The old ABC studios site in Adelaide Terrace, Perth is heritage listed. Who invented heritage listing? THAT GUY ROCKS.

The site is owned by property developer Finbar but the question is, what should be done with it? That gentleman Ken McKay and I have put together a concept for Finbar’s consideration. Along the way we’ve had input and advice from a number of Perth’s most experienced media people. You know who you are.

Here’s a brilliant television commercial.

Except it’s not on television. It’s a T-Mobile ad showing exclusively on the Internet – 13 million views so far. This is not a small scale viral campaign; it’s a big-budget commercial that will not air on TV. Well actually, it WILL air on TV but as editorial. It’ll be shown on current affairs programmes and panel shows. Won’t cost the advertiser a red cent.

And the television industry should be shaking in their boots. Since the bears were bad, the coolest ads were on TV. The effect of that was to drag up the perceived cool of the medium; the best ads were on TV. But now, for the first time since the 1950s, the coolest ads air on the internet.

Why is this happening? Partly for these reasons: it’s free to advertise, longer ads, less censorship, and the capacity for interactivity, but more because the viewers are responding better to that media. They have invested effort in finding it. They have something at stake.

I recently heard Duane Varan at XMediaLab Perth talking about some of his research.

In an interactive environment, people presented with a difficult choice (choose between watching a beer ad, a cola ad or a niteclub ad) are more invested in their decision and subsequently are more positively disposed towards the ad. It’s the same on the Internet; I’ve found it because I’m clever or I have wonderful contacts. That makes me more receptive to the message. The ads work better on the Internet than they do on TV.

The TV industry is losing ad revenue at the top end of the market. That’s a dangerous trend, unlikely to be reversed. The sooner they get their converged asses together, the better.

Here’s a clever ad for the SBS movie channel.

Unfortunately, it appeared in a brochure promoting the French Film Festival in Perth. You’d have to assume that people who’ve sought out that publication are already reasonably positively disposed to foreign films.

The ‘aren’t you sick of Hollywood films’ angle should be directed at people in mainstream media, not people who’ve already drunk the Kool Aid.

Good creative idea. Not that well executed. Poor media buying and strategy.

An excellent story from Radio National’s Law Report on the implications of the High Court judgment on Ice TV vs Nine Network. It was resolved in IceTV’s favour, to wit, no copyright exists in published TV programme guides. There’s a big knock-on effect.

The judgment says in part: (I was going to say ‘inter alia’. Would you have been impressed?)

There must be “creative spark” or exercise of “skill and judgment” before a work is sufficiently “original” for the subsistence of copyright.

My reading of this is that apart from television programme guides, telephone books (possibly even Yellow Pages), football fixtures and music charts based on sales numbers will also lose copyright protection. Of course, the owners of the “intellectual property” may challenge your attempts to commercialise what they see as theirs. However, it seems from the judgment that you’d win once you got to the High Court. You do have a legal budget don’t you?

In time, perhaps not very much time, third parties will re-purpose the White Pages and probably also the Yellow Pages as online databases.

White Pages (Telstra) and Yellow Pages (Sensis) limit the functionality of their online versions. They don’t let you output to text files that could be imported to spreadsheets or databases. Your queries output to a web page and you have to strip out what you’re interested in.

If a third party scanned all the Yellow Pages ads they could collect and publish the web addresses and contact details of all those businesses. At the moment businesses need to pay through the nose if they want click-throughs to their web site or email. Third parties could index all the copy in the Yellow Pages and allow searching by keyword. Take the restaurant category. You could search for street name, ‘B.Y.O.’, ‘alfresco’ or ‘gold plate’. This would immediately be more useful than Yellow Pages, which limits the search criteria to pre-determined fields. Doesn’t make any Sensis.

Third parties would introduce a White Pages reverse look-up, an ability to identify people who’ve moved house in the last twelve months (by comparing old and new books) and the sub-set of businesses big enough to take out bold and super-bold entries. They’ll be looking for opportunities to add value to the core information.

I think Sensis and White Pages still define themselves largely as books rather than databases. Yellow Pages revenue is under pressure. For Pete’s sake; it’s published once a year, it contains no product or price information and it offers a paltry number of low resolution pictures on crap-quality paper.

Now add in this decision, which may well open them up to even more online competition. The High Court has said data is just data. Information wants to be free.

- Further discussion of the legal implications: DLA Phillips Fox

- David Richards notes the lack of coverage of the judgment by Nine’s print media.

One for the romantics. Possibly not safe for work. Depends where you work.

Err, outtake number three was cute.

Advertising taboo subjects is a fascinating business. I think more than any other form of communication, advertising has helped counter our Victorian legacy. Sanitary products, sexual health, dealing with cancer… it’s not just sellin’ stuff.

Via BoingBoing.

Starting with a cricket theme, we are giving viewers the chance to evict television personalities, programs and executives.

As the graph says, SMS your victim’s number or enter it on the web at m.smspoll.net

Cruel. But fair.

One vote only! By the way, SMS votes are at your normal SMS rates, not at premium rates. This is how we roll.

Here’s what happened. Microsoft’s new agency, Crispin Porter + Bogusky, did some research that told them:

1. ‘Bill Gates is inextricably linked with Microsoft and he is perceived positively’ [If Robert Mugabe gave $37B to charity he would be seen positively too].

2. Apple is seen as more cool than Windows

So they’ve created this campaign with Seinfeld and Gates, who are not, it turns out, the next Abbott and Costello. First ad. Second ad – runs 4.5 minutes. Even if this campaign worked better (Gates is not an actor and the script is at best, mildly amusing) it’s strategically flawed.

Windows is the number one operating system in the market by a factor of ten. It’s not healthy for them to be responding to the number two guy. Besides, how are you going to out-cool Apple? Apple make cool hardware. THINGS that look cool. Play music. Have innovative interfaces. You are not going to overturn that with lame sit-com humour and nothing to back it up.

Here are some alternative strategies and executions:

1. Personalise Microsoft by interviewing their bright young computer scientists. Let them talk about the projects they’re working on. Show off Silverlight and Sea Dragon and other cool software technologies. Replace the Gates image with young, smart people.

2. Associate Microsoft with business use. Find some personable execs with business stories that highlight the increased productivity that Windows has delivered. But make them REAL people and REAL stories. Don’t patronise us and don’t shove it down our throats.

3. Let us know you’re serious! Introduce us to Steve Ballmer. “Hi, I’m Steve Ballmer; the fat, bald guy who runs Microsoft now. Let me take a minute to tell you some of the things we’re working on”. Okay, maybe skip the ‘fat, bald’ bit. My point is, owning the serious territory is important. Apple can’t go there. Microsoft could position themselves as the RATIONAL choice. Value for money, wider choice of third-party software, huge installed base of MS Office …

Hard to know what the right direction is without access to research but the current campaign does not have enough humour to overcome the lack of authenticity. It’s more spin when what they need is to be more grounded.

I was surprised to see an ad for Woolworths during the Network Seven Olympic coverage. You would have thought Coles’ position as major sponsor [see comments] would have given them some category exclusivity.

Research has consistently shown that sponsorship is almost always a poor way of spending advertising dollars. More evidence recently from the Adelaide School of Commerce.

The consumer is so deluged with advertising the association between the event and the advertiser is quickly forgotten. Who sponsored the Melbourne Cup? Who sponsored The Australian Open this year? Who sponsored the last AFL Grand Final? Answers below…

Of course, sometimes TV stations sell sponsorship packages that discount the cost of advertising. Even then it’s hard to justify; you’re buying frequency at the expense of reach. In other words, the same people are seeing your ad over and over. The better strategy is to spread your advertising as widely as possible.

For premium events like those mentioned and certainly for the Olympics, you pay a premium. The justification is that you are hitting such a large audience. In effect this is saying, good reach, less frequency. Offset I believe by the premium and the fact that you have to buy a large number of spots.

Why do apparently rational companies buy into this?

Well maybe not, here’s a contrary view from Mediacom’s Anne Parsons.

One of the interesting things with sponsorships is that the advertising adopts the theme of the event. At present, almost all advertisements feature China and Australian sport. This would be clever if you were the only advertiser doing it. Unfortunately, just about every sponsor has gone down this path, which minimises the amount of cut-through the advertiser gets. Just remind me; this ad I’ve seen 180 times with the beautiful Chinese girls and lots of red in it, who’s that for again?

Partly it happens because the ad agency has to justify the extraordinary expense of the Olympic sponsorship. In light of the massive spend and the fact that the agency was party to the decision it would be a brave Creative Director to advocate another theme. And yet, an ad which avoided the Olympic theme would have stood out. Gorilla in a jockstrap.

For what it’s worth, I like the Coles campaign. The ad acknowledges parents who support their little sporting prodigies. It features normal looking people. Scary concept.

Answers: Emirates, Kia, Toyota. Hope you got ‘em right. About $30m worth of sponsorship there.

I worry that ABC chief Kim Dalton is spending too much time in the public eye. In trying to talk up free-to-air TV’s future in the Sydney Morning Herald he says ‘additional free-to-air digital channels and devices such as Seven Network’s TiVo will reduce the appeal of pay TV’. Then in the same article he’s quoted as saying ‘the TiVo recorder and digital set-top box would remain a relatively niche product’.

Reminds me of the Jewish couple leaving the restaurant. ‘That was the worst food I’ve ever eaten’. ‘Yes, and such small portions!’

ABC Chief Kim Dalton has just outlined the White Picket Fence view of media policy, calling for enforced quotas of Australian broadband content. Gee, wouldn’t the Internet be great if it were just like television?

No. One of the main reasons for the growth of the Internet is its phenomenal diversity compared to alternative media. Imposing content restrictions would reduce diversity instead of furthering the internationalisation of the Australian media. If we are to review regulatory policy, we should aim to participate on the world stage rather than “protect the Australian culture”, as he puts it. Is he worried we might not get another series of Big Brother? There is no reference I can see in the ABC’s charter to “protecting the Australian culture”.

He speaks of the “risk of our culture being lost under a tide of cheap-to-access overseas programming”. Culture is dynamic, it’s something that evolves. Not something you put in a box and protect. Don’t panic: we’re not going to lose it. The focus should be on helping Australians export ‘cheap-to-access overseas programming’ not on protecting us from it.

The Internet is awash with foreign culture and that’s the good news. Let’s not devote too much energy to reinforcing our differences.

And you don’t get ‘better culture’ by paying more money. Dalton is confusing culture with production values.

I’m thinking by the way that he should be acknowledged for one of the year’s best understatements: “Although Mr Dalton admits regulating the online industry is problematic…”.

Enforcing Australian content restrictions on television stations was understandable in the days of three commercial television stations and one public network. Limited bandwidth. But it is an anachronism in a market with unlimited channels and unlimited choices. The people are voting for choice. Get your outdated bureaucratic hands off our internet.