Thank you Virgin...next please!

Merry Christmas!  And what better Christmas present could there be than super-fast broadband to watch all your favourite festive TV programmes and movies (don't forget Mary Poppins!) as well as browse all that wonderful online content while others in the family enjoy a mince pie and watch the Queen address the nation at 3 o'clock on the dot (set your Sky+ or watch it on Her Majesty's You Tube channel).  So its a big welcome this week for Virgin's announcement of the launch of its 50 Megabits per second domestic fibre-optic broadband service (otherwise known as 'XXL broadband').  Next generation broadband here we come!

Advertising on bbc.co.uk?

In November I realised a lifelong dream and went to New Zealand for a holiday. While I was there I have to admit I didn’t think about work AT ALL (sorry Councils), but I did notice a few interesting things to do with technology. These were:

• - While watching the film Wall E on the plane it seemed like an accurate portrayal of a potential future.
• - Digital cameras have changed behaviour – everyone, young and old, knows to check the screen to make sure it’s a good snap. Goodbye dodgy pics.
• - Facebook, unlike many other forms of social media is all about the offline world, the website just facilitates offline activity.
• - I only came across one place in the whole of New Zealand that had free WiFi – a tiny café. This was incredibly annoying.
• - Starbucks staff, no matter where you are in the world, will now always ask the exact same question if you ask for an Earl Grey tea “Do you want space for milk?”
• - Adverts on the BBC website are just as non-intrusive as those on any other publisher.

I did intend to moan about the backwardness of paid public WiFi, or go into a lengthy debate about how the internet must have something dastardly to do with the globalisation of the “Do you want space for milk?” question. Instead, I’m going to talk about why it would be a good thing for BBC websites to have advertising in the UK.

To do so, I’ll kick off with something everyone will understand: the BBC website is immensely popular, advertising on it could reduce the TV licence cost, saving you money. I’m not suggesting that all of the BBC media properties have advertising. I’m not even suggesting that their iPlayer should have advertising; I’m a fan of the BBC’s ad free programming as much as the next person. But ads on their website? I wouldn’t mind that one bit.

One of the great things about today’s display advertising is that it doesn’t intrude. Often it can be entertaining, beneficial and targeting really does make it more relevant. Display advertising on bbc.co.uk wouldn’t really affect the quality of the website experience in any way. It could be argued that it would add a new element to the editorial direction of the site, but the BBC is already competing for high quality visitors.

It seems to me that any resistance would be based around ‘tradition’ and a general resistance to advertising. In reality, advertising across bbc.co.uk would be a good thing in my opinion because I would welcome a discount in my £139.50 TV licence, even if it were a small amount. Perhaps then I can start paying off the holiday…

Can social networking defeat Simon Cowell?

It's always a surprise when the mainstream stumbles blindly upon something truly great, tries to pinch it, claim it as their own and then scampers off into the distance as if nothing untoward has really happened.

I hadn't been keeping up with all the latest X Factor gossip, so imagine my surprise when on Saturday night I witnessed four fresh faced lads smiling (smiling?!?!) their way through a hammed up, chirpy version of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah.

Yes, eventual winner Alexandra Bourke managed a slightly better version than JLS (despite the inevitable, inappropriately uplifting crescendo) but when the 20-strong backing choir had trooped off stage I had to question if Laughing Len's Old Testament referencing classic really was suitable material for a TV talent show.

Covering Hallelujah is of course nothing new. According to The Times, the song has been covered over 100 times  - not least in the film Shrek.

But the real problem for many fans is the fact that its defining version was recorded in 1993 when Jeff Buckley covered it - shortly before his death.

Perhaps unsurprisingly then Facebook is alive with a sense of outrage about what Simon Cowell and his cronies have been up to. 

First up there's the 'Stop The X-Factor losers releasing Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah as a single' group. With 802 members, the group formed to "register our utter disgust" at the idea that an X-Factor performer should be allowed to sing the song. "I for one am unwilling to stand by and watch some X-Factor simpleton strip the song of its beauty and meaning and reduce it to a horrid Karaoke parody," says group moderator Tristan O'Dwyer.

Tristan has obviously been unsuccessful in his mission. So too has the online petition to Simon Cowell: "We the undersigned petition you to change the winner's song on this years X Factor to something different. This song is art, it's history and it is special to a lot of people."

Elsewhere on Facebook though is the "Make Jeff Buckley's Version Of 'Hallelujah' The UK Xmas Number 1" group. The moderators here are a little less forthright, stating that "'Hallelujah' is a wonderful song and it seems wrong that a winner of X Factor should get to be number 1 with it over Jeff's sublime version." This slightly less radical approach has attracted an impressive 2,073 members thus far.

Early signs for this group are quite hopeful. Buckley's version has entered the charts this week higher than the X Factor version (despite not having had an official re-release). In another twist The Sun too has waded into the debate with a campaign to promote the Buckley version.

However like any true counter culture there is of course the inevitable in-fighting and splinter-grouping. Witness for example the more radical end of the Hallelujah spectrum represented by the “If I listen to anyone singing "Hallelujah", it will be Leonard Cohen” Facebook group.

Founded on the belief that “Leonard Cohen wrote the song, and no matter how many TV shows and movies the Jeff Buckley and Rufus Wainwright versions appear in, his version will remain definitive, specifically his performance of the song on "Cohen Live",” these hair-shirt puritans may well split the vote – it’s Ralph Nader all over again.

This is perhaps not a true test of the strength of social networking. There's a limit to the number of Jeff Buckely fans out there after all - and a further limit to the number of them who really give a damn about the X-Factor.

Can a few social networkers really stand up to the might of a show that attracted 15 million viewers - and persuaded 8 million of them to stump up the cash to exercise their rights as a viewer and phone in their vote?

Obviously not. But any dent that they make in the impact of Cowell's latest protege will show the strength of social media against a giant of traditional media. This is in no way a fair fight but it will be very interesting to see what happens.

Personally I'm just disappointed that Cowell et al didn't choose to cover my favourite Cohen composition. In 1968, Sesame Street regular Buffy Saint Marie recorded an experimental version of Cohen's poem God Is Alive / Magic is Afoot. You can hear the results here.  

I'd give anything to see JLS perform that on prime time TV.

Analogue Politicians in a Digital Age

Give consumers tools, win awards.

Has it been a vintage year for creativity?

Every year I look forward to a few industry regulars: NMA’s top 100 (sorry BR), Campaign School Report, Campaign Agency of the Year, Campaign A List (largely because online is so poorly represented – why isn’t Guy Phillipson in there?) and of course Marketing Agency of the Year (the advertiser's magazine of choice).  The reason I love the “Tops” is because the preceeding 12 months are spent answering who I think should win it this year.  First of all, congratulations to Agency Republic for winning back their crown after a two-year diversion.  Being a fan of Gordon’s (the drink and of course their creative director) the site is a beautiful representation of the brand.   A nod also to GT, LBi, Dare and Grand Union who all got a mention though I’m amazed Poke aren’t in there somewhere – maybe they didn’t jump through enough hoops.
 
These accolades are incredibly important and will continue to be so, but this year’s close running says more to me about the distinct lack of great creative this year.  And before i end up on the receiving end of a turck-load of abuse, you I’m fully aware of the brilliant work that continues to come out from UK agencies. Just look at our www.creativeshowcase.net to see stuff that really rocks, and will inevitably go on to win at Cannes and D&AD.  BUT – can we honestly say there has been a tonne of consistent campaigns from each of the top-flight agencies?  I mean each advertiser, each piece of work.  If online is to maintain its credibility, more consistent productivity is needed. We need the quality to match the quantity.  What’s at the heart of this I’m not sure – agency lethargy, poor client briefs, inadequate budgets, insufficient lead-times, all the great ideas have been done, too much emphasis on social media? I’d love your thoughts .
 
Incidentally I don’t think this is unique to online.  I think it’s been a great year, but not a vintage one.

Self-regulation works in digital marketing but its credibility also depends on awareness

It’s goodbye to lads - should it be goodbye to mags?

There are so many reasons to question ex-Loaded editor James Brown’s decision to hook up with Peaches Geldof to launch yet another free fashion/culture/lifestyle/art/photography/design magazine - Disappear Here – on an unsuspecting world.

There were of course raised eyebrows at the godfather of lads’ mags’ decision to co-edit a magazine with someone so universally mocked outside the cosy world of celebrity as Peaches Geldof – some of you may remember the astonishingly vitriolic response to her first column (exclamation marks optional) in fashion/culture/lifestyle/art/photography/design magazine Nylon – with many furious respondents threatening an all out boycott of the magazine as a result. Not an auspicious start.

The decision also raises some very serious questions about the nature of modern celebrity. Now that we are we being forced to believe that a celebrity should be able to do everything from cooking the perfect coq au vin to dancing the American Smooth (whatever that is), must we also assume that just because you’re famous you can also edit a magazine?

Beyond these considerations however, we have to wonder why James Brown is persevering with a medium that is less than easy to make pay. As Stephen Armstrong noted this week in The Guardian, in 2005, six similar fashion/culture/lifestyle/art/photography/design magazines were launched, including Good for Nothing, edited by former Sleaze Nation journalists, and Little White Lies, a movie magazine created by a group of graduates. Almost four years later, only Little White Lies is still going.

Given this to be the case, and given the current even more challenging market conditions, would it not have been more sensible to launch an online only fashion/culture/lifestyle/art/photography/design title? Bloggers are already debating this and other questions here and here.

As someone who spends rather too much of his spare time writing for some of the few remaining worthwhile independent music/culture magazines (including Plan B, Flux and New York’s Wax Poetics), I am very well aware of the pressures facing anyone who doesn’t want to hitch a ride with the likes of Emap and IPC. It’s very rare for a magazine to survive these days – even one that contains Peaches Geldof’s ode to Reese's Peanut Butter Sticks: "*** health. *** teeth. *** vegetables. Eat Reeses Peanut Butter Sticks," she apparently writes in Disappear Here’s first issue. Inspired.

James Brown has done well over the years to rid himself of the lads tag. But is it not time that he said goodbye to mags as well?