Nike has just launched its 2010 World Cup ad, featuring the likes of Wayne Rooney, Cristiano Ronaldo, Didier Drogba, Kobe Bryant and Homer Simpson (yes, really). It’s slick, it’s blackly funny and representative of the excellent football ads we’ve come to expect from the likes of Nike. However, it’s the little intricacies that truly point to this being a great ad. Wayne Rooney in a trailer park and an egotistical statue of Ronaldo are strokes of genius – someone over at ad agency Wieden & Kennedy has truly got their head screwed on.

Apologies for the bleeding into the sidebar – widescreen YouTube is the bane of this blogger’s existance!

If we were to really nitpick, the only flaw with it is Ronaldinho’s appearance, despite him not being included in Brazil’s World Cup squad, points more to the pitfalls relying on ageing sports stars for an ad campaign than a failing of the ad itself.

But honestly, who cares? It’s an amazing ad – no doubt it’ll probably be the best thing we see all summer after England crash out in the group stages.

[top]

Has the world gone 3D crazy?

February 25th, 2010 by Georgia Field

For a majority of consumers, 3D has always been about film, but a recent series of media developments have thrust into the mainstream.  Whether it be sport,  television or even the first-ever 3D catwalk at the Burberry’s  London Fashion Week show, I think we can safely say that nothing is off-limits from being ‘three-dimensionalised’.

Without question, the success of Avatar has had a huge impact, so much so that I wonder how long it might have taken the phenomenon to catch on if it wasn’t for the 3D James Cameron epic. Could we still be fumbling around with dodgy old novelty glasses with the lenses cut out and replaced with cheap blue and red cellophane? Probably not, but I don’t think that would be miles from the truth. For the general public, Avatar made 3D cool.

But the million-dollar question is where the technology will take us. The explosion of excitement around 3D makes it seem like anything is possible. Who knows, with the pace of technology in ten years’ time, 2D viewing might be as archaic as the gramophone. It’s even been mooted that 3D contact lenses could be the norm.

All this seems very exciting. But at the same time, I have to wonder if there’s going to be a bit of a backlash.  How much do we really want to see a close-up of a sweaty rugby player as he grapples with four other guys in the scrum, or a malnourished model limping towards us on her way down the catwalk?

Whatever your opinion, 3D is upon us and this time it would seem well and truly here to stay.

[top]

Mine’s a generic unlabelled beer bottle please

September 21st, 2009 by Claire Burgess

As you settle in front of the TV have you ever paused to lament the fact that no one ever walks into The Vic and asks for a pint of Carling? Why’s it always the ‘usual’? And why do the cast of Hollyoaks never pop down to Topshop?

How much does this impact the realism of the storyline? Well apparently enough for the Government to decide that it’s time to abolish laws preventing product placement on UK television screens. Although the BBC remains exempt, as do children’s programmes, this is one of the biggest changes in our recent television history.

But does it work? The Government’s own research has found that less than a quarter of people have felt influenced to buy something after seeing it on a TV show. So why are advertisers so keen to get their products in our programmes?

When the cast of The Hills cruise in their Lexus and Porsches, the judges of American Idol carefully display Coca-Cola or Carrie splurges on yet more Choos –  millions are watching. And it’s not just about getting in front of people. The subtle, or not so, power of association can be worth more than any cheque, and brands are clamouring to align themselves with the aspirational characters we love to watch. 

As broadcasters wrestle with the ever-tightening grip of declining ad budgets product placement represents a fruitful source of revenue. Ad funded programming has sailed silently into our TV schedules and we’ve hardly even noticed. Plus more budget means more new commissions, so surely we’re onto a good thing?

A word of caution. Done wrong, product placement ruins the programming it’s supposed to enhance and alienates viewers. The rules are clear. For consumers it has to be relevant and fit the context of the programme. For brands it must align with their broader strategy and create a meaningful engagement with the audience.

[top]

page 1 of 2

next »