I ran the first Web Promotion SHOCK seminar yesterday and it was poorly attended.

Getting the marketing right is a process that almost always involves risk and failure. I remember a guy who got promoted at Colgate-Palmolive while I was working there. He’d launched a new product into test market. Got the formulation wrong, the packaging wrong and the advertising wrong. But the market research showed why it failed and the company then knew what to do. Risk, failure, knowledge.

In the case of my seminar, I believe I got the proposition wrong and the creative wrong, so I need to go back and do some more testing. I think I’ll do this with AdWords. But where I failed spectacularly was in my attempts to get some PR; promotion that has an editorial component, is unpaid and carries the implicit endorsement of a third party.

I spoke to the Breakfast DJ of a commercial radio station who said he’d be prepared to do an interview. Right demographic and all of that. He asked for an outline, so I sent him some suggested questions and how I would respond. It was light and entertaining stuff about Google and web promotion but I proposed to mention the seminar. He emailed me back saying this: “this is an ad and I will get my ass kicked by management”. He explained that because I was charging for the seminar, company policy deemed the content commercial. Obviously they don’t want to encourage that, given that they’re in the business of charging for advertising. So the interview did not take place.

I had a similar response from the local newspaper. This is commercial; can’t do a story.

Here’s what I don’t understand. Every radio station does interviews with authors. Authors are blatantly promoting their books. Commercially. What is the difference between an author promoting a book and a speaker promoting a talk? The policy that is currently in place gives free publicity to large book publishers many of whom have the capacity to pay for advertising but it withholds free air time from the whole speaking industry; small operators with precious little advertising budget. The clear intent is to make editorial comment unavailable in an effort to extract paid advertising. The listener misses out on good content and the radio network restricts itself to larger advertisers.

Ironically, our public television and radio network, the ABC, have exactly the same approach: free plugs for authors and nobody else. Of course they won’t take your money for commercial advertising. So the effect of our current media structure is to shut the commercial sector out of public discourse.

Society would be positively affected if the public media lightened up about commerce or the commercial media lightened up about editorial. I’m suggesting there is room for another media network; one that preferences good stories and good content, irrespective of commercial content. Create a media channel accessible to professional consultants and businesses. One that does not rule you out of public discourse because you charge money for a product or service.

Here is a problem; here is a solution. It costs money. Get over it.

You’ve described Radio National as the jewel in the crown of the ABC. I don’t understand why you would allow the removal of some of the most distinctive gems.

The ABC Media Release describes the shelving of eight programs. The justification given is the need for more digital broadcasting resources following the success of RN podcasting. 1.7 million downloads a month, 50% of all the ABC’s downloads and 125% higher than the previous year.

*Scratches head*

Why has podcasting been so successful for RN? Do you think it might have something to do with the PROGRAMMING? It is of course good practice to review programming but what confuses me is the removal of highly distinctive shows. For example:

There is no other program in the electronic media that addresses sport the way that The Sports Factor does. It deals with the culture of sport; from a spectator’s, administrator’s, coach’s and player’s viewpoint. It is moving and insightful. Are they words you associate with any other sports show? A great loss to the media. Its replacement is the show that reviews movies. Actually, movie review shows work better when you can SEE a snippet of the movie being reviewed and what do you know? There are ALREADY two TV shows on the public broadcasting network dealing with this!

Radio Eye is challenging, sometimes hypnotic radio. Meandering, poetic documentaries using powerful sound landscapes. Non-linear documentaries. A style of radio not heard elsewhere and not possible on screen media.

The Media Report: analysing the media during a time of critical change in a way that commercial broadcasting has not been able or willing to do. If anything, a program limited by its half hour format, needing longer to properly deal with complex social and political issues.

And the Religion Report. Mark, as you know, I’ve been a liberal atheist all my adult life. So when I listen to someone like Robert Silico, a right wing, conservative thinker, and he argues a case for Christianity as the foundation of liberal values (and he argues the case well) I am learning something. I am being challenged. That sort of radio flicks my switches.

Again, there is no program in Australia that covers this territory; the contest for influence within each religion, discussion of the role of religion, explanations of religious viewpoints… In the broadest possible sense it is a call for religious tolerance.

The Media Release also says that podcasts are attracting a younger listenership. So what? Radio National’s market segment is not an age bracket; it is people who like intelligent discussion. You already have a youth network. The reason for the lower average age of a podcasting listener is simply that they are more comfortable with the technology. The success of podcasting is not a reason to alter your programming mix; it is a result of your programming mix.

These decisions are difficult, but you need to preserve the programs that cover important themes and the programs that are distinctive. The Media Report and the Religion Report fit both categories. Radio Eye and The Sports Factor are distinctive. Please reconsider the decision.

Footnote: Stephen Crittenden, presenter of the Religion Report, was critical on air of the ‘decommissioning’ and has been stood aside pending an inquiry. Management don’t like staff questioning their decisions but because of the importance of these programs in the public eye, you should cut a little slack. The debate as to what is aired should be public. I can even imagine it becoming a Radio National show. Call it ‘The Media Report’.

The ABC has always been Amateur Hour on grooming. Its station promotions are the other weakness; sickly imitations of the commercial networks’ urgent demands for attention. I’m not suggesting they get better at copying commercial style promotions. Quite the reverse. The problem is an unwillingness to experiment with alternative advertising formats – testimonials, mash-ups, pointers, cross-promotion and snatches. Spare us the insult of needless repetition.

Although their programs treat the audience with great respect, (it’s so nice not to be talked down to) the advertisements they use to promote those programs remain formulaic in scheduling and format. Perhaps there remains some distaste for the notion of advertising, even if it is advertising one’s own excellent content.

ABC Radio National has had tremendous success with Podcasting. But they continue to promote only the forthcoming week’s programs. They could now promote all the content that exists on their web site as well (usually four weeks’ worth of history). Some more creativity in promotion would be welcome. The bad hair we can live with.

I am a big fan of the ABC and a loyal listener to Radio National. Herewith some critical comments relating to the ABC’s Second Life presence. (When will this guy say something POSITIVE?) Disclosure: I did offer to consult to the ABC last year and they declined.

There are a number of technical and navigational problems with the build I won’t go into here. Those interested can do the tour on SL Tourguides and get the full story.

The textures and build are not high quality which reflects poorly on the organisation. Compare the NBC build for example. But more important, the personality of the different ABC entities does not come through. The ABC is a conglomerate of very different media. Triple J is a youth radio network and should look KEWL. Radio National should have intellectual feel. Local radio has a ‘folky’ feel. ABC TV news should be stiff and old fashioned looking (do they do that on purpose?).

At present the island is a jumble of different areas; ecology, indigenous culture, alien building contest … these are not tied to any of the ABC’s brands; neither are they tied to a central purpose.

Is the purpose of the island to help brand the ABC internationally? Is its purpose to discuss Australian issues or to present Australian viewpoints on international issues? Is it a vehicle for re-purposing existing content or a dialogue with some of the internet’s most sophisticated users? The answers would help select content and determine a style of presentation. As it currently stands (early days of course) it’s an island in search of an idea.

I can’t emphasize enough how important it is to clearly think through what you’re trying to achieve before you embark on a building program in Second Life.

There are lots of visitors to the island and the ABC Friends group will provide input. The feedback will be valuable but it will be diverse. Forming it into a coherent direction will be challenging. Leadership needed here.

While the radio industry braces for the full effects of podcasting (reduced time spent listening, competitive content outside of the licensing system etc) they risk missing the newest threat: Pandora. You can try it for no cost until the end of September.

Pandora lets you build your own radio station on the net. You start with one song and Pandora finds and automatically programmes similar songs in that style. That might not sound feasible but the core of Pandora’s offering is a sophisticated database of songs classified according to style. The bottom line is: it works.

Pandora is the best of a new class of “recommendation technologies”. I’d just call it “auto-find”. The business model is subscription; US$38 a year gets you all the music you want. For older, busier users, the idea of hunting around P2P sites to find songs is too time-consuming. Pandora does it all for you in one-twentieth of the time it takes to find tracks, download to your PC, upload to an iPod.

So if you’ve got your computer hooked up to your stereo at home, Pandora is all you need. You get your favourite artists together with a selection of similar tracks, so you still get the surprise-factor inherent in broadcast radio. And for mobile use? Any web-enabled phone. Or, depending on bandwidth costs and battery performance you might be better off with a Wi-Fi MP3 player.

The subscription model is very ugly for the radio industry. Pandora collects the dough, pays the record companies the royalties; who misses out badly? Advertisers and commercial radio stations.

There are strategies they can adopt to protect themselves, but they’d better act fast. Pandora is a great product and word spreads quick these days.

I can’t say I’ve listened to a lot of podcasts but I’ve listened to some. We can only hope that people improve over time.

People are used to listening to well-produced programs on radio. They are the quality benchmark. If you expect to get an audience you better make sure your content is damn good because the chances are your broadcast quality is not up to scratch.

Some people will invent compelling content and slowly rise to prominence. They will have to claw their way over numerous no-talents.

The truth is, this is not broadcast radio. I say that despite the fact that public broadcasters like the ABC are raising awareness of the medium by allowing listeners to time-shift their favourite radio shows; Radio National is up to 200,000 downloads per week in Australia.

Podcasting is closer to what’s called narrowcasting; catering to a specific audience who subscribe to a service.

One of the things that distinguishes podcasting is context and this is where the opportunities lie. I’m not interested in tourism information unless I’m a tourist. If I’m a tourist in a new city and there is a good menu-driven podcast covering major tourism facts and destinations, I’m into it. When I’m walking past the Bell Tower in Perth, no that’s a bad example. When I’m walking around the Sydney Opera House I’d be quite interested in a podcast about the history of the building.

You’ve used audio aids in museums and galleries. They really add something. More general tourism programs can be developed that colour the tourist’s experience of a whole destination, not just one of its museums.

A second example of the power of context. Buying real estate. I’m walking around a Home Open. My iPod has a menu that says, “kitchen, backyard, neighbours …”. Each of these menu items contains a short podcast by the home owner or the real estate agent describing the features of the room. “The Louis XIV commode-scriban has a solid cherry inset with burl walnut panels and is inlaid with floral marquetry and cross-banding. Unfortunately it’s not included with the house.”

The new and powerful applications of this medium will be those that augment the visual experience of the mobile user. Think tourism, thing training, think shopping.

The ABC’s step into podcasting is a screaming success. Radio National last week had over 100,000 downloads and are moving virtually all shows (sans copyright music) to the format. There is now heavy on-air promotion.

It’s a logical fit for RN. Lots of original talk content and most of it magazine-style; i.e. it’s not time-sensitive like news. The benefit of course is time-shifting. U can listen to the show when it suits U; not when it’s broadcast.

In the states NPR are not far behind. Of course, public broadcasters are one thing; there is no profitable business model yet developed. But I remember when they said about web search engines …

Recently spoke to the head of one of the big WA wineries about their marketing. Like most wineries they spend all their money on trade advertising; personal selling into restaurants and bottle shops, talking up their quality and offering cut-price deals.

This is fine when you have the leading brand but long term it’s a very expensive way to promote your product. This company has a good “umbrella” brand (a name used for many products) but their volume seller is a sub-brand without much of an identity. Using the company’s well known name, it has the potential to be market leader but unless the current boss disappears it’s not going to happen.

Ask the man in the street café to name all the brands of West Australian wine he knows. Even in this high interest category, they will struggle to name six. If your brand is not one of them, you’ve got your work cut out.

You do not need to be on TV to create a brand. You do not need to spend millions of dollars. You do have to be creative and know what you’re doing. Special mention here for what I believe is one of the worst advertising campaigns on television: Wolf Blass. Shareholders money. Lots of it. Pissed up against the wall.

And an accolade to Poet’s Corner; a great job using outdoor advertising. Cost effective advertising.

It amazes me that wineries do not make more use of radio. I have just created a top-of-mind brand for a West Australian company in another category with a spend over two years of $80K . The leverage that being top-of-mind delivers is sensational. And at present in the wine market no-one is advertising on radio. You’d have it all to yourself.