Brand reinvigoration: Solo


Ideas for new tag lines that capitalize on Solo’s “Thirst Crusher” brand.

Solo: crushes a thirst like a club to a baby seal

Since you can’t trust VB for your hard earned thirst, why not try Solo?

*animation of a solo can mounting someone’s mouth like a dog in heat* – Solo: its got a crush on thirst

that is all….


Election Watch 2010

The fire represents the excitement, of which there is none in this election

Since everyone else is writing about the election I thought I might as well throw together a quick summary for all those who are not at all interested.

This election is shaping up to be the least inspiring display of political ineptitude ever experienced. Honestly, I have seen potatoes more erudite and interesting than either potential PM. Not only this, but there is very little debate happening because the two parties are in agreement on their primary policies, simply trying to win by one-upping each other around a series of issues that are not actually important.

Here is a list of what both Labor and Liberal have spoken about thus far:

They hate boats
They don’t like gays
They want us to pay less tax (don’t they always)
They hate each other
Nobody like K-Rudd (poor fella)

You could probably go read some more thought out analysis at sites where people actually care, but its easier to watch the two clips below since they basically summarise the last month of campaigning.

Every single ad/debate/other announcement by either party

Our election options
Couldn’t embed so click here

Social Media Expert Kit

In light of the dramatic over-reaction to Crust Pizza posting a link to a youtube clip of bad female drivers I put together a kit to help all the Social Media Experts through this difficult time.


I understand that the implication that all females are bad at driving is sexist, however it is worth noting that the video’s title is actually accurate in that every bad driver it happened to feature was, in fact, female.

Attention Journalists: Do your job

Last night on Media Watch there was a piece on the recent campaign by TCO in which they released a piece of content around “texting based disorders” being experienced by teens, such as textephrenia and post-traumatic text disorder. The release was picked up by numerous large scale media outlets and published as news.

The Media Watch piece took the attitude that what TCO did was unscrupulous and wrong. It asserted that TCO & Boost Mobile had misled the public.

Stepping back from what has already happened lets actually think about what was done here. TCO published a press release which clearly stated the research was from Boost Mobile. The paper had ridiculous names like textephrenia and post-traumatic text disorder. To me, if you’re over the age of 16 this should ring a fair few warning bells as the names alone reek of satire and any release or piece of ‘research’ that comes from an interested party should be viewed with a certain level of skepticism.

From my 2 cents all blame sits with the media outlets. It would have taken 1 phone call and 2 minutes of research to de-bunk the report and save themselves the embarrassment of being caught out for publishing this. I saw someone on Twitter say that to blame the media entirely is akin to blaming the victim of a conman for being ripped off, however I would disagree. In life your job not to thoroughly investigate everything you do, there is no need for you to find out the origin of the lettuce on your sandwich at lunch, as a journalist the ONLY thing you are really paid to do is source information and ensure it is credible. If journalists aren’t doing their jobs what exactly are they being paid for?

Full disclosure: I am friends with the team at TCO though have never done business with them


Tim over at Mumbrella did some actual research and spoke to people and came up with a much better post around this issue in which he points out that TCO didn’t actually issue the press release – though he agrees with my key points, which is what really matters now, isnt it?

Perceived value


A while ago I noticed that a particular piece of thinking that has been carried over from the tangible world of sales and product/service driven business into the less tangible, more abstract world of social and non-sales orientated online business.

In the world of tangibles if a particular action has a perceived value, then there is a push from the business to lower the barrier to action, this can vary from access to a brochure or information pack all the way through to a sale of an item. The reason this works is because a sale has a physical price there is a physical value, so by looking at conversion ratios we are able to attribute a value to the brochure.

The problem with lowering these barriers starts to come when the entire value proposition of the action is the effort that went into it.

Case in point; Facebook removed ‘Fan’ and replaced it with ‘Like’ as they noticed people “liked” things with a lot less thought, therefor brands would be able to grow their pages with more ease. The issue here is that by lowering this barrier they have diluted the value proposition. If we make some very generous assumptions and say that a customer that is also a Facebook ‘Fan’ spent on average $5 more per year than a customer who is not a Facebook ‘Fan’ then this number will inevitably go down when the brand starts to attract less interested ‘likes.’

In many ways we can draw a comparison to what has happened to online advertising, publishers inflated their impressions in an attempt to squeeze more money from advertisers, however by inflating volume the response rates dropped. Advertisers realised that this meant they needed to serve more of these impressions to get the same value, thus the per-impression value of the site was diminished and the incremental gain to the publisher was lost. Thus the downward spiral begins.

Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that there is any real incremental value to a Facebook fan to begin with. So far all attempts I have seen to report on dollar values for this kind of activity have been using methodology that ranges from questionable to retarded.

Moving beyond this some would argue that the value is the ability to deliver messages to this audience and engage with them on an ongoing basis, which is terrific, as long as they are spending more money than people who aren’t involved in that engagement, because every line you read, every word you type has a head hour against it and those cost the business money.

So if you’re attracting more ‘Likes’ than you were ‘Fans’ you might want to hold off on that self congratulatory back pat and avoid sending out that smug tweet to all your social media strategy expert guru pals, because it’s highly likely that you’re increasing quantity at the sacrifice of quality.


A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away a group of free thinkers far more advanced than we came up with a most earth shattering concept known as return on investment. The basic idea of this concept was that when you invest in something you want to achieve a positive return on that investment, it is most commonly expressed as the below formulas:
Standard ROI calculations

And less frequently like this:

Now some would argue that not all of the above are correct, however I’ll leave that for you to ponder a while.