The King of the World is dead, long live the King of the World.

You have to hand it to James Cameron: at $1.88billion in takings to date, his 3D epic Avatar is officially the biggest box office ticket of all time. And having taken only six weeks to eclipse the record set by Titanic, JC’s last feature film, this is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, the world and his wife (and their three children, plus extended circle of friends) have queued up at cinemas to see Avatar: whilst it’s not perhaps a film for everybody, it has nonetheless garnered some strong reviews, and, 3D effects aside, features some of the best CGI ever used in medium. The spectacle in 3D, however, elevates Avatar beyond movie to experience, drawing the audience into Cameron’s alien world of Pandora without simply resorting to the customary “oh, that was the 3D bit” camera pans. Not all 3D films can claim to do the same.

Avatar is a 3D success because the extra something this technology brings makes us believe it more, enriching the immersion and further suspending disbelief. The question is, how to monetise this on a more regular basis, as opposed to only once every 15 years, when Mr Cameron decides to take us one step beyond?

Naturally, the answer came in the form of the ever-inventive Sky, with Sky Sports’ first foray into 3D programming the live coverage of Arsenal vs Manchester United last weekend. For those lucky enough to be in one of the nine bars across the UK to feature 3D screens - well, if you’d call ‘lucky’ being reciprocally filmed by Sky Sports looking like the rejects from a Buddy Holly casting session - the experience was mixed. The customary Sky Sports graphics, player line-ups (where a sense of depth and perspective is inherent to the camera view) and wide angle shots from behind goal were suitably impressive; however, the third dimension was not the totally eye-popping revolution many were imagining.

To be fair, Sky does spoil the viewer: with up to 20 cameras tracking the game in regular Ds and lovely High Definition crispness for those willing to pay an extra tenner a month - it’s hard to say whether the final spectacle of 3D could ever match up to our expectations. It’s no massive surprise that this was basically a glorified experiment by the broadcaster - football may not be the ultimate sport to benefit from an extra dimension, versus, say boxing, rugby, or even golf - but the fanfare of such a world’s first certainly captured the public’s imagination, leaving viewers hungry, or at least peckish, for more.

Whatever the future holds for in-home 3D, it’s clear that from a sporting perspective, as James Cameron understands, the extra dimension needs to add something to our experience, to give something back, with Sunday’s experiment representing a small step in furthering Sky’s opinion on exactly how it plans to achieve this.

By Jonathan Izzard on February 2nd, 2010

Tags: Barclays Premier League, Branded content, Broadcast sponsorship, Experiential marketing, Football, Football Sponsorship, Manchester United, Media, Sport, Television, Television audiences

No comments

When I tell you that I’m a big fan of Chrome, relax, I’m not hinting that anyone get Westwood round to pimp my ride – I am rather referencing Google Chrome, the web browser launched in late 2008 by the ubiquitous internet behemoth.

Having used it as my default browser since downloading the programme over a year ago, I’ve since installed it on my home PC and laptop, as a welcome break from Internet Explorer. I realise that I’m not the first person to break convention here, with any Mac users out there, along with the more technologically savvy, already well aware of life after Microsoft when browsing the web, with Safari – Apple’s own browser – and Mozilla’s Firefox, the main contenders for IE’s crown in the years BC (that’s Before Chrome); however, December 2009 finally saw Google’s new window onto the web overtake Safari’s hard-won market share. No mean feat, a year after launch.

This leaves the stats from December 2009 looking something like:

1. Internet Explorer - 62.69%

2. Mozilla Firefox - 24.61%

3. Google Chrome - 4.63%

4. Safari - 4.46%

5. Opera - 2.93%

6. Netscape Navigator - 0.32%

7. Various others - 0.68%

(Source: Market Share)

This may not look too significant a shift, although given that this % represents around 40 million users, and that Internet Explorer’s global usage dropped by almost 7% last year (from 69.23% in Feb 2009), you might start to appreciate the long-term machinations of Messrs Page and Brin, and how these might impact on one William Henry Gates III in the war of the super-rich supernerds.

In quite a major move for the brand, Google has even been running an offline ad campaign publicising Chrome. Commuters at Oxford Circus may well be familiar with both the posters and digital escalator creatives drawing attention to the ‘fast, new browser, made for everyone’. Indeed, in the lead-up to Christmas, Google engaged in another rare piece of ATL, with a Metro wrap (you may have seen this repeated last week), as well as a call to action for people to make Chrome one of their Xmas gifts to a loved one, via the www.givechrome.com website. Well, it’s better than a pair of socks.

This activity certainly translated into curiosity amongst web users, with searches for Chrome overtaking Internet Explorer for the first time ever, which Google – or its media department – would doubtless argue contributed to its rise in the browser rankings that very month.

So, what’s good about the product? Well, it’s very clean, clear, fast and free; you can have lots of different web pages running at the same time with no drag, and if any particular page crashes, Chrome simply shuts down that tab, rather than the whole browser. I’d definitely recommend it, although the programme is still not a catch-all: certain Microsoft plug-ins are incompatible with Chrome (hmmmm, how unexpected), making it difficult to use some online applications such as the SkyPlayer. For everyday browsing of the internet, however, it’s fantastic.

Other than the slow burn process of accruing new advocates and users, what next for Google Chrome? The answer is actually slightly more ambitious than you might think, with Google now moving further into Microsoft’s back yard through the development of the Google Chrome OS (Operating System). Whilst it’s still a way off, with an official release scheduled for the latter half of 2010, the concept is remarkably different to the traditional Windows offering. As outlined by company chiefs at Google HQ in November last year, the OS is designed with a focus on three user requirements: ‘Speed…Simplicity…Security’, achieving its aims via a radical approach: to all intents and purposes, Google Chrome OS only works when you are online.

What the hell? So I’ve got to be online for my PC to work, you say? Well, sort of.

Although this may sound pretty restricting, Google are not setting themselves the challenge of beating Microsoft at its own game, but rather carving up a piece of the action for themselves, namely through appealing to the burgeoning netbook market. Sales of these small, light, web-friendly PCs were up 103% in 2009, and with decreased price points and increased wi-fi availability, this trend looks to continue. To date, the concept has received a mixed reaction: for the always-online professional netbookers out there, Google are preaching to the converted, with a promise of a system that will be ready to surf the web within seven seconds of power-up; plus they won’t need to store all their docs on their hard disc, with data instead stored remotely and accessed via the web. Google aren’t the first to use a ‘cloud’ system, but probably are the first to take the concept of virtual storage for mobile PC users to such a commercial extreme.

From starting life as the cleanest, fastest and most efficient way to find what you need on the internet, Google has, in an incredibly short space of time become part of our culture, our very vocabulary. And in today’s information age, there appears to be no stopping them: news, video, mail, maps, photos, phones, toolbars, Trends, translation, into China (and out again?) - and we search, and we search, and we search…

By Jonathan Izzard on January 19th, 2010

Tags: Advertising, Brand marketing, China, Digital marketing, Media

1 comment

So there it is, all over. 100 days and 2400 people later; today marks the final day of Antony Gormley’s live art installation ‘One & Other’.

34,520 people applied; 1208 men and 1192 women aged between 16 and 84 were randomly selected to take part. People from every walk of life from across the UK, spent an hour alone on the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square creating a collective portrait of humanity.

And not a single ‘celebrity’ or former Big Brother contestant in sight.
Marvellous.

The project - the focus of articles, photos, tweets and blogs well before the first person took to the plinth on 6th July 2009 – has been deemed a success. In Gormley’s own words, “Whether you see the plinth as a protest or pole-dance platform; studio or stocks; playpen or pulpit; as a frame for interrogation or for meditation, it has provided an open space of possibility for many to test their sense of self and how they might communicate this to a wider world.”

So did we like it? The art critics did not.
Me? I loved it.

I first wrote about the project last July on this very blog. I didn’t get picked in the ballot but I have enjoyed watching those who did, including three people I know. ‘A snapshot of Britain’, the creation has been described as. Well certainly it showed off the great British sense of humour - as well as raising over £24,000 for charity through plinthers performances.

A brief snapshot of just a few of the plinthers who caught my eye:
- A modern day naturist Lady Godiva astride a child’s rocking horse in only a pair of boots (Gormley himself had said that ‘he would be very upset if somebody didn’t take their clothes off’)
- A 26 year old dressed as a giant turd in a plea for cleaner water, resulting in some nice PR & awareness for Water Aid
- A Stringfellow’s dancer whose pole dancing performance apparently caused the Sky Arts website to crash
- An 8ft Godzilla
- A bent over skin-tight morph suit
- A number of folk advertising themselves in a ‘Give me a Job’ bid to gain work most of which resulted in employment
- The girl who led an impressive flash-mob audience in a world-record bid for the most people dancing to Thriller (Michael Jackson, RIP, would have been proud).

The list goes on. Right up to the very final plinther, Emma Burns from Liverpool who used the last hour of the people’s plinth (08.00-09.00 today) to remember the victims of the Hillsborough disaster.

The good, the bad, the ugly and the downright bizarre have all been up there.

The art critics may not have raved about it.
Stuff ‘em.

Over 720,000 people watched online - a huge figure for an arts website - with 7.5 million page impressions during the 100 days. And the project will live on through a TV documentary due to be screened on Sky Arts; a book produced by Random House; and within the walls of the Wellcome Library who plan to store the footage and interviews with every participant for future historians and academics.

Antony Gormley never actually made it onto the plinth having been rejected four times in the public ballot (and refusing to insist on a slot). One suspects he won’t mind. Without a shadow of a doubt, he will be kept busy over the coming months regardless, his profile further elevated by the successful way in which One & Other has truly brought art to the masses. And if you need further persuasion, take 4mins out of your day - right now- and have a watch of the final highlights video on Sky Arts. It’s emotive stuff.

- Next month, Sir Keith Park, a Battle of Britain hero will take to the Fourth Plinth in a more conventional memorial statue format

By Stephanie Branston on October 14th, 2009

Tags: Blogging, Communications, Flash mobbing, Media, Public relations, The Arts

No comments

Being half Aussie, one of the stories in yesterday’s Brand Republic email caught my attention.

The Australian Government recently announced that it is looking for an agency to develop a new brand identity to embody Australia in the 21st century with a budget of A$20 million over four years.

In response to this, agency DesignBay has launched a competition challenging people to submit their own logo and strapline for the chance to win a A$2000 prize. The global competition, which opens today, will run for two weeks, with the winners and short-listed entrants announced in the marketing industry’s B&T magazine in November.

DesignBay founder Alec Lynch, has been quoted saying: “Australia’s brand is important. We want to find the best logo and tagline ideas that Australia’s creative talent and the world can come up with and we’re going to offer them, for free, to the government. We want to give people the opportunity to contribute to Australia’s brand and we want Australia’s brand to be the best it can be.”

In this day and age we are all used to brands and media outlets asking for our contribution and I’m right behind giving the public the chance to translate their patriotism into what could become the new identity for their nation. However on this occasion, I can’t help but think that the aim of the game is more to drive publicity for the design agency than to give consumers a voice. Although hats off to their PR team, as I’m writing about them and I’d certainly never heard of them before reading the article this morning.

The Australian government are due to launch the new identity domestically in February and internationally in May and I’ll be keeping my eyes peeled along the way to see whether the Design Bay competition has any impact on the outcome.

Either way, you’ve got to be in it to win it so I’ll be off to the drawing board…..

By Kelly Russell on October 14th, 2009

Tags: Brand marketing, Communications, Media, Public relations

No comments

‘Revolutions are not about trifles, but they spring from trifles’
Aristotle

Ukraine v England. A nothing match? Yes - we’d already qualified for the World Cup. A sports broadcasting revolution? No - simply another glimpse of a revolution that’s already here.

This is not to downplay the significance of the match as an online pay-per-view event of course. Even with only a reported 250,000-300,000 online pay-per-view subscribers, it’s the most watched “internet-only” football match in history – the concensus being that the previous record was set by Manchester City’s friendly against Barcelona on August 19, which was available free in the UK only on City’s website, where 95,000 fans clicked in.

But make no mistake: live streaming of major sports events is already with us. During last year’s Beijing Olympics, BBC Sport served 40 million UK requests for online video streams and 11.8 million viewers used the red button during the Games; hundreds of thousands of UK consumers regularly stream live global sports every month through various sites; and niche sports, extreme sports and gaming are routinely streamed online due to the lack of mainstream broadcast distribution opportunities.

As webcasting grows in capacity and audience, it’s inevitable that more events will be streamed online. Computers and portable devices are simply alternative screens, and are converging quickly. Once TV sets are broadband-enabled the role of the internet won’t matter. Viewers won’t care how the match is getting to their screens – it’s all ‘TV’. It’s just that the notion and experience of ‘TV’ is going to change.

But only slowly of course. Saturday’s match proved that internet-only ppv is still in a contentious infancy when it comes to marquee events, and that the traditional broadcasters will not be usurped as the main distributors of big-ticket sport anytime soon.  QED: if England had still needed points against Ukraine, the game would have been bought by one of the big TV names for millions.

But we’ve seen a glimpse of the future. Remember when Sky first came along?

‘The future is already here, it is just not evenly distributed.’
William Gibson

By Tim Crow on October 12th, 2009

Tags: Default, Football, Media

No comments

Read any of today’s national newspaper reports on Leeds United v Liverpool in last night’s Carling Cup and you’ll notice something - a total lack of any pictures of the match. Instead there is a box out in all papers saying the same thing, below is how The Guardian framed it.

Although, Leeds decided to allow just Action Images and a local agency in, they did allow national papers to send a photographer each which sounds fair enough until you listen to sports editors stating that they need a variety of photos from a game in order to chose the best shot.

Leeds may have sensible reasons for precluding leading agencies such as PA and Getty from the ground based on space, congestion, spectator viewing impairment etc but it does re-kindle an age old ‘debate’ between sports rights-holders and the media.

Here’s the problem - rights-holders have successfully packaged their product for television and make a vast amount of money from it, for example the latest Premier League / Sky deal is worth around the billion pound mark. At the same time, monetising the rest of the media has proved elusive.

You only need to look at the increased pagination of newspaper sports sections to know that sport is an important circulation and advertising driver, however, unlike TV and radio, newspapers don’t have to pay a penny for the right to air. This becomes even more acute with photographic and written agencies who directly make money by selling photos and copy from the matches without having to pay any sort of license to the rights-holder.

Agencies and media say they are providing the global publicity and coverage that is the oxygen of any sport and allows the rights holders to make more from sponsorship and in turn drives people to the television completing a virtuous circle. Are they right? Absolutely but it is almost impossible to actually equate that return. Is it frustrating for rights-holders trying to monetise all elements of their product? You bet.

While this argument rumbles on there will only be one loser, the team / event sponsors, missing out on the very exposure they paid for in the first place.

By Dominic Curran on September 23rd, 2009

Tags: Communications, Media, Public relations, Sponsorship, Sport

No comments

Two things that I like - simple creative ideas and reading. Here’s a good idea that links the two.

Jumping on the tube last night, I noticed that there were a number of books spread around the carriage on the space behind the seats. I picked one up mentally admonishing the carelessness of leaving a book behind when the leaflet below dropped out.

The London Paper may have gone out of business last week but yesterday they went out with a bang with the first ‘one-day library of free books on the first day without the London Paper‘. Nice idea, but the question is, will the books stay in circulation longer then the paper?

By Dominic Curran on September 22nd, 2009

Tags: Communications, Default, Media, Public relations

No comments

It’s the biggest worry for any newspaper proprietor out there. Actual paper sales are on a downward trajectory while traffic to their websites is flying upwards - but how can they make a viable business model out if?

A quick look at the numbers underlines this mounting difficulty. For example, digital revenue comprised less then 10% of Trinity Mirror’s regional revenue in 2008 and although newspaper sites are amassing huge numbers (MailOnline had 29.4 million global unique users in June), domestic advertisers are reluctant to pay for a largely overseas audience. On the flip side print ad revenue is falling fast - Associated Newspaper saw revenue fall 15% yoy in Q2. So something needs to be done and fast.

Last week, Rupert Murdoch declared that News Corp newspaper sites would soon begin charging for online access. The likely model is going to be charging for premium subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal while The Sunday Times in London is planning a stand-alone website.

Some rivals have been quick to dismiss the idea as there are so many free online news sites such as the BBC so why would consumers pay for it? However, Murdoch believes we will pay for celebrity news, major scoops and exclusive content.

So the key to success would seem to be having that content people are willing to charge for - and this focus on high quality, opinionated content and scoops could be the shot in the arm for under pressure (and sometimes understaffed) newsdesks. While the system of charging needs to be made as simple as possible with clear entry points and ‘walled-garden’ systems.

Murdoch won’t be the first to try - The FT have done it with some success while The New York Times had to rapidly u-turn on its first attempt at a charging system.  Critically though, he will be the biggest to try and there’s no doubt the rest of the industry will sit up and watch with interest.

Lest we forget he’s led the field before in proving people will pay for unique content - twenty years ago Sky was launched off the back of sport and movies.

By Dominic Curran on August 17th, 2009

Tags: Branded content, Communications, Default, Media

No comments

Great marketing campaigns by rights owners in sport being a rarity (acid test: how many can you remember?) I’ve really enjoyed two very different but equally hard-hitting efforts over the last few days.

First up was Manchester City’s ‘Welcome to Manchester’ poster featuring new City signing Carlos Tevez, aimed squarely and mischievously at the red half of Manchester from which, of course, Tevez came.

Cue national media coverage, a dismissive riposte from Sir Alex Ferguson, and an outpouring of fan banter and reaction, including a paint attack on one of the Tevez billboards and some highly creative visual replies by Manchester United fans - here’s my favourite so far:

Overall a top piece of work by the City marketing team, which has put the City brand, and the City/United rivalry, firmly back on the agenda for the start of the season in three weeks’ time.

Whereas in three years’ time of course, London 2012 will be upon us - as we all know by now following LOCOG’s masterfully-orchestrated celebration of the 3-year landmark on Monday.

Again, acres of coverage resulted – no small achievement - but what interested me most of all was how noticeably positive it was, and how much more upbeat LOCOG’s tone has become

As ever Lord Coe leads from the front – what a natural and assured communicator he is – but it was heartening also to see so many bravura touches during the day, such as the domino trail and the giant human 3.

By Tim Crow on July 28th, 2009

Tags: Brand marketing, Default, Football, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Manchester United, Media, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Public relations

2 comments

Ever thought about naming a star? How about owning a nice plot of land on the dark side of the Moon? Fancy sponsoring a three-toed sloth in Costa Rica?

As PT Barnum famously never said, “There’s a sucker born every minute” – applying Newton’s Third Law (he’ll now be spinning in his Westminster Abbey sarcophagus) would suggest an equal and opposite reaction. After all, you only know you’re a mark once you’ve been conned, right? Therefore every sap needs a swindler, and in today’s society, there always seems to be someone out there ready to sell you something:

a) That isn’t theirs to flog

b) The customer can never really own

c) With strong virtual but low actual value

So it’s nice to see a company turning the tables on the snake oil salesmen and scammers: why buy something that’s worth nothing, when you can use something that costs nothing?

The company in question is Intel, whose 2009 ATL campaign, set to roll out over the next three years, sees the technology giant using the sign-off “Sponsors of Tomorrow”. I mean, who’s going to monetise ‘Tomorrow’…Annie?

It’s interesting that Intel should be using the collective plural ‘sponsors’ here, a move, in line with the content of their ATL, to both humanise the company and express the broad range of areas across which it – I mean ‘they’ – work.

Neatly turning things on their head, the campaign is less ‘Intel Inside’, and more ‘Inside Intel’. The execution below might aim at geek-chic, but it also emphasises who makes up the company, not just what the company makes.

You’ll notice that even the brand-defining/ubiquitous/maddeningly annoying Intel ‘chimes’ are now performed in the new ads by company employees (okay, the actors portraying company employees), reminding us of a company’s most important asset – its people.

As “Sponsors of Tomorrow”, the casual perspective of Intel being just a sticker on your PC may have had its chips.

By Jonathan Izzard on June 12th, 2009

Tags: Advertising, Ambush campaign, Brand marketing, Branded content, Digital marketing, Employee engagement, Media, New Product Development, Sales promotion, Sponsorship, Viral Marketing

No comments