Should Politics Stay Out Of Sport?

I think everyone can agree that for the past year or so, Britain has been doing very well when it comes to sport. Murray, Wiggins, the Lions, the Olympics, Froch and (hopefully) the Ashes. What a great time to celebrate Britain. Or not?

As I look at the comment sections on the BBC Sport page, I find there isn't a single person discussing sport. Murray has just won Wimbledon and every single comment is about whether he was Scottish or British, which subsequently leads into the debate about Scottish independence. 

For me, this doesn’t seem to be the time or place to have this discussion - even if both David Cameron and Alex Salmond were at the final.

This is not to say that I don’t believe sport can be used as a catalyst for politics. Both the South African World Cup in 1995 and the Battle of the Sexes tennis match are great examples of sport being used create a better and fairer world.

However if we take a moment to reflect on the vision of Alex Salmond waving a Scottish flag behind the PM after Andy has just won Wimbledon (which we should note he entered as a Brit), then we find ourselves entering a particularly grey area. 

Personally I think he shouldn't have done it. There's nothing wrong with waving a Scottish flag to support a Scottish sports person or team but Salmond was obviously saying something political in his actions and it was neither the time nor the place.

Yes his motivations might have been genuine as were those of many others. But his presence and his attire was professional and therefore so should have been his behaviour.

For the record although Andy is Scottish, but like so many other Scots he can’t vote in the Scottish independence referendum, because he doesn’t actually live there - he lives in England.

Although a great sporting hero for Scotland, his greatest achievement shouldn't have been hijacked by anyone trying to make him into the poster boy for their political ends.

I noticed a few days later that Andy was invited to number 10, but rather than this being a catalyst for someone to promote their political message and aims, it was used as a day to congratulate him and thank him on behalf of the nation - note, all the political leaders, including Westminsters' SNP Leader, were invited.

edit - WE WON THE ASHES!

The Use of Online Marketing and Viral Media

Throughout this blog I've focused heavily on the importance of the Internet in modern media, because without a doubt it's the most significant thing influencing modern culture today.

For me a key area of interest is viral videos (films), because although they're often professionally made, they're imbued with an amateur methodology.

As noted in the book Internet Marketing: Strategy, Implementation and Practise, it can be difficult for a brand to truly present its personality through its website as it doesn’t give the user the same clues that a physical experience can. Often the culture and ideology of a company can be lost or misinterpreted within the confines of a sanitized website.

It's because of this that I believe that viral films can provide a useful route for advertising brands online. They're relatively cheap to produce and distribute, and they can strike a chord in a very positive way.

The best forms of these videos often exhibit a somewhat amateur ideology, occasionally using handheld or camera phones they're released and promoted through consumer based social media sites.  

Yet could it be argued that the use of this tactic (YouTube videos) is not actually a creditable form of marketing - as it only works if it's picked up and promoted by people who have no rational reason to do so.

Culturally we appear to adore viral marketing [why is this?], you only have to look at the popularity of the Old Spice Guy and the Will It Blend videos. They generate a huge amounts of buzz, large audience figures as well as extensive user comments.

Personally I believe that the most successful viral videos aren't essentially aimed at getting people to buy a product there and then, but to have them talking about it. In other words generate a buzz around a brand that will have a positive affect on sales and orders over a much longer period of time.   

Look at the recent Pepsi video featuring David Beckham kicking balls into bins. The product itself doesn't feature heavily but the content and Beckham's celebrity status have the impact to deliver a message - the film of course can continually sit there alway available, always popular - just like Pepsi!

[the pictures = (1) Old Spice Guy for Old Spice, (2) Koby Bryant jumping over on Aston Martin for Nike and (3/4) David Beckham kicking footballs in a bin for Pepsi - check them out]

In-Game Purchases

Although the big political story at the moment is the death of Margret Thatcher, the world of media and marketing is focused on mobile and tablet apps that use in-game purchases.

After five year old Bristolian Danny Kitchen racked up a £1,700 bill while playing the (supposedly) free mobile and tablet game Zombies vs Ninjas by unwittingly making several in-game purchases, many developers have now found themselves under scrutiny.

But do they deserve the brunt of the blame?

The Office of Fair Trading seems to think so even though they've only just started investigating in-game purchases. In his Marketing Weekly blog Russell Parsons takes us through some of the OFT’s quotes, which seem to be fixed on illegality and marketers pressuring and intentionally confusing both parents and children.

But is this really illegal? The argument is that although these games are free they force you to pay to complete the game. Personally I've witnessed this first hand, but it was always clearly labeled and it wasn't easy to accidentally pay when I didn't mean to.     

Also, I find some difficulty with this story, because how does the child have access to spend that amount of money. When you buy an app or make an in-game purchase on something on an iPad or iPhone you have to put in a password. So how did Danny get the password? And shouldn't this mean the parent(s) warrant a large slice of the blame?

So shouldn't this conversation be about parental supervision and financial responsibility rather than the legality of in-game purchases?

Surly at the age of five the parents of Danny ought to have been taking better notice of what he was doing. I mean they wouldn't leave £1,500 in cash lying on a table in front of an open window. Or would they?

Of course other questions we should ask ourselves is whether we give children too much freedom with technology. Although Danny did not own the iPad he was obviously given considerable freedom to use it.

The OFT’s aim is to find whether or not the safeguards in place are strong enough.

So are they?

Or is it the parents who are at fault?

As an aside - some online payment arrangements include a maximum limit that once reached triggers a re-approval requirement before additional amounts can be cleared. This requirement requires additional security answers. 

Is Cinema Really Dead?

Last night I watched the documentary Side by Side, which explores the science and impact digital has had on cinema. Narrated by Keanu Reeves the film boasts an impressive cast of directors and cinematographers, all of whom give their independent opinion on whether or not digital is killing the art of filming.

Personally I really enjoyed the documentary and it got me to thinking about the importance of cinema in modern culture and if it’s possible to answer the big question, is cinema dead?

As mentioned by one of the interviewees, in the past the cinema was like a church, is was a space that allowed people to gather together and share an experience. It was joy, enlightenment and escapism. However it was also deemed as low culture aimed at the masses. Perceived by critics as having no substance or value, its only redeeming quality as far as they were concerned was that it allowed the lower classes to escape their mundane lives.

In Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel Brave New World he critiques cinema as part of a process that leaves people “blissfully ignorant”. Within his novel the aristocracy use the cinema to make the lower classes feel content with the simplicity of their lives. This was reflecting what many philosophers and sociologist felt at the time, especially considering the belief among many of them, that cinema would eventually kill true art forms like literature and paintings. 

When the leading figures from French 'New Wave' cinema - André Bazin being the key individual - coined the term ‘auteur’ to describe several American filmmakers including Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock, the typical ideology and discourse surrounding cinema changed. People could see that films could be more than simple entertainment; they could also educate, inform and influence. Essentially they became a respected form of art.

Films like Breathless and 500 Blows gained both huge critical and financial success, and from this point onwards the cinema became increasingly more popular. When America had its own cinematic revolution, led by the likes of Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese, it looked like there was only one way for cinema....up!

With the added help of the introduction of blockbuster films (Star Wars and Jaws being at the forefront), it seemed there was nothing that could stop the rise of the cinema. The studios where making increasingly greater amounts of money and the filmmakers where making increasingly better films. 

However the Internet was to completely change that……

(part 2 of this blog will be coming soon.)

The Apple Brand - Store and Site

I think it’s fair to say that Apple has become one of the most recognisable brands of our time, but where so many have failed, how is it that Apple became iconic and a symbol of modern culture? More to the point, how can Apple still make profits in a world where the internet offers so many competitively priced competitors? 

In my last blog post I commented on how Apple (in my opinion) had successfully created a unique environment in their stores where rather than being encouraged to buy, you were encouraged to absorb the experience. I went onto say that there is a counter-argument that experience does not always equal sales. However what I didn’t say was what my response to this would be…

Although the Apple Store does not necessary motivate people to buy products there and then, it does encourage customers to buy directly from Apple (whether that’s online or in store) rather than another store/site (such as PC World or Currys). This is very different to the norm where customers don’t feel obliged to buy from one particular company. So why do people naturally feel as if they have to be loyal to Apple?

As we all know the Apple Store essentially works as a showroom, where customers are urged to browse and fully experience each product supported by expert 'evangelists'. This allows for a relationship to develop between the brand and the person, where one not only feels obliged to stay loyal but also wants to stay loyal. Online - as you would expect - the brand shares many of the same attributes (space, minimal colours, expert help etc) allowing the customer to see a direct correlation between the two.

Not many companies build that kind of relationship between brand and customer, website and store - perhaps this was another reason for HMV's problems.