Yesterday we launched the WA campaign for the Australian Sex Party. A good result; we got coverage in the daily paper, the talk radio station and two of three commercial TV stations.

I was struck by the high level of engagement by the media people who attended. Much nodding of heads when we spoke about 25 years of ludicrous censorship laws, the power of very conservative people in parliament and the need for more secular people to stand for election.

I asked Fiona Patten, the party leader, if this was typical of the response as she travelled the country and she said it was very much the case. It seems if the election were confined to members of the media, the Sex Party would form Government.

Why are the media (privately) so positive about the Sex Party? Clearly they are among the most politically engaged people in society. It would be interesting to test the proposition and research what is driving this. Here are my own speculations on the subject.

* People who have close access to what really goes on are not impressed by the nature of two party politics in Australia. This would follow naturally from cynicism in the media.

* The media, like the Sex Party, are frustrated that Australia lags in progressive social policy. This would result from idealism; another problem known to affect the media.

* The media dislike the narrow agenda that results from following the major parties. This would result from boredom :p

I think it would be a great tactic for one of the networks (and for our democracy) to publicly declare a Major Party Blackout Week during the election campaign and see what issues emerge. I suspect they would develop a far more interesting agenda and alter the course of the election.

Chances are slim. Today was the drawing of the ballot in all electorates; the only opportunity before the election for the media to gather all the candidates together in each constituency. In my electorate, Swan, no-one from the media attended. Neither did any media attend the draw of the Senate. They were all out following Julia Gillard. Boy, does that work – flying around the country visiting towns/cities for fractions of a day! The media might not like it, but they lap it up.

Maybe it’s just me. I find myself constantly between the amusing and the effective. Here’s a classic case. Tasked with the job of creating an election leaflet for my candidacy in the Federal Election, I couldn’t resist a dig at the predictability of the election leaflet: Picture of candidate. Vote 1. Australian flag if it’s for the Libs.

I’m confident the ad will get more cut-through than the average flyer. It’s more likely to be read. The risk is that people will decide the Sex Party aren’t taking things SERIOUSLY. It’s quite a big risk because the Party is already ‘out there’ by virtue of its name and platform.

On the other hand, it’s not a style of advertising the competition can use because it’s very difficult to get anything satirical through a committee. They just take themselves too seriously. The Sex Party doesn’t like committees because they remind people of things other than sex.

Cheeky, irreverent advertising doesn’t always work. Fuck it. Life’s short.

What to say to your Labor mates

What to say to your hippie friends

Advertising should fit the personality of the brand and the Australian Sex Party doesn’t take itself quite as seriously as the established parties. Not expecting the other parties to use humour all that much so it stakes out territory and appeals to those who find the adversarial thing a bit of a drone.

In those millions of pre-election conversations about to occur in workplaces and homes, very few people will put their hand up and say “I’m voting Sex Party”. We’re reminding people here that nobody sees who they vote for in the final analysis.

We’re also doing two other things in the ad; visually legitimising a vote for the party by showing a Sex Party vote on a ballot paper and we’re explaining that socially enlightened people are under-represented in parliament. If parliament is to represent average Australian values, we need to offset the current pre-dominance of religious, socially conservative politicians. Let’s shake things up a bit :p

For me, one of the most interesting things about Media140 was seeing the effect of the Twitter Wall; the web page of tweets with the hashtag #media140 projected behind the speaker or panel in real time. A stream of consciousness about the event, at the event.

Many conferences these days (IT conferences in particular) have a Twitter back-channel; a conversation among Twitterers about the conference during the conference, but the idea that you show that stream in real time to the audience is, I think, a significant shift in conferencing.

I noticed that the ABC-influenced Media140 event in Sydney took a policy decision not to show the Wall in its video of the event. Apart from the obvious potential for people to spam, tweet profanities and send libellous messages, the Wall allows for a diverse commentary and some genuinely funny commentary. My co-blogger @grum was particularly sharp. And we saw the odd situation where panellist @richardgiles was dissing the audience for not asking incisive enough questions. There’s no doubt in my mind that the Wall adds significantly to the entertainment value of the event for those who attend. And it’s far more interesting than watching on-line because you have the tension of the speaker’s reaction to the comment about their bad hair or the fact that they’re droning on.

While experienced Twitterers on stage apparently had no issue with the Wall, Andrew Pascoe, the lawyer from Allens Arthur Robinson who knew little of Twitter was clearly rattled by the idea that he was for a time (1) not the centre of attention and (2) not able to follow the in-jokes. Some of my friends to whom I described the scene afterwards were sympathetic, describing the channelling of attention away from the speaker as rude.

I think most older people would take that line and I don’t think experienced speakers will countenance it in a normal conferencing situation. To me, it’s giving away some reverence for the speaker in return for a higher level of engagement among the audience. Price worth paying. Furthermore, I believe it is an important differentiator for Media140, which could evolve in the direction of Twitter-powered events, rather than events on how to deal with social media.

You can read my other posts here: a tremendously clever joke about media ownership that nobody got, my interview with Brett McCarthy of The West Australian and and an article about time-rich, cynical twitterers. Er, like me.

And if you’re not already doing so, follow me on twitter – @brettreasure

Photo by Paul Pichugin.

Foursquare and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this Internet a new application. The latest venture capital love object is Foursquare, which has signed up 275,000 New Yorkers to a mobile phone GPS app that lets their friends know where they are.

Business Insider details how the app works; you check in when you go to a venue (a place which serves alcohol) and you get points for visiting. Then, if a friend happens to be in the same street, you can meet and have drinks, just as if you’d actually organised it.

The Business Insider article is the normal breathless account of a new startup about to take over the world. The comments on the article tell another story. “I played with it for a few months, and obsessively checked in everywhere… I stopped participating over a month ago.” And “4 square fills up my Twitter with meaningless crap. Well I should say: even more meaningless crap.”

As I understand it, you can limit your Foursquare friends to a subset of your Twitter friends, but I suspect the status updates (which are juvenile in style) go to all contacts. This is spam for most people and will wear thin. If Foursquare can’t deliver this to only your interested subset, we’ll probably see Facebook and Twitter introduce friend categories. “Bar buddy/friend of mother”. Would seem to be a sensible development anyway.

For Gen Y in particular, mobile applications will affect how people meet and what they do when they get there. Although there seems to be nothing particularly compelling about Foursquare it has its own API so developers will build on the functionality. The value will be in creating apps that address specific niches. Groups of teen boys meeting new groups of teen girls. Business people finding the closest available php programmer. I can imagine an app that o.O that’s a good one. Might keep that one to myself :p

TEDxAmsterdam: Christien Meindertsma from TEDxAmsterdam on Vimeo.

A simple book concept beautifully executed. Let me say that another way: the more clearly you define your project the more clearly you will communicate it and the greater your chances of success.

In this case, Christien’s marketing success allows her to powerfully comment on interconnectedness. Ordering the book and can’t wait for her next project.

Happy Australia Day.

I wrote a song.

It’s loosely based on Waltzing Matilda.

The words for that song, of course, were written by the great Australian Poet, Ukulele Paterson.

Thanks to my Producer, Leo Treasure, who is like a son to me.

Enex have just presented the results of their analysis of the ISP-filtering trials; the Government’s test on Internet censorship. Here is my selective summary of the Executive Summary:

There were two parts to the test; ‘protecting’ people against the sites the Government blacklists and filtering out sites that are not on the blacklist (if you don’t do that, you may as well not bother, as new sites are cropping up every miinute, I mean second).

As you’d expect, the systems all blocked the blacklist sites. If you know a URL, it’s easily blocked. As you’d also expect, trying to dynamically block sites is just not going to work. Enex claim that 80% of undesirable sites were blocked with the dynamic filtering. Leaving 20% of sites getting through the net. Not exactly a success. Improving the accuracy of this filtering, say Enex, will degrade Internet performance. This we knew.

Only 2/3 of customers said they would ‘probably or definitely’ continue to use such filtering. Given that these people volunteered to use the technology and are obviously in favour of filtering, it’s a very poor result.

Telstra did not even test the filtering option, saying it can be circumvented and it is not effective in blocking IM conversations/file transfers or Peer-to-Peer programs. This we already knew and Enex confirmed these conclusions.

It was always a ‘look at me’ government initiative designed to win votes from the family sector. It was also never going to work, as every informed tech-commentator said when it was floated. Incredibly, instead of the government acknowledging the idiocy of this initiative and pulling the pin on it, they are imposing mandatory filtering on ISPs. Incredible.

The invention of the disposable razor is a celebrated marketing story. Invented by Bic, not a shaving company. The reason Bic got into this market was that they were competing with Gillette in the portable cigarette lighter business. The portable razor was a way of undermining a competitor’s profitability. I digress. My point was, innovation very often does not come from market leaders. It’s largely because they’ve developed a particular way of looking at the market.

I recently had occasion to wear makeup, while shooting a video and I looked so good I wore the stuff again the following day. Just for the hell of it. And I liked it, so there.

Men wearing makeup during the day still carries a stigma and it’s a tiny market. A GQ survey in 2005 reported that “92 percent of men would not wear makeup even if it guaranteed them a more fulfilling sex life.” OK, well there’s 8% of us who’d wear flowerpots on our heads.

I think it’s quite possible men’s makeup will become common but it needs a marketing twist unlikely to come from the big cosmetic brands.

Instead of trying to market foundation, a product as symbolically feminine as brassieres, companies should market men’s suncream with added foundation. Guys are happy buying suncream (in summer at least) and once your metrosexual 50 year old sees the difference that foundation makes, it’s down the slippery slope me old hearties.

Of course, getting a shade of foundation that matches your skin tone is critical if you don’t want your mates in the workshop to beat you to a pulp. So the sampling experience needs to be right. Here’s where I think the Internet plays a role. Men are not likely to want to be seen publicly in the cosmetics department. I think they’ll prefer to experiment at home with a sampler.

I suspect the cosmetics companies are too entrenched in the beauty paradigm to address the male market; the major sunscreen manufacturers – Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co – can own this business. As heterosexual men become older, vainer and less concerned about being labelled homosexual, this market will grow. ‘Ray for men’s liberation!

That’s not me in the photo but doesn’t he have nice eyebrows?

A brief overview of perhaps the least understood marketing concept: positioning. It’s what you need to get clear on before you start advertising.

Imagine you’re a wealthy business person and your birthday party is coming up. You’ve decided to book a comedian to perform for your friends and you can afford any performer in the world. Who do you choose? Maybe you come up with a short-list of people you think are equally funny: Billy Connolly, Woody Allen, Tina Fey and your next door neighbour, Tim, who does amateur stand-up.

I put it to you that you have a clear mental picture of where each of these people sit in the comedy landscape.

Who would you choose if your friends were mostly Jewish psychologists? Who would you choose if they were mostly people working in politics? If they were mostly blue collar workers? Each performer occupies particular mental territory in your comedic imagination. That territory is their positioning. Connolly is positioned strongly as ‘outrageous’ and ‘irreverent’; Allen ranks for ‘sophisticated’, Fey ranks for ‘sex appeal’ and ‘current affairs’.

Probably you’re unlikely to choose Tim because you recognise that in the minds of the audience he doesn’t have a profile. He hasn’t established a positioning in the market. He might be as funny as the rest, but for the important attributes of ‘famous’ or ‘credible’, he doesn’t rank.

We build up these mental pictures of where people sit in relation to everyone else – different people stand out in different areas.

Same applies to business positionings. What marketers try to do is mark out mental territory and make that territory as proprietary as possible. Because if our positioning is powerfully clear, it will jump into the mind of the consumer easily.

Some positionings are more valuable than others. A surgeon would rather be positioned highly on ‘technical expertise’ than ‘lives close by’. So choose a positioning that is meaningful to your target market.

Pick the absolute most concise positioning. If you are trying to position your widget as ‘convenient’, ‘value-for-money’ and ‘long-lasting’ you’re going to confuse the market. Be single-minded. You don’t have a $50 million budget. (And even if you did…)

In all cases we’re trying to latch onto territory that we can own. Territory that becomes identified with your brand and no-one else’s. It’s hard to own the positioning ‘quality’ if everyone in your industry says they are the best quality. And they probably do. Choose something that you can own and take into account your budget and your competitors’ budgets. You might want to own ‘convenient takeaway’ but you probably can’t match McDonalds’ budget.

Bind the positioning to your brand name so that when customers think of that positioning, they think of your brand. If you are the top-of-mind product you are likely to get the first phone call the customer makes.

Can you successfully communicate that positioning in your advertising? If you’re saying ‘better quality finish’ than your competitors’ furniture, you’d better make sure the finish looks better in your photography than theirs.

Finally, your positioning should reflect who you are as a business. If your advertising says ‘reliable’ and the customer experience is not that, you’re in trouble. If their experience with you reinforces what you’re promising, you’re unusual. People will talk about you. Otherwise you’re just another bullshit artist. I mean advertiser.

Summary
1. Choose a positioning that is majorly meaningful to your target market.
2. Make it incredibly concise. One idea. Three words. That kind of concise.
3. Make sure you can own the positioning, given your competition, your budget and your advertising message.
4. Make sure your positioning is a reflection of the experience you actually deliver.