I was doing some homework the other night AKA watching Youtube and saw that TheHill88 (2nd most subscribed Aussie on Youtube) had posted an interesting video. On closer inspection it was clear that TV station Fox had slipped some money towards Caitlin Hill to do some promotion for the show Fringe. Sounds pretty good, using influential people in the existing (Youtube) community to endorse a new property.
How I was wrong...
Caitlin, the first was enough pain, please no more of that rubbish!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
It was not until I started looking at the comments that I realised that I was by myself and that she had actually converted a number of her viewers.
If I took a step back this was actually successful for Fox. I think that sometimes I am guilty of putting my perfect new media marketing hat on, unless it is breaking new ground it is just not cutting it for me.
Its kind of like when I get all hot and flustered when I see a Alternate Reality Game or I will dismiss an ad if it has been done in another country.
Who cares if So you think you can dance have copied an overseas idea? As long as it gets people interested in the show, who cares if they were the first to come up with the concept?
EDIT:
The So You Think You Can Dance comment was in response to the recent flash mob efforts which were covered on Mumbrella which included some unhappy markerters commenting on the piece.
Cash Registers before creativity!
8 comments:
I tend to get the impression that as you mention with the "So you think you can dance" example. That we see very very little unique tv in Australia, there are so many that are copied from overseas ideas. Things like Idol, Top Model, plsu who knows how many others especially some of the day time soaps (which are not even copied they are direct replays)
So the Ctrl C/Ctrl V Agency Awards won't be running in 2009?
@Zac I think it is alright as long as people are transparent about where the idea came from.
If they are stealing the idea and claiming it as there own then I think there up for a CNTRL C/CNTRL V Award and little bit more.
So in this example of Channel 10, have they been transparent?
I do not think they are claiming this as an original idea. But please prove me wrong!
Caitlin's example is interesting ... but also similar to what happened with the online coverage of Snakes on a Plane a while back - and it is where things start to get interesting.
When individuals begin to see themselves as mini-media businesses, the lines blur. Unfortunately, very few people have the capacity to deal with where that can take you - remember, the media businesses such as Fox have legions of people who have turned people into celebrities and celebrities into household names. There are disciples and practices around doing this. The difference is that it is done in a way that always reflects back on the "parent brand" (in the same way that Channel 9's stable of celebrities reflect back on Channel 9).
Individuals, on the other hand, are personal brands. There are fewer disciplines (and sometimes even awareness levels) in place. And as personal brands are built around trust and authenticity, any undisclosed dalliance with larger brands can be very damaging.
Unfortunately, once an outcome is achieved and the hard-earned brand equity has been extinguished (for cash/product/promise), those individuals (and their personal brands) can be easily discarded ...
And if a business like Fox is going to go to the effort to work with someone like Caitlin, what makes you think that they wouldn't also seed comments and/or conversation?
Who made you the fucking commentator of the people?
Watch your criticism of social media companies... starting to piss me off.
Sorry Anon, I didn't make you have to read this blog, this is just must personal opinion. What offends you most about my comments?
Post a Comment