Report International

From Downunder, For Downunder – Guerilla Marketing at London 2012

admin — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:58:19 +0000

Official LOCOG documentation on brand protection during the games claims that “It is evident that many people are eager to use the Games to boost their business activities by marketing their products in connection with London 2012. Ambush marketing…will, if left unchecked, each undermine LOCOG’s ability to generate revenue for the Games.”

.
But while this ethos was evident to anyone attending the games (food venues, for example, were devoid of branding resorting to titles such as ‘Italian’ or ‘Chinese’) the cache of the games was irresistible to ambush marketeers.

Ambush marketing seeks to subvert the dominant advertising message and offer an alternative/substitute commercial product. RIL spent some time monitoring instances of ambush marketing at the London 2012 Olympics, and has come across a rather humorous example of the practise.

The brand most notably associated with ambush marketing is Nike. High-profile ambush marketing campaigns by Nike have taken place at many summer Olympic events in the last 30 years, including at the 1984 Los Angeles Games (a heavily-run television ad featuring athletes and the Randy Newman song “I Love LA”; Forbes 07/08/2012) and London 2012, where Nike launched their Find Your Greatness campaign, with videos featuring people doing sports in towns and cities all around the world called London (with the exception of London, England).

But it’s not just big companies like Nike which engage in Olympic-related guerilla tactics marketing. Two new players have stepped onto the scene, in a very modern fashion. On August 4, Australian BMX rider Caroline Buchanan (@CBuchanan68) came across a bucket of condoms in the Athlete’s Village with a sign reading “Kangaroo condoms – for the gland downunder”. The condoms in the bucket were not “Kangaroo” brand, not even Durex, the official supplier. Rather, they were from two separate companies: Ansell (an Australian company) and Pasante (a small British manufacturer). Buchanan tweeted a photo of the bucket to her 4600+ followers.

Ansell and Pasante have a relatively low media profile, but Buchanan’s tweet changed that.

In the couple days after the initial tweet, there were quite a few retweets and Facebook posts. In the early hours of the morning of August 7th, the tweet was noticed by Phil Han (@PhilHanCNN), a social media producer for the American network CNN, who sought and gained Buchanan’s permission to use the tweet on the network. Reuters published an article on the subject in the afternoon, and the story quickly went global. Not only was there coverage in the countries where Ansell and Pasante are based (Australia and Great Britain respectively), but also countries such as Austria, South Africa, Malaysia, and the United Arab Emirates.

The general tone of the media coverage relating to the marketing stunt was one of bemusement. It fitted in well to a previously established media narrative of LOGOC’s heavy-handed and sometimes draconian approach to dealing with perceived infringements of the London 2012 brand, which Michael Payne, the man who originally introduced corporate sponsorship to the games criticised as an ‘own-goal’ (Daily Mail- 21/07/212).

Both Ansell and Pasante have denied engaging in ambush marketing, with Ansell issuing a strong statement: “We have had no official participation or association with the Olympics at all.” (Reuters, 07/08/2012). Pasante, who had retweeted an article on the matter on their official Twitter as well as having made previous Olympics-related posts, stated “We have no association with the Olympics but we did launch a gold condom this year for champions.” (Reuters, 07/08/2012).

There are heavy risks involved in such marketing practices, especially when one is dealing with something as prominent as the Olympics. LOCOG’s sometimes extreme approach to Olympic branding may be reproachful, but as corporate sponsorship is now a major part of the games it’s not hard to justify such valiant defences. However, for small outfits like Ansell and Pasante, with relatively low brand awareness, penetrating such defences for a brief moment of glory may be worth the risk (pun intended). What becomes clear with every instance of guerilla or ambush marketing, is that our media landscape today is supremely well suited for such exploits and that Organising Committees and official sponsors of the future might be well advised to ‘work with’ such methods rather than against them!

Courtney

38 Days Later – How All’s Well that Ends Well in G4S Olympic Security

admin — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:02:13 +0000

Friday July 6th 2012 was a good day for the world’s second-largest private sector employer, G4S, as Ian Horseman Sewell, managing director of Global Events, outlined his company’s prospects to Neil Maidment of Reuters in an interview.
Not only did he assert that the security firm was “absolutely on track to deliver” on the London Olympics, but added that “If there was a similar event going on in Australia, I would be bullish that we could deliver that at the same time”. He also noted that favourable media exposure could attract many more customers, but warned that “the sensitive, high-profile nature of security meant [G4S] ran the risk of its image being damaged if problems occurred”.
Unlucky guess, or did he know that there was a storm coming? Whatever the case, two days later the UK Sunday papers ran with the story that the firm being paid £300m to guard the Olympics had “yet to fully train or accredit thousands of security guards needed to protect the games from terrorist attack” (The Observer). On this occasion, an unnamed spokesman from G4S announced “We have had some challenges on workforce scheduling this week”.

From that moment on, the story snowballed, with the UK government announcing that it would bring in the army to cover the shortfall, in some cases with troops not long returned from Afghanistan, which touched a nerve with the British papers. Unfortunately for G4S, in the wake of the staff shortage fiasco, the worldwide media – both traditional and social – dug into every aspect of G4S’ wide-ranging global reach, and found tales of potential/alleged corporate mismanagement in several areas, including
• the ability to collect data on UK offenders’ abuse of electronic tags, but not report on them
• investigative journalist Lee Hazledean, training undercover as a security guard for the London Olympics with G4S, alleging severe security issues on local radio and beyond
• alleged security breach by Daily Star journalist of royal Olympic venue with no resistance
• the death of Angolan refugee, Jimmy Mubenga, in G4S custody, and subsequent concerns about outsourcing local policing
• an international campaign against G4S to halt its “unlawful and criminal activities”
• reports that teenagers were being recruited and inadequately trained as Olympic security officers (Daily Mail, July 11th)

Satirists and bloggers had a field day, using the G4S situation as a catalyst for fomenting verbal revolt, as government figures tried to control the message. Jeremy Hunt, UK Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, was ‘applauded’ by BBC Radio 4’s The Now Show presenters as having “fulfilled his remit to fail in all areas of his job description”, and by blogger Tom Pride for implying that “Being Rubbish is ‘Completely Normal’.
A little more than a week after the initial story broke, on Tuesday 17th, G4S’ CEO Nick Buckles was boosting (bad) global exposure for his company by merely apologising to a UK parliamentary committee, rather than offering solutions, and continuing to claim his firm’s £57m fee. The phrase “humiliating shambles” had to be translated into at least 30 languages to satisfy international media headlines over the subsequent days. G4S’ share price duly crumbled.
Media coverage levels rose again on July 24th, following the announcement that yet more British and Commonwealth troops would be deployed to bridge the security gap left by G4S as the opening ceremony neared. As the Khaleej Times (UAE, July 26th) summed it up, security was always going to be a major news issue with this XXX Olympiad.
Now, at the end of the Games, the media spotlight seems to be moving away from the tribulations of G4S as overall security has been effective and the stand-in troops appear to be a “surprise hit” with the crowds (London Evening Standard, August 2nd). The firm’s share price, a mirror image of coverage volumes over the past 38 days, has regained 20 points from its July 17 low. If the good mood of the public and papers continues, G4S may well weather this particular storm and find the space to rebuild its reputation.

Sarah

Notes on a Scandal – The SNAFU with the LIBOR

admin — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:25:14 +0000

To the layman, the task of understanding the intricacies of the banking system and financial markets is a challenging prospect not rendered easier by its confusing jargon. As Charlie Brooker recently put it, “ask me to explain what a credit default swap is and I’ll emit an unbroken 10-minute ‘um’ through the clueless face of a broken puppet.” Public expectations of the banking system, aside from access to their hard earned pounds, most centrally revolve around the issue of trust. Trust that in spite of its complexity, the system is adequately regulated with a high level of accountability and appropriate checks and balances.
Back in December 2008 the UK BBA, the leading trade association for the UK banking and financial services sector, tightened regulations designed to re-affirm confidence in the Libor, following concerns that some banks were submitting doctored information. Libor is a standard interest rate agreed by the BBA made up from data supplied by leading banks which is largely the benchmark for most consumer financial institutions from mortgage lenders to credit card agencies. In June 2012, multiple criminal settlements by Barclays Bank brought to light significant fraud and collusion by member banks connected to the rate submissions, leading to scandal that has dominated headlines.
A review of the UK news media back in 2008 exposed concerns that were reported by leading outlets. With this in mind, when Martin Weatley, Financial Services Authority chief, expressed “shock” with recent Libor and interest rate miss-selling, it is not hard to understand the wave of public cynicism converging on the industry. This perceived betrayal of trust extends past consumer confidence in the system (a fact that will no doubt bolster political positions promising to be ‘harder’ on the City), it is also central to the consumption of news information about the system. The general bafflement about the workings of the markets leads most news consumers to rely on the industry and financial experts to inform and educate. For this knowledge flow to work, the audience needs to trust in the credentials of the experts, whether they agree with what is said or not, and the experts need to inform in a clear, understandable manner. When public expectations of trust are put in jeopardy it does not take much effort for an activist (speaking from any position in the political spectrum), politician or even blue collar hero to add to a negative narrative about the banking industry. It is much harder for a communicator to re-enforce confidence in the system.
Part of addressing this issue and formulating a coherent message requires a confident understanding of the media playing field and the stakeholders who are most influential in the debate: Which stakeholders most frequently inform discussion of the banking system? Who is linked to themes such as consumer confidence and trust? Building confidence through a consistent communications strategy with clear messaging can be challenging when the blame game between government and industry obfuscates news of a scandal. In spite of the political theatre, endeavouring to improve communications is not a thankless task – especially if professionals adopt measurement-driven decision making as a means to deploy resources efficiently and effectively.
It is common knowledge that history should allow for us to learn from past successes and mistakes – an adage all too infrequently adhered to. BBC Radio 4’s The Long View compared recent events at Barclays to the 13th century story of Richard Lyons. Like former Barclays CEO Bob Diamond, financier Lyons was brought before parliament to explain some ‘dubious’ financial practices he had used to circumvent the prohibition of usury – the practice of making loans with excessive interest rates. As we find with the Libor story in 2012, the Lyons case came amid an economic crisis and misgivings about the influence of the financial sector on politics. One does not have to reach back as far as that, but building an archive of media evaluation data can provide history lessons and highlight successes that inform communications strategies and protect budgets. Those in the financial sector yet to subscribe to this knowledge bank should jump aboard now.

Adam

When Does Jeeves Become Big Brother? – Social Media and the Battle Between Privacy and Commercial Opportunity

admin — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 13:13:01 +0000

From the debacle over SOPA and PIPA bills to complaints about privacy infringement by both Facebook’s Timeline and Google’s new privacy policy, control over personal user data stored by the internet titans is one of the most pressing issues of this online age.

Data is rapidly becoming the most valuable commodity on the internet, as users’ web habits are layered over each other to create ever more complex models for targeted marketing. By analysing patterns of a user’s habits on a social network or search engine, advertising can be tailored to better match personal preferences, greatly enhancing its effectiveness. Facebook, whose IPO raised $16bn earlier this year, and Google, home of the world’s most visited site and other equally popular services such as youtube, are two heavyweights of this industry. The companies are said to be locked in a data war, increasingly leveraging more user information to attract higher advertising revenues, and both have come under fire in early 2012 over their inability to protect the data of their users.
Facebook’s release of its Timeline service, earlier in the year, makes it possible to view a user’s entire history, including comments dating back to the inception of an account. While it does not expose any more information than was previously available on its traditional profile page, the company’s decision to make the service compulsory for its users has been greatly criticised.
Similarly, Google’s new privacy policy, unveiled also at the beginning of 2012, homogenises user data across its multiple services such as search, email, geo-location, google+ and youtube. According to the company, it is meant to provide ‘a simpler, more intuitive Google experience’ yielding more relevant search data. Users cannot opt out of the policy, and because of that it has come under considerable criticism from organisations such as The Open Rights Group (ORG).

This past week the company demonstrated just what it meant by ‘simpler and more intuitive’ search by unveiling its Google Now service as part of its Android operating system update, Jelly Bean. The service utilises user data to provide more accurate search data, sometimes volunteering the information prior to a request being made, for example by providing up-to-date match results to a user with a history of sports related searches without the need to actually ask. The system even attempts to guess what teams you support. Reactions in the tech community have been positive if a little wary, best exemplified by John C. Dvorak, a blogger for PCMag, who described it as “startling, invasive, creepy, amazing, useful, foreboding, and desirable, all in one”.

By slowly redrawing the boundaries, Facebook and Google are in effect sacrificing user control and consent in favour of streamlining user experience and efficiency. In practice, this makes for an ever enhanced service, one where information flows effortlessly. As Google Now is demonstrating, such functionality can be mesmerising. However, such stealthy ‘homogenisation’ of privacy is a way of life in today’s age. Many of the 800 million active accounts on Facebook share personal pictures and information about users’ lives with acquaintances and relative strangers, a feat which would have been unthinkable a decade earlier. While this has improved services to the end user, the commercial benefits to these companies are staggering, simplifying and enhancing their ability to monetise the data they gather from their customers.

While there is clearly no need for alarm (after all, it is common to target marketing based on personal preferences in the offline world), these developments certainly demand awareness, information and careful supervision. From using your GPS location to show restaurants your friends recommend to tailoring advertising to your lifestyle, personal data convergence is a powerful tool, one that, like all tools, requires responsible wielding and adequate safeguards.

The unequalled data sets generated by what has become our daily life, offer corporations unequalled opportunities. It is important that Research and insight companies around the world are bound by stringent regulations regarding the use of personal data – ensuring that no company, regardless of size, towers so tall that they stand above regulation.

Lucas

“Like” IPO? – Does Old Facebook = New Facebook?

admin — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:32:09 +0000

We recently witnessed the highest tech IPO in history, but did Facebook’s début on the stock exchange live up to its hype?
Media buzz started picking up in early May, when Mark Zuckerberg ran several pre-IPO road shows. And while his choice of clothing seemed to draw more attention than the IPO itself, overall sentiment was neutral to positive. Days before the $16 billion IPO however, the media’s tone changed when analysts reduced the revenue forecast and issued warnings of long-term risks to investors. GM cancelling its $10 million marketing contract added further fuel to the fire as the social network’s ability to deliver a tangible return for advertisers was put under the microscope.

On the day itself, “not enough investors hit the “Like” button on Facebook’s IPO” (Yahoo! Finance), and by the second day when shares sank to end 10% below IPO price, investors’ dislike became even more apparent. But did this have any impact on the 901 million Facebook users worldwide? Has anyone actually closed their account? Forbes doesn’t think so, and says Facebook “is still a golden child”.

The battle between Facebook and Google continues, with advertising strategy being a major factor as to who comes out top. Not all media outlets dismissed Facebook as an advertising partner following the GM fiasco. CNet quoted adaptation to mobile usage as one area of improvement whilst praising Facebook’s effectiveness when it comes to building brands and running social campaigns.
But let’s go back to the beginnings. Set up by Zuckerberg “to accomplish a social mission – to make the world more open and connected”, Facebook was not originally created to be a company. This people-first approach was picked up by the media in contrast to Steve Jobs’ product-first philosophy. A few years ago Zuckerberg was still handing out business cards that read “I’m CEO, b*tch”, while today, Michael Pachter, among others, is questioning the 28-year-old’s suitability for the Wall Street game: “I’m not sure he’s the right guy to run a corporation”.
Hoodie or no hoodie, the start-up’s soaring success is undeniable, with one in every seven minutes online now spent on Facebook. Whilst latest developments and investigations into Morgan Stanley’s role in the IPO are casting yet another shadow on the event, it’s business as usual on the actual networking site. Or is it? The full impact of investors on Facebook remains yet to be seen, however the main challenge – as outlined by India’s Moneycontrol - will be “to strike that important balance between keeping users engaged without charging them, and yet generating revenue for the company and its investors”. Forbes, one of the most active media sources in relation to the IPO (40% of all coverage came from US sources), remains optimistic and distinguishes between Facebook and its IPO – “Snicker all you want at the Facebook IPO, but don’t write off Facebook, the social network.”

Nadin

Frocks, Rocks and Very Few Knocks – The Queen and a Royal Status Update for the Jubilee

admin — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:15:07 +0000

In the run-up to her Diamond Jubilee celebrations, a poll published in UK newspaper The Guardian declared that the Queen is enjoying record public support. According to the British media, the monarchy is riding high at the moment on the back of last year’s royal wedding, buoyed up by a new generation of young royals who open up to the public and press.

With this in mind, Report International analysed recent coverage of the top royals across the world’s media, in particular the media of former colonies, to compare the focus and tone of discussion.

The Queen was the most discussed Royal (31% share of voice), closely followed by the Duchess of Cambridge and Prince William. Topics boosting the Queen’s global exposure were Brit-themed events in the UK and abroad, new portrait exhibitions, the Cullinan diamond collection, and diamond-encrusted commemorative coins. Tone of coverage was almost universally favourable. Support was shown in the British media over Queen Sofia’s Gibraltar snub, while Canadian dissent over the monarchy was more aimed at PM Harper’s ‘unabashed’ royalism.

Fashion was a major thread running through coverage for the Duchess of Cambridge, the majority of which was positive. UK and Canadian fashionistas highlighted her approachable ‘ordinariness’, while Australian and US journalists tended to celebrate her ‘glamour’. The Queen was also the subject of numerous articles charting her style through the decades, characterised by ‘discreet glamour’, according to Vogue Australia.
Royal biographer Penny Junor’s account of Prince William caused ripples on both sides of the Atlantic, boosting media sympathy for the Prince. His media profile was highly positive, focusing on his accessibility, citing his breaking of protocol to visit fire victims during last year’s trip to Canada (still being reported), taking an Easyjet flight, and opening up to Katie Couric in an exclusive interview on US ABC television, together with his brother, Harry. Widely reported opinion polls stating the global public’s desire for Prince William to succeed the Queen instead of Prince Charles also bolstered his favourable exposure.

While a lot of media attention for Prince Harry focused on his choices of party venue and girlfriend, there was a notable shift towards reporting of his growing commitment to service and charitable duties. His work with wounded soldiers was particularly lauded in the US media, following his appearance at the Atlantic Council’s annual dinner, leading the UK’s Daily Express to dub him an “all-American hero”.
Sentiment towards Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall was more neutral in tone, especially in the British press. The Canadian media mostly welcomed their visit, but included some dissent regarding taxpayers’ expenses. US outlets, however, seemed amused at the heir to the throne’s attempts at DJing in Canada and reading the weather on Scottish TV. Many quipped, as did the Austin American Statesman, that he would at least have something to fall back on, ‘if this king thing doesn’t work out’.

Ten years on from the Queen’s Golden Jubilee, the media landscape appears very different for the monarchy. By the end of that 50th anniversary year, a series of highly publicised, damaging events culminated in The Guardian’s December headline “Royals in Crisis as Popularity Nose-dives”.

We shall watch with interest to see if the events of the last ten years have brought about a U-turn, as retail figures and economic projections for the Jubilee certainly seem to suggest. With the younger royals trying hard to project an image that is more in touch with the public, we predict that the current wave of media support is unlikely to ebb off (unless there are some skeletons waiting to come out of palace closets).

Courtney & Sarah

Fuel’s Gold II: Who Wears the Crown?

admin — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:07:58 +0000

With renewed pledges from both the US and China to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels, disputes between the Spanish and Argentine governments over biofuels and car manufacturers releasing a new generation of electric vehicles, sustainable fuel has been a prolific subject in the press during the last few months. Report International looked into media perceptions of the four major sustainable players – electric propulsion (including hybrids), biofuels, LPG and fuel cells – to try to shed some light on the reported viability of each fuel.

Unsurprisingly, this issue engaged media in a multitude of industry sectors, governmental and political blogs, and sites dedicated to activism, in addition to permeating the mainstream and general interest landscape. LPG and fuel cells, while not achieving large amounts of exposure, were generally favourably presented, but it was controversial topics such as Electric Vehicles (EVs) and biofuels that generated by far the most media attention. EVs emerged as the dominant media topic across the analysis period, boosted, predictably, by automotive industry events. Car makers presenting new models at international motor shows (see previous blogs on Geneva and Bangkok), declarations of putting millions of EVs on the road in the next 3 to 7 years by the Chinese and US governments, and environmental experts giving dire warnings of the consequences of not switching to electric, all served to boost the current high visibility of EVs.
Nevertheless, despite governments and major players like Nissan and GE coming out in support of EVs, influential journalists lambasted EVs on the grounds of economics, aesthetics and poor sales, disputing their commercial viability.

Biofuels present a more sustainable media landscape, which, although smaller in volume of activity than that of EVs, seems to be a lot less reliant on event-driven coverage. Arguments over which base material is best, and issues of international co-operation and hindrance will not cease in the short term. Examples of such ideological clashes during the analysis period included the Argentine government’s renationalisation of Spanish-owned energy company Repsol-YPF and Spain’s consequent banning of Argentine biofuel imports, President Obama’s support of algae-based biofuels vs Republican scorn, the disputed environmental credentials of palm oil as a fuel, and accusations of foreign ‘land-grabbing’ in poorer nations.

For the full report, or to discuss how we can create a tailored solution to evaluate activity around your media interests, please contact sarah.potter@reportinternational.com

Sarah

‘Pretties’ Lighten Up Serious Business – Tales from the Bangkok Motor Show

admin — Thu, 03 May 2012 17:00:44 +0000

The Geneva Motor Show, despite its glitz & glamour and overall positive press, ended on a slightly downbeat note, with grave concerns about the future of the European car industry being expressed by most major manufacturers. The 33rd Bangkok International Motor Show (BIMS to its friends) turned that on its head, gleaming as a beacon of hope for an industry that has suffered catastrophic setbacks through natural disasters.

BIMS supremo Dr. Prachin Eamlumnow’s confidence that this year’s event “will overturn the fortunes of the Thai automotive industry and be the gauge of the Thai economy” was rewarded. Everyone, including the world’s media, appeared to rally around to support the event and make it a superlative success in terms of sales, global débuts and eco-friendly innovation. Non-Asia based brands presented models specifically tailored to the needs of the region’s motorists, some to be built locally. Two of the top three brands, Ford and Chevrolet, garnered a lot of exposure from their manufacturing plants in Rayong, Thailand.

Although peaking on the press days, BIMS enjoyed a high level of coverage both during the week leading up to it, and throughout its 12-day run, gaining headline exposure in Thai, Indonesian and Vietnamese nationals as well as the trade press. Gadget and tech titles were present too, supporting the show’s theme of “Technology making a Difference”.

Ford particularly embodied this by presenting safety features and driving aids ideally suited for the traffic conditions in cities such as Bangkok and Manila, and wowed the ‘techies’ with its voice-controlled music and smartphone management system. As A. Lin Neumann of the Jakarta Globe put it, “It’s a little creepy to have a car say, “laugh out loud” followed by “big grin,” but I am sure you can get used to it”.

Aside from it being more positive than you might expect for automotive event tonality, there was something else that stood out in how the media presented this particular auto salon. Coverage of all major motor shows will include shots of a glamorous model illustrating the car/ motorbike/ carburettor featured in the story. At BIMS, these models ARE the story. For 10 years now they have been generating as many column inches as the products they are advertising, and they are the envy of the international motor show world. In Thailand, they are so famous, a new noun has been invented for them: “pretties”. Check out this highly entertaining take on how this fits into the lexicon.

Although the objections of the self-appointed moral watchdog Rabiabrat Pongpanich and the Culture Ministry were reported, the media appeared, for the most part, firmly on the side of the ‘pretties’. Some ignored the naysayers and merely listed the pretties as part and parcel of the multifarious attractions of the show, others accompanied the objections with wry comments and a ‘here-we-go-again’ air. In some cases, whole features were run detailing the purpose, commercial success and character of these ‘professionally pretty women’.
A few, more serious-minded journalists expressed their distaste for the presence of the ‘pretties’, when they preferred to discuss the grave matter of power output and body control with a ‘guy in a suit’, rather than “some dizzy dame parroting off specifications while dressed like a Barbie doll” (Dr Iain Corness, The Pattaya Mail). These comments only fuelled the ‘pretties” publicity.
The whole debate lent humour and whimsy to the proceedings. It’s a media phenomenon that will continue probably as long as BIMS remains on the automotive calendar, and it was exactly in tune with the peppy, upbeat nature of the media activity surrounding that event.

Sarah

UPS & TNT Deliver – A Major Takeover Without Much Criticism

admin — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:46:26 +0000

Having analysed media coverage of a number of recent M&A bids, the most striking about the UPS acquisition of rival TNT was the lack of controversy. In contrast to, say, last year’s vilified AOL-Huffington Post takeover, the reaction was almost universally favourable. To some extent, it was good publicity for all four of the top global delivery companies – UPS, FedEx, DHL, and TNT, with only slight variances in emphasis across the world’s media.

As you might expect, European sources generated more than 50% of all media activity, North America contributed a quarter. The former tended to refer more to DHL (and owner Deutsche Post) in relation to the proposed new entity, while the latter’s emphasis was on Memphis-based FedEx.

The trade press and European nationals reported concerns and reassurances regarding job cuts from unions and UPS/TNT spokespeople, concluding that it was too early for concrete decisions. Stock watchers generally designated the purchase a strongly positive move for UPS, and for loss-making TNT. Stifel Nicolaus analyst David Ross’ decision to downgrade UPS stock from Buy to Hold upon news of the acquisition was widely reported but alone in its criticism. Transaction volumes were broadly in line with media coverage of announcements. There was mild sniping from main European rival Deutsche Post about “serious antitrust concerns”, which was countered almost immediately by virtually everyone else stating that existing conditions would meet legal requirements, followed up by news of the sale of TNT’s airline unit to remove a potential obstacle.

In the aftermath of the announcement, some industry experts declared that FedEx or DHL would have been a far better fit for the acquisition. Several analysts even seemed to try to inject a little excitement into the proceedings by goading FedEx into making a counter-bid, noting that there was still time for the US firm to make one. But both FedEx and DHL flatly denied any interest in TNT.

Given the current economic climate, 2012 will likely see further consolidations in various industries. We’ll be watching closely to find out whether these trigger such favourable exposure.

Sarah

OLED or HTC by GDP? Does Regional Prosperity Determine Desirability in Tech Products?

admin — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:05:59 +0000

It is difficult to overstate the importance of Asia in the world of tech. This year, China is forecast to overtake the US in becoming the leading global market for smartphones, already first place in terms of internet-connected TVs. The two global TV leaders, Samsung and LG are both South Korean companies. Along with Taiwan’s HTC and Chinese firms such as ZTE and Huawei, they are equally competitive in mobile devices, putting pressure on Western stalwarts such as Motorola, Nokia and RIM.

However, much of East Asia still lags behind in terms of GDP per capita, with large disparities the norm in much of the region. We explored this issue from the perspective of smartphones vs. feature phones in our report last month on the press coverage of these devices in India. Following this, we’ve expanded the scope of our research to cover another technological commodity, televisions, this time in East Asian countries.

We set out to examine whether there was a relationship between a country’s wealth and the available coverage segmented by type of device. Our hypothesis was that in countries with a lower GDP per capita, high-end tech, such as LED/OLED TVs and advanced smartphones and tablets, would have considerably less allocated editorial space compared to more developed markets.

Indeed, this is the scenario which became immediately apparent with regards to televisions. Countries with a higher GDP per capita showed a clear preference for more advanced models such as OLED, LED and LCD devices. Hong Kong, the market with the highest GDP per capita, saw coverage almost exclusively focused on such TVs. Less prosperous markets such as the Philippines and Indonesia, saw much more media attention directed towards plasma and more general TV mentions including CRT technology.

The only exception to this pattern was Thailand, which saw a higher than expected level of high-end device reporting. Breaking down the data by publication, it became apparent that the surprising number of OLED and LED mentions was largely accounted for by just two titles; the regional iterations of syndicated product-based magazines Stuff and T3, clearly targeted at a select young, affluent, tech-savvy audience.

That led us to expand our research to investigate if this would be the case for all tech products. Apparently not. Using our mobile data, we divided coverage of devices by their price point, separating premium models (such as Samsung’s Galaxy S II, LG’s Optimus 3D and Nokia’s N8 as well as the ever-present iPad and iPhone) from ordinary feature phones, and juxtaposed this with GDP per capita data. No pattern emerged. In fact, in each analysed market, there seemed to be a rather homogeneous appetite for high-end smartphones. Even the iPad and iPhone, the most extravagant representatives of this industry, maintained high levels of coverage in markets with the lowest GDP scores, such as Indonesia and China.

Why have smartphones penetrated mainstream press so much more successfully than high end televisions? Could it be that they somehow represent a higher more immediate desire in the consumer pyramid of needs? After all, while both products are fairly common, mobile devices have become ubiquitous around the world. Price could be also factor, although the relative price differential between premium smartphones and LED televisions is shrinking. Regardless of such speculation, it is clear that higher levels of media attention reflect and engender a greater consumer desire. As Asian markets mature, we will doubtlessly see greater coverage for high-end devices in all product categories.

Daniel