Best Bar in Melbourne ... Why the Secrecy?

Last night I went out for drinks at Der Raum. It's a secluded spot on Church Street, Richmond, praised as potentially Melbourne's best cocktail bar and one of the world's best. Their cocktails are phenomenal! However, I was a little confused when one of the bar staff told off a group of customers for taking photos of their drinks.

As a bar that already has a brilliant reputation and seems to attract attention for their creative drinks menu (one cocktail, 'The Pharmacy,' is put together by injecting a syringe and popping a pill into a medicine bottle before being shaken and drunk from the bottle; check out the link below), why are they so surprised and unimpressed by customers wanting to capture their experiences on camera? 

Despite being able to see that Der Raum is perhaps trying to brand itself as an exclusive, hidden bar in Melbourne, I can see little other reason why snapping shots in the venue should be frowned upon. In fact, I would argue that a bar such as this that does not advertise and relies purely on word of mouth to spread the word about it, should relish in the idea that its customers can now promote this place to their friends faster than ever before via social media. Considering the present trend of Instagram, Urbanspoon and sharing pictures of our food and beverages with friends online, Der Raum - and indeed any popular eatery or drinking hole - should be pleased with those who post images of their products on the internet. As we know, people are more likely to trust the recommendations of those we know and trust than that of advertisers. So why not let good impressions spread about your bar between friends through digital technology?

What are your thoughts on this? Should Der Raum be stopping customers from taking photos of their drinks and sharing them online? Or is it simply stunting the growth of their business?

Check out how 'The Pharmacy' is made below.

How 'The Pharmacy' is made

Will Social TV Really Work?

The October 12 issue of B&T Magazine published an article on the attempts of television networks to dominate 'second screening' by consumers. The story, The Social TV Race (pp14-19) by Lucy Clark explains that people are now using their smart phones or tablets whilst simultaneously watching television. An occurence labelled second screening. In Australia, their is a push by TV networks to create the first social TV app widely used by consumers. Fango was the first to establish itself in collaboration with Channel 7 in November 2011, followed by Jump-in owned by Ninemsn just prior to the 2012 Olympics. Zeebox, in partnership with Network 10 was launched in Australia in October 2012. The idea is for these apps to work not only as digital avenues to access information regarding television programs, but for them to facilitate interaction between viewers who can share their questions, comments and passion for particular shows in a shared space. 

But do these social TV apps really offer consumers anything new? Do they provide value for consumers? And can the improvement of these apps translate into network loyalty/profitability for their creators?

Let's first address the initial question. Is this anything new? I would argue no. Anyone has the potential to check program scheduling in a number of ways (whether it be in a newspaper or online). And more importantly, social media networks such as Twitter and Facebook, which already have gigantic followings, enable users to question, post and share with friends their queries, thoughts and suggestions.

Do these apps provide any real value for consumers? All information about certain shows can be accessed on or through these apps granting consumers the convenience of having all data in the same place. However, will a comparatively low number of users (Fango has just over 500, 000) when compared with the likes of Twitter, their is little for consumers to gain out of sharing their experiences with others on these apps. 

Obviously there are a significant number of people second screening whilst watching telly on the couch, and there are loads of people who get a kick out of sharing their love for one or many TV shows with like-minded others online. But will set ups like Jump-in and Zeebox actually equate to improved ratings for broadcasters? I doubt it. "The more people that use [these apps], the more valuable they are" (p18) so reaching a critical mass is important. The issue is that the need for posting online about what an individual is watching is already being met. 

Television networks are trying hard to get a share of the market of consumers second screening to boost their ratings, loyalty and revenue streams. I'm just not convinced this is the way to go about it. 

If social apps like Fango could offer more for their users and boost the number of people who use them regularly, they could be beneficial to the television companies. Any ideas of how they could do this?

Zombie Boy and Dermablend: A Flawless Match

In October 2011, Dermablend Professional, a cosmetics company specializing in products for people wanting to conceal skin concerns or tattoos, embarked on a remarkable social media campaign. A viral video featuring Canadian model 'Zombie Boy' and corresponding website were established on the internet with a clear message generating a strong online response.

The YouTube clip featured 'Zombie Boy' as a relatively normal looking man with only two piercings. Throughout the video, he removes the previously unknown layer of Dermablend he wears to uncover is true skin (an entire body work of tattoos). 

Not only does the video exemplify Dermablend's obvious use as a skin concealer in a creative and attention grabbing way, but it portrays a clear message about customer value. For those wishing to hide blemished skin, there is evidence of the product actually working. But more importantly, for those who feel their idea of physical beauty is not yet socially acceptable, Dermablend is an option. For example, someone with a visible tattoo going for a job interview at a modest company may consider the product. Dermablend is not attempting to say that tattoos are bad, but that despite 'Zombie Boy's' true beauty, their make-up can provide a layer of 'socially acceptable' beauty without erasing what is beneath the make-up for good. 

The video clip's initial tag line: "How do you judge a book?" causes viewers to contemplate their own perceptions towards tattoos and skin conditions. And as much as most would hate to admit it, a large majority of people do negatively judge people who look different. This only exacerbates the value Dermablend can offer its consumers. 

This innovative and surprising video is perfectly fit for the internet (a medium that allows users to share what they see and hear online enabling free advertising for businesses). The video has received over 11 million YouTube views and almost 8, 000 Facebook likes.

Complementing the video is Dermablend's website 'Go Beyond The Cover.' The site shows the video, allows anyone to join a conversation about it (of which there are a plethora of passionate views), 'meet Zombie Boy' via interviews, watch behind the scene footage from the commercial, learn about Dermablend products, and engage in other conversations regarding occasions we judge only on what we see.

Personally, I believe this to be a phenomenal example of utilizing social media and the internet to convey a precise message, engage consumers and gain brand awareness. Whether or not this would translate into sales or not, I am unsure. What are your thoughts?

Check out the video.    

http://www.gobeyondthecover.com/

Digital Communication: It's Inevitable

This morning Lach Hall, a communications strategist from Naked Communications, came and spoke in my e-marketing seminar. It was so refreshing to hear the career path of an ex-marketing student who had to work hard to get to the position he's in today. What I found most interesting however was his focus on how digital communications in now so ingrained in society. Marketing is going to revolve around electronic media whether we like it or not. 

The concept that digital marketing is inevitable is a basic one. Even if a company were to avoid online channels completely, the likelihood that consumers will take it upon themselves to talk about a campaign with friends online or perhaps upload a picture or video of an advertisement on the Internet is high. 

At Naked Communications they appear to utilize online media by working by the philosophy that great ideas will spread themselves around the world wide web. We are inundated daily with marketing efforts and with the development of the internet, marketers are finding it more and more difficult to 'buy' consumer's attention through traditional means. Today, all integrated marketing campaigns will incorporate a digital aspect (whether they like it or not). 

If brands are lucky, their advertisements will go viral through the help of everyday consumers. Lach commented on the fact that people should be viewed as partners when creating marketing ideas. Marketing is no longer a one-way event and customer generated content can be just as valuable to a business as their own communication attempts. 

It was fantastic to hear that companies are now expecting digital communication to be an element of their integrated marketing strategies.

Real Estate Turning To Online

Recently, my parents sold our family home. As the only house I have ever lived in, I was unaccustomed to the process of selling. What struck me as odd (besides the tips our estate agency gave regarding open house inspections; such as baking just prior to the inspection time in hope that viewers would smell something that would somehow make them feel more at home), was the marketing strategy.

It seems that traditional advertising for house sales is on the decline and digital marketing is the way to go. Statistics show that advertising on online sites such as realestate.com is today far more beneficial than paying for half page spreads in local magazines such as the Melbourne Weekly. Paying a premium on real estate sites can even ensure your home is always a top result when buyers search in the area instead of being lost amongst the plethora of house sale pages in the Weekly. 

So why this shift toward online advertising of real estate? There appears to be a variety of benefits. 

1. More information, more photos, and a more extensive floor plan can be presented online.

2. House advertisements can be regularly updated regarding price or inspection times.

3. Online sites such as realestate.com now have smart phone apps enabling buyers to explore real estate anywhere, anytime.

4. Online advertising is cheaper than traditional advertising meaning more sellers are opting to forego print advertisements. This in turn has meant that buyers are more likely to find the place they are looking for on the Internet.

5. Online advertising can be measured. My parents were able to view exactly how many times a unique user clicked on our online advertisement and how often a user saved the house to their list of favourites. This is a benefit print advertisements lack.

With a greater number of consumers today shifting their attention online due to improved ease and acceptance, one must wonder how long it will be until more industries focus on digital marketing. Increasingly we are buying our clothes, concert tickets and books on the internet. And there appears to be growing advertising online with the likes of property sales presenting an obvious change in their marketing techniques. This example, I believe, is telling of the developing (or perhaps, developed) importance of e-marketing.  

http://www.realestate.com.au/buy 

Friendship Request Ignored

On August 17th this year, Rob Fraser wrote an opinion piece on the mUmBRELLA site about how most businesses should refrain from creating social media sites for their brands. His argument is that social media should be used by companies to promote positive value for consumers such as promotions or a hilariously funny new advertisement, but that establishing platforms for customers to criticize a brand is a no-no.

Fraser contends that "companies exist to sell stuff and make money, not friends." Keeping this in mind, it can be absolutely relevant for a business to utilise the Internet and social media to research their customers, find out their wants and concerns, and implement strategies to satisfy customers (with the end goal of improving profitability). But, "clumsily [starting] uninvited conversations with" customers online is not a brand's job, especially when so many of them do not accept criticism well. Rather, companies need to use this tool to listen to customers who are going to express any strong feelings they have about a brand online whether the business has a social media page to do it on or not. 

Considering bad news tends to make headlines more often than good, social media pages, Fraser argues, are simply fueling the potential for a public relations fire storm. 

Whilst Fraser makes very valid points I would argue that if a company has a solid positive  public persona that is in line with their business values, social media can be a way of growing a brand and ensuring this positive image is maintained. If companies have a reason to be good to their customers and their staff, they will make sure both parties are happy. Social media, with its obvious potential to exacerbate negative consumer perceptions, can be this reason.

Ultimately, social media is not for every company. It must to targeted, of value to consumers and monitored correctly.  

To read Rob Fraser's full article, click the link below.

http://mumbrella.com.au/antisocial-media-110180

Brands Using Social Media The Right Way

We've all seen the media storms over the past few weeks surrounding Target's social media fails. The most dominant being a mothers rant on a Friday evening posting on the brands' Facebook page how 'slutty' their children's clothing line is. This attracted a huge negative public response but was not attended to by the brand until Monday. Time and time again companies are not realizing the potential for consumer behaviour to impact their brand badly in the social media sphere, or not approaching the conversation quickly enough or in the appropriate manner. Department store giant Myer has even stepped off the mark by stating in the 'About' section of their Facebook page that the page is monitored 9am - 5pm Monday - Friday. This is an utterly ridiculous policy to have for a social media platform that it available to consumers 24/7! 

http://www.facebook.com/myer.mystore/info

However, despite these examples of big brands poorly utilizing online channels to connect with customers, there are businesses using social media to their advantage and getting really positive results from their users.

Beatbox Kitchen has become famous on Facebook in Melbourne. This small fast food business that sells burgers out of a van around different locations on the out-skirts of the city twice daily, has a cult following. With 14, 932 followers, Beatbox Kitchen uses Facebook as a free service to let consumers know where they'll be stationed each day and night, plus any news about the truck or its workers. Customers can interact with the business owners easily and without fuss. Digital marketing perfection.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Beatbox-Kitchen/108806049145877?ref=ts

Musq Mineral Makeup is another small business using social media to grow. As a very small privately owned business, the owner found that their shop in Canterbury was not as profitable as their online store. So, all sales were switched to online and a Facebook page was started up to connect with their target market. Sales are strengthening and users can follow their promotions, product lines and media coverage. Another clear example of a brand implementing social media successfully.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Musq-Mineral-Makeup/114506471942

It is thrilling to see brands getting the most out of social media and using it the right way to build their business.