You can’t win them all

The broadcast of Virginia Tech gunman, Cho Seung-Hui’s ramblings and psychotic behaviour on American TV networks, NBC, ABC and CBS has opened up heated debate on media ethics.

It’s true we now live in a world shrunk so small by advancements in communications technology that hours after American TV networks broadcasted the ravings of the Virginia Tech mass murderer, Singaporeans were on YouTube watching as media yet again gave an outlet for psychopaths to spread their messages of hate to mainstream audiences.

I guess the question is, how does broadcasting the videos serve the public interest – is it news or a tactic to attract ratings? Everyone one of us will have our own opinions on this and I welcome all, I personally think in situations like this, each case must be taken on its own ‘merits’.

Did the video help the public deal better with their grief? By putting a face to the killer and showcasing his ideals, do we better understand why he did it? Will we cause more harm by showing the video?

I don’t support arguments saying violence in videogames and movies cause people to kill, and I hate it when governments start censoring things but I do understand that in the realm of school shootings and high profile killings – notorious killers often look at other high profile killers as sources of ‘inspiration’.

By airing his grievances have the media ‘glorified’ his actions, of course not in the minds of me or you but what must a disturbed teenager who relates to Seung-Hui’s statements and impressions of the world, think?

I agree that media have an almost impossible task in balancing truth and harm and if anything good has come out of this video, it’s that it has brought about debate and kept media on its on toes. All networks who broadcasted the images have since assured the public it will limit future broadcasts of the offending footage.

In truth, I don’t think airing the videos will ever help people fully understand why he did what he did because his mind was just not right.


I guess the next step in the Virginia Tech murders is the blame game – and it will be the media who get to point some fingers.

The Branding vs Advertising misconception

Hands up who thinks running an ad in the papers or on TV is considered doing branding.

Now hands up who is surprised when I say advertising is just the tip of the iceberg and branding encompasses so many more things such as strategic planning, brand identity development, packaging, design, alignment of entire company staff with corporate identity, pre- and post-purchase customer service etc.

I’d safely most of you raising your hands that second time think you know the difference between the two but actually you don’t, because your ad agencies throw in a bit of packaging and design services for free, and you happily accept it as a good deal.

Perhaps the conversations we’ve been having in the magazine and on this blog are premature because the issue is not about building bigger and better local brands to take worldwide – the issue is that we mistake branding for advertising and thus will not be able to ever build those brands.

Branding is about the intangibles (service, image etc.) as much as it is about the tangibles (ad campaign, packaging) and all that contributes to you handing that $6.00 over for a Java Chip Frappuccino at Starbucks.

I had the privilege of meeting with the guys from Landor Associates recently and Sydney-based MD Michael Graham shared with me about the future of marketing. He says the concept of ROI in marketing is a financial one and is currently way overrated. It should be paired with the measurement of intangibles, which also means quantifying all touchpoints in the entire customer journey.

Michael Graham, Joseph Mcglennon and Frank Vial

Your brand should be your value creating tool, he says. Marketing is value creation and the current accounting system is incapable of managing that.

But marketing can be accountable and intangibles can be measured so systems have to be put into place to help us better understand that the investments we are making outside of just advertising can in fact bring us the Holy Grail of marketing – ROI.

Food for thought.

NB. This happened to be the same topic Marketing's inaugural Hong Kong edition ran as the cover story in March. While the article is currently not available online, if you want to have a peek, send me an email at debbiec@marketing-interactive.com.

Row upon row

For an idea of the scale of the judging process at the D&AD global Awards 2007, take a look at this:

Photo credit: Christine Donnier-Valentin

That’s just a glimpse of the 25,000 pieces of creative work that the judges have to plough through, but the good news is that judging ends today. Now that the hard yakka is done, it's just a nailbiting wait to the first week of April before entrants can find out how they fared.

Here’s the link to the D&AD website: http://www.dandad.org/

And here’s the link to the awards page: http://awards07.dandad.org/

Marketing’s guest blogger Victor Ng from Leo Burnett was one of the judges for the integrated category at the event, click here to read his entry for a behind-the-scenes look at the judging process.

Full of it

What happens when a multi-billion dollar company such as GlaxoSmithKline, goes head to head against a science project done by two 14 year old girls? Its a ‘vitamin C’ rich lesson in honesty.

Today, the company was fined NZ$217,000 (S$236,000) by a New Zealand Court and admitted to 15 charges of misleading advertising regarding Ribena advertising between 2002 and 2006. This was the conclusion of a discovery made in 2004 by high school girls who used the popular drink in their science project.

The science project found that Ribena contained no vitamin C which was in complete contrast to the drinks’ ad messages which claim Ribena is healthy and that black currant juice has more vitamin C than oranges (Do you guys remember that ad were the Ribena blackcurrants save the oranges?).

In New Zealand, which is where the fateful ‘experiment’ took place – Ribena ads claimed it had at least seven milligrams of vitamin C per 100 millilitres. The experiment showed it didn’t and proved that Ribena ads were full of something alright…just not vitamin C.

GlaxoSmithKline have been ordered to run corrective advertising (so they have to tell the truth) as well as put up a ‘message’ on its website.



It’s a fact that a company as rich as they are, is not going to be hurt at all by the fine but at least it’s a win for Team Moral and Team Principles. I am not saying ads always have to tell the truth (I am just as much of a fan of kooky ads and ads which make you think “as if!” as the next person) but I say if you want to use “facts” in ads then those “facts” need to be right – no excuses.

It’s like buying a toilet that doesn’t really flush – (Ok I am exaggerating and I’ve never actually gone out and bought a toilet but you get my drift).

Please explain

The Health Promotion Board’s latest anti-smoking campaign includes a TVC graphically showing a mouth cancer sufferer talking about the ill effects of smoking – the ad is good, very soul wrenching and hard hitting, but is it original?

Now I am not pointing fingers at the HPB but it is obvious that the video and subsequent coverage by the Straits Times interactive make no mention of a very similar anti-smoking TVC which ran in Australia.

The videos are a splitting image from the ‘Quitting is hard, not quitting is harder’ tagline to the graphic images of the mouth cancer symptoms on the woman speaking – this has all left me feeling a liitle…how should I say this… ‘uncomfortable’.

Can someone help come up with an explanation for all this? Does the Straits Time’s print version credit the Australian campaign or offer up any explanations?