LEWIS 360°

72Point: From Twinjury to ‘Britain’s biggest burger’

Back in June, I spotted a story in The Telegraph that immediately roused my interest. Not because of its subject matter (jogger becomes the “first man in Britain to suffer a 'twinjury' – an injury sustained while using Twitter”), but because of the unlikelihood of such a story coming to light in the press.

It all seemed too contrived: from the assertion it was ‘Britain’s first’ (how could anyone know?) through to the ‘twinjury’ name and the PR-friendly quotation (“I guess you could say I feel a right Twit.”) Similarly, the description of the jogger as an “office worker” was unnecessarily vague.

A quick Google search revealed the ‘twinjury’ victim worked at PR and news agency 72Point. This definitely casts doubt on the story’s credibility – although that’s not to argue it wasn’t true. My point at the time (implied in a seemingly innocuous blog post) was that even the most rudimentary research by the journalist would have given this a different perspective.

(Unfortunately, my post culminated in a number of angry comments and even a strongly-worded phone rant from 72Point, directed at my office.)

So today, upon reading about a burger “dubbed Britain’s largest and most fattening”, I had a feeling I’d seen this structure somewhere before. Sure enough, the restaurant is based in Bristol, also home of a 72Point division. (They also showcase the coverage on their site.)

72Point has clearly tapped into a certain hunger in the media. They understand the value of a highly visual and quirky 'stranger than fiction' story – especially asserting the ‘country’s first’ in something, however dubious that might be.

But what’s in it for them? Do they get payment for the copy, or perhaps copyright on the photo? Or is it just for the free chips? It’d be interesting to know what business model exists behind the formula, before I can spot the next example.

(And if anyone from 72Point calls for me this afternoon, please tell them I’m dead. Thanks!)

LEWIS WINS AT PRSA BERNAYS AWARDS

LEWIS is pleased to have won the PRSA Edward L. Bernays Award of Merit in the Global Communications category, for our Quickoffice campaign. The Texas-based provider of mobile office productivity software and solutions has had a busy, successful year. The submission detailed the exposure Quickoffice enjoyed, surrounding the launch of Quickoffice for the iPhone. The effort yielded a dramatic increase in Web traffic and hundreds of positive product reviews in Quickoffice’s target media outlets.

The Bernays Awards recognizes the industry’s finest PR tactics, campaigns and professionals, in categories including media relations, community relations, crisis communications and special events. A total of 60 awards were presented.

Last year, LEWIS won the Mark of Excellence Award of Merit in the B2B media relations category for Solarflare for our submission, “Bringing 10 Gigabit Ethernet Mainstream.”

Murdoch’s challenge: the view from Sweden

Traditional media is dying, and journalists and bloggers worldwide are debating what it needs to do to survive. Rupert Murdoch declared earlier this year that his news organizations will start charging for content before the end of 2009. Although it’s been over a month since, the debate rages on in Sweden.

 At the risk of oversimplifying, most bloggers have said: “It can’t be done.” However, I do think it’s possible to charge for content, but a number of challenges need to be recognised:

First of all, you can’t protect news. This has always been true, but what used to take hours can now take a matter of minutes. So any news business model needs to address the issue of charging for stuff that’s already there.

Secondly, subscription is dead. Social media allows us to link between several different sites, blogs and social networks. No single site can possibly recreate that.

So how do you charge for something that is essentially free? Especially when you contribute only a small part of what the readers perceive as the value? Well, you can if you add value and deliver it faster than the sites that offer it free of charge.

The key is to realise that while your competitors may offer the same story as you free of charge, switching to them isn’t quite free for the reader. They will have to find that other site and locate the same story, and depending on whether they read on a computer or a mobile device, this will usually take anything from 15 seconds to a couple of minutes.

If you can provide analysis or comments the reader values, and the time it takes to pay is less than or equal to the time it takes for them to go somewhere else, they’ll be willing to pay.

But it requires the payment system to be very fast, and very easy to use. It also needs to work over many different sites, because nobody is going to want to handle 20 odd log ins.

My tip – take a cue from the telecoms industry. They have operated profitably for years, tracking and charging for services that cost fractions of dollars.

Digital natives, top Tweets and controlling the content: what social media means in Bristol

Following last week’s post on graffiti and social media, our Twit Poll revealed that most of us agree it’s here to stay (the media…and the graffiti). The majority of people answered that large corporations aren’t in danger of sanitising social channels, it’s the way the world works now and we should accept it.

We put this question to the attendees at last week’s ‘Digital Dinner’ event in Bristol. The evening brought together a varied bunch of marketers, journos and PR people to thrash out the topic of social media over some delicious food at Goldbrick House.

The conversation flowed (aided no doubt by the wine). The first thing that struck me as interesting was the huge variation in understanding and use of social media for business.

The discussion included some great stories about how blogs and Twitter had been used to successfully manage crises and competitor activity. It also included a fair bit of ranting about the irritating ‘noise’ of running a Twitter app on your desktop, and the brilliant observation that ‘Facebook is social stalking’. Couldn’t have put it better myself.

As one of the guests has already observed, much of the chat was about Twitter and how best to manage it. The overall opinion was that we’ll get more selective about who we follow and who follows us, and that, as in all social media, the good Tweets will rise to the top and the ‘noise’ will decrease.

‘Generation Y’ also came up a number of times in conversation. Suddenly CEOs have to turn to new graduates for advice on how best to use these channels for sales and marketing. But are the ‘digital natives’ now entering the work place better or worse off for all this assumed knowledge and power? The jury was out on that one.

So, beyond airing our thoughts and experiences (and having a bit of a rant where necessary), what conclusions did we come to?

• Social media is really just another communication channel. How you use it depends on the nature of your business and who you’re talking to
• You’ve got to be in it to win it – social media really only makes sense when you start to see the results for yourself
• Sometimes, for marketers this means stepping back and accepting that you can’t control all of the content all of the time
• As a consumer, it’s more fun to be negative than positive, so accept that bad things will come up over social media channels – how the business deals with them can be a deal breaker
• When it works, social media can raise your business’ profile, help you to engage with the press and your customers, and ultimately make your job easier and more enjoyable 

 

The rise of graffiti and social media: Is the writing on the wall for tradition?

Bristol has hit the headlines today with news the City Council is asking Bristolians to vote on whether pieces of graffiti should be kept as art or cleaned up as vandalism. And within that debate we see a strong analogy with social media.

Bristol residents are probably more open than most to the graffiti debate. Most of us love Banksy – the coffee shops and hotels around the City Museum on Park Street are particularly enthusiastic.

From Stokes Croft to Easton via Kingsdown, graffiti is part of the city’s identity and Banksy’s meteoric rise to art world A-lister does convey a cool upon us all - something Bristol City Council is clearly tapping in to by taking this story to the press.

But is the Council in danger of sanitising the debate by wading in and making it all so….legitimate? Has the City Museum already done so by hosting this summer’s exhibition?

Similarly, LEWIS Bristol is hosting a debate tomorrow evening around social media, raising the question whether businesses can ever really harness social media to its best effect? Or will it just sanitise channels and render them no longer of use or interest?

The very nature of social media is that it is both immediate and ubiquitous. It’s spray painting on the walls. It’s often in our social lives whether we like it or not, and it affronts, confronts or inspires, depending on your view point. You choose to walk down Twitter Boulevard and you never know quite what you’re going to be exposed to. The same could perhaps be said of Stokes Croft here in Bristol.

Graffiti challenges our preconceptions of traditional art, and social media challenges our ideas about ‘traditional’ media channels. Both are the subjects of lively debate in Bristol and around the world at the moment.

What do you think? Have we got the right to decide what graffiti stays and what goes? And by making it ‘official’ graffiti, won’t it lose much of its power? And does social media too need to maintain at least a pretence of disruption?

In a frankly smug fusion of my analogy, we’re going to discuss this over Twitter now (#bristolstreetart), and I’ll report back on how the conversation goes at our Digital Dinner tomorrow evening.

In the meantime, the LEWIS Bristol team is about to take some spray cans to the pristine white walls of our lovely office. If it’s good enough for Banksy…

Disney buys Marvel

Bam! Kapow! Thwack! And now Cha-Ching! That's the new sound that Marvel executives will be hearing as they have just been bought by Disney for $4billion. This has been met, however, with mixed response from fans (including myself). Will it mean that with Disney's money and clout the Marvel Universe can expand even further into the big budget mainstream? Will we see a new focus on merchandising and spin-offs and less focus on the actual comics? Will we see many edgy Marvel characters such as Wolverine and The Punisher become watered down for U ratings? Stay tuned for next week's episode to find out.

Some diehard Marvel fans were also a bit disgruntled or at least confused with how Marvel editor-in-chief, Joe Quesada, broke the news last night on Twitter using terms like "It feels like Christmas morning", as he has often commented negatively in the past on how DC Comics (Marvel's arch nemesis) were purchased by Warner Bros.

Whether this means that Marvel will lose some of it's personality, which began with Stan Lee writing in the "Bullpen Bulletin" in the 60s, remains to be seen. It would be ironic if the Marvel family lost some of its closeness with its readers after being acquired by the ultimate family orientated company. But this may just be a protective reaction by fans that care for their characters. Those who know about the Disney/Pixar relationship will know that Disney have not altered the Pixar ethos at all and have let them get on what with they know best. At the end of the day this is a massive purchase and the entertainment world should see some pretty cool things in the near future.

For anybody wondering how this affects Marvel here are some questions answered.