Archive for the ‘TV’ Category

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]

Rebranding – more than just a name

August 3rd, 2009 by Clare Ridley

Get home after work tonight, turn on your Sky box and you’ll be bamboozled by hundreds of pay TV channels, all demanding your attention.  Most brands only have a handful of competitors but in the pay TV world, things are different.  If you want to stand out, your brand name is the first thing that today’s channel-hopping audiences look for.

There has been a slew of TV channel rebrands in recent years, from the now ubiquitous Dave to the more obscure Alibi and Yesterday.  There’s even a channel called ‘Really’ – really?

Eulogy! client Comedy Central was one of the more recent rebrands.  Formerly Paramount Comedy, a name that said safe, US comedy, the rebrand to its bigger, badder and bolder parent channel from across the pond meant audiences knew exactly what they were getting – a modern comedy channel, dedicated to delivering top-notch comedy.

So do channel rebrands work?  Well, viewing figures certainly say so.  Dave has recently recorded a record 2.66 million viewers for its resurrection of Red Dwarf and Comedy Central’s viewing figures have shot up by 59%.  What’s most important though is making sure your proposition is clear and unmistakable.  It needs to be more than just a gimmicky name – the programming needs to fit with the brand values already associated with the new name, so viewers understand exactly what you stand for as a channel.

[top]

page 2 of 2

« prev