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

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

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

The Green Theme sparked serious media debate about the dwindling viability of electric vehicles, a reverse from their hegemony at other recent Motor Shows. With a few exceptions, most of the stands featured hybrids or more fuel-efficient models, prompting alternative energy pundit John Petersen to dub the event “The Revenge of the Internal Combustion Engine”.
Burning issues aside, Geneva was still primarily about “looking at cars”. Media coverage reflected the wealth of global brands on show, and uncannily, the countries carrying most media coverage of the show matched up to the top 10 global automotive markets.
The most visible brands were Volkswagen and BMW, both showcasing revamps of popular models (Golf GTI Cabriolet; Polo Blue GT; 6 Series Gran Coupe; M-Series) alongside new hybrid concepts, with overall favourable results.
An array of different vehicles featured across the numerous “Top 10s” that these events spawn, but some ‘favourites’ cropped up again and again, for varying reasons. The Mercedes-Benz A-class featured in several show round-ups, for being a worthy rival to BMW’s 1 Series. Range Rover’s Evoque Convertible provoked mixed feelings for its blend of ‘whacky’ and ‘cute’. The usual show stoppers Lamborghini and Ferrari did not disappoint, topping numerous chart lists and forcing superlatives from the attending journalists.
But the stand-out model of the show, giving auto pundits something to really get their acerbic teeth into, was the Bentley EXP 9F. Voted ‘ugliest vehicle’ by many, media reaction ranged from revulsion (“Bentley has been flirting with vulgarity for some time, but it looks like they’re finally getting married” –GQ) to disbelief (“[…] nothing prepared us for the Apocalypse. What was going through the heads of the designers at Crewe?” – Autonews.fr). Some speculated that its less-than-pleasing exterior was a deliberate ploy to divert attention away from the horrifying fact that Bentley had actually produced an SUV.
With its emphasis on Green Technology and covering issues close to the industry’s heart, the Geneva Motor Show has left a positive taste in the media, generating a good halo of coverage for most brands involved justifying the existence of these events. And as for Bentley? Let’s hope the designers take to heart Oscar Wilde’s pronouncement that “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about”.

This and much more can be found in our full Geneva 2012 Round Up. For more information, contact me at sarah.potter@reportinternational.com Watch this space for highlights from all the major motor shows in 2012.

Sarah

We identified five main driving forces behind the coverage: arguments regarding ‘budget-savings’, arguments regarding the ‘management issues’ surrounding the NHS, criticism that this reform was a mere ‘distraction’ from real issues, worries about an eventual ‘privatisation’ of public services and demands that the government release the ‘risk-register’ outlining the potential hazards of the reform.
By far the most prolific topics were ‘budget savings’ and ‘management issues’. However, the nature of how these arguments were portrayed oscillated heavily during analysis.

At the beginning of our sample, publications reiterated the government’s argument that the reforms would help the NHS bridge its £20 billion deficit and that it would address the over-management crisis. However, this initial wave of reporting was quickly reversed, as more editorial space was afforded to critics, alleging that no significant budget savings would be accomplished, and that removing management resource would mean “paperwork keeps nurses from [doing] the job they trained for”. So while the two issues, ‘budget-savings’ and ‘management issues’, were the most cited, their context shifted significantly from January to March.

Other topics also attracted significant attention. Following reports that the Prime Minister was ambushed as he tried to enter Downing Street for the Summit on 20 February, articles reporting ‘privatisation’ and ‘risk-register’ issues peaked. The coverage was very negative, focusing on the risk of ‘privatisation’, as well as reports that Labour MPs had requested that the government finally release the risk register. This was further compounded by reports that Nick Clegg was defending the bill and that he dismissed arguments that it would lead to privatisation. Although this coverage was found throughout the national press, it was most focused in The Guardian, which published an abundance of articles on the subject 20 and 21 February.

Indeed, The Guardian was easily the most engaged daily on the issue, publishing by far the most content. The majority of this content was highly critical, with a strong skew towards arguments that the bill was a ‘distraction’ from the main issues, a “deep failure of Conservative politics” and that it would further the cause of ‘privatisation’. Additionally, the paper doubted that the bill would result in any significant ‘budget-savings’ or address ‘management issues’ at the NHS. The Telegraph and the Daily Mail were also very vocal, but were instead more skewed towards discussions around ‘budget-savings’ than ‘privatisation’.

Regardless of publication, no concerted front of support for the bill emerged in the run-up to its passing. Although some voices in the press certainly agreed that reform was necessary, none seemed to actually back the arguments made by the government. Thus the press presented a somewhat dysfunctional reflection of the democratic process, offering a universally sullen picture of the bill’s passing, when only moments before the House of Commons rejected an amendment to block it with a majority of 82 votes.

As a final blow to accompany the bill’s passing, coverage across all major dailies (and their political spectra) on 20 March was fraught with political promises to repeal, fight and object to its consequences at every opportunity – will this be a classic case of the Commons Shuffle? One step forward, two steps back?

Amy & Lucas

India’s media landscape exhibited some immediately familiar features. In the English language websites, there was a prevalence of attention for Apple’s products (iPhone and iPad had a share of voice of 28%), which dwarfed classic leaders in the market like Nokia and RIM (20% and 14% respectively).

However, when we looked into the native language publications (from a range of Bengali, Hindi, Marathi and Tamil sources), Apple represented just 14% of brand visibility, less than half of Nokia’s 34% share. In this media category, Apple was in fact in third place, with RIM taking a 26% share of voice. Its position was even worse in terms of sentiment, moving from being the most favourably depicted brand in the English websites to seventh place in native language.

We identified three distinct sections into which the media landscape could be easily divided which in many ways seem to reflect the demographic divisions of modern India. The native language print journalism was clearly targeted at lower income groups potentially looking for “entry-level” devices.

Aiming at a slightly higher income bracket, the English-language newspapers and journals contained discussion of higher level feature phones and smartphones. These publications would likely be read by urban English-literate professionals, earning an income enabling them to invest in cutting-edge feature phones and low-level smartphones.

Finally, online media were virtually indistinguishable from its Western counterparts. While general news outlets such as economictimes.com covered international technology launches and events as well as Indian releases, the likes of techtree.com were clearly targeting not just English-literate, web-browsing Indians but anyone with a passion for technology and likely the means to import devices prior to their local release.

Even when there appears to be conformity between the different media types, discrepancies would emerge. In an example from H2 2011, we saw a universal boost in Nokia’s visibility. However, while the native print media focused on the company’s launch of low-end dual-SIM devices (the C2-00 and X1-01), the English print media concentrated on new Symbian smartphones geared towards business and entertainment (the E6 and X7). In contrast to both, the tracked websites were abuzz with rumours of a leaked Windows Phone prototype, dubbed “Sea Ray”. So what looked to be a month in which the South Asian media was in agreement proved only to highlight the differences!

Daniel

Year-on-year, perhaps the biggest difference is the lack of a clear leader dominating the coverage. Last year’s Samsung Galaxy S2, which continues to closely rival the Apple iPhone 4S generated the clear majority of headlines together with some genuinely new attention for Nokia’s (then) new range of Windows 7 phones. This year, things were a lot more contested.

Nokia grabbed headlines across a range of media segments with its surprise unveiling of the PureView 808 featuring a 41MP camera along with a range of potentially revolutionary image and video editing software. Although many commentators were baffled by the fact that it is running Nokia’s outdated Symbian OS, the 41MP figure was sure to secure attention. Although technical sites were not as impressed, this announcement saw quite a ripple effect outside the technical press, making it all the way into sites like BBC.com.

While Nokia’s 41MP stunt grabbed the most headlines in the generalist press, HTC’s offerings were most lauded by trade blogs. A whole new range of smartphones, the One Series, were showcased, featuring a flagship quad-core device in the One X, the super-thin One S and the lower range One V.

Geographically, LG and Samsung saw the broadest response, securing the largest amount of coverage worldwide through multiple announcements. LG announced several new devices, including the Optimus 4X HD, which was also a hit with trade publications. In spite of not unveiling a follow up to the S2, Samsung offered three new products; the Galaxy Note 10.1, the Galaxy Beam and the Galaxy S Wi-Fi 4.2 media player.

It was interesting to see the low visibility garnered by established players Motorola and RIM. Motorola presented its Motoluxe earlier in February running Android 2.3 while RIM announced the PlayBook OS 2.0 upgrade a week prior to the show. Neither carried a large media profile, and both were mostly mentioned in specialist publications which focused on a holistic view of all announcements at the show.

The underdogs Huawei and ZTE, two brands relatively unknown in the European and US markets, put on strong shows. Huawei’s Ascend D Quad and ZTE’s Era are both clearly intended as flagship devices, sporting quad-core processors and Android 4.0. Coming from companies classically associated with lower-budget devices, both entries gained a surprising amount of interest.

This and much more can be found in our full MWC Round Up. For more information, contact me at lucas.galan@reportinternational.com

Lucas

The BBC came under fire earlier this week as it refused to sign a pledge, already endorsed by Channel 4 and Sky News, which would ensure that at least 30% of its experts were female. The petition comes after research from City University that showed that male experts outnumbered females four to one across five major TV and radio programmes. This echoed research conducted earlier in the year by Kira Cochrane at the Guardian that showed similar ratios of male to female by-lines within major British national newspapers (only the Daily Mail showed close parity at 53% male and 47% female- reflecting an awareness of the commercial importance of its female audience, as the only newspaper except for the Daily Express to boast a majority female audience).

This brings us closer to the crux of the matter – shouldn’t stakeholder and/or audience composition determine each content generators’ choice of staff and contributors?

As an audience, it is clear that the female demographic has always been critical to marketers and advertisers, and thus also to media outlets. It is no secret that females tend to watch more television, and the F15-34 demographic is a heavily contested battleground in television planning. What is perhaps more remarkable is how quickly women have asserted themselves in the online space. We tweeted earlier this week about new research by Parks Associates showing that the digital space is very much female territory, with women 73% more likely than men to have watched a full-length TV show online, are more keen social network and social media followers (for example, in Facebook, women are 40% more likely to play games, have 8% more friends and participate in 62% of the network sharing).

Another avenue might be to hinge said choice of contributors on targeting consumption habits. Ultimately, part of the problem in addressing the issue may have more to do with the differences in the relationship that each gender has to media.

Research has shown that males, by and large, tend to defer more to expert opinion, and tend to view communication as a tool for fact reporting and straight talking, whereas women are more social, tending to use communication as a system for nurturing social relations and engaging in discussion.

Beyond questions of gender equality, it remains unclear whether having close parity between those consuming content and those generating it will mean the greatest success for media providers. However, it does seem certain that developing a finely tuned understanding of how differently the sexes communicate is paramount when companies come to capitalise on said disparities.

Bieber or Black? Chopin or Sand? Bill or Hillary? We do not claim to have further fuelled the battle of the genders, nor do we hope to win it for one side or the other. However, we do hope to provide you food for thought on the potential of a more carefully calibrated media landscape – Happy International Women’s Day 2012!

Amy

Sadly, maternal review and endorsement are missing from both the Barcelona Principles, and the Valid Metrics Framework. Instead, an increasingly critical factor in measuring the success of PR and marketing communication will be Big Data. In fact, it has very much become the solution du jour for ailing business processes, not just in comms and PR. In today’s Forbes article, Christine Crandell claims that Big Data will help take the guesswork out of managing sales. “Driving better execution in the social economy”, she argues, “comes from deeper, actionable insight into patterns…”.
What is true for the sales function is perhaps even more true for the marketing function. What is of fundamental importance there is a robust understanding of activities (and related spend) relative to target audience reach, attitudinal and behavioural change. Data is getting more and more commoditized, i.e. cheaper. This includes the human sentiment analysis of editorial and social media content. The focus is shifting to client insight that makes a difference. However, those oft-cited patterns are only relevant where they help the client make better decisions.

Relevant patterns can result from super-crunching vast amounts of media analysis data. In more complex models, they can result from synthesizing different data strands to feed into market mix modelling.
Data-driven business performance measurement and management – sounds great. To get us there, what is required is a level of numeracy that will empower all stakeholders to embrace the data evidence and use it alongside their experience and expertise.
The question is not whether PR (or communications in general) is an art or a science. The question is how to bring together the “Two Cultures” that CP Snow had described and criticised in his 1959 Rede Lecture. He argued that a better future will depend on a better understanding between the sciences and the humanities. That is still true.

Practitioners and clients need to learn to be guided by the (correct) numbers, rather than solely rely on their – or their mothers’ – gut feel. Standards in measurement will enhance the industry’s credibility and standing. The initiatives around the Barcelona Principles and the Valid Metrics Framework with their various adaptations across our industry are highly welcome. AMEC’s APAC PR Summit on Measurement will be a further step forward, with Report International’s Mike Daniels, as AMEC Chairman, playing a leading role: his “Goodbye AVEs – Hello Valid Metrics” workshop will help educate practitioners and clients alike in choosing better measurement and better metrics for better business outcomes.

Offering better choices – that will make for a healthy state of measurement.

Thomas

Mike