Skip to content

Archive for March, 2010

14 Steps to Electoral Victory

This is a terrific story. Sarah Wakefield has been elected University of Manchester’s General Secretary for 2010-2011. Sarah has also recorded the highest majority since records started in 1967.

How did she do that?

First and foremost, Sarah is an engaging, intelligent, and bubbly member of the Manchester student community. She works incredibly hard, maintaining a list of activities that would put most high-earning executives to shame. Her policies were also clear, well articulated, and perhaps most distinctly, they were progressive. Sarah’s manifesto makes a call to arms to protect the quality of education, for online votes to be made during general meetings, and for greater transparency by placing administrative processes online, not to mention a commitment to spending at least two hours a week outside of the union engaging with students.

What else did she do?

She has also achieved what every political hopeful is trying to do around the world. She has captured the magic that illuminated Obama’s campaign through the medium of online video, blogs and social networks. In the 14 days running up to the student election Sarah posted a short online video to her blog sarahwakefield.com – 14 in all. This collection of short videos walks us through her manifesto pledges critically placing the message in the environmental context that it was made – the union, oxford road, and even the pub. Her voice is real, her message is heart-felt. One by one the students of Manchester get to know Sarah and trust her message. If not, they can write to her and express their opinion.

Sarah’s blog outlines her policies, activities and testimonials, all giving a real-sense of Sarah Wakefield and what a voter might expect from her, and also what she asks of the voter. Social networking tools are at play also – twitter and facebook. Sarah is connected to over 800 friends, and regularly posted events and meetups online. According to her testimonial “Sarah Wakefield has persuaded some of the most cynical people to walk through its doors of its importance”.

Students voted online.

This was a well-executed campaign. Technology was part of the story, but only part. In the end, a talented individual won the trust of her peers and for that we offer our congratulations. I certainly wish Sarah all the best during her time as General Secretary 2010-2011.

I hope to hold an informal interview with Sarah when I return to Manchester. As the world rethinks the nature of politics and democracy in the 21st Century, Sarah’s story holds an important line in history.

If Sarah is reading this, I hope you agree.

The Next Big Thing

What is the next killer entertainment programme? What is the next global entertainment format? What is the next big thing?

These were the questions posed by Alex Connock at the Broadcasting Press Guild in London last week. Alex suggested that the prize for the person who invents the next big thing would equate to tens of millions of revenue.

So what is the next big thing?

My initial thoughts took me back to 1990 (I was around 12 years old) and memories of a popular British game show The Generation Game. Hosted by Bruce Forsyth the programme matched two members of a family against two members from another family. The games were probably ridiculous from what I remember, but at the time I loved the madness of it all, and probably hoped that I would one day participate.

Today it is the X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing, their format of phone-ins, public voting and tales of human woe and elation are very distant from television entertainment that came before it, but in some ways they are just the same. For one, Bruce Forsyth is at still at the helm, and more significantly, despite the innovations and format change, these shows are entertaining. Whether we love them or loath them, they are just good family fun and even in this age of Internet, they show no signs of recession. If anything the web is making them stronger as the online chatter perpetuates more interest, more event, and more reasons to watch.

But how did we get to where we are today and what came about to make it all happen?

Let’s take a brief walk through the history of television entertainment.

During the 1940′s and 1960′s television brought about Candid Camera – a concealed camera filming ordinary people being confronted with unusual situations. This format sparked a number of prank shows over many decades including Beadles About and Trigger Happy TV. And then there was Top of the Pops –  a national favourite for almost six decades. At its height, Top of the Pops attracted over 15 million viewers each week. Parents would scoff at the new music and young folk would aspire to the look like the latest star.

The 1970′s to 1990′s offered such programmes as Blind Date, Gladiators, and of course The Generation Game. Blind Date was a popular dating game show hosted by the nation’s favourite scouse songstress Cilla Black, and at its height the show attracted up to 18.2 million viewers.

2000 to 2010 was the age of technology bringing forth Big Brother and Who Wants to be a Millionaire?. Big Brother arguably ushered in the dawn of reality television and overnight celebrity, and Who wants to be a millionaire? is the most internationally popular television franchise of all time, having aired in more than 100 countries worldwide.

And then there is The X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing.

But what qualities do these entertainment programmes all share?

1. Family oriented: All of these programmes bring families together. It is Saturday night, the working week is over, the after school clubs are done, the shopping has been brought home, dinner has been tidied away and it is now time for the X-Factor. It is a scene repeated over millions of households up and down the land. Yesterday’s family had The Generation Game, today’s family has the X-Factor, and no doubt it will be replaced by something else tomorrow, but the one consistent element will be family – children, parents, grandparents and pets, all watching and talking about the same show.

2. Social change: Each programme, in its own way, has mirrored social change or brought about social change from the confines of our living room. How many young teenagers would copy the look of their favourite artist on Top of the Pop’s, whether it be the dance moves of Pan’s People or the tartan-trimmed outfits of the Bay City Rollers? Big Brother also pushed boundaries and created a nation more open to self-analysis and introspection.

3. New Technology: Candid Camera – small camera’s that can be concealed in anything from a lamppost to a pair of spectacles. Who wants to be a millionaire? – audience interaction with electronic keypads, and X-Factor and Strictly have also benefited from lucrative phone voting technologies.

4. Format Innovation: Alongside new technology, the programme makers have all brought about a distinctive format innovation. Blind Date was brilliant in its design – three contestants competing for the heart of one. Gladiator – competitors vying for a place in the final round or the eliminator. Who Wants to be a Millionaire? – a radio based competition reengineered for television, and the X-Factor – wherein the earlier episodes are almost more entertaining than the finale. Such innovations are risky and in each instance unproven before their first airing.

5. Charismatic presenters: Cilla Black, Bruce Forsyth, Jeremy Beadle, Simon Cowell and Chris Tarrant. Outside of the show, each presenter commands an audience in their own right.

6. Catch phrase: Each programme will be remembered for a catch phrase – “Final answer?”, “How did they get on?”, “Nice to see you, to see you nice”, “Gladiators Ready” and so on so forth.

7. People: From the very earliest example in our collection ‘the man on the street‘ plays a central role, and increasingly so over the years. Intended or not, these programmes bring about celebrity in the ordinary man. They also increasingly rely on audience participation as part of the entertainment experience.

8. Tabloid Headlines: Many of our examples have an intertwined relationship with the popular press. The shows create headlines that sell newspapers, and the headlines can often influences the shows. Whether it be the stories of winners or losers. Scandal or gossip. It is all part of the entertainment experience.

9. Business: We can not forget that entertainment is business, and increasingly big business. Shows such as X-Factor no long rely solely on advertising revenue (although this may well be limited to the broadcaster), but on lucrative phone voting, record sales and spin-off merchandise.

10. Entertaining: This is the magic. Each of our examples is entertaining. At one point in all our histories we have enjoyed one of these productions. We have been drawn in, certainly smiled, and probably laughed. When all is said and done, they are simply good fun.

So, there we have it. The next big thing will likely be brought about from new technologies, format innovations and new business models. At their heart will be charismatic presenters, the man on the street, catch phrases and tabloid headlines. Our families will watch it and perhaps be changed by it. In the end it will almost certainly be entertaining.

Article posted at Free Trade – the free trade of ideas.

And the winner is … ?

If you are reading this, then you are most likely breathing, and if you are breathing, you know that today was the 82nd Annual Academy Awards. The hosts – Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. The venue – Kodak Theatre, Los Angeles. Time zone – UTC/GMT -8 hours.

The Oscars was hard to miss. The average man would have to unplug him/herself from all media including radio, web, television and print, and probably even boycott their favourite coffee bar or local pub.

The awards are one part of the story, but the media scramble is the most fascinating. Today, sat on my laptop, I gave live witness to Old Media competing with New Media (if you believe such a separation exists). The BBC, CNN were on full tilt, as was The Guardian newspaper. The Oscars were headlined on all their respective pages – live feeds, minute-by-minute updates, photos, spies on the ground and spies inside. They had it covered and we seemingly consumed as the Oscar triumphs and failures hit the top of the ‘Most Read‘ pages.

Note: The Oscar script was already exposed before time as we learned of Sacha Baron Cohen’s plot to award an Oscar as a pregnant Avatar – a stunt that led to his early withdrawal.

All very interesting, but in the interests of getting some work done I thought it best to turn the BBC stream off, but wait, there was New Media. My twitter feed was ablaze with Oscar gossip. My RSS feed posted a blurry picture of what looked like Steve Jobs. Is it? Isn’t it? Why is Steve there? An Apple announcement maybe? More gossip. More tweets. Shortly thereafter a savvy and well-known blogger announced their Oscar analysis with a well-timed tweet ‘And the winner for best actor is Jeff Bridges – click link’. I clicked the link, along with a thousand more, according to their hit counter. I then typed Oscar into Google to determine the name of the hosts and I am presented with a live feed of the winners as they happen. Wikipedia is also fully up-to-date and correct within minutes of the announcement.

Old media. New media. Wherever it came from all were looking for an audience. All were looking to capitalise on the clicks, links and demand for this event. Not just demand, but for those who were inadvertently pulled in.

The final award is given, the final glass chinked and the cameras are switched off for another year. My twitter feed goes silent and I retire to the living room for some evening’s entertainment only to find “Tonight on 7 – Live from the Oscars!!”, although not quite. Old Media is right there, doing what it has always done. Broadcasting the event after the event. But I have seen this already. Okay, maybe not, but I certainly lived it.

Old media fighting with New media is a battle of truly Hollywood proportions, particularly at a time when we are asking questions of what the BBC should and should not be doing with our license fee money; Why do we need BBC Oscar coverage when others are doing a perfectly good job?

Where the chips will fall is anybody’s guess and who actually benefits from the fight is difficult to determine? Competition is good some might say, but is too much just too much? What is certain is this – money is at the root. Whether you are a pro-blogger looking for clicks or Channel 7 looking to top the evening’s viewing figures, the Oscar’s is a perfect event for traffic and ad revenue.

Therein lies the excitement. It is, at its heart, a media storm. The award ceremony itself really isn’t that interesting. The format seems old somehow. A board selects nominees and votes for a winner – which century does this belong too? But the media create the storm, whether we are interested or not, and the storm will likely roll on for weeks in the pages of Hello and Okay? Who wore what? Who kissed who? More twitter, more news, more frenzy, not to mention the occasional ‘jump on the band wagon’ blog post, which of course this is not.

Article posted at Free Trade – the free trade of ideas.

Also, congratulations to Christoph Waltz for best supporting actor in ‘Inglourious Basterds’. Well-deserved.

… And can anybody enlighten me as to why ‘District 9′ was nominated for best film? Good grief, that was a shocker by anyone’s standards, least of all the Academy.

How to make journalism pay? #media140

“I’ve never delivered a talk at 60 beats per minute, but here goes”.

This was the opening line from last nights Media140 event at the Fringe Bar, Sydney. Acoustics were clearly a problem as the background bass shook the laptops and notepads of those in attendance, but in some ways it was all quite fitting. The debate was solid, fast at times and ideas certainly flowed at a steady 60 beats per minute.

Caveat >> My ears and pen was also susceptible to the rumbling bass line, so the following transcriptions may not be wholly accurate. I apologise if there are errors, but for all those who have a hand in media, and journalism in particular, I believe this will be of great interest.

Panel Member Number 1: Catriona Menzies-Pike (@catri) – Associate Editor, NewMatilda

Launched in August 2004, newmatilda.com is an Australian website of news, analysis and satire. The site provides coverage of Australian politics, business, consumerism, civil society, international affairs, media and culture. It publishes the work of writers from a wide range of backgrounds including journalists, current and former politicians, lawyers, critical and creative thinkers, bloggers, policy-wonks and satirists.

Insight and sound-bites:

  • “The sustainability of our business is very much linked to the quality of content.”
  • “We maintain stringent editorial practices – fact checking, analysis of opinion so not to get sued, and spelling and grammar checking. We typically reject more content than we publish. We find that writers appreciate this attention and this policy is also recognised by our readers.”
  • “Although our editorial process slows things down i.e. we don’t react immediately to event, we believe our site appeals to discerning audiences … visitors are smart – they can tell a reactive post from a well thought out article.”
  • “We understand that low rates of pay do not help freelance journalists pay the bills, but I believe this will happen, one day, particularly if we maintain high editorial standards, for example, we are now introducing a system where contributors are payed for their submissions.”
  • “We have no immediate plans for a pay-wall.”
  • “Twitter allows us to build a relationship with writers as well as with our audience whilst facilitating immediate discussion and appraisal.”

Panel Member Number 2: Renai Lemay (@renailemay) – Publisher of Delimiter.com.au

Delimiter.co.au primarily covers the local IT and telecommunications industries, but also the introduction and usage of consumer technology in the Australian market, as well as the top gaming stories. The site was started in early 2010 by established Australian technology journalist and editor Renai LeMay with the aim of providing Australia with a strong independent voice about the local technology community.

  • “In response to the question – ‘What should you do to make more money?’ – I say there is opportunity in a growing marketplace. People are constantly looking for great content. ‘Where are the opportunities?’ – I say, look where advertisers are spending money and what they are spending their money on. Look for the opportunity.”
  • “Don’t look at what Murdoch is doing – who cares … just look at where the money is going and be there”.

Panel Member Number 3: Tim Burrowes (@mumbrella) – Editor of Mumbrella.com.au

Mumbrella is a discussion of everything under Australia’s media and marketing umbrella. It is organised into editorial strands: News, the Dr Mumbo diary, Opinion and the Mumbo Report video content. They also offer free listings including Jobs, Events, Freelancers and a business Directory

  • “At my heart I am a print journalist, but the business model has changed three times in the last year and it will change again in a year or two – no doubt, but I do believe there is a way forward for journalism.”
  • “Only one year ago Mumbrella was just me, but we now have five people on the payroll.”
  • “Initially the project was about finding an audience, building a relationship with that audience and later introducing advertisers to that audience. People now pay to advertise on our site, but we also offer premium products such as appearing in our email newsletters.”

Key Insights from the debate

1. From Tim: “Will big media organisations rather than fighting with each other actually get in bed together and share costs of production and development. We might see some unusual alliances this year.”

2. From the floor: “Who will fund investigative journalism? Is it not more attractive to fund reactive/ simpler stuff?” Response: “The best articles that give us the most retweets, debate, attention, and interest from advertisers are those articles that have been well researched, thought-out and are possibly radical or controversial in their argument or line.”

3. From Reina: “I want to employ, full-time journalists and good writers. This is important to me and my business. Still, we can not hide from the fact that the cost of content has dropped a lot – that is the reality.”

4. From the floor: “To journalists, I say, think laterally – there is opportunity and there is money to be made, but it may mean learning new skills including video production, podcasting and photography. Editors and audiences are looking for the mix and we will pay for it.”

5. From Valerio Veo (@Valerioveo) – Head of SBS News and Current Affairs Online: “We are sending 19 year old journalists to cover Obama’s visit in Indonesia. They will be producing videos, articles and images and we will pay up to $1k per piece of content.”

From the twitter feed

@paulwallbank summation of #media140; content is all important but publishers can’t afford to pay content creators. we have a problem.

tullibo #media140 was disappointing-u guys could learn a lot from zenhabits.net & huffington post, 2 examples of journos making it big online

christinefogg Memorable frankness: “Really don’t like dealing with freelancers” Ouch! Good to hear Renai LeMay prepared pay salary #media140

@bradatslice: Journalist’s are like stone masons Some chip rocks Some make bricks The true believers are building cathedrals #Media140

julie_posetti The other clear (i.e. above the din ;) #media140 message was: journos must develop serious expertise-specialist reporting will find payment.

@bronwen: Great comment to end the night, “it’s not journalism that’s dying, but rather that the definition of journalism is changing.” #media140

More media insight @martincahill

Article also posted at Free Trade – the free trade of ideas.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.