Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Cold reception at Ink awards

Oh boy did we stir up some trouble with our last blog posting! Two intrepid reporters from Marketing turned up to the SPH Ink awards last night, with the express intention of giving them some coverage in Marketing, only to be accosted by some unhappy SPH staffers.

Just to update you (or you could just read Monday's posting below) we reported SPH's Raymond Teoh as saying clients intending to advertise on websites should ask about the site's auditing and ought to look elsewhere if it isn't audited.

Marketing could not agree more, however we did point out that, at least for a number of its print magazines, SPH did not appear to be a big fan of auditing.

What we saw as fair comment, our SPH friends saw as an unfair attack. We of course stand by what we blogged and remind our hosts from last night that blogs are a free exchange of information, a little lighter than straight news and designed to promote a free flow of ideas and dialogue between our journos and the industry we cover.

For our part we are delighted that our blog has gained such traction after only a few weeks in existence as there seemed to be widespread awareness of that particular blog posting last night!

Keep reading everyone and guys no hard feelings, but a\nword of advice: if you invite the media along to cover one of your events it's not a great idea to give them a hard time and by the way your right of reply is only the "comment" button away, and we'd love to hear your\nthoughts.. we're a very thick skinned lot at Marketing.

Hope everyone (else) had a good time last night and congrats to the winners.

Some pics from the evening:


The Editor said...

SPH like the establishment has never has an ink for blogs. So don't be surprised by the double standards from this print giant.

Keep it up. Just blog!

carey said...

What you covered about what Raymond said and then applying it to the print, though valid, seems a bit unfair. Unfair in the sense that you chose to highlight the shortfalls of the print rather than applaud what they are doing well online.

In such a big organisation, I guess different policies would exist in various departments. There might be better platforms to "encourage" audit of their print titles.

TK said...

I think the point is being missed here. Two of our journos faced a barrage of unfair criticism at an event we were asked to attend and to cover, which we did (see our objective article in yesterday's newsletter). But instead of calling up and coming to the immediate defence of our team members (which was my initial instinct) we decided instead to make light of it. I can't stress enough this is a blog, we are trying to stimulate debate outside the formal structure of our magazine it is mean to have a bit of levity to balance the gravitas of the mag. It isn't meant to be journalism but citizen journalism. Additionally thanks for the comments Carey - I'd just answer one point that we certainly do use other platforms to fight the good fight on print auditing. Marketing magazine usually produces at least one story per issue on the lack of auditing in Singapore or on the flip side highlighting when a magazine attains its first audit. We feel very strongly about this issue and will continue to fiercely but fairly cover the issue. So thanks again for participating and keeping the conversation lively and thanks to all those who have sent emails saying how much they enjoy the blog.

germyong said...

I can't help but still think that whatever goes to the public will have some kind of social responsibility hang on to it. In my opinion, we should see that whatever we comment on,light or serious, will be thought about and absorbed by the readers.

There is a chinese saying 'think 9 times before giving a comment'.

I'm not commenting about your blog. It is a general comment. Personally, I enjoyed the blogs! Sometimes, I will just ponder, behind the cold facts, whats the thoughts/feelings of people?

mediapal said...

I must say I almost choked when i read your two blogs. It seems that it is slighted and did not portray the full picture. Online and print definitely works differently & online figures can be inflated if not used accurately.

I will propose that you do up some studies on the online media before comments are made more justifiably.