You really want to come to Mumbrella360, but you’ve got to justify the time and cost to your boss?

Good news! I think I can help.   

Just use the parts of this pro forma letter that apply to you in a memo to your boss, and Bob’s your uncle.

In this guest post Tony Prysten argues that the thousand dollar price of seeing out-of-touch Apple co-founder Steve Wozniack on his Australian tour was a waste of money.

This week, for the cost of two iPads (yep, two) I went to the Woz Live conference in Melbourne. I was not impressed.   

Having purchased my first Apple, the Steve Wozniak-designed Apple IIe, somewhere around 1980 and having owned pretty much every Apple device since then, I was excited at the opportunity to hear from the co-founder of a company that has been a big part of my creative life.

The calibre of heavy tech and innovation hitters in the room also suggested that expectations were quite high with full tables booked by the likes of NAB, and young Australian of the year ‘engineering visionary’ Marita Cheng in attendance.

From the very first moment, I knew we were in trouble given we were confronted by huge banners of a butchered apple logo to make the word ‘Wozniak’. If Jobs had seen this, I’m pretty sure the organisers would have been privy one of his famous scathing outbursts around the lack of attention to detail.

Now WOZ really was and still is a tech geek but I was surprised at how uncomfortable he seemed in the relatively intimate setting. Not unusual for a tech guy, but I would have thought he would have worked a few rooms by now and would be at ease with an audience.

Beginning with his speech, Woz barely acknowledged the room and started blurting out his story, beginning with tales from his early school days and how he revelled in building electronic projects. Half an hour later, we hadn’t even moved into the garage stories. By this stage I am pretty sure most of the room got that he liked tinkering with electronics and solving problems.

The guy next to me started checking his phone. I think I may have nodded off. The notepads at my table were all empty. He looked at his watch, realised he was way behind time and condensed the main bulk of the Apple story into the following 15 minutes and the lights came on.

A corporate table: Yours for $10,500

The next half hour Woz spent working the room. Some people confessed their love for Apple and took advantage of the easy photo opp. Most went outside and downed cakes and coffee. I managed to push my way up to Woz and had the chance to share that I did once own an Apple IIe. I also confessed that despite the original Apple II being touted as affordable, as a year seven student, I had purchased my more affordable ‘copy’ from a Chinese man’s living room in Collingwood for about quarter of the price. He quickly moved onto the Young Australian of the Year.

Time for the second part of Woz’s speech, where he was to talk about innovation, technology and creativity. Unfortunately, Woz’s main take on innovation was to try and do something that took 50 microchips and do it using 40. His mind was still very set in the world of technology. That was about it, though he did add that while doing something “assume there is also a better way”. OK. This was infused with stories from the HP days (even before Apple) where he felt that a communal coffee cart was a great way to bring the people together on a daily basis and share ideas. I am sure this was making innovation people at the NAB table re-think their Docklands setup.

My notepad started filling up. Unfortunately, not with words but the doodles of a bored creative guy.

The Q&A was where things really got awkward.

A simple innovation question about his attitude on the difference between being the guy that creates the actual platform (eg app store) or the guy that innovates using someone else’s technology (the app developer) had him dumbfounded.

A question on ‘open source’ had him bumbling before stating that “It’s the work of people who havent yet worked out how to make money,” and then referring to the computer club days yet again and how he used to give away his designs before Jobs put a halt to it. Guess he missed the whole collaboration thing.

The future, according to Woz, is in robotics and voice recognition. Devices will sense our moods or needs and spit us the right content at the right time. (or the right song at the right price) And we need to wait for the next 15-year-old to change the world.

Woz was then challenged on how Apple was going to remain cool. He lit up like a school kid and expressed how cool Apple still was and how it would be that way for many years to come. It was endearing to see his love and passion for the brand, something I could relate to having co-founded igloo nearly 20 years ago but I couldn’t help wondering about the challenge ahead for Apple.

There were a few more awkward moments and that was it.

Woz’s brand, in my eyes, suffered from this experience. I think he would been far more comfortable presenting to a room of electronics buffs.

His words failed to engage me. I didn’t laugh, learn or feel inspired. In fact I came out feeling like he was so out of touch with the concepts he was being asked to talk about, that it’s no wonder he had been left behind through the most part of the Apple story.

I wanted the event to be amazing. My short chat with Woz confirmed that he is a nice, friendly, happy kind of guy, exactly as he was depicted in the Steve Jobs biography. The reality was we were hearing from a person who played little to no part in the Apple revolution beyond the Apple II and the early days of the first Mac, because we couldn’t hear from the the man who we really wanted to.

The event promised an insight into how innovation and creativity could be infused into your organisation. Unfortunately, it failed. Woz, to his credit, was just being Woz.

Tony Prysten is creative director and co-founder of digital agency igloo

From advertising campaigns to online video series, the term ‘transmedia’ gets quite the work out. But what does it actually mean? Cathie McGinn trawls the media landscape for a definitive definition.

Transmedia, all media and multiplatform are terms often used interchangeably when referencing modern storytelling techniques. Yet, depending who you speak to, there are distinct differences between them.

According to industry experts Encore spoke to, the key elements that define transmedia can be summarised as follows: platform, time, audience, adaptation, and creative collaboration.

“Transmedia projects involve the use of more than one medium to tell multiple stories from the same story world,” says Christy Dena, author of the first PhD on transmedia practice. But the main differentiation between transmedia and multiplatform is whether the content is adapted for each platform or simply syndicated. Each storytelling element must be shaped for individual platforms, operating independently but contributing to a richer experience of the whole. Mike Cowap, investment manager of Screen Australia’s All Media fund, says: “One of the main problems with the term ‘transmedia’ is that the terminology is over-thought to the detriment of the advancement of storytelling techniques. We prefer the term ‘all media’ because it implies the consideration of any media.”

Another factor is the idea of contemporaneousness; in general a transmedia production has the intention of telling the story across several channels from the outset. This could be a re-engineering of a piece of content, but still adhering to the idea of extension across platforms, along with a focus on audience. For example, the South by South West award-winning SBS-funded documentary Goa Hippie Tribe began life as a Facebook community but the story unfolds through film and online.

Marcus Gillezeau, producer of transmedia project Storm Surfers, which began as a TV series with a strong online presence and has a 3D film currently in the works, says: “Transmedia isn’t a noun; it’s almost a verb. It’s the notion of transferring a story across platforms.”

“Unlike the traditional Hollywood system, where you make a film then a game of that film, here we think about the whole universe from conception. Consider the audience first, not as an afterthought,” says Frank Verheggen, co-founder of production house Chocolate Liberation Front. It has recently been nominated for global interactive awards the Webbies as well as commended by the UN for its project Asylum: Exit Australia, an online interactive simulation, developed in tandem with the SBS documentary Go Back to Where You Came From.

“Understand how users connect with that service and create content to fit,” says Cowap.

One misconception that dogs discussions of transmedia production is that it requires a bewilderingly complex set of skills. “Traditional producers find the highly technical nature of multi-platform production confronting,” says Gillezeau. Cowap agrees: “One obstacle to successful projects is a lack of technical understanding on the part of the producer, a lack of knowledge about who to partner with. Producers overestimate how difficult it is – the best approach is to jump in and try. Bringing a good multi-discipline team together can produce the richest work.”

As Ridley Scott’s innovative approach to the release of new feature Prometheus demonstrates, content and commerce can work cohesively. By releasing teasers online and on mobile platforms, bringing characters from the film into the real world alongside traditional marketing, the principles of transmedia production are applied to marketing efforts and advertising becomes a part of the story itself.  “Transmedia production is about creating a universe you can get lost in, engage with characters, where you really feel you’re a part of the story. Don’t start with the limitations; first think of the possibilities,” concludes Verheggen.

•  This piece first appeared in Encore magazine. Subscribe to the print edition here or download the iPad edition here. 

With magazine circulations plummeting, FHM closing and rumours rife on future ownership of ACP Magazines, Paul Merrill says the only way forward is launching new titles.

Eight years ago in the UK, nearly a quarter of all magazine sales came from magazines that were less than four years old. In Australia, the figure was slightly lower, but still significant. Today, the situation is very different. For a start there are so few new magazines. Yes, Masterchef briefly flared, and Top Gear made an initial impact. But Grazia and Alpha fizzled, and now ACP has shelved their plans to launch Elle.

In any industry, innovation is the lifeblood. Without it, existing markets falter and decay without the renewal essential for survival. And the magazine market is decaying faster than most.

Yes, there has been investment in the digital sphere, but that just isn’t enough.

The men’s market is a case in point. Four years ago, there was a weekly selling 120,000, and two monthlies both bubbling just under 100,000. Now one monthly (Ralph) has closed, another (FHM) is closing and the weekly (my old mag, Zoo) has lost nearly half of its sale in those four years.

It’s not the fault of the individual mags, as they all have a finite life cycle, but it does mean the sector could soon be wiped out as there is nothing to take their place. Even the still-buoyant Men’s Health is showing signs of plateauing.

The volume of women’s mags has declined by a smaller percentage, but by a bigger volume. Where will the next major weekly come from? Zoo and Famous were the last two six years ago.

The recession is partly to blame, but it is no excuse to stop investing in the future because the future has a nasty habit of becoming the present.

And if some of our biggest magazine publishers are keen to sell, a prospective buyer might wonder about investing in a company so shy about ring fencing its own long-term future.

Most recently the editor of Zoo Weekly, Paul Merrill has been in magazines for 18 years.

•  This piece first appeared in the April issue of Encore. Subscribe to the print edition here or download the iPad edition here. 

From July 27 to August 12, the Australian media will go sport crazy as the Games of the XXX Olympiad, aka the 2012 London Summer Olympics, unfold. The games will be the most televised sporting event of our time as broadcasters look to master every manner of technology at their disposal.At the front of the media pack are those who hold the official rights for the broadcast and here on Aussie soil the three key commercial players are Channel Nine, Foxtel and the Macquarie Radio Network. Also broadcasting from the event is ABC Radio. At the centre of it all is Gary Fenton, head of the Olympic Unit.

The International Broadcast Centre at London’s Olympic headquarters

“This is the largest off shore broadcast in Australian television history,” says Fenton. In order to secure the rights, he explains: “Nine and Foxtel decided to make a joint bid to the International Olympic Committee four years ago.” They won the bid before negotiating with the Macquarie Radio Network to give them access.

The modus operandi of the IOC dictates that a representative for the broadcasters must facilitate the relationship with the committee and other Olympic organisations. “They seek a gatekeeper for each of these contracts,” says Fenton, who is ideally qualified for the role of heading up the Olympic Unit having worked for the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games in 2000 and covering a number of Olympics in association with the Seven and Nine networks. His job entails overseeing a number of initiatives key to the broadcast including the build of studios and facilities as well as the all – important accreditation of personnel.

“The Olympics have gotten big, bigger and bigger,” Fenton explains. “Accreditations are at a premium.” Foxtel alone has a crew of 150 they are taking to London to facilitate the 3,200 hours of content it will broadcast on eight different channels as well as streaming via a tablet app. There are only 400 passes to divvy up between the various broadcasters and it is therefore necessary for the networks to share resources. The Macquarie Radio Network, who in addition to broadcasting the event on Sydney station 2GB will also provide content to 80 regional stations, plans to share behind the scenes staff with ABC Radio and Fox Sports. On-air talent is also multitasking with commentator Ray Hadley calling the swimming for both Foxtel and 2GB.

It’s a similar situation with Nine and Foxtel as the two broadcasters share their commentary team, including Eddie McGuire, who will present from the studio for Foxtel as well as calling specific events for Nine. “I’m hosting the Olympics for Nine and for Foxtel and I’ll be doing my radio show over there so I’ll be pretty busy,” McGuire told Encore in March.

A number of local technical staff will also be hired on the ground in London and tonnes of equipment needs to be shipped to the city. “Logistically, this is an enormous undertaking. Our team has been working on this since last year,” says 2GB’s David Kidd. Foxtel has had crew on the ground in London for the past year and Fenton says he’s been working on the broadcast for four years. “It’s a bit like D-day,” he says of the countdown to the event. For many of the staff involved, like Fenton, this is not their first rodeo.

“I’ve been to every Olympics since 1992. It’s the hardest work I do,” says Hadley, who will start each day at 6am and work through to midnight, London time, every day of the event. His long-time producer, Chris Bowen, will work alongside him.

As one of the most experienced members of the team, Hadley is more than just the voice of the broadcast. “The station looks to me to make decisions on the run,” says Hadley, and this will include choosing which events to cover when there are scheduling conflicts, a problem Foxtel does not have to contend with. “There’s been a lot of talk that these will be the social media games,” says Graham Burrells, Foxtel’s creative director and executive in charge of production. “But I think it’s going to be the multichannel games.” While Burrells says coverage by the free-to-air networks for past Olympics has been excellent, it’s simply not possible to cover every event with just one or two channels as is the case with Channel Nine who will broadcast on their main channel as well as in HD on the GEM channel. Compare this to Foxtel’s eight channels: each will be dedicated to a specific selection of sports. For instance, channel LONDON 1 will air all of the pool sports including the swimming, diving and water polo while LONDON 2 covers the cycling events to be held at the velodrome. With the Olympic venues spread across the city, this channel allocation makes sense for technical and logistical reasons. “The security will be very intense getting in and out of venues,” says Foxtel’s Burrells, who sees transport as one of the greatest challenges.

From a technical perspective, Foxtel’s content is being compressed for broadcast in London and being directly delivered to Australian audiences without additional processing back home. “As far as we’re aware, that has never been done before,” says Peter Campbell, Foxtel’s director of sports and Olympic games.

The time difference between Britain and Australia’s eastern seaboard has 2GB salivating as the scheduling of events, including Australian favourite swimming, falls in the prime timeslot of breakfast. “People will be waking up with a real appetite for Olympic results,” says Mark Noakes, Macquarie Radio Network’s group sales and marketing director. “It’s perfect for breakfast radio.” Noakes predicts many commuters will be glued to their car radios which makes for an easy sell to advertisers. Big brands, he says, are keen to get involved with the broadcast and many advertising campaigns are being extended to include airtime prior to the games.

Noakes says: “It’s certainly a sell that gets advertisers’ attention.”

While Noakes is busy selling ads, 2GB’s on-air talent have some issues to contend with also. “The challenge is to make sure you preserve your voice,” Hadley says. “That’s something you’ve got to be conscious of.” There is also the danger of getting caught up in the excitement of the event. “It’s important you don’t go too early,” Hadley stresses.

But perhaps the most notable concern for presenters at the games is pronunciation. With more than 200 countries competing, there are bound to be some curly names on the call sheet. Hadley says the best approach is coordinating with other Australian broadcasters so they are on the same page. “You like to get it right,” he says and often compares notes with Nine’s Ray Warren over a cup of tea at the International Broadcast Centre.

While this all sounds terribly collegiate, with the sharing of resources, pronunciation tips and the broadcasters describing their offerings as “complimentary services”, there is still rivalry between them, which is to be expected for competing media outlets. Foxtel’s Campbell says: “Everyone’s got their competitive pride.”

•  This piece first appeared in Encore magazine. Subscribe to the print edition here or download the iPad edition here. 

Culture jamming is a 28-year-old term coined by the San Francisco-based band Negativland, who declared that the ‘Studio for the cultural jammer is the world at large’. The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought defines culture jamming more narrowly as: ‘The manipulation of the mass media by artists and activists. The intent, in most cases, is to critique the media’s manipulation of reality, lampoon consumerism, or question corporate power.’

I prefer Negativland’s idea, as it doesn’t limit an act of culture jamming to only taking place in the mass media. Human behaviour doesn’t change much over time. It merely gets the opportunity to play itself out with newer and faster technology. The truth is that acts of parody and subversion has been around since year dot. But opportunists in every generation like to believe that they have invented something new and rebrand it with a new name, in our case the ‘culture jammers’ and, in the now and immediate future, the “hacktivists”.

Of course, modern acts of culture jamming are most effective in the mass media as it is a dynamic fertile playground, and also the most visible platform given the large potential to be seen. But they are not restricted to it. Our action atop the Sydney Opera House on the day of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an act of culture jamming. But we were also culture jammed ourselves – by the media and advertisers.

The SMH’s Peter Fitzsimons was the first rework it four days later by changing the message to ‘NO WARNE’ as our drug positive spinner was expelled from the World Cup. On the other side of the fence there was Tim Blair’s ‘NO VISA’ in The Bulletin – a reference to my partner in crime’s British citizenship. Then in the same week we went to court, eventually to be jailed for our graffiti, St George Bank took out a half page ad in the SMH with ‘NO FEES’ on the Opera House. The ad was for the Freedom Account and the fine print referred to “our campaign for freedom”.

Depending on how people sat with the whole thing, the first two were funny or, in the case of Blair, an attempt at being funny. The St George ad, however, bore no relevance to the issue, its campaign for freedom was a campaign for customers, and all that was required to produce it was the plagiarism of an idea and a basic knowledge of digital manipulation. This led to the suggestion by Jane Caro in an SMH article on culture jamming that:

Advertising, being completely amoral, will latch onto anything that might catch someone’s attention. It’s always trying to stay fashionable and relevant. Unfortunately, once advertisers get hold of it, a movement is over.

Advertising is amoral, I agree. In the case of St George, they moved in on an incident that caught everybody’s attention. But there was a lack of relevance. So much so that it annoyed ourselves, people who supported what we did, people who hated what we did, and the Opera House management to the point that the latter forced the ad to be pulled after just one posting. It was hardly a movement ending moment and seemingly unprofitable (although I’d love to hear the inside story about the ad being pulled and whether St George thought it a winner).

Is it a given that advertising aimed back at culture jammers ends a political movement? Culture Jammers are not so much up against the ad industry but its clients. And billboards or websites are the best battlefields. But this misses the point.

Throughout history activists have always found a way, and it would be a boring and oppressive world if they had not. Spin is the indispensable and successful tool of the corporation. However, activists don’t set about their work naively and, like the Viet Cong over the US Army, a successful culture jammer will get far more bang for their buck than a corporate promotion.

Being culture jammed in reverse, if you’re an activist, is a tribute to your effectiveness. If you’re an advertiser, it probably means your promotion has drifted from the amoral to immoral.

Caro’s quote also misses the point that political culture jamming is a movement’s tactic rather than the movement itself, and people fighting for a belief or an idea are often exceptionally good at coming up with new tactics when the current ones no longer work. A culture jam is like the big hit in a footy game or a ball at the throat by the bowler, preferably followed by a good sledge. It won’t win you the game. But it will rattle your opponent.

Caro’s point is valid in terms of social movements in that music and fashion are readily made commercial (the ‘K-Mart Goes Grunge’ catalogue just after Nirvana toured in 1992 being one of my favourites) and the spiky parts of those movements softened. But political movements are more focused on an end game than social ones, the stakes so high that they will outlast an advertising campaign (especially if the client continues to commit atrocities) and the wider public is able to recognise an act of passion over an act of promotion.

For examples of culture jamming in Australia, have a read of a fellow culture jammer’s piece on the topic from a few months back.

The belief that a movement is over once advertising has grabbed hold of it cloaks a less self-indulgent reality. Advertising has always relied upon a large amount of stolen or plagiarized material. It may be clever. And of course it makes sense economically. But musicians and artists are probably bigger victims of the advertising industry than political movements and culture jammers (John Butler being a recent one). But the beauty of Carl Orff has not been made redundant by a Carlton ad or Mozart by Air France.

What Caro fails to see is that culture jamming is a tradition as old as humanity. Even in the most repressed and obedient of societies there will always be those who question. For culture jammers it’s not about the advertising industry. It’s about the less noble of its clients with behavioral problems in corporate social responsibility. These campaigns are likely to last a lot longer than a marketing contract. Especially if the mud sticks.

Dave Burgess is a campaigner at Total Environment Centre

In this guest posting, Anthony Freedman argues why branded content is making a comeback.

A few short years ago, probably concurrent with the advent of the PVR, a new term emerged within the marketing communications industry; branded content. This was really synonymous with advertiser funded TV shows where programming was created by brands and deals struck with networks to broadcast them.

There were varying degrees of success with this model. Yes it gave rise to Gamekillers developed by BBH New York for Axe and Iconoclasts developed by @radicalmedia for Grey Goose Vodka. Locally Rexona was behind Greatest Athlete. And no doubt there will be a long list of posts from readers highlighting many other local and global success stories.

But in my opinion, this model never really took off to the extent that many thought it would. And I think there were a number of reasons for this.

Firstly the business model for a TV network is predicated on ratings. And they are ruthless in culling programming that doesn’t deliver. They will move scheduling around and if necessary, cut shows altogether. This makes for a highly volatile climate for a brand that needs to reach an audience at a certain time within a certain period. Would it be prudent to divert advertising production and media dollars towards programming that may not run at the time your audience tunes in? Or worse still that may not run at all?

Secondly the notion that people wouldn’t watch traditional advertising any more never really came to pass. I’m not going to re-hash whether 30 second TV ads are or aren’t relevant any more within this piece. It’s a well-worn debate and I just don’t have the word count available. But suffice it to say that TV stations are still in business selling them and year on year Superbowl spots seem to get more expensive not less.

Thirdly the quality of the content just wasn’t that good. There was a fair share of poor concepts, badly executed, with insufficient production values and gratuitous (but justified) brand messages that detracted from the entertainment value rather than enhancing it.

For all of these reasons for many the phrase ‘branded content’ felt tired and decidedly 2007!

But actually I think it’s alive and kicking, albeit in a different form.

In the first two months of this year alone, Host produced three ‘branded content’ campaigns for three different clients.

Kiwi Sceptics for Air New Zealand followed four Aussies convinced New Zealand had nothing to offer them, as they were duped into a visit that resulted in a very different experience to the one they expected.

20/20 for Free TV is the second series of documentary films that looks at the future of television from the people who are shaping it. This installment featured Dan Wieden, Jonathan Mildenhall (Coca-Cola VP global advertising strategy and creative excellence) and Mark Holden (PHD global strategy director) among others.

And Coke Zero challenged NRL teams across the country to a series of football challenges in the pursuit of understanding of just what’s possible… or not.

So what about the notion that branded content is dead?

To me, the key to this resurgence is the ability for brands to now find an audience without the need of a broadcast partner.

In a short few years we have all grown very comfortable with the notion of consuming video online. Our connections are faster, we are streaming longer form content and downloading on a daily basis. Quoting US figures from comScore, the number of hours of online video watched by an average user increased by 60% to 21.8 hours in the 12 months from Feb 2011 to Feb 2012.

The web has democratised the content landscape and good quality stuff is now able to find its own audience, bypassing the broadcast partner altogether. Of course we need to have the right skills to ‘ignite the social graph’ but every agency worth its salt would have some understanding of how to do that. Or would know someone who could help.

Interestingly for brands, when you are earning your audience rather than buying it through a broadcast partner, it’s even more important that the content entertains and the brand role is smartly integrated not simply bolted on. Because the better the content, the more sharing and commentary and the bigger the
audience.

Additionally, the digital environment is more forgiving from a production values perspective allowing for more modest productions. The web also supports a much wider range of content format from webisodes to vlogs to ‘how-to’ videos. Online content is more accessible to many more brands, either with smaller budgets or who aren’t quite ready to dispense with the more conventional advertising options in favour of their own TV show.

We also now have more ways to consume video content more of the time. The number of devices that make for a good viewing experience has exploded from smartphones to consoles to tablets. Estimates suggest that by 2016, 50% of the population will own a tablet.

Lastly like all things online, it’s highly quantifiable. Brands can watch their audience grow, count the views, monitor the comments, see the sentiment. All in real time. Better still they are one click away from converting to a sale or finding out more. And if they’re not convinced there and then, you can ‘re-target’ them a week later.

And this is before I mention the notion of “branded content” as apps or games…

From where I see things, branded content far from dead. It’s come of age.

Anthony Freedman is the chief executive of Host Sydney

Is shock an underused weapon in Australian advertising, asks Robin Hicks

Today, Sydney agency The Cabana Boys used an image of a mouth sewn together to shock people with the idea that problem gamblers lie to conceal their habit. Is it the most disturbing image ever? No. Will it get banned by the Advertising Standards Bureau? No. But it did make me wonder why shock is not used more often in Australia – and not just by charities and government bodies. (WARNING: NSFW)

I spotted a poster ad from Germany yesterday that would cause the good folk at the Advertising Standards Bureau to spit in their green tea. I had a look for others that might have a similar effect, then had a look for Australian examples of advertising designed to shock.

Some of this lot are just plain disturbing. Others are possibly scam. But hey, with Cannes around the corner and awards on the mind, why let boring old accountability get in the way of the gratuitous pursuit of infamy? Besides, like it or not, shock works.

In March, the Ad Standards Bureau (wrongly, in my view) banned an anti-animal testing ad for ‘unjustified violence‘. I wonder what they’d make of this ad for Humans for animals. The copywriting (“Don’t treat animals the way you don’t want to be treated”) is almost as horrible as the image.

Or what they’d make of this one for German animal rights group Deutscher Tierschutz Bund who use the same technique (role reversal) to make their feelings known about pig castration.

This was banned by the high court in Germany, would it be acceptable to community standards in Australia?

Australia has the toughest laws on tobacco marketing in the world, and some powerful anti-smoking lobbies like the Cancer Council. But would they go so far as this French lobby group in arguing that smoking is as bad as child abuse?

Would a child abuse charity, like Australia’s Heal For Life, do something like this?

A domestic abuse charity in New Zealand took a sinister approach to Valentine’s Day, with creepy messages written inside greetings cards. But the intention was not to shock.  Would this have been more effective?

Charities can get away with shock. And ad agencies can get away with making shocking ads for charities, since they are usually doing it for free (and the chance to win an award). BBH London won plenty of awards for this ad for children’s charity Barnado’s.

AIDS is routinely tackled with shock advertising, which has often done well at awards shows.

Does humour have the same impact?

In this ad for organ donation group France ADOT, shock and dark humour are a curious mix.

In this bizarre ad for Unicef Germany, the copy reads: “In Africa, many kids would be glad to worry about school.”

And what about regular brands. Is shock taboo? Could, say, a brand of chocolate in Australia get away with this? Not very Joyville, is it?

Or a car brand do this?

The media in Australia are not particularly well trusted, if you believe the research. But I’m not sure they should be taking marketing lessons from Thailand in how to persuade their readers that they, as the tagline in this ad reads, ’See through the truth’.

The decline of the men’s magazines sector in Australia is hastening, as the latest set of ABC results showed. Perhaps they need to sharpen their targeting strategy, Belgian-style.

In June last year, outdoor ad company AdShel responded to a torrent of complaints to the ASB from the Australian Christian Lobby by taking down posters for an ad for gay safe sex called Rip and Roll. I’m not sure if ASB’s complaints website could cope if this ad for Italian ice cream brand Antonio Federici went up on billboards in Brisbane.

If agency creative departments were staffed entirely by teenage boys and their work did not need client approval, there would be more ads like this around. Although like most luxury fashion brands, Tom Ford does his ads inhouse.

The same goes for Deutsch.

No one does shock better than Benetton. The controversial Italian fashion brand has had a few ads banned over the years, defending itself with the claim that it is bringing awareness to an important issue, not just trying to sell more jumpers. This one attempts to ‘unhate’ Pope Benedict XVI and a top Egyptian imam with an image of them pashing.

This is one of the most powerful shock ads of all time, and helped wake up the world to AIDS at the beginning of the nineties.

Other fashion brands, like Italy’s Nolita, have copied the Benetton strategy. This was put up before the Paris and Milan fashion shows, to attack the industry’s obsession with skinniness.

But get shock wrong and the result is just a bit silly, although this ad would hang nicely in the toilets at the Ivy.

The credibility of this culture jam by PETA, a protest against the live boiling of chicks at KFC, is ruined by the possibility that passers-by might not read the message on the side of the bath filled with two semi-naked women.

The most powerful ads you’ll find in Singapore (that aren’t scam) are from the government, which tries to scare the crap out of people to make them well behaved. This anti-smoking poster by the Singapore government is not its best effort, which appears to suggest smoking turns people into zombies. (The marketing director of Singapore’s Health Promotion Board told me that they have tried using gentler methods, even humour, but nothing is as effective as shock – at least for raising awareness). The ad is consistent in tone with cigarette packets in Singapore, which carry hideous images of gangrenous feet and faces eaten with oral cancer.

When is shock justified? Melbourne’s rhino-on-a-skateboard campaign for Yarra Trams, which warns pedestrians to be wary of trams, is a great campaign that has won plenty of awards. But for me, it’s more cute than cautionary. Something tells me that this idea from Brazil would be more effective.

I’m fairly open minded about what’s going round at a party, but after seeing this ad I would make me pass on the methamphetamine.

If forced to think of the one ad that has never left me, it’s this one, which I first saw on a huge billboard on a bridge near Brixton Station, South London.

Australia does shock too, although the approach is generally more conservative and is restricted to government and charity advertisers.

Grey Melbourne’s ads for the Transport Accident Commission have over the years used shock, although last year’s multi-award winning ‘The ripple effect’ is more haunting than shocking, if there is a difference. The neck-break scene in its latest ad for motor bike safety is closer to the bone.

This campaign for WorkSafe Victoria is no-nonsense shock.

M&C Saatchi went for a similarly honest approach for the Australian Red Cross.

But whether it’s due to conservatism on the part of clients, a lack of balls on the part of the agency to push the envelope, or the strictness of the rules on advertising, shock is an underused weapon in Australia.

"Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore."

I would not argue that Kevin Spacey’s character in Se7en was right to murder seven people in horrible ways to make a statement about a society that doesn’t care. But maybe he had a point when he said: “Wanting people to listen, you can’t just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you’ll notice you’ve got their strict attention.”

Robin Hicks

Mike Goldman has one of the toughest jobs on the set of the Nine network’s new talent show, The Voice. He not only has to narrate the show, but also keep the audience from losing their enthusiasm as they realise shooting TV programs takes a lot longer than the one-hour bursts they see in their lounge rooms. A lot longer. 

An ecstatic audience in the background is just one piece of the puzzle Nine and production company Shine are using to elevate the talent show to the much-vaunted “water-cooler TV” status that brings big advertising bucks and gets viewers to stick around. And with a massive advertising campaign featuring buses, billboards and plenty of station promos, it is obvious Nine, alongside the five major sponsors – Ford Australia, Vodafone, Insurance Australia Group, AustralianSuper and Swisse Vitamins, who are all helping to bankroll the multimillion dollar production – are serious about this ‘shiny floor’ format.

The set of Nine's talent series The Voice

Much of the crowd is made up of friends and family supporting the acts and it is up to Goldman to ensure everything recorded in the studio has a backdrop of dancing, standing ovations, smiles, outstretched hands and plenty of clapping. Even as filming enters its third bum-numbing hour. And its fourth. With fluffed lines, sub-par delivery and having the judges sing the same song three times, Goldman has his work cut out.

A heavily skewed teenage and 20-something female crowd has gathered at the Fox Studios complex in Sydney’s inner east for the recording of the ‘battle round’ of The Voice, a reality talent program devised in the home of Big Brother, the Netherlands. The successful talent show format has gone on to launch franchises in such lucrative markets as Britain, the United States and even Albania.

In the past few years, talent shows have been big earners for the terrestrial networks. Channel Seven’s Australia’s Got Talent and The X-Factor have followed Australian Idol and in terms of the current television schedule, The Voice is taking on another entertainment goliath – Seven’s Dancing With the Stars. The first bout left Seven’s show limping off with blood on its ballet flats as The Voice picked up more than two million viewers and 34 per cent of Sunday-night viewers, compared with Dancing’s 25.7 per cent.

Adrian Swift, the director of development at Nine, says he is “thrilled” at the show’s success.

“Typically these shows do dip, but the battle rounds are incredibly strong,” he says, adding that the “buzz on social media” makes him confident numbers will stay healthy. Swift says any dip in the audience in the first few weeks will be obliterated in the final rounds. “The live shows will really build into a crescendo,” he says. “We’ll have the artists performing with their coaches.”

But do our airwaves need another talent show? Do we need more overblown vocal gymnastics that verge on caterwauling, followed by syrupy encouragements to “follow the dream” from judges? Swift certainly thinks so. He believes “great singers performing for great coaches” is what elevates The Voice over rival talent shows.

“We have better singers, better coaches and more jeopardy,” he says. “We’re confident we’re going to get some stars out of this.” The blind audition process that characterises the show’s first round was also used when finding original contestants. No-one’s face was seen by the panel. Swift thinks this gives the show more credibility, as contestants are judged on vocal abilities alone.

On set, Scottish-born host Darren McMullen tries to explain the show’s three-stage format in a TV-friendly few seconds to the audience, who respond with confused expressions.

As any one of the millions of people who have caught the show so far knows,  the judges are also the contestants’ coaches and they chose entrants to mentor in the first round – sometimes begging to offer their services if another judge also expressed interest. This was done with their backs to the audition stage, so no-one is swayed by a pretty face or other element. As Adrian Swift says, “this is all about the voice”.

Unlike previous talent shows, which depend on the premise of propelling ordinary people the audience identifies with to stardom, The Voice features a number of contestants with experience in the industry. “For some performers, this is their last big chance,” says Swift.

This recruitment policy means better singers generally, but no Susan Boyle-style, plucked-from-nowhere feelgood stories.

Meet the judges

The four judging coaches might have more credibility than competing talent show equivalents, such as the divisive Kyle Sandilands and superannuated Mark Holden, but they are still hardly A List. The biggest catch is British pop star Seal, but even he has been out of the spotlight for much of the past decade. He is joined by Australia’s sweetheart Delta Goodrem; Joel Madden, front man for emo-lite outfit Good Charlotte; and country singer Keith Urban, probably better known here as actress Nicole Kidman’s husband than a performer in his own right.

Even from the nosebleed seats, the tall, commanding Seal has real presence and a U2 cover version performed by the four shows his vocal abilities have not diminished – blowing the other three off the stage. Once he drops the faux-hard man persona, Madden is very funny, as is Urban. And Goodrem looks glamorous – if in need of a burger and fries.

Where all four fail is the meandering, ponderous judgments they hand down, interspersed with complaints about how difficult it is to vote off contestants. Thankfully, the team in the edit suite are good at their job. Executive producer Julie Ward says selecting sufficiently high-profile judges, negotiating terms with them, and working around foreign touring and recording schedules took “about five months”.

“The distance coming to Australia makes getting judges a challenge,” she says. “But our success is determined by the calibre of judges.”

On set

The set, based around the concept of a boxing ring, is impressive. Behind it is a six-piece band, supported by roadies sporting the requisite beer bellies. Contestants enter via tunnels and the audience seating is steep, giving the set a gladiatorial feel.

Leigh Aramberri, senior producer on the program, says that as part of a global franchise, the set design is expected to conform to a rough outline, although some local changes have been made. Aramberri says: “We wanted a cage fight, stadium arena sort of feel. It should feel like an arena; like a rock circus.” The local version also introduced the tunnels that the ‘battle round’ contestants use to enter the ring for their duelling duets. Swift says the set looks “fabulous”.

“I wanted to make sure you see the money on TV, not behind the scenes,” he says. “It’s a challenge for money to not get sucked up in processes.”

Outside the Fox Studios set, Sydney broadcasting company Global Television is using, for the first time, its HD6 van, which can seat up to 31 technical staff in a relatively compact space that opens out once the vehicle is parked. Marc Segar, general manager of Global Television, says the mobile studio, which is the company’s latest acquisition for its eight-strong broadcast fleet, has a layout that makes it ideal for the project. “The main feature is not really technical but is the available internal space on this particular truck,” he says. “It has a large open area and a big space to work in.”

On set, Segar says, Global records every camera “and cuts in the truck”. There are 11 high-definition cameras on the set.

“This is the next generation of facility, with a lot of virtual features that help us with tight turnarounds between projects,” he adds. “The production gallery is right next to the tapeless workflow area, which is also very neat.”

The vehicle has a Sony MVS7000X, a multiprocessing vision switcher, that can also produce 3D content. From the truck, the tapeless operation involves sending hard drives with data to post-production – although tape is still used as a back up. This reduces production times, which will be handy as the show moves towards the pointy end of the series.

“The final shows are all live,” Segar says. “It doesn’t change what we do inside the truck, but it does mean we will have a satellite transmission path from Fox Studios to the Nine network. It does change the way the production is put together, more for timing as it is shot live, and not for post production.”

Supervising producer on post-production, Kate Shelbourn, says even the final live broadcasts involve the post-production team, thanks to “reality components” that have to be spliced in.

With its diverse sources of file footage of contestants being coached and the multi-camera shoot inside Fox Studios, the process involves some “intricate weaving together” of all the elements. “These shows are big; there’s a lot of footage to get through. And it has a very tight turnaround. It’s a big team and we have some of our best people working on the show,” Shelbourn says. According to Shine’s co-executive producer, Geraldine Orrock, about 35 people are involved in the process, including 15 editors, eight producers, transcribers, audio and online staff.

Show me the money

Nine and Shine are coy about how much money has been thrown at the production. But bringing together a massive set, huge crew and reasonably high-profile judges has resulted in a professional-looking end product.

Scheduling wise, the show’s launch at the start of the second quarter ratings period, coupled with the return of Nine’s proven formats The Block and Celebrity Apprentice, give the network plenty of opportunity to cross promote, an ideal environment for ongoing success.

With the blind auditions playing out from Sunday through to Tuesday nights, maintaining a steady audience on all three days, scheduling for the final rounds is yet to be released.

There’s no question that the network has a hit on its hands and TV pundits and advertisers alike will be watching in coming weeks to see if this talent contest manages to hold strong.

•  This piece first appeared in Encore magazine. Subscribe to the print edition here or download the iPad edition here. 

I love the concept of a well resourced, philanthropically-funded independent news site. Anywhere in the world, that’s a rare and wonderful thing. In Australia even more so. So I hope that Grame Wood gets to see his investment make a difference.

And I have no inside info on whether Monica Attard’s sudden departure is linked to the site’s failure to find an audience so far.

Regardless, here are nine areas they can easily start to address:

1. Publish more content

Even before The Global Mail launched, I heard gossip that potential correspondents were being hired with the promise that they would not be subject to deadlines.

Which is a decent aspiration – ignoring the 24 hour news cycle to focus on what’s important is almost impossible to criticise.

Except they’re producing very little content. Take the last seven days for example – just five articles.

At the time of writing, just one piece has gone up on the site today. One yesterday too. Nothing at all over the weekend. One piece on Friday, two last Thursday.

As any regular blogger will tell you, the size your audience is directly linked to how often you post. You need to give people a reason for going back regularly. Few readers will be interested in every piece of content you publish, which means you need to overpublish.

Remember the old journo joke?

First journalist: “I’m writing a book.”

Second journalist: “Neither am I.”

I don’t think that freedom from deadlines actually gets the best from most journos. I’ve done some of my best work when I’ve got 60 minutes left to file.

Of course, proper investigative reporting can’t be knocked out in an hour or two. But there still needs to be a point where you have to deliver. With a staff of more than 20 it’s not unreasonable to expect more than one article a day.

2 – Social media strategy

At the moment, the strategy seems to consist of tweeting the articles and chucking them up a link to them on Facebook.

But when there’s so little content to share, that leads to little reward.

Given that whoever runs the Twitter feed and Facebook page probably doesn’t have any say over the low content output, I’d argue they need other strategies to generate more traffic.

I’m not sure it’s a huge sin to tweet an article more than once, if done with a slightly different wording and with a gap of a few hours. But more to the point, they need to find other things to talk about – connect with the audience by updating them on the news list or upload a behind the scenes picture, for instance.

Back in March, somebody was making an effort to upload interesting images to the Global Mail Facebook page. They generated a fair bit of interaction. But for whatever reasons, they stopped again.

It’s also important to make it a two-way conversation. There are examples on the Facebook page where people have left comments or posed questions which have been ignored.

3 – Allow comment

As we’ve discovered on Mumbrella, some of our best content can come in the comment thread that follows an article. I can understand the journalistic instinct – particularly when not many of the team seem to come from an online background – that the journo’s job is to impart wisdom, and the audience’s job is to be the audience.

It doesn’t work like that any more of course. But if the concern is that poor quality comments will drag down the quality of debate, then have an unashamedly strict moderation policy. But at least invite comment.

Comments generate page views and they also give extra reasons for people to link to the site.

4. Promote the email newsletter

One of the biggest hidden weapons for any site to generate traffic is via a daily email. It takes work because you have to gradually build it by pursuading people to sign up. Three years ago I started Mumbrella’s mailing list with a couple of hundred email addresses of personal contacts and it has now built to nearly 30,000 which drives about a third of our Australian page views. (If you haven’t yet done so, you can subscribe to our email for free via the box on the right hand side of this page – see what I did there?)

The Global Mail does offer an email subscribe box, but it’s hidden at the bottom of the page. Until I looked for it last night, I’d never noticed it.

5. Work harder on PR.

Whether new or established, media players need to make noise to bring an audience. So far, their director of communications and media has sent us two press releases – once announcing its launch, and one the departure of Attard.

By contrast, Southern Cross Austereo, probably the hardest working media organisation when it comes to PR, has sent me ten press releases so far this week. Guess which one gets more coverage?

6. Address the user experience.

Users browse the site by scrolling sideways. It’s annoying, and anecdotally, works badly in certain browsers. The site was built by the same team that created music website We Are Hunted which has the same horizontal scroll, but works better for its magazine style content. They also did wotif, which isn’t beloved among its customers for its UX.

As a reader, I find it difficult to quickly browse what little content there is.

I also find it weird that the site dedicates a strip along the bottom of the page to external sites such as The Guardian which it then links to within a Global Mail frame. Considering it blocks those sites’ ads from serving, that looks like a straight case of content theft to me.

7. Do some marketing.

There’s nothing wrong with marketing a product – particularly one you’re spending$15m on. Buy a few ads on news and current affairs sites where you might find the sort of audience you want to attract. Locally, a few display ads on the likes of New Matilda or even the SBS World News news site would spread the philanthropic dollars further and cost very little. Back it with a little Facebook advertising based on clever keywords.

8. Act like a start up

Start ups news sites are usually hungry. They scrap for stories. They grab every opportunity to promote themselves. They establish themselves by working harder than the established players. The lack of a commercial imperative may have blunted that. Find a way to reignite the competitive instincts.

9. Sort out the SEO

Not much thought seems to have been given to optimising the site for search. The meta data – the behind the scenes text fed to search engines such as Google – does not contain high volume search terms. Instead it features the phrase “Philanthropically funded, not-for-profit news”. The search volume for this phrase is pretty damn small.

The sideways navigation also hurts SEO because search engines tend to prioritise information from top to bottom.

However what The Global Mail has going for it is quality. Unfortunately, that’s not enough. If you build it, they won’t come. You’ve got to tell them.

Tim Burrowes

With little fanfare, philanthropically funded news site The Global Mail launched in February this year.

The online-only title received a generous five-year funding commitment from businessman Graeme Wood, founder of accommodation website wotif.com, who donated $15million.

At a time when the future of print media is being questioned, the issue of the cost of journalism is ever more pressing. As long established mastheads close their doors around the world – here in Australia, News Limited recently announced the closure of local Queensland titles The Noosa Journal and Weekender – the move to online reporting continues. And there is clearly an audience in this space, as evidenced by The Australian’s recent announcement 30,000 readers have taken up digital subscriptions to access content behind the first major news paywall in the country. While News Limited is seeing results in the attempt to monetise their online offerings, The Global Mail is doing the reverse instead choosing to put journalism first, monetisation never.

The site’s motto is ‘Our audience is our only agenda’ and managing editor Monica Attard (note: this article was published before Attard’s departure from Global Mail) says the platform offers “a more considered, less breathless read” bucking the trend of online snack-sized content in favour of long-form journalism.The editorial team behind the site stands at 13 journalists, a director of photography, two web producers and a media manager. Bronwen Clune, founder of new media venture Perth Norg says: “This model actually benefits journalists; they have a closer connection with the audience and greater responsibility to fact check.”

As the saying goes, desperate times call for desperate measures and The Global Mail is not the first Australian online news provider to try out a new model. Independent news website New Matilda funds journalism by asking readers to become ‘financial supporters’ with a monthly contribution that works on a sliding scale from just $7.34 per month for individuals to organisations that can chip in $27.50, or the ‘big love’ supporters who donate $83.33 each month.

Unlike New Matilda, where content can be accessed by any member of the public, independent news website Crikey only offers select articles with access to its full site and a daily newsletter via a more traditional funding model based on straight subscriptions starting at $160 per year. Established in 2000, Crikey has proved itself to be more than a passing fad with a solid, legitimate business model that also relies on advertising.

Also breaking new ground is ex-editor of The Age, Andrew Jaspan, and university-funded news site The Conversation which began with an initial investment of $6million.

At the other end of the scale is Swinburne University Public Interest Journalism Foundation’s YouCommNews, an online portal seeking crowd funding for journalists. In November 2010 the site published its first publicly funded piece by journalist Toula Mantis looking at chronic fatigue syndrome. A glance at the projects on the site shows the model is struggling with stories dating back to April 2011 yet to reach the projected funding targets. In Attard’s view there is a “real problem with the idea that journalism is directly paid for by the audience; it’s ethically problematic”. And given the example of YouCommNews, it is far from a sustainable model.

An upfront outlay of cash in the example of The Global Mail makes sense but what happens when the initial injection dries up? Attard told Encore’s sister publication Mumbrella: “We have no intention of monetising the site. We may well develop an app and there may be some revenue streams that we can create around the app but the site will remain free.”

Given that monetising app publications is also new territory, Attard is taking a risk, albeit one with a $15million dollar safety net very few publishers, including the major players, can boast.

(Update: Attard has since departed The Global Mail)

•  This piece first appeared in Encore magazine. Subscribe to the print edition here or download the iPad edition here. 

In this guest posting, Gareth Collins argues that the role of a great account manager is to make the work better

I’m surprised at how many suits I meet who don’t know their role in the advertising business. The question ‘what does an advertising account manager or director do?’ is frequently met with answers such as project manager, relationship manager, plate spinner or go between … and those are the nice ones.

Success is judged on the ability to manage a process, be strong administratively and get stuff done. And while a good suit needs to do all of these things brilliantly, if these are the traits that define a great suit, then I’m in the wrong job.

A great suit is defined by their ability to make the work better. Great suits create an environment and relationships where the best ideas can flourish. Where they can get the best out of planner, creative, producer, and client alike.

And great suits judge themselves by their creative output because they realise the work is all we have. The work is all the consumer sees, it is what changes behaviours, builds brands and sells products.

So, as a suit how can you make the work better?

1. Love what you do

You have to love ads and the process of making ads. You can’t fake this bit. If you don’t watch ads on TV, follow brands online, read the blogs and the trade mags and if you don’t talk about ads with your friends in the pub and have passionate debates about the work – then you are in the wrong job.

Because if you are here just for the money, and the glamour, then you will either be disappointed or have to be extremely patient. Without the love, advertising will quickly become a thankless task.

2. Know what makes great work and love that work

As a great suit you have to be able to spot a great idea from a mile off. You will be able to talk about it, argue it, defend it and shape it. You will know why it is right.

And when you find an idea that is right, you need to love it as if it were your own. Great suits are foster parents. While the idea may not be ‘theirs’, they love it like it was. They nurture that idea, take care of it, stand up for it, defend it, and go to the ends of the earth to make it brilliant.

3. Great suits sell the work

A great idea if worthless if you can’t get someone to buy it.

Great suits can sell the strategy and the work. Not in the way a used car salesperson sells, but through knowledge, expertise, trust, respect, reason and passion.

4. Great suits forge great relationships with their clients

Peter Mead, the ‘M’ in AMV BBDO in London, once said to me: “Relationships cost nothing to produce but are the most valuable thing we have”.

And he was right. Without the ability to forge strong relationships, you will never be a great suit.

And when it comes to forging great relationships, you can do a lot worse than follow some basics – trust, respect, common ambition, openness and honesty.

Get these relationships right and they give you the license to make great work, grow business, and buy the time and latitude you need. They can even buy you forgiveness.

5. Great suits are great planners

Dave Trott, ECD of CST The Gate, London, once said that a run of the mill suit knows what the client wants. A great suit knows what the client needs.

The ability to understand the clients business, their objectives, audience and barriers to success and translating that into the right work not only makes a great planner, but a great suit as well.

Or as Robert Senior, a founding partner of Fallon London, puts it, great suits understand: “It’s not what the client will buy, it’s what they should buy.”

Gareth Collins is a managing partner at Clemenger BBDO Sydney

Transmedia, all media and multiplatform are terms often used interchangeably when referencing modern storytelling techniques. Yet, depending who you speak to, there are distinct differences between them.

According to industry experts Encore spoke to, the key elements that define transmedia can be summarised as follows: platform, time, audience, adaptation, and creative collaboration.

Transmedia project Storm Surfers began as a TV series with a 3D movie in the works

“Transmedia projects involve the use of more than one medium to tell multiple stories from the same story world,” says Christy Dena, author of the first PhD on transmedia practice. But the main differentiation between transmedia and multiplatform is whether the content is adapted for each platform or simply syndicated. Each storytelling element must be shaped for individual platforms, operating independently but contributing to a richer experience of the whole. Mike Cowap, investment manager of Screen Australia’s All Media fund, says: “One of the main problems with the term ‘transmedia’ is that the terminology is over-thought to the detriment of the advancement of storytelling techniques. We prefer the term ‘all media’ because it implies the consideration of any media.”

Another factor is the idea of contemporaneousness; in general a transmedia production has the intention of telling the story across several channels from the outset. This could be a re-engineering of a piece of content, but still adhering to the idea of extension across platforms, along with a focus on audience. For example, the South by South West award-winning SBS-funded documentary Goa Hippie Tribe began life as a Facebook community but the story unfolds through film and online.

Marcus Gillezeau, producer of transmedia project Storm Surfers, which began as a TV series with a strong online presence and has a 3D film currently in the works, says: “Transmedia isn’t a noun; it’s almost a verb. It’s the notion of transferring a story across platforms.”

“Unlike the traditional Hollywood system, where you make a film then a game of that film, here we think about the whole universe from conception. Consider the audience first, not as an afterthought,” says Frank Verheggen, co-founder of production house Chocolate Liberation Front. It has recently been nominated for global interactive awards the Webbies as well as commended by the UN for its project Asylum: Exit Australia, an online interactive simulation, developed in tandem with the SBS documentary Go Back to Where You Came From.

“Understand how users connect with that service and create content to fit,” says Cowap.

One misconception that dogs discussions of transmedia production is that it requires a bewilderingly complex set of skills. “Traditional producers find the highly technical nature of multi-platform production confronting,” says Gillezeau. Cowap agrees: “One obstacle to successful projects is a lack of technical understanding on the part of the producer, a lack of knowledge about who to partner with. Producers overestimate how difficult it is – the best approach is to jump in and try. Bringing a good multi-discipline team together can produce the richest work.”

As Ridley Scott’s innovative approach to the release of new feature Prometheus demonstrates, content and commerce can work cohesively. By releasing teasers online and on mobile platforms, bringing characters from the film into the real world alongside traditional marketing, the principles of transmedia production are applied to marketing efforts and advertising becomes a part of the story itself.  “Transmedia production is about creating a universe you can get lost in, engage with characters, where you really feel you’re a part of the story. Don’t start with the limitations; first think of the possibilities,” concludes Verheggen.

•  This piece first appeared in Encore magazine. Subscribe to the print edition here or download the iPad edition here.