Audience | Sherie Griffiths

July 15, 2011

‘Who do you think you’re talking to?!’

On tuesday, I was talking about Marketing for Startup Britain, the 5-day conference held in London last week, organized by Startup Britain and the Marketing Agencies Association.

Over the last few days, I’ve been catching up with people who were there. Some, like me, only managed one day; some managed two or three – and others did the whole week!
What I’ve been hearing has been, on the whole, extremely positive. I certainly came away inspired to change my focus on certain aspects of my new brand. Everyone else I’ve spoken to so far is in business, or going into business, for the first time and they’ve all said they learnt a huge amount.

Do you feel a ‘but’ coming on…? My English teachers would have the horros if they saw what I’m about to do, because they all told me NEVER to start a sentence – let alone a paragraph – like this…

BUT! one thing which has come through consistently about last week is that, while most of the speakers spoke very eloquently from a startup perspective, however long ago they started and however successful they’ve become, others seemed to be completely out of touch with their audience. I won’t mention any names, because they all gave their time with the best of intentions, but I’m told there was at least one whose presentation made no real reference to startups and who, away from the microphone, admitted having no interest in very young businesses. That leads me to ask what on earth they were doing there. The only answer I can think of is that they hoped some of the fledgling businesses would grow up to be something they would be interested in. There’s nothing wrong with taking the long view when it comes to building business connections, of course – but alienating people at the beginning by showing they’re too small to interest you, by talking to them about things which have no relevance to them, isn’t exactly a great foundation for a long-term relationship!

I should have had one of those very new business people on my radio show yesterday – but technology threw a wobbler – so she’ll now be on in a couple of weeks. I’ll tell you more about her then.

All I’ll say now is that she was a joy to interview and the ideal kind of guest for the programme. There’s absolutely no point in my having the CEO of some global corporate on to talk about the trials of floating a company on the stock exchange, when I know my listeners are made up largely of home-based parents who are trying to get some kind of enterprise off the ground, or wondering whether, one day, they might be able to do it. Someone who, in a very dark time in her life, came up with an idea which she’s now going all out to make a reality, is much more relevant to them. Offering them someone who can’t identify with them is like trying to communicate with a non-English-speaker by SHOUTING! VERY! LOUD! AND! VERY! SLOW-LEEEE! – frustrating for all concerned – and completely pointless!

Whatever we’re trying to say and whatever medium we use – live presentation, radio, podcasts, phone, leaflets, website, social media – you name it! – knowing who we’re talking to and at least trying to speak their language is vital. Otherwise, we end up talking to ourselves.

Comments (0)

February 24, 2011

When Is An Hour Forty-eight Minutes Long?

Filed under: Business, Marketing, Media — Tags: Ads, Advertisers, Advertising Medium, Advertising Revenues, Aim, Alexander, Audience, Commercial Tv, Cult, Economic Climate, Independent Television, Loo, Mear Cat, People, Phenomenon, Remote Control, Toes, Tv Advertising, Tv Companies, Tv Uk, Uk Television — sheriegriffiths.com @ 8:23 am

The answer is: when it’s on British commercial TV.
UK independent television is to be allowed to make increase the length of ad breaks from seven to twelve minutes. It’s an experiment which will run for a year.

The main aim is to bring more revenue into the TV companies, which have been hit by the economic climate like almost every other advertising medium (with the exception of certain online options).

I have to be honest and say I was sure that some of the smaller, digital-only channels, already ran way more than twelve minutes of ads per hour. It sometimes feels as though there are more ads than programme – but maybe that’s just me.

The TV companies and the advertisers are, of course, up against one major challenge here: the remote control. So many of us have the ability to stop and start shows, fast-forward through them etc, they’ll really have to work to get our attention. That’s one reason TV advertising revenues started falling in the first place.

One good thing I can see happening – I think it has to in fact – is that advertisers will put more effort into making ads entertaining and engaging. It can be done – the cult of the mear cat is testament to that. Love him or loath him, Alexander is a phenomenon in his own right now. The only danger with creating something like that is that some people (I’ve met a few) get so caught up in the character, they actually forget what he’s advertising.

If it’s done cleverly, the extended break will work – but ad agencies etc are really going to have to stay on their toes – which could be fun to watch.

Whatever our medium, whoever our audience might be and whether we’re selling a product, information or any other message, we have to be ready to entertain before we sell.

What do you think about longer ad breaks? Are you interested to see what use is made of them? Or are they just a longer opportunity to get a drink, go to the loo or see what’s on the other side?

Comments (0)

April 16, 2010

The big Debate –Did You Get The Message?

Filed under: Election 2010, Marketing, Media — Tags: Answer Questions, Attention Span, Audience, Debate, Few Minutes, Half An Hour, Insight, Joint Press Conference, Marathon, Marketing Terms, Meeting People, Members, Ordinary People, Personalities, Phrases, Politicians, Repetition, Soundbites, Twitch — sheriegriffiths.com @ 8:09 am

Well, did you watch?; and if so, what did you make of it? Did you feel you got an insight into the personalities behind the parties, or did it feel more like a marathon joint press conference?

I felt I was proved right about the audience being a prop. I’m not sure what was added by members of the public, some of them terribly nervous, reading out their questions and then not being able to respond to the answers they were given – and in some cases, the answers they weren’t given. I know what was intended with the use of that device – they were there to represent you and me. I’m just not sure if it worked.

Not surprisingly, there were times when the responses were distinctly ‘Political’ – in the sense of politicians trying to answer the questions they wished they’d been asked, rather than the ones they were actually asked; and I did hear some evidence of careful line-learning – especially when phrases were recited over and over. Repetition works in marketing – we all know that; but it can get pretty tedious if we hear the same soundbites in the same order again and again within a few minutes!

I also have to agree with everyone I’ve heard across the media this morning, who’ve said the show was too long. In marketing terms, we’re always being reminded that people today have a shorter attention span than they used to. I regularly find myself trying to squeeze 60 minutesworth of information into less than 30 for that reason. Ok, half an hour would have gone nowhere last night, but I think an hour would have been plenty.

I couldn’t help noticing that they were all extremely busy meeting ‘ordinary’ people ‘the other day’. I don’t know which day it was – but they must have been completely knackered by the end of it! It got to a point where, like a twitch, or (something I’m very familiar with in sound production) an ‘erm’ pattern, I started to see an ‘I was talking to’ pattern –and it threatened to distract me from what they were talking about! It was obviously intended to show they were all in touch with ‘real people’, but it was a bit overdone. It reminded me of non-media people who go through media training. They’re often taught that when being interviewed on radio or tv, they should ’use the presenter’s name’. Unfortunately, some take it to the cringe-making enth degree, throwing in the name at every opportunity – and sometimes even when there isn’t an opportunity – “Well, John, as I was saying, John ..” etc etc.

There were positives, though – despite the 40-page rule book governing the event. I thought some of the most telling moments came when the moderator, Alastair Stewart, had to battle to retain control – when the combatants threatened to break out into a real row! Also, even the diving around the issues I mentioned earlier told me something about these individuals. Whether it told me what they wanted me to hear, I don’t know; but that’s the constant challenge with marketing, isn’t it – making sure that the message we want the customer to hear is the one they actually receive? So often, messages are lost in translation, aren’t they?

I’m always telling clients to talk ‘to’ their market, rather than at it. If I’m honest, for much of last night’s programme, I felt I was being talked ‘at’. I had a mad idea earlier this morning – get each one of the candidates into a radio studio on their own, with no audience in front of them to play to and no opponent to compete with. I’m not talking about an interview here. I’m talking about turning them into temporary presenters – so that they have to talk to each of us on a one-to-one basis. If we let them loose with the format, what sort of show would each come up with, I wonder …

No, of course I’m not serious – but if they mean what they say about wanting to connect with us personally, it could be a fun way of doing it – fun for us, if not for them!

Comments (0)

April 15, 2010

The Big Debate – Can You Ever Be ‘Too Prepared’?

Filed under: Election 2010, Marketing, Media — Tags: Audience, Cheer, Clanger, Dare, Economic Situation, Election Debate, Face, Fun, Golden Rule, Health Education, Hype, Knowledge, Media Promotion, Party Leaders, Party Politics, Proceedings, Real Seat, Solid Gold, Stuff, True Colours, Tv History, Uk Population — sheriegriffiths.com @ 9:30 am

Unless you’ve been living on another planet for the last several weeks, you can’t have failed to notice that we have a piece of ‘tv history’ to look forward to tonight – the first UK pre-election debate between the three main party leaders. They’re going to face big questions about the economic situation and how best to get out of it, health, education etc. We know all the questions have been agreed in advance and the audience aren’t going to be allowed to cheer, heckle or otherwise respond. So I’ve got a few questions for you: Are you planning to watch?; and if so, what are you expecting? Perhaps more to the point, what would you like to see?

When it comes to any kind of presentation, I was always taught that ‘It’s all in the preparation’, but as I watch, listen to and read the media promotion – dare I say hype – of this evening’s show, I’m asking myself: is it ever possible to be too prepared?

Making any kind of live programme can be real seat of the pants stuff. Even recording in front of a live audience, with the knowledge that you can edit afterwards is hair-raising at times – as I know from experience. The golden rule is to expect the unexpected. Sometimes that comes in the form of solid gold – sometimes it’s a massive clanger, dropped just at a point in the proceedings which makes it particularly difficult to remove afterwards. Tonight’s programme is going out live, so it has to be carefully stage-managed, to avoid it degenerating into a free-for-all . That might be quite fun to watch, but might not add much to our knowledge of the candidates. Although, perhaps it would. You often only see someone’s true colours in a crisis, don’t you?

I’m at least as curious about the fall-out from this as I am about the show itself. We know a large percentage of the UK population is disillusioned with party politics. “I don’t trust any of ‘em!” is an oft-heard cry and has been for years – just look at the declining turn-out across successive general and local elections. The tv debate is, of course, supposed to help rekindle our interest and enthusiasm, by allowing us to engage with the three candidates as directly as possible – to see them outside their natural habitat – the zoo which is the Commons! I’m not sure this particular format will facilitate that.

I asked you what you’re expecting to see. As for me, I have to say I’m expecting something quite sterile. Maybe I’m being cynical, but I can’t help thinking the live studio audience is no more or less than a prop in what I’ve already called a ‘show’. Yes, there must be structure; yes, there must be preparation; but I have a nasty feeling that what we’re going to get is the equivalent of one of my contributors who came into the studio for an interview, clutching his pre-scripted answers, resulting in a stilted exchange which was at least as uncomfortable to listen to as it was to produce and in which his true personality and core message were lost. I always send my interviewees the questions in advance and I have no issue with them bringing notes with them on the day – but scripts will be confiscated! Of course tonight’s contributors won’t physically read from a script, but I’ll bet they’ll know their lines pretty thoroughly and rather than showing us the policies behind the people, what we’re actually in for is a political ‘beauty pageant’ – yes, I am using that term in its loosest sense! It could well come down to who ‘performs’ best on camera. I was at A Women In Business lunch yesterday. The network has just launched its own online video channel and it was interesting to see how many of the members were scared witless at the prospect of having a camera pointed at them. The likes of Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are obviously quite used to that, but they have very different styles and I’m afraid this evening might come down to style over substance. The big debate is supposed to be about the issues, but for me at the moment, it’s about the ‘event’ itself.

I don’t know if there will be any research afterwards into how viewers and listeners respond, but I’d be fascinated to find out whether those watching on tv and those who listen on the radio come away with different impressions. Body language is an incredibly powerful communication tool, but the unadorned human voice can often give away what a winning smile and carefully choreographed gestures conceal.

Comments (0)

April 1, 2010

The Things We Do For Love!

Filed under: Business, Events, Marketing, Podcasts, Presentations — Tags: Audience, Baby Shoes, Brasserie, Crooks, Email, First Trip, Game, Great Tey, Job, O Clock, Podcasting, Presentation, Props, Shoestring, Surprise, Things We Do For Love — sheriegriffiths.com @ 12:43 pm

As you may know, I love my job. Why else would I get up at 5 AM – aka ‘Stupid O’Clock’ – in the dark, to go up to Colchester to deliver a presentation this morning?

It was my first trip to the Business Café, at the Barn Brasserie in Great Tey – and it was well worth the early start. They were a great audience, who responded brilliantly to the weird and wonderful props I chose to illustrate my talk about ‘Podcasting on a Shoestring’ – everything from a pair of baby shoes to a cushion. No, don’t ask – well, you can – but I won’t tell you where they fit in. I might get the chance to deliver the presentation for a group you’re involved in and if I gave the game away in advance, I’d spoil the surprise, wouldn’t I?

Anyway, I just wanted to thank this morning’s group, especially Jill Crooks of Room 105, who has liaised with me over the last month or so and has just sent me a lovely email. I’m really hoping to get back up to The Barn very soon, as an ordinary visitor – and if you’re in the area (even if you’re not) I recommend you give it a go.

Comments (1)