Research is key in any profession and marketing is no exception. Ideally, any step should be based on experience and research. Provided it is done the right way.
In the middle of a working day my mobile phone rang.
- Is this Giedrius CP?
- Yes.
- I'm calling from research company X. Would you be available for a brief interview on radio usage?
- How long would it take?
- 6 minutes.
- OK, shoot your questions.
Sometimes I'm the good guy and agree to take part in a survey, just out of professional curiosity. The girl was reading a zillion of questions and multiple-choice answers very fast.
- Which radio station do you listen to most: A, B, C or D?
- A.
- Which radio station do you turn to for business news first: A, B, C or D?
- B.
- Which radio station would you rate as least unbiased: A, B, C or D?
- C.
- Which radio station would you..........: A, B, C or D?
- None.
A couple of times I asked the interviewer to repeat the answers as she obviously had way too many questions on her list. Soon I got tired.
- How much are there left? I think we've run out of time...
- There are just two final questions.
Of course, there were more than two questions to be answered.:) Anyway, the girl did a good job. When the interview was over, my mobile showed 7 minutes and 20 seconds as the duration of the call. I was pleased with myself (didn't turn the interviewer away) and her (did her job quite well).
BUT! I was also grinning - the questionnaire lacked one key (opening?) question: WHAT RADIO STATION DO YOU LISTEN TO MOST? Because it's neither radio station A (that obviously commissioned the survey), B, C or D.
Because it's a niche radio station, Jazz FM.
28 February 2008
24 January 2008
Nothing unique
Lithuanians tend to be overly patriotic and sincerely believe that the country has a lot of unique features. Unique sand dunes of the Curonian Spit, unique amber, unique passion for singing (Eurovision?) or basketball. To be honest, nothing is unique, not even the national scandals.
You may remember my earlier post on the competition to choose a logo for the country and the scandal surrounding it. Well, the competition has been finally cancelled and it might be relaunched some time soon. In this respect, I even started to believe that the situation was of no precedent and unique. I was wrong.
In 2012, London will host the Olympic Games, which is a big deal. This entails an influx of visitors and their cash to the city, not to mention newly-built infrastructure. Last June the logo for the 2012 London Olympics was unveiled and caused a whole lot of public debate, criticism, and even online petitions.
Six months later, in January this year I still read an article in the FT about the logo and the opposition against it. It's interesting how an emblem can cause so much reaction, comments and discussions.
The rationale behind choosing the graffiti-style logo for the 2012 London Olympics (pictured below) is the ambition to engage the multi-cultural young audience in Britain. "...to create a Games for everyone, where everyone is invited to take part", as the official 2012 London Olympics website says.
The style and colours of the logo are a matter of taste. But I especially liked the commotion around the logo and how, for example, the media accept the new product. A quote from the same FT article:
Martin Lambie-Nairn, chairman of the Lambie-Nairn firm, which has rebranded UK broadcasters Channel 4 and the BBC, thinks the Olympic launch was always likely to be controversial, particularly to a UK media critical of the rising cost of the games. “Launching brand identities to journalists is always very dangerous,” he says. “You show something for three minutes, and people go, ‘Is that it?’ The only thing the media is really interested in is the cost.”
If you are interested to read more about the 2012 London Olympics logo, here's an interesting column by Tyler Brûlé, editor-in-chief of Monocle.
You may remember my earlier post on the competition to choose a logo for the country and the scandal surrounding it. Well, the competition has been finally cancelled and it might be relaunched some time soon. In this respect, I even started to believe that the situation was of no precedent and unique. I was wrong.
In 2012, London will host the Olympic Games, which is a big deal. This entails an influx of visitors and their cash to the city, not to mention newly-built infrastructure. Last June the logo for the 2012 London Olympics was unveiled and caused a whole lot of public debate, criticism, and even online petitions.
Six months later, in January this year I still read an article in the FT about the logo and the opposition against it. It's interesting how an emblem can cause so much reaction, comments and discussions.
The rationale behind choosing the graffiti-style logo for the 2012 London Olympics (pictured below) is the ambition to engage the multi-cultural young audience in Britain. "...to create a Games for everyone, where everyone is invited to take part", as the official 2012 London Olympics website says.
The style and colours of the logo are a matter of taste. But I especially liked the commotion around the logo and how, for example, the media accept the new product. A quote from the same FT article:
Martin Lambie-Nairn, chairman of the Lambie-Nairn firm, which has rebranded UK broadcasters Channel 4 and the BBC, thinks the Olympic launch was always likely to be controversial, particularly to a UK media critical of the rising cost of the games. “Launching brand identities to journalists is always very dangerous,” he says. “You show something for three minutes, and people go, ‘Is that it?’ The only thing the media is really interested in is the cost.”
If you are interested to read more about the 2012 London Olympics logo, here's an interesting column by Tyler Brûlé, editor-in-chief of Monocle.
10 January 2008
Monocle
With the close of each calendar year, a number of people like to look back and compile their TOP10's of things that they consider as best that happened to them over those last 12 months. Top experiences, movies, books, achievements, etc. My last year's revelation was Monocle.
Monocle is a new international magazine that was launched in 2007. I spotted it last summer and it won me instantly. I was impressed by a perfect combination of quality content and stylish format. It's a well-branded magazine that publishes good stuff with an international perspective. It has offices in London, Tokyo, New York, Sydney and Zurich, which ensures a cosmopolitan range of topics. From A (affairs) to B (business) to C (culture) to D (design) and E (edits).
Smart style, smart writing and smart positioning. I enjoy reading Monocle and tell my friends about it. It's been great pleasure indeed.
I was told that its editor-in-chief was the founder of another prominent magazine, Wallpaper. Hence, special attention to the style and format of Monocle? Plus, in print and online, writers and photographers are dispatched to over 50 countries for every issue to deliver stories on forgotten states, alluring political figures, emerging brands, fresh forces in popular culture and inspiring design solutions.
Read and enjoy! And congrats to the Monocle's team on their one-year anniversary!
Monocle is a new international magazine that was launched in 2007. I spotted it last summer and it won me instantly. I was impressed by a perfect combination of quality content and stylish format. It's a well-branded magazine that publishes good stuff with an international perspective. It has offices in London, Tokyo, New York, Sydney and Zurich, which ensures a cosmopolitan range of topics. From A (affairs) to B (business) to C (culture) to D (design) and E (edits).
Smart style, smart writing and smart positioning. I enjoy reading Monocle and tell my friends about it. It's been great pleasure indeed.
I was told that its editor-in-chief was the founder of another prominent magazine, Wallpaper. Hence, special attention to the style and format of Monocle? Plus, in print and online, writers and photographers are dispatched to over 50 countries for every issue to deliver stories on forgotten states, alluring political figures, emerging brands, fresh forces in popular culture and inspiring design solutions.
Read and enjoy! And congrats to the Monocle's team on their one-year anniversary!
28 December 2007
Recyclers of useless information
There's a constant debate on the quality of what we read in the newspapers or see on the TV. Which is the cause and which is the result: the media publish low-brow contents because that's what the majority of consumers are interested in or - the consumers say - we read/view this low quality stuff because that's all that we get to see in papers and on TV? Modern media have become recyclers of useless information.
I came across a very interesting article in the Daily Telegraph on the quality of British media and inter-relation of celebrities and tabloids. And paparazzi, who intrude on the personal life of individuals who may be famous figures in politics, sports or showbiz. I was struck by the open self-criticism of the journalist who focused on the British tabloids:
"...On this crowded little island [Britain], seething with paparazzi and sinking beneath celebrity magazines, a famous person's every move – from the acquisition of a new girlfriend to a trip to the local store – is diligently reported, recorded, published, and then communally sifted for meaning. We have become world-class recyclers of useless information."
It's interesting to read that reportedly the Brits considered the Americans obsessed with "celebrity news" but, according to the columnist, the UK media are no better:
"...In recent months, Hugh Grant has hurled a Tupperware container of baked beans at a pestering photographer. In Los Angeles last week, the actor Pierce Brosnan, who seems the most level-headed of men, allegedly attacked a photographer who took pictures of him and his children leaving a restaurant."
That's the reality of big markets such as the US and UK. But the same is happening, only on a smaller scale, in other countries too.
Do we really need this kind of information???
WHO ARE YOU WEARING http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6OyIujULUk
I came across a very interesting article in the Daily Telegraph on the quality of British media and inter-relation of celebrities and tabloids. And paparazzi, who intrude on the personal life of individuals who may be famous figures in politics, sports or showbiz. I was struck by the open self-criticism of the journalist who focused on the British tabloids:
"...On this crowded little island [Britain], seething with paparazzi and sinking beneath celebrity magazines, a famous person's every move – from the acquisition of a new girlfriend to a trip to the local store – is diligently reported, recorded, published, and then communally sifted for meaning. We have become world-class recyclers of useless information."
It's interesting to read that reportedly the Brits considered the Americans obsessed with "celebrity news" but, according to the columnist, the UK media are no better:
"...In recent months, Hugh Grant has hurled a Tupperware container of baked beans at a pestering photographer. In Los Angeles last week, the actor Pierce Brosnan, who seems the most level-headed of men, allegedly attacked a photographer who took pictures of him and his children leaving a restaurant."
That's the reality of big markets such as the US and UK. But the same is happening, only on a smaller scale, in other countries too.
Do we really need this kind of information???
WHO ARE YOU WEARING http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6OyIujULUk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
