For a business, maintaining your brands status and equity in the market is a fundamental. So what should a business do when there is online chatter that appears to be dragging your brand through the mud?
The initial response by some companies to 'brand damaging' posts has been to try and control the situation - usually by deleting a comment or a forum thread. This is about the worst thing a business could do.
In an open environment like the Internet, this step will only serve to inflame the issue. Other online users will then rally to the defense of the original poster. Things can get viral as well, doing more damage in the long run, than would have happened if the company didn't do anything in the first place. This is a lesson Channel 7 have hopefully learnt after a Facebook post from a grieving mother was 'removed in error' by the company. Channel 7's response was clearly a PR disaster.
The best thing a business can do to protect their brand during these situations is be honest. No business is impervious to disaster. It only takes the decisions and behaviour of one employee to create an unplanned situation such as the one Channel 7 recently faced. Channel 7 should have responded openly and honestly online, addressing the questions raised by the original poster. Instead trust was broken with their online community, and the incident will no doubt not be forgotten for sometime.
Whether you have a large or small business, if you come across commentary that appears negative and potentially damaging to your brand, think twice about how you respond. Engaging openly and honestly will always get you a better outcome in the long run.
Sunday, 5 August 2012
Monday, 25 June 2012
TV is dead
Consumer behaviour is changing when it comes to watching our beloved television. No longer are we beholden to its content schedule. No longer do we change our schedule to fit around the programming choices of the station. In today's world more people are time poor AND we now have smart devices that can play video content on demand with levels of quality equal to digital broadcasts.
Australia's main commercial networks are being 'disrupted'. Network Ten is on the brink, advertising revenues are down with an annual revenue decline of 12 per cent on a year ago in the third quarter, not good for an already highly geared company - hence their capital raising endeavours. The traditional advertising revenue stream will continue to decline. Scheduled advertising during TV programs is becoming less effective. With DVRs you can record, watch when you want and skip the adverts.
Unless our commercial networks move with the times, they will move out of business. New media delivery services like Fetchtv are changing the game. The delivery of video content over your broadband service (IPTV) will become a mainstay by 2020. The rollout of ultra fast broadband via the NBN will enable this more broadly across the country. As on-demand video services like Fetch come into more consumer homes, our behaviours will continue to change, as the 'new media' companies unlock unrealised consumer needs. US companies like Netflix who also offer on-demand services will no doubt be on our shores soon.
Major television networks will have to adapt and disrupt themselves otherwise someone else will. The music and newspaper industries are now rapidly testing the market with new models. Streaming music through Spotify, cheap digital downloads through iTunes, reading paywalls at the Australian and The Economist (and soon the Fairfax papers). But it took years for these companies to change after the rise of online alternatives. There are lessons here the television networks should learn from.
Network Seven, Network Nine, Ten Network - it's now or never.
On a side note, looks like Jim's Antenna's already has the heads up. The antenna business may not be around forever. So they are diversifying into home TV and entertainment installations and set ups. With integration of multiple digital box in the home entertainment room, connecting things together can be complex. This fits a consumer need, and creates a revenue stream. Nice move if you ask me.
Australia's main commercial networks are being 'disrupted'. Network Ten is on the brink, advertising revenues are down with an annual revenue decline of 12 per cent on a year ago in the third quarter, not good for an already highly geared company - hence their capital raising endeavours. The traditional advertising revenue stream will continue to decline. Scheduled advertising during TV programs is becoming less effective. With DVRs you can record, watch when you want and skip the adverts.
Unless our commercial networks move with the times, they will move out of business. New media delivery services like Fetchtv are changing the game. The delivery of video content over your broadband service (IPTV) will become a mainstay by 2020. The rollout of ultra fast broadband via the NBN will enable this more broadly across the country. As on-demand video services like Fetch come into more consumer homes, our behaviours will continue to change, as the 'new media' companies unlock unrealised consumer needs. US companies like Netflix who also offer on-demand services will no doubt be on our shores soon.
Major television networks will have to adapt and disrupt themselves otherwise someone else will. The music and newspaper industries are now rapidly testing the market with new models. Streaming music through Spotify, cheap digital downloads through iTunes, reading paywalls at the Australian and The Economist (and soon the Fairfax papers). But it took years for these companies to change after the rise of online alternatives. There are lessons here the television networks should learn from.
Network Seven, Network Nine, Ten Network - it's now or never.
On a side note, looks like Jim's Antenna's already has the heads up. The antenna business may not be around forever. So they are diversifying into home TV and entertainment installations and set ups. With integration of multiple digital box in the home entertainment room, connecting things together can be complex. This fits a consumer need, and creates a revenue stream. Nice move if you ask me.
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Will Spotify pull the pirates in out from the dark?
Originating in sunny Sweden, Spotify has gradually been launching around the globe and now finally has kicked off in Aus. Spotify is a bit different to other online music distro models. Their mission - to give you 'all the music, all the time'. Unlike iTunes, its based on a monthly subscription fee rather than purchases of individual albums or songs. With the subscription you can listen 'on demand' to whatever music you like in the Spotify catalogue. If you don't subscribe, you get adverts though.
To use Spotify you need the app. Its available on most devices and heavily integrated into Facebook giving easy single sign on and enabling users to easily see what their other friends are playing.
So it is good? Well for starters the application is decent. It is not a gargantuan of functions and clutter like iTunes. As an avid fan of good ole Winamp 2.91 - which offers a no b/s solution to playing your mp3s - this is not bad. It is much quicker than iTunes and you can navigate through music fairly easily. I haven't gone that far into things, but first impressions are good.
On the music side, there is plenty to listen to. You can either search for tracks, play what your friends have just played, or listen to the defined playlists or the radio stations.
And the business model? Well time will tell. Spotify haven't reported a profit yet, but they're certainly negotiating plenty of contracts with record labels, to provide content for consumers, and media corporations to get the brand out. Coupled with endorsements from Mark Zuckerberg, and the growing EU and US popularity, they definitely seem confident in their model and have an expansionary mindset.
Will this be the digital music model to pull the pirates out from the dark into the world of commerce? I think its certainly making things easier for consumers. The financials will tell the real story as we see more figures over the next couple years.
The big question at the moment however for me, is how much money is going back to the artists. 1/3 of a cent per song played from one article I read - so not much it seems. For more info on that check out Andrew Harris' excellent article over on Technology Spectator. In terms of an effective new business model for the music industry, here is my summary:
The digital music market continues to evolve. Good luck Spotify.
To use Spotify you need the app. Its available on most devices and heavily integrated into Facebook giving easy single sign on and enabling users to easily see what their other friends are playing.
So it is good? Well for starters the application is decent. It is not a gargantuan of functions and clutter like iTunes. As an avid fan of good ole Winamp 2.91 - which offers a no b/s solution to playing your mp3s - this is not bad. It is much quicker than iTunes and you can navigate through music fairly easily. I haven't gone that far into things, but first impressions are good.
On the music side, there is plenty to listen to. You can either search for tracks, play what your friends have just played, or listen to the defined playlists or the radio stations.
And the business model? Well time will tell. Spotify haven't reported a profit yet, but they're certainly negotiating plenty of contracts with record labels, to provide content for consumers, and media corporations to get the brand out. Coupled with endorsements from Mark Zuckerberg, and the growing EU and US popularity, they definitely seem confident in their model and have an expansionary mindset.
Will this be the digital music model to pull the pirates out from the dark into the world of commerce? I think its certainly making things easier for consumers. The financials will tell the real story as we see more figures over the next couple years.
The big question at the moment however for me, is how much money is going back to the artists. 1/3 of a cent per song played from one article I read - so not much it seems. For more info on that check out Andrew Harris' excellent article over on Technology Spectator. In terms of an effective new business model for the music industry, here is my summary:
- Consumers: Easy access to music, not a high $ per month fee. Pass
- Labels: Big $$ for Spotify access to their current and back catalogues. Pass
- Bands: Earning way less than on iTunes - or busking in Rundle Mall. Fail
The digital music market continues to evolve. Good luck Spotify.
Monday, 28 May 2012
Recording in a pro studio - the customer matters, not your gear
Last week I was talking to a young musician about an experience she had recording her band's song in a professional studio. She paid a significant amount of money upfront for a set of amount time to record. This is a fairly stock standard packaged offered to bands who wish to record in a pro studio. When the time to record came, she explained to me how she felt rushed as the studio charged per hour and the band had only one session to get the song done. Not only that, but one engineer spent hours with microphone placement to get the right electric guitar sound! (engineers - it probably sounded right the first time!) Whilst important, this took time away from the other recording activities that were also needed to make the song great.
As I think about this story I wonder if the producer and the engineer who were managing the session were thinking about the customer - the musician - and what they wanted to achieve with their time. Clearly not. The studio folks were getting paid by the hour. That's all they were concerned about.
I did some research on other local studios and not surprisingly they too follow a similar model with their product. In my current marketing studies we've been discussing business products and customers. It seems many studios simply put the product (the recording studio time) out to the market in the hope they get bites, without actually assessing what customer need they are trying to satisfy. I see plenty of studio websites trumping the cool equipment and fancy technology they have. But I fail to see anything that says we will work with you to make your musical idea a reality. The 'pay, come in, record, get out' process really is a stinker for a young band who just want to record music at a decent price supported by a producer who cares about their desired outcome. For a musician, sometimes your art can't be captured in a pre-defined amount of time - as much as this would be nice for studio owners.
This story isn't the first I have heard about recording projects reaching dismal outcomes for the artist. It really seems that these businesses are just trying to recoup costs for their expensive studios by overcharging poor young musicians for their time. I ask the questions, are these studios really servicing a customer need? How are they building a relationship with the customer through this process? The business in question that recorded this band, didn't get any repeat work from this artist. I suspect this is the case with a lot of their clients. Once off recording sessions and no repeat business.
I am not saying I have the answer to this dilemma, but clearly there is a gap here. A missed opportunity for the studio and a mediocre experience for the band. I can only hope this doesn't characterise many of the other studio recording businesses out there where the customer does matter, and the relationship between band and producer is at the centre of the project and the product the studio is offering.
As I think about this story I wonder if the producer and the engineer who were managing the session were thinking about the customer - the musician - and what they wanted to achieve with their time. Clearly not. The studio folks were getting paid by the hour. That's all they were concerned about.
I did some research on other local studios and not surprisingly they too follow a similar model with their product. In my current marketing studies we've been discussing business products and customers. It seems many studios simply put the product (the recording studio time) out to the market in the hope they get bites, without actually assessing what customer need they are trying to satisfy. I see plenty of studio websites trumping the cool equipment and fancy technology they have. But I fail to see anything that says we will work with you to make your musical idea a reality. The 'pay, come in, record, get out' process really is a stinker for a young band who just want to record music at a decent price supported by a producer who cares about their desired outcome. For a musician, sometimes your art can't be captured in a pre-defined amount of time - as much as this would be nice for studio owners.
This story isn't the first I have heard about recording projects reaching dismal outcomes for the artist. It really seems that these businesses are just trying to recoup costs for their expensive studios by overcharging poor young musicians for their time. I ask the questions, are these studios really servicing a customer need? How are they building a relationship with the customer through this process? The business in question that recorded this band, didn't get any repeat work from this artist. I suspect this is the case with a lot of their clients. Once off recording sessions and no repeat business.
I am not saying I have the answer to this dilemma, but clearly there is a gap here. A missed opportunity for the studio and a mediocre experience for the band. I can only hope this doesn't characterise many of the other studio recording businesses out there where the customer does matter, and the relationship between band and producer is at the centre of the project and the product the studio is offering.
Welcome to the Business Leviathan
Welcome to the Business Leviathan! With this initial post I enter the blogosphere to share my thoughts and opinions on business, management, marketing and the world in general. These are my thoughts, and no doubt, as educated readers you will form your own opinions on my commentary, so please comment and discuss at your will. Your reflections will broaden my perspective too - but please spare me the flames and I will spare you them too :) Thanks to Cullin Habel over @ Cullen of Adelaide and my lecturer in Marketing Mgmt @ Adelaide Uni for his kick along in making me get this blog up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)