Singapore not as high-end as HK

I was in Hong Kong for a week long editor’s conference and was looking for a high-end gift for my high maintenance husband.

Walking along the IFC, I drooled when I saw brand names like Tom Ford and Ascot Chang which carries Brioni. Brioni the makers of the tuxedo in James Bond’s Casino Royale!

As a Singaporean, I felt envious. Why doesn’t Singapore have top notch brands setting up shop in this city?

The daggers of envy were stabbed deeper when Marketing’s entire regional editorial team visited the Monocole store. Global affairs magazine Monocle opened its second retail store in Asia, launching a Hong Kong bureau to join London, Tokyo, New York and Zürich.

The store will play a dual role, acting as a retails front and as a hub for its editorial operations.

Why didn’t Monocole’s editor Tyler Brule set up operations in Singapore?

I decided to ask some branding experts for their thoughts.

Size, perception and reality were the reasons given to why high-end brands set up in Hong Kong. Size does matter especially with Hong Kong’s 7 million population versus Singapore’s 5 million. This makes Hong Kong a more attractive choice for a premium brand’s location after Tokyo and Shanghai.

“Though perception is changing, Hong Kong has a longer history as a global city having attracted global financiers and travelers for longer too. And reality is another reason. Hong Kong’s climate plays a role with its four seasons linking well to the fashion industry’s exciting seasonal cycles versus Singapore’s ‘single’ season. Hong Kong has also been longer linked with ostentatious wealth which would also attract premium brands to Hong Kong first, before Singapore,” said brand specialist Interbrand.

I got my answers but my envy didn’t end.

I did leave Hong Kong with a Brioni wallet though.

It's got everyone talking... 'Really'?

Microsoft Windows 7 phone ad is garnering much attention in most parts of the world, with bloggers voicing extreme opinions. Tell us what you think about it?

I personally enjoyed seeing the video but hang on, what’s the differentiation in as far as its messaging is concerned? I fail to understand.

And as my colleague says, the background music looks like its right out of Wisteria Lane in Desperate Housewives!

There are moments in the video that do make you smile but I guess that’s all.



What do you think? Let us know.

What’s In A Name or W.I.A.N?

YOG or Youth Olympic Games. This begs the question, yet again- What’s In A Name (W.I.A.N). Singapore’s inclination toward abbreviations is common knowledge, as just about every expressway, bank, Government body, school, college, commercial complex etc. eases into a coinage of truncated verbiage.

The colloquial speak eventually finds a way into it being ‘the brand name’. The latest entry into the Abridged Book of Convenience (ABC) being YOG - The ‘Youth Olympic Games’.

One could argue that the official name is still the full form of it, however the fact that the commonly spoken and written depiction is YOG, would suggest otherwise. Now, when you probably have the greatest sporting event engrained in a ‘name’ i.e. ‘Olympic’, why should you strip the magnificence that it represents into a set of cold, hollow and meaningless letters.

On the contrary, the meaning of the word ‘Olympic’ should have been heightened.

This is not really about just abbreviating an institution, or about it being a Singaporean obsession. The larger question being- ‘Should convenient condensing of brand names arise without any apparent reason?’

Queensland and Northern Territories Air Service, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Victor Company of Japan, International Business Machines Corporations, Bayerische Motoren Werke alias QANTAS, 3M, JVC, IBM, BMW respectively, had both reason and wisdom to rename themselves from descriptive, industrial institutes into initials that grew into multi-billion dollar brands.

Heritage does have a role, and in my view a brand needs to earn an acronym and by that I mean GE and LG, having successfully built their equity have the license to be known by an initial should they so choose.

Occasionally though, brand initials can run the risk of allowing for the world to hijack it into undesired territory based on their unfavourable actions for e.g. Beyond Petroleum (BP) and Government Motors (GM). A move to change into one could sacrifice its equity. Hence let Harley Davidson always be Harley Davidson.

Some brands have had other reasons such as KFC -be it the Kentucky taxes or the implications of ‘Fried’ in a world getting healthier. Removing some baggage, bridging language barriers, changing an offering or renewing meaning from when the brand started to its current avatar can legitimize an acronym. Though, initializing an already existing acronym such as YMCA into Y, one could ask Y?

I don’t personally dismiss acronyms but there are limits and at times it does rob the brand of potentially positive emotions and YOG being one such example. Keeping Mother Teresa Charitable Trust intact as against MTCT would be preferred.

Today, when one is tasked of creating a fresh brand name it would be advisable to keep it simple, meaningful and acronym-proof. Some may not agree and say FCUK, whilst St. Thomas University of Public International Diplomacy might just concur.


Mohit Gopaldas is managing director, Identity Counsel Brand Consultants

The Digital Sweet Spot

2009 was the year “Minority Report” finally came to life with augmented reality interaction – and you facing up to the reality that privacy is now as confidential as a fish bowl after Facebook made private information searchable.

2010 marks the birth of new devices that are creating more waves in content creation, redefining the usage of mobile phones.

Apple’s iPad has given dying newspapers a new lease of life. The explosion of smart phones and democratic data plans from telcos has converted people from watchers to participators. Location-based applications tell friends where the others are, and real-time status updates across social sharing services, such as Twitter and Facebook – all invite you to read and respond.

Instead of making predictions on the impact that new technologies and trends like Google TV, HTML5 and location-based advertising will have on marketing, it would be more apt to talk about how you can work digital advertising effectively for your client’s business.

With the exponential growth of online content and surge of marketers adopting digital as the lead for their campaigns, we are starting to see more interesting work in Singapore. As the market begins to mature, digital practitioners must put their money where their mouths are, and start delivering results for every cent the clients entrust.

Over the years, I’ve been able to put certain theories to test, and having worked with many brilliant minds, I’ve observed that a combination of factors may just help you nail that sweet spot for your brief and yield results beyond expectations.

Monetise Social Currency
Marketers are starting to mimic successful campaigns, by utilising various components of social media – from viral videos to micro-blogging, Facebook engagement to discussion forums and activation.

And of course, the million-dollar question – “Is there money to be made in social media?” I’d like to think so. The market is ready to separate the boys and men, amateurs and the pros.

If you believe in your idea, peg your remuneration to its result and impact. The digital medium is inherently accountable, and it’s not difficult to work out an attribution and valuation model.

No doubt, the mode of engagement puts pressure on the agency to sharpen the strategy, and gives clients glimpses of a social media heaven. If done well, you’ll have a new convert.

Preach responsible advertising and demand your payout.

Rally People Around a Cause
Human beings gravitate towards goodness. They want to be able to contribute for social, political and environmental causes. We have seen how certain initiatives have gathered the support of global citizens.

The secret to their success: authenticity, sincerity, honesty and keeping it real. These attributes win the hearts and minds of people. More often than not, you are able to move them into active participants.

A brand can stand for a cause under their corporate social responsibility efforts. Whilst the commercial returns are not immediately visible, you will see gains in brand affinity.

However, do be warned that there is a flipside. When you force-fit a cause for a brand in a one-time effort, people can smell dishonesty from a mile. The same impact of cause marketing can work against you.

Maneuver Channel Platforms
Just as many people have an online presence, web users have real friends, (yes they do!) passions and lives. However, this line between virtual interaction and real life connection is getting thinner.

There is now more reality in virtual reality than ever. Here lie opportunities for channel platform maneuvers, where we move people from online to on-ground to mobile and vice versa.

There must be a strong motivation or incentive to move bums off seats. Or a belief that people will connect like-minded individuals, who are passionate enough to do something. I much prefer the latter approach.

A community that is driven by passion creates a longer (maybe even permanent) bond with the activity, thereby making it a valuable asset to any brand.

The science is in the methodology of crowd sourcing. Appoint leaders to be poster boys, and recruit various tiers of members. Along the way, appoint leaders from the mass crowd and grow organically. Soon the multiplier effect will happen.

Content Decentralisation
Content is still king, but you don’t have to create all of it. Take the model of decentralisation and start building satellite content outside the original ecosystem.

Set a framework. Cut consumers loose, invite them to fill in the blanks, and let them remember the experience as their own.

One model we find working out well is an idea of content co-creation with brand ambassadors, from editors to social influencers. However, the accessibility to publishing tools has created many self-proclaimed social influencers.

Sadly, there many who talk amongst themselves, leaving not a single dent of impact. The balance of official and non-official voices is a delicate thing to handle. We must be very selective of who we engage.

Most brands that are brave enough to adopt this find their brand trust increasing year after year. The more you let go, the more you gain.

Lastly, there is no formula in hitting the pot of gold.

Sometimes, it’s about good old-fashioned understanding of human emotions. Sometimes, we have to go beyond our core disciplines to get the results. Sometimes, it requires us to do the minimum.

Deng Xiao Ping once said, "I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. It's a good cat so long as it catches mice.” Likewise, do whatever it takes to get the results.

Jeff Cheong is ECD and Head of Tribal DDB Singapore

Does branding have a future?

I remember about 10 years ago that many people in “the industry” predicted that branding, like several other aspects of business, would die at the hands of the internet.

This idea started when the internet represented a new way of choosing things to buy, where traditional media and retail channels would be overtaken by digital substitutes and people would return to buying products not brands.

The concept experienced a reincarnation of sorts in last few years.

Web 2.0 was going to replace a brand’s reputational promise with transparent user reviews. The Long Tail effect was going to allow niche offers to overtake famous “big hit” brands by allowing buyers to express their true preferences - buying the products they really want, unfettered by production, distribution and communications bottlenecks that have been the traditional battlegrounds for brands in the past.

Well it’s fair to say that brands have survived these pressures. But the practice of branding has been significantly impacted in the process – and not just as a result of the impact of the internet.

It’s also true that while advertising agencies have famously struggled to re-invent themselves – brand consultancies have not always been at the leading edge of innovation in their own practice.

So what are the factors driving change in branding? At FutureBrand we work with renowned futurologist Richard Watson to identify the key macro trends with the most widespread real impacts.

• Changing demographic shapes – tailoring products to the needs of aging populations and the expectations of “digital native” youth

• Global connectivity – the fact that while many people in emerging markets in particular may not have the money or access to brands, their ever increasing exposure to those brands in context of marketing and entertainment shapes their aspirations

• Technology –a range of categories are on the cusp of significant change from technologies in genetics, robotics, nanotechnology and the internet. These will have the effect of shifting their overall value propositions and evidentiary basis for benefits

• Sustainability – this is an issue that’s not going away. Relative to say Europe, much of mainstream Asia remains preoccupied with prosperity rather than sustainability. But consumer niches are growing, and progressive governments and corporates operating in more demanding international environments are starting to offer leadership on this issue

• Emerging economies and Asia – particularly post the global financial crisis, it’s fair to expect that economies and cultures in this part of the world emerge as producers and shapers of brands – not simply large masses of consumers to be exploited


Considering these trends and forces of change that put pressure on brands and the practice of branding, FutureBrand has been giving thought to what makes a ‘future brand’ – a brand that maximizes its long term potential to create business value.

1. It must strive to make people’s lives better.

2. It must do so based upon a future forward view of their category in which their brand, that of the company or organisation and their products and services are driving positive change.

3. Related to this, it must provide an emotional connection to those who are the brand’s greatest advocates or ambassadors, that sets a future brand apart from its more rational or ‘me too’ competitors.

4. And, finally – it must actively understand, manage and appropriately exploit all touch-points at which a consumer or stakeholder interacts with the brand as an organisation, a product or a service. All sensory stimuli are used to connect and differentiate so that the brand values, experience and consumer preference is reinforced and aligned to a brand’s vision.

These characteristics naturally have an impact on the practice of branding in a variety of ways. For example, managing and maximizing touchpoints now means designing great screen-based experiences. Offering compelling emotional connections with brand advocates requires the acceptance of a degree of freedom in customers’ participation with brands, rather than trying to stage “controlled” experiences. So brand management becomes a highly dynamic process of influential interactions with people – not being the logo nazi.

So yes, branding has a future, but its practice is not the same as its past. Brands remain critical assets that drive and deliver ‘value’. As we move into the 21st century, the challenge for marketers and practitioners is to understand how brands can evolve and facilitate growth for the benefit of investors, stakeholders, consumers, customers and employees.


Tim Riches is chief growth officer, Asia Pacific and chief executive officer, Singapore for FutureBrand.

The iPad: New Day Or False Dawn?

In terms of technology, 2010 has undoubtedly been the year of the iPad.
It has been hailed by many as being the future of everything from computing to publishing, whilst, as with the iPhone, publishers & advertisers alike have pounced on the new device, launching apps for their products and services.

But will the iPad live up to its hype, and should brands & publishers be falling over themselves in the way that they are?
As with most things, the answer is a mixture of yes & no.

Advertising Nirvana?
“Well, we’ve got a lot of free apps — we like that, users like that…What some (developers) are starting to do is put mobile ads in their apps… and most of this advertising sucks.” -Steve Jobs, April 2010

So what does all of this mean for advertisers?

Well, as already discussed, at present the iPad is very much a niche device, but one which punches above its weight in terms of the desirability of that audience and the publicity it generates. And the audience it attracts certainly seems keen to test everything that the iPad has to offer, with over 1 million apps being downloaded on its first day of release.

As a portable device, but one with a browsing experience far beyond that of even the best mobile phones, the iPad opens up new ways for brands to connect with consumers. Targeting content and experiences based on location and demographics, but with rich media experiences, means that brands could create deeper and more durable interactions with consumers.

However, the app rush also exposes two potential issues for brands. Firstly, the fact that the iPad is definitely much more than simply an oversized iPhone means that you can’t simply port your old iPhone app across, at least not if you want it to provide a high-end experience. And, just as the iPhone’s app library is now full to bursting, so a similar rush to develop iPad apps could mean that it becomes very hard to stand out from the crowd.

With more things than ever clamouring for consumers’ attention, any brand app or experience will have to be exceptional to really break through.

Don’t Believe The Hype?
What then is the final reckoning for the iPad?

Whilst it has generated enormous publicity it is still a niche product, and likely to remain so in the near to mid-term future. But by, once again, creating a new sector, Apple is likely to spark a wave of competition that should drive costs down and specs up.

Outtake: Brands shouldn’t simply throw money at tablet apps, but should definitely be thinking about how their audiences are using them, if at all, and how they could fit into that usage.

The continuing battle between closed environments and open platforms will continue, with no winner obvious at the moment. Whilst it would be stupid to ignore Apple’s latest uber-gadget, it would be a very brave exec that bet everything on one or the other.

Outtake: In the mobile wars, all the major operating systems have announced a common app language. Bar Apple. Investing in iPad apps is certainly not a bad idea, but be prepared to have to recreate it for other systems as they come along.

Tablets start to show us what the future of content consumption might look like. At present however too many magazine/newspaper/book apps simply recreate the printed page in a digital format, whilst the revenues likely to be generated won’t plug the massive defecits saddling so many publishing companies.

Outtake: Forward thinking brands will be working with publishers to re-imagine the world of publishing. Just as Time Warner & Toyota’s Mine showed how printed magazines might evolve, so there are opportunities to do the same on tablets.

Advertisers will want to test the capabilities of the iPad, and use it to create more immersive experiences for consumers. But the challenge will be to stand out and, as always, it will come down to creative, rather than technical details.

Outtake: Just because you can do something on the iPad, doesn’t mean you should. Ask yourself why anyone should care about what you plan to do, and keep asking until you have an answer. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, It’s the creative, stupid.

And what about us, will we all be rushing out to buy an iPad? Well, I’m no Apple fanboy, but as the owner of a Macbook, iPod and iPhone I’m clearly not immune to their wiles either.

But for all of that, I’m going to follow the advice of British satirist Charlie Brooker, and wait till it’s cheaper and lighter, and in the meantime I’ll continue to stare enviously at my friends who have bought what Brooker describes as the world’s most expensive rectangle.


The author is Ciarán Norris, Head of Social Marketing, Mindshare

Who cares if it is Good or Great… ?

Many years ago I was fortunate enough to sit in a training course in Ogilvy Singapore conducted by then Global Creative Director Neil French. He was trying to educate a bunch of suits on what Great Advertising is – not just good…but GREAT. His method was interesting. He showed a reel of Award Winning TVC’s from previous years award shows. So all were winners, and one could argue were already Great. He then instructed us to vote on a 10 point scale. Of course after the first few ads had been played – and we’d all given those spots a 7 or an 8 (pretty good) - he told us we could only use the numbers under 5 or a 9 or 10. So they were either great. Or they weren’t.

Given Neil’s personality, use of profanity and general fear that he instilled in most junior suits it was quite a memorable way of forcing you to question whether something is GREAT – or just kind of OK. Most of us were comfortable with 6’s 7’s or 8’s.

But are we setting our standards high enough? Given the number of average ads on TV , let alone great ones maybe our standards aren’t high enough.

Now I am in the world of media I know we aren’t striving for GREAT.

I have heard too many times the phrase “at least they are doing something…” Usually in the context of new media. Or Search. Or Social Media activity. The fact that a client is doing something is seen as good – as doing something is seen as better than doing nothing.

Now call me old fashioned – but I tend to disagree. It’s a bit like giving a ten year old a violin and asking them to play something. Any sound they make is better than nothing ?? No it’s not. Silence would be better than hearing a sound that resembles fingers on a black board.

Getting a client to ‘do’ Search or Social just so they’ve ticked a box is responsible for users seeing crap on their Facebook pages or spending money on paid ads when their organic rankings are already going to get them the visibility they crave.

The difference between Great Search or great Social – or Great Media in general is huge – in terms of value, impact, relevance and engagement. But why do we settle for good… or even encourage poor just to get a client into a new medium?

Maybe we need more Neil French’s in our side of the industry – bullying and cajoling media teams as well as clients into a more binary view of our business – make it great or keep your money in your pocket!

At Maxus we have banned the expression “at least they are doing something…” or else my ten year old will visit with her violin.

As to an example of great work - I think what Dell is doing (not our client) with their Direct2Dell initiative has turned around a very closed and combative organisation who had failed to embrace the blogging community into a very open and collaborative organisation... Some brilliant work for Axe in Japan (not our client) in the mobile application space is another example of not just doing something in the mobile marketing space - just to give it a go - but doing something that really uses the potential of the medium, a real insight - Japanese guys use their mobiles as an alarm clock - and integrates the brand perfectly into the medium.

The author is Neil Stewart, CEO for Maxus in Asia Pacific.

iAd's revolutionary promise

Mobile is the undisputed champion of media across the globe with more than 4.1 billion people using mobile phones. That’s about six in 10 people, compared with less than three in 10 who access the internet through a PC. It is easy to understand why advertisers are excited about using mobile as a tool for marketing. The ubiquity of the mobile, combined with the ability to target, track, measure and reach people at key purchase decision points, quickly transforms into advertising nirvana. So why then is mobile advertising only expected to account for a paltry 2% of the digital media market’s spending in 2010 (according to eMarketer)?

Apple CEO Steve Jobs has the answer: “Because most mobile advertising really sucks.” He is right. Screens are small, which leads to disappointing creativity that makes it difficult for an ad to successfully compel a viewer to invest the time away from their current activity to click through. But Apple’s new iAd platform has these possibility to change that, at least for the projected 100 million Apple mobile device users.

It is a relatively small number of the total global mobile population, but as Jobs pointed out in his April presentation it is a very attractive demographic for advertisers. Furthermore, AdMob reported that the iPhone OS accounts for 50% of mobile web traffic and, in places such as Japan, Apple’s iPhone accounts for 72% of the smartphone market, according to Tokyo-based MM Research Institute Ltd.

With iAd, not only has Apple re-thought mobile advertising with the entire iPhone ecosystem in mind, but it has also drawn on its experience as one of the world’s most enjoyed brand advertisers, leading to several features that sets iAd apart. Users will come across iAd within an application. At first, the ad will look similar to the current small banners that are common, but the meat of the ad presents itself after a user initiates interaction.

Paramount to Jobs is that the iAd experience does not take a user away from their current app. Because of the new iPhone OS4 multitasking capabilities, a user can interact with an iAd without closing their current app and go back to where they left off when they are done with the ad. Jobs believes that if people don’t have to “pay the penalty of having to find their way back to their app” it will result in more clicks (or taps) for advertisers. An improved user experience may be just the thing the mobile advertising industry
needs to propel itself further into the plans and budgets of advertisers.

iAd intends to present advertisers a mobile ad platform with more impact, delivering “interactivity and emotion”, as Jobs puts it, by giving creatives a richer canvas to work with, blurring the line between entertainment, information, apps and advertising.

It sounds very promising, but there are questions and challenges.

One unknown is the quality of the metrics and data advertisers will be able to get on iAd campaigns. According to registered developers, there are restrictions on third-party targeting and measurement, which many
advertisers rely on for precise and unbiased information about their digital marketing.

All the data will flow through Apple, presumably on the technology that came with its recent Quattro acquisition.

Targeting will benefit from the detailed understanding Apple has about users from its iTunes and App Store behaviour, however, it is yet to be determined how well this approach will be received by marketers.

The iAd interactive and emotional experience is also not alone in the mobile
advertising market. Companies such as Medialets offer similar units, which also allow for rich and immersive creative.

Furthermore, while the number of Apple apps downloaded far surpasses any others, the Apple App Store isn’t the only game in town. Nokia, BlackBerry and others have moved into the apps distribution business. Then there is the price tag.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that being part of the iAd launch could cost up to US$10 million, with regular campaign pricing eventually in the US$1 million range. There is no denying that Apple has proven time and time again its expertise at making technology simpler, fun and sexier. Apple has redefined categories so don’t be surprised if mobile advertising is next.

The author is Jason Kuperman, vice president, digital development, Asia Pacific, Omnicom group.

To make 'like' easier

Facebook just gave you a great new tool to spread recommendations about your product.

Many brands have content, news about their newest shiniest product, that they would love to get shared across social networks. The idea of information about your product “going viral” and gaining vast reach without having to pay media costs has long been a holy grail.

But despite platforms like Facebook providing the possibility for it to happen, it hasn’t.

Why, because of the friction involved. The effort both you (the brand) and your fans have to go through to get the information to “jump the wall” from your website to the social network, is too high.
Facebook just changed that by proving a portable Like button (it used be the Fan button). Copy and paste a few lines of code onto your site and you can have that familiar Thumbs Up right on your own website. And since a Like is form of recommendation, earning and getting those Likes visible is extremely valuable.

Here is the simple elegance, when a person clicks on the Like button on your site, news of that gets posted to their wall. For their (on average 150) friends to see, and hopefully click on. No need for them to do messy copy and paste, nor to go through the hurdle of logging in. Just click.

Get a few tens of thousands of people to Like your news, and you quickly gain reach that people thought only “old” media could give you. For free. Facebook expects to serve 1 billion “Like” buttons in the 1st 24 hours of its launch just to give you an idea of scale.

Now, you all you need is news that people will Like!

We at Vocanic implemented this on our own website www.vocanic.com, allowing visitors on the page to “Like” the page. Take it for spin and see how easy it is – easy enough for your brand’s audience to do too.

By Ian McKee, CEO Vocanic

Brand within a brand

How important a role do brands play when it comes to creating a nation’s image? Perhaps a lot, according to Tim Love, Omnicom’s Vice Chairman and recently-named chairman of Asia Pacific India Middle East & Africa (APIMA).

Brands are both target and the key vehicle to improve a nation’s perceptions he says and what better example than the United States. Love discussed this in a recent lecture at Oxford University titled "The Penalty of Freedom."

Despite a generally positive global reaction created by Barack Obama’s presidency, there continues to be a significant anti US sentiment worldwide. Citing the reports from the Pew Research Centre which has been measuring the global attitudes about the US since before 9/11, Love says that the results show a slight improvement in America’s image in 2008, but its well below the ratings in 1999 and 2000. Moreover, this perception was exacerbated by the global economic tsunami that started in 2008 and which has been perceived as a result of unrestrained US financial hubris.

Marketing in its May issue asked the head honchos of agencies whether nations can really brand themselves. Love in his lecture goes a step further saying sweeping societal and technological change has altered traditional definitions of global brands in a world with new frames of reference.

This, Love says, also reflects in concern brands have in mind given the interconnectedness of the global economy as well as potential unfavourable perception towards American businesses and brands. He cites that among the world’s top 100 economies, 49 are nations, while 51 are multinational corporations. This means more peoples lives are touched by corporations and brands than any single nation's government.

“The planet is not one homogeneous market and multiculturalism is fast becoming an essential characteristic of global brand-building,” Love says.

This does not hold only true for America. Look at the socio-political upheaval in Thailand and the impact it has had not only on the country’s image among tourists but the business operating there. Foreign reports stated how some hotels in central Bangkok closed temporarily because of fears of violence between security forces and anti-government protesters who occupied an upmarket shopping and leisure district since 3 April. This included InterContinental Hotel Bangkok and also the luxury shopping mall Gaysorn Plaza.

And just as I pen this blog, we receive news of AdFest, one of the industry’s most reputed event falling to the axe.

This takes me back to what Peter Valerio comments on marketing-interactive’s story on whether Singapore can brand itself as a nation? Valerio says image is a far more appropriate word than brand as far as its perception is concerned. If anything, image management/influencing is far more appropriate and realistic.

Love further adds that the evolution of media in particular is creating a new generation of global citizens whose affect on brands is undeniable. However, he emphasizes that there is a penalty to this new-found freedom of unprecedented levels of shared communications. “In a world where we are all more accessible and more visible, we also must become more accountable—to ourselves, to our society and to our planet,” he says.

Is Twitter killing Sports?

If we needed another example of how Twitter is changing the way of sports media and how the stars communicate with their fans, two players from the All Blacks have given us just that this week.

Cory Jane and Neemia Tialata, squad members of the fearsome New Zealand rugby side currently on tour in Europe, tweeted about their non-selection for this weekend’s big test match against England before the team was officially released to mainstream media.

One can imagine it’s irked the All Black coaches, though they attempted to make light of the situation at the official team naming in London. Watch the start of this video to see coach Graham Henry’s humourous reaction to the Twitter dilemma.

This is just the latest example of how Twitter has caused problems for sports stars, with one particular NBA player, Charlie Villanueva of the Milwaukee Bucks, landing himself in hot water with management when he tweeted during a halftime break earlier this year.

Shaquille O’Neal is another NBA player addicted to Twitter, using the social media tool to trash talk opponents and share his dislike for former Orlando Magic coach Steve Van Gundy.

There are numerous other examples – including rookie Australian cricket batsman Phil Hughes tweeting about his axing from the Ashes test side in July.

Here’s an interesting (American) commentary below regarding the question whether Twitter, and social media as a whole, is killing sports.



What do you think? Should sports stars simply bypass mainstream media and use social media tools like Twitter to reach their fans? Do traditional media still have an important role to play in covering sports?

Who wants to elect an awards jury?

With all the debate about the purpose and worth of award shows in the past 12 months, The International Andy Awards has taken a novel approach – you decide the jury.

For the first time the Andys, which are based in New York, are asking the public to vote on who they want on the jury. You can also nominate jury members who you think should be in the running to make the jury, but you have to be quick, the select a nominee option closes on 15 October and overall voting closes on 15 November

I think this is a great idea, especially in this digital, everyone-has-a-voice online age that we live in. Also especially as the Andys want to make its awards show more global and pick the best of the best from around the world, and have a better representation from the digital marketing world. It's also targeting Asia, so if there’s someone you think is worthy in Asia then nominate them online at electthejury.com.

“Communications platforms have gotten so complex and advertising is going through unprecedented change because of it. But one of the things that hasn’t changed is the way that awards shows work. Our mission is to get more people from different disciplines actively involved in figuring out who decides what the best work in 2010 is,” Ty Montague, co-chair of the Andys and co-president and chief creative officer of JWT North America, said.

Check out a video of Montague and co-chair Michael Lebowitz's explanation on the jury selection here.

American Idol meets advertising award show, sort-of. Will be interesting to see the results of this crowd-sourcing model and what jury it churns out in the end.

What would you do if you got the sack?

Retrenchments, redundancies and lay offs are very common these days in the advertising industry, but what would your reaction be if it happened to you?

Would you document the whole experience online, through a series of videos and images in a funny, creative way?



That’s exactly what art director Shane Dawson and copywriter Ben Birchall did after they were sacked from The Campaign Palace Melbourne, which is part of WPP, after the agency lost the National Foods account. The pair have created this site called The Sack, which shows the experience of them losing their jobs and their travails in filming the journey, finding out what to do with their time, looking for business and setting up as freelancers.



It shows them going for interviews at agencies like Droga5 and DDB in their hunt for a new job, and shows them gaining some small media fame. It’s good fun and worth a look.



So far their videos have got thousands of views (they're up to day 24), and like a fine wine the series gets better with age. No doubt it’s a only matter of time before they get a new job.

YouTube: A web odyssey

It's miserable weather in Singapore today so here’s a bit of frivolity – 100 of the greatest hits on YouTube since its inception.

And all in four minutes. Actually its 3 minutes and 24 seconds, but who’s counting.

This clip recaps some of the best and brightest moments YouTube has captured, some clips of pure hilarity and stupidity, and some which have lead to 15 minutes of worldwide fame for the subjects. There’s everything from Susan Boyle, the light saber-wielding Star Wars kid and Zinedine Zidane’s World Cup headbutt to Obama Girl and Ok Go’s treadmill music video.



YouTube has certainly irrevocably changed the media landscape and our consumption of media, and it’s amazing how many of these clips from this montage have become etched in our minds.

Outrageous Outdoor

Why is outdoor advertising in New Zealand so damn good?

It's hard to put your finger on. Maybe it’s the beautiful Middle-Earth like landscape, the adrenalin-loving people or the wide open spaces. The risk-taking, conquer the world/Edmund Hillary spirit. Whatever it is, OOH advertising in NZ is often truly innovative and eye-catching.



Here’s one recent example for the news website stuff.co.nz:




Those Kiwis just love to do cheeky and provocative stuff.

Here’s one for the controversial Hell Pizza brand (which in the past has used DM which involved giving condoms away in pizza boxes).



And one to promote the American TV show Weeds a few years back by DraftFCB.

This great campaign actually ended in people trying to steal the ‘weed’ from the billboard, which looked very real but of course was fake. A great way to generate some attention.



Colenso BBDO won a few awards with this exploding billboard:



There’s also some work that TBWA NZ has done over the last couple of years, some video game-sniper related stuff and some work for Adidas which is also very interesting.

The question is, why is OOH in New Zealand so good?

And in Singapore, what’s holding this market, a fellow developed country with about the same sized population, back from doing similarly great work?

Football ad feast

I don’t know what it is about football, but the sport lends itself especially to great advertising.

I came across this ad this week by England’s Football Association, to encourage participation.



It’s a great ad and reminded me of a number of good football-related campaigns. This one's from a few years back.



And in my digging I came across a few other gems (a lot from Nike).



This one's proves a nice insight into Wayne Rooney.



And this one is more similar to the first one, and was directed by Guy Ritchie.



To finish up there's always this famous football ad.



I couldn't find the English version but for those who remember the 2002 World Cup it should be familiar. Arguably the world's greatest footballer Pele spruiks an anti-impotence drug, then claims he's never had a problem getting it up. And then there's always this light-hearted gem from the UK for the beer brand John Smith:



So just what is it exactly about football ads? Is it easier to make a good ad about football, because of the subject, or not? Are there any other great football ads you would recommend?

Huge chance for Singapore's sporting cause

While there may be 10 years until the 9th edition of the prestigious Rugby World Cup, there still remains a huge amount of work for Singapore to carry out should the International Rugby Board (IRB) allow hosts Japan to stage some group matches here in 2019.

As it stands right now, Japan has been awarded the 2019 hosting rights for the world’s third biggest sporting event. Part of the Japanese Rugby Union’s successful proposal to the IRB was that it was a bid not just for Japan, but for Asia as a whole, and that potentially both Singapore and Hong Kong could host a group each in the tournament.

Japan has still to put forward a required second proposal to the IRB, detailing “compelling reasons” why it should host part of the event outside its own territory.

According to Ian Bremner, the chief executive of the Singapore Rugby Union (SRU), the time frame for that is within the next couple of months.

It’s not yet clear when the IRB will come to a final decision, while they’d probably be forgiven if they put it on the backburner for now given that their number one priority at the moment is pushing for rugby sevens to be included in the Olympic Games.

What will play in Singapore’s favour, however, is that 2015 hosts England are planning to host some group matches in Wales. The birthplace of rugby is also waiting on confirmation from the IRB but if the RFU is successful, a precedent will surely be set for the following tournament.

But whatever the time frame, if Singapore is indeed given the green light by the IRB, there are a number of key issues to head up the planning process.

Putting the massive sports marketing opportunities to one side for a moment, first on the agenda is the completion of the Sports Hub. I experienced the furore in my own country when New Zealand was handed the hosting rights of the 2011 Rugby World Cup - the rugby-mad nation was split down the middle between those who wanted a new waterfront stadium in Auckland and those who wanted Eden Park redeveloped in time for the big event. The debate dragged on for months, forever stalling the actual building work.

“To be honest, the Sports Hub is definitely the first thing that needs to be organised,” Bremner said.

“In the talks that we had prior to the bid, the SCC (Singapore Sports Council) were major partners in those discussions. I think we all realise that the sports hub will happen – in what shape or form, I personally am not sure.”

Jonathan Leow, who currently heads up the sports PR and marketing team at SPRG, also raises a valid point regarding training facilities.

“I would say that is the one area that Singapore needs to step up in to host a World Cup pool. Even currently there are only two natural grass pitches actively used by the SRU, and the Singapore Cricket Club (SCC) has two more at its disposal,” he said.

He’s speaking from experience too, having previously been in charge of training grounds and pitches for both the IRB Singapore 7s in 2004 and 2005 as well as the SCC 7s.

“Having one great stadium is fine for paying fans, but at the top level teams require their training grounds to be as good as their playing areas.”

If the infrastructure is up to scratch, it then becomes about marketing the event and attracting local sponsors to get involved. On the surface, it’s easy to assume that rugby struggles to get a foothold in Singapore’s sporting scene but it’s a game that is quickly gathering momentum in the city-state.

As Bremner points out, in terms of the game locally, there are 24 schools that play rugby at Under 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 levels. There are four universities and 12 rugby clubs, women’s polytechnic and university rugby, as well as women’s senior rugby.

So it’s clear there’s a local base of rugby people – the problem lies in the fact the national team is not involved and whether those neutral locals will be attracted to watching other international teams square off against each other.

It has been speculated that the Wallabies (the Australian national side) will play their group matches here, though nothing has yet been set in stone. It would certainly make geographical sense to draw Australian supporters (and their dollars) to Singapore, while you’d assume Hong Kong would host England and Japan would keep the All Blacks – the game’s most marketable team.

Whichever of the big rugby nations does base itself in Singapore, Leow sees attracting local sponsors to the table as a major road block, given very few view rugby as a sport with wide appeal. The tournament’s current worldwide partners are Emirates, MasterCard and Heineken.

That fact was highlighted when the proposed World Club Challenge, scheduled to be held here in July, was canned because a lack of major sponsors as well as inadequate facilities.

“Even with the Government backing this initiative, the worry for sponsors would be how much value it would be for local companies – and local sponsors are a key part I feel of the wider picture.”

The participation agreement for something as major as the Rugby World Cup carries a significant number of clauses by way of what you can and can’t do, yet Bremner says there are definite plans to get local companies on board.

“We would be building a very strong programme around it in terms of things like coaching clinics, all sorts of things. With those sorts of things, clearly there’d be an opportunity for local companies to get involved in one of the most major things to happen in Singapore in a number of years.”

Granted, Singapore does have a fair amount of time to play with if it is ultimately confirmed as a co-host for RWC 2019. But aside from hosting the Olympic Games or the FIFA World Cup, it won’t get a better opportunity to further push its case as the premier sports hub in Asia.

Australia’s second ad TV show

First there was The Gruen Transfer and now there’s :30 Seconds – a new Australian comedy-drama about advertising which is written by Aussie ad agency Three Drunk Monkeys (3DM).

3DM, which incidentally is working with StarHub, wrote the new show, specifically its executive creative directors Justin Drape and Scott Nowell with Prodigy Films director Tim Bullock. :30 Seconds is being produced by Zapruder’s Other Films, which was behind The Gruen Transfer. For those who don’t know it, The Gruen Transfer is a hugely successful Australian TV show which analyzes the world of advertising. It features a panel of advertising members, like George Patterson Y&R Australia CEO Russel Howcroft, Leo Burnett Australia CEO Todd Sampson (who has now become some kind of sex symbol because of the program) and DDB Australia ECE Matt Eastwood. The show has been a ratings hit and provided the general public with an interesting, and humorous look, into the world of advertising.

Here's some clips from The Gruen's segment The Pitch, where two ad agencies have to made ads for a fake brief. This one's to promote the invasion of New Zealand.



And here's the second one.



On the back on The Gruen Transfer comes :30 Seconds. While I haven’t seen any of the show apart from these snippets promoting it online, it could be a winner as well.





With a high-profile cast, :30 Seconds is set in the fictional world of multinational agency BND. If you throw the classic American drama Mad Men into this mix, it seems to be a golden age for fictional TV programs about the advertising and marketing world. Mad Men, now just starting its third season in the US (and the second season to debut on pay TV in Asia soon), has been a massive hit and so has The Gruen Transfer in Australia (it’s just finished its second series). Gruen has made it overseas to quite a few countries I believe, but not to Asia.

Why is that? And will :30 Seconds make it to Asia? Why couldn’t we have an Asian version of The Gruen Transfer, with Asian industry members dissecting Asian ads?

I think there’s definitely room in Asia’s TV environment for a show that examines the world of advertising, whether it be done in a fictional way or in a more light-hearted, comedic approach. Both Mad Men and The Gruen Transfer have made advertising seem more interesting and exciting (and more important) as a profession, and in Australia graduate numbers for advertising careers have soared.

If the marketing and advertising industry wants to claim its fair share of the best and brightest young minds around wouldn’t this be a good, if a little unorthodox way, of doing it in Asia?

It might not be exactly tied in, but HP’s new Asian reality TV show which encourages creativity is at least I start. I, for one though, would like to see more of this kind of thing.

Sprite oral sex ad was a fake

A controversial new ad for Sprite, that has been doing the rounds online and has been revealed as a fake, is a very interesting marketing experiment.

The Huffington Post reported on the ad, which it claimed had been banned in Germany, but has now been revealed as a fake originating from the US. The TVC has no official affiliation with Coke or its agencies. The fake ad can be watched here. Its interesting to see the presenters refer to Singapore’s recent Burger King ad scandal.

Its also quite fascinating about the media storm this ad, which is not real, has created. Has the kerfuffle actually indirectly helped Sprite, because it wasn’t involved and looks responsible compared with the oral sex ad? Or not? With what seems like a constant recent stream of offensive and controversial ads, are brands now looked on better if they play it safe in their marketing, or should they be edgy?

What agencies will do for business

Its been a tough 12 months for the advertising industry and it's interesting what agencies these days will do for money.

We’ve seen pitches with 30 agencies involved, heard claims of massive undercutting and more marketers are making agencies jump through hoops for little return.

But on 30 July at the Ritz-Carlton we’ll put that all aside to celebrate agency excellence and the best client-agency relationships in Singapore. This year we'll announce our first ever Agency Professional of the Year, and unveil several new categories such as Search Marketing Agency of the Year and Web Design Agency of the Year. Will Ogilvy & Mather take home the overall Agency of the Year crown again? Who will be 2009's Next Big Thing?

I hope to see you all there at our Agency of the Year awards, and share a drink with you.

Also, thanks to LloydNorthover Yeang for creating our ad campaign for the awards, and thanks to JWT's Angus Fraser and Ogilvy's David Mayo for being good sports. Not that I'll be able to look at either of you the same again though.