Journalism’s New Forms: Complement or Detriment?

It seems that everywhere you turn there is someone ready to say that something is no longer necessary because another thing has superseded it. Blogs are the most recent target of attack, as the New York Times claims that blogging is a fading medium since younger generations are increasingly turning to Twitter and Facebook http://nyti.ms/eLNTOh. There are always people who are quick to judge. On the other side are the traditionalists who proclaim things like “Twitter Isn’t Journalism” http://buswk.co/eczL7X. Yet, Twitter is what journalists sift through to keep a pulse on news that breaks before they can cover it. Twitter is also a source for people to comment on different subjects and link those comments to existing newspaper articles and blogs about that topic. The same could be said for Facebook. Thus the question arises, are these new forms of journalism a complement or a detriment to journalism? My stance is that there is room for all formats, and that they are all beneficial and dependent on one another. These formats exist in a complementary framework that is enhanced with the addition of each new component. Much like the different parts of a song build upon each other, each form of journalism is a building block that is connected to and strengthened by those above and below it. With a song, the beat by itself is nice and a driving force, but each instrument adds dimension to the beat and the overall song. An instrumental is nice to listen to, but the addition of lyrics adds depth and complements the emotion of the beat and instruments. I think you see where I am going with this. However, lets take a step back here and work our way up from the traditional to the current forms. First of all you have newspapers, or print, spaces where complex events and ideas can be discussed in a framework that is enhanced and strengthened with the addition of quotes and pictures. Additionally you have broadcast journalism, whose advantage is that coverage happens as events occur.

When the Internet arrives, everything goes online. This had to happen in order to reach people where they were. However, this process accomplished more than making print and newscast stories accessible online. It provided a new way to archive these stories and ideas while allowing new features to be added such as additional interviews and the ability to access only the most relevant topics of interest for each individual. The rise of search engines was obviously a major part of this aspect. Next came blogs, which gave not just journalists and business people another voice but ordinary people as well. Blogs often discuss current news events or industry topics, which makes them the online equivalent of more traditional storytelling and journalism methods (i.e.  newspapers and broadcast journalism). Blogs support traditional journalism formats by giving them another outlet and format to present their news and stories. With another outlet and format, and another voice, comes a different perspective on the same story. Along comes Facebook and Twitter to give people the ability to express themselves, in a different and more limited format, Facebook in 420 characters and Twitter in 140 characters respectively. Both methods provide quicker and more to the point updates. However with that arises the need to link back to the expanded articles that sparked the comments and opinions they are sharing in order to express a complete thought. Social networking connects and plays upon our natural desire to share stories with others in some sort of conversation. Hence Twitter and Facebook are a benefit to traditional journalism because they promote and spread stories and news through influential people, whose friends and followers refer to the source as the basis for their ongoing conversation. In this way each form of journalism adds dimension and depth, as well as a new perspective, to develop and more fully communicate a news story or idea to a broader range of people. One is not obliterated by the other. Given that, it is not right to proclaim one is better than the other or say that one deserves to be around while another does not. Journalism is a constantly changing medium, and one whose various communication channels do not detract from but are an asset to its practice. Each format deserves to be respected and each format lends its unique voice to the conversation.

After Groupon Ad Disaster, What’s Next?

I was not planning on another Super Bowl ad post so soon, but after reading about the controversy surrounding Groupon’s series of Super Bowl ads I felt the need to comment. Many of you saw the ad where Groupon juxtaposed the human rights crisis in Tibet with their brand in one of their ads during the Superbowl. There were two others in this series, before and after the game, that made for a bad first impression for Groupon. One features Cuba Gooding Jr. lamenting the dwindling whale population and then praising a discounted whale-watching cruise. The other features Elizabeth Hurley’s distress over the endangered Amazon rainforests and then promotes a Brazilian wax deal. According to CNN Wire Staff http://bit.ly/fvhHut the controversial ads have been pulled. Now the question is, what’s next? Some, like Liz Strauss http://bit.ly/gd2vRm, say an apology is necessary. I would like to take that concept one step farther, because I believe that it will take more than an apology to set things right for Groupon. This was their introduction to mass society, which means they need a reintroduction. In short, I think this reintroduction should come in the form of a rebrand. Rebranding is something that a lot of successful companies have had to do at some point or another, just look at Old Spice. Sometimes rebranding gets a bad rap as a death sentence, but if done correctly it can restore a company’s reputation. Judith Aquino’s “The 10 Most Successful Rebranding Campaigns Ever” http://read.bi/hkjt48 showcases lessons that could prove useful in determining the right moves for Groupon’s endeavor.

McDonald’s rebranding lesson was “Pay attention to what the public says about you and respond with products and services that counteract those accusations.” Groupon is accused of trivializing the causes it actually cares about. What Groupon intended to do was tie their brand back to charitable giving, as they have a donation website for the charitable causes related to their Super Bowl ads. Part of their rebrand should be focusing on the seriousness of their connection to charitable giving to counteract the humorous take that drove people away. Old Spice’s rebranding lesson is that “a clever ad + smart use of social media can produce a fresh identity.” Instead of a clever ad, Groupon needs a new commercial that introduces Groupon and ties it to those charitable causes in a straightforward manner. Then, Groupon needs to utilize social media to drive people to its donation site. Burberry’s rebranding lesson is that “brands can be successfully revamped by adapting current styles while celebrating its history.” Christopher Heine http://bit.ly/hnO5TY cites Groupon’s origins as “ThePoint.com” and a place of “collective action and philanthropy” and reveals that Groupon was poking fun at their own roots. Instead, Groupon should celebrate their roots by drawing positive attention to themselves. Earth Day is April 22, and Groupon could easily use this as an opportunity to do that by offering special Earth Day deals and donating a portion of the proceeds. Then, to build trust, they could devote a YouTube channel to showing how those donations made an impact on the charitable causes Groupon supports. Naturally these are simply a jumping off point. Groupon may decide to do something totally different and that is their choice, as long as it brings about the same end result. The fact remains that there is a lot of relevance between these rebranding lessons and the steps that Groupon must take to repair their reputation and make good on their bad first impression. To put it in golf terms, Groupon needs to take a mulligan. However you look at it, Groupon needs to establish a fresh image and rebranding is a critical component. The next move is Groupon’s.

Super Bowl Top Two Best and Worst Ads

All this week people have been reflecting on and discussing their favorite Super Bowl ads from last Sunday’s showcase. Now it is my turn. First of all, I think it is important to determine a criteria of standards for what constitutes a great commercial. Although this is a very subjective topic, I am going to take a stab at it. I think that a great commercial is one that is memorable, it has to have mass appeal and really resonate with the majority of its viewers. It also has to communicate its message clearly and effectively. Even though these are 30 second spots, an advertiser needs to get to the heart of the message and get the main point across. A consumer should be able to sum that point up by the end of the commercial and in discussing it there should be a consensus as to what it is about. At its most basic principles, this sums up the definition of a great ad. With that being said, here are my top two best and worst Super Bowl ads of 2011 starting with the worst.

1) The worst Super Bowl ad of 2011 was the Go Daddy commercial. I get what their style is and I get what they were trying to do, introduce the .co domain name, but it did not work for me. They hyped up their Go Daddy.Co girl pick and it turned out to be Joan Rivers, a big let down if you ask me. She is not a relevant person to pick for this role. It may have made for a surprising reveal, but in a really bad way. Then there’s the fact that they can never finish a commercial without sending you online to see the rest of it. Why not tie in the incentive to go online while finishing the commercial? Last time I checked there are ways of doing that.

2) Stella Artois fell flat and looked dated. Their choice of setting appeared to be 1960′s Paris, and choosing Adrien Brody as the main singer and character did not say much about Stella Artois. There is no doubt that Adrien Brody has a singing voice, just not a very interesting one. The whole thing was a sleepy effort that was easily forgettable. They may have been trying to come off as suave and sophisticated. If they were, it did not work.

Now for the top two.

2) Volkswagen takes my second spot because it was charming and not boring like a lot of other car ads we saw that day. The little toddler thinking he had the force when really it was the remote start feature? A clever way to introduce a new option for the 2012 Volkswagen Passat. Perhaps the only downside was that the Star Wars and ‘the force’ themes going on had me thinking perhaps it also had more power. However, it is a 5 cylinder engine and the previous was a four-cylinder turbo engine. It is hard to beat a turbo engine, even with an extra cylinder. They also failed to elude to how spacious it is inside. Yet, for having to choose only one focal point to get creative with they made the best choice.

1) Finally my favorite ad is…Doritos. I do not eat Doritos and this ad was clever, funny and tempting. The office nerd who is a Doritos fanatic got the point across that Doritos are good. Simple as that. Just when you thought you saw perhaps the weirdest but funniest part, him licking Doritos off his coworker’s finger, they took it up a notch with him stealing his coworkers pants just to get a whiff of Doritos crumbs. A true Doritos fanatic’s commercial but also one that caught everyone else’s attention.

There you have it, my take on the worst of the worst and the best of the best from this year’s Super Bowl ad extravaganza. Overall, it was not the best or the worst and some people really need to step it up next year. For example, Budweiser’s frogs made more of an impression on me than any commercial Budweiser put out this year. One can only hope that next year is a bigger and better year for all involved.

Super Bowl Sunday Commercials: Ideas Old and New

As all of you know, this Sunday is the biggest Sunday of the year. Not just because it’s the Super Bowl, but because of the commercials that will premiere in front of such a large audience during this illustrious game. For me, it’s one of the reasons I started watching the Superbowl in the first place. Although I like football more now, Super Bowl Sunday is still all about the ads for me. During the holiday season I read Natalie Zmuda’s ”Target, Amazon Trounce Walmart in Holiday-Ad Poll” http://bit.ly/fHz3tq. Basically, the gist of it is that Target and Amazon’s quirky ads won over consumers sick of seeing penny-pinching ads in the recent recession era. Quirky ads are the trend of the moment, as consumers look for exciting and imaginative ads that captivate and satiate them. Here is my preview of this Sunday’s upcoming ads (to be followed up next week with my analysis of the best and worst ones). Some companies are advertising to express brand values and beliefs, others go specifically for the quirkiness value, and others return to what worked for them in the past. Two that are returning to what worked for them in the past are CareerBuilder and Pepsi. CareerBuilder is bringing back the chimpanzees that made their 2005 and 2006 Super Bowl ads so popular. Tied into this strategy of returning to what works is their plan to refresh the popular Monk-e-mail with social sharing features and 3D images, as Stuart Elliott’s “The Game Plan? Returning to What Works”  discusses here http://nyti.ms/eIhG0L. Pepsi, which took a year off to pursue a game plan of using ad dollars to benefit the community, is back as “Yet Another Superbowl Spot Brings PepsiCo’s Total to Seven” http://bit.ly/fE7f9n  and one is rumored to belong to Lipton Brisk.

My analysis? CareerBuilder is making a smart move using such a popular ad to introduce new features to a popular fixture. PepsiCo is smart to come back to the game as “Pepsi’s Bet on Community Projects Over the Super Bowl” http://nyti.ms/el7a2X mentioned Pepsi’s sales fell 6% last year, indicating that they need to be using more than just social media to communicate their message and maintain consumers. Six spots are also reportedly consumer-created, which can be horrible or fantastic as recent consumer ads have shown.  Meanwhile, General Motors has seven spots also, all based around the tagline “Chevy Runs Deep” as noted in Rupal Parekh’s “What to Expect From General Motors in the Super Bowl” http://bit.ly/gDtKZt. Ignoring polls that say quirky is the way to go, they are telling stories about what makes each spot’s Chevy brand special. I guess someone needs to stick to the more traditional route of brand storytelling in their Super Bowl commercials, and this year’s appears to be General Motors. Last, but not least, Motorola is promoting its new Xoom tablet with an edgy commercial that may reference Apple’s 1984 Macintosh Super Bowl commercial. “Motorola Goes After Apple’s iPad in Super Bowl Teaser for Xoom Tablet” http://bit.ly/eCAtxd and Motorola’s Super Bowl commercial could be one of the best commercials of the day if its anything like the teaser. Depicting a planet with Apple’s white ear buds on each side and the tagline “2011 Looks A Lot Like 1984″ splayed across the front, the teaser hints that the commercial is an edgy dig at Apple reflective of when Apple went after IBM 27 years ago. All in all, if these ads are any indication, this Super Bowl Sunday will be a spectacular display of brands on parade.