Solve Media claims that an individual is more likely to survive a plane crash than to click an online advertising banner. So what has PepsiCo. turned to in order to improve their online branding campaign? Has it been effective? And most importantly is it ethical?
In 2012 the company launched Pepsi Pulse which is a digital dashboard that curates trending entertainment and pop culture news. The theme ties into the brand
s long standing relationship with the music industry and further instills this theme by using celebrities to endorse the brand on social media sites by using #livefornow.
However, this marketing strategy was also intended to engage audiences by having celebrities encourage them to participate in mini challenges such as taking photos and making videos. This part of the campaign appears to have failed with the company struggling to create interactive content.
The company now seems to have moved into native advertising by using advertorials on websites such as Buzzfeed. Some argue that ethically native advertising is considered wrong as it intentionally aims to deceive readers by making them believe the content is real rather than sponsored. However, PepsiCo clearly make their intentions obvious by displaying their logo along with the the words “featured partner”.
Whether or not this form of advertising is any more successful than the old banner advertisement is, however, debatable. Studies have found that readers find this type of content particularly annoying. PepsiCo should therefore aim to reconnect with their target audience by involving them in their branding strategy.
South Australia have followed in New South Wales’s footsteps allowing for lawyers and journalists to be able to use modern technology for court reporting.
However, the state has added a mandatory delay.
Reporting on any evidence will not be permitted to be published before a 15 minute time lapse.
The move allows time for the suppression of any information to be processed.
More can be read here.
The Bo Xilai case in China has been more like a reality TV show than a criminal trial. Seriously I feel like I should be texting in ‘SAVE BO’ to 191 545.
The former Conhquing party politician is being charged with bribery, corruption and abuse of power.
The media spectacular has attracted millions of followers online. All glued to the minute-by-minute proceedings published live on this SinaWiebo microblogging page. (Note: This site is in Chinese)
Now I’m not too sure how many of you have actually ever read a fraud case but the legal concepts are really pretty dry. Don’t believe me? Try this case out.
If all trials were run like this (especially fraud cases) they would be so much more exciting!
But is this really the future of court reporting in China?
Some such as Professor Tong Zewie believe this is a breakthrough and will lead to more open trials in China. He believes this case will set precedent for the future and hopes that China is led away from the judicial corruption which it has historically been plagued with.
However, others are not so convinced with sceptics voicing their opinion that the Chinese government is just attempting to create a sense of transparency for political reasons.
The main criticism is that the Chinese government has only chosen this case because of the strong resentment towards Xilai from Chinese citizens. Therefore the likely incarceration and the trial in itself is not likely the cause political controversy.
Some even go further, such as this feisty blog, which argues that the trial is merely a PR stunt.
Only time will tell but hopefully this is a step for China towards the right to a fair trial and a wider application of the rule of law.
US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has admitted that most court members are clueless when it comes to technology.
I don’t know about you but it really worries me that someone who is potentially adjudicating on key issues involving intellectual property cannot or refuses to use the Internet.
I am all for old school ways of transferring confidential information particularly in light of recent hacks (If the government can be hacked I am sure the small law firm down the road can be) however, not being able to send an email is just inexcusable.
Technology is not retreating it is only advancing. It is time the justice system jumped on the Internet bandwagon.
It really isn’t that scary and could make legal professionals work-life a whole lot easier.
Three American teenagers fatally shot Australian Chris Lane while he was on his morning jog.
Their motive was one that sent shivers down my spine; a sickening concoction of boredom and the need for attention.
When a tragic and senseless crime such as this occurs a question repetitively pops into my mind.
Should those who commit crime purely for infamy receive media publicity?
Particularly in the case of mass shootings, the media are too often saturated with images and details of the accused’s life leaving them instilled in our minds while the victims are faceless and nameless merely represented by a statistic.
Refraining from publishing details about an accused could act as deterrence to individuals who kill merely to make a name for themself. If the main purpose for the bloodshed was to be thrown into the media spotlight, then not identifying them would deprive them from the satisfaction they crave.
Forbes magazine Journalist Joseph Grenny takes this perspective even further. He suggests that hyped up media that centralises on the perpetrator not only gifts wanted notoriety but entices copycat crime by creating a competition like environment for criminally minded people.
He is pushing for more to be done by legislating on the issue. However, this view is one that is likely to be met angrily by freedom of speech and freedom of information activists. Not to mention media companies that profit enormously from such stories.
There is no doubt that the Internet is changing the way journalists go about their jobs.
While this blog often concentrates on the impact that the media revolution is having on the law it is also important to acknowledge the change in media ethics.
Not too long ago everything written by journalists was subjected to editing multiple times before it was published. Social media and the Internet now allow for instant publication and this can sometimes result in the release of content that may not have throughly been thought through.
It is much easier to to write a post that may not take into consideration all of the verified facts or that may offend a victim or a victims family, than it is to pen a formal newspaper article.
Stephen Ward is pushing for an updated version of ethics to be taught to journalism students.
His article can be read here.
This week Melbournians have once again been saturated in media coverage of a criminal investigation.
The case of Siraboon Bung first came into the spotlight in 2011 when the primary school girl went missing on her way to school.
Police have allegedly found evidence in regards to the case and are in the process of carrying out a large search investigation.
There is no doubt that the rise of social media has seen an increase in the amount of intricate details that are released to the public. However, at some point it must be asked how much information is too much?
Do we really need to know what brand of machinery is being used to dig up dirt and cut down trees in the suspected crime location?
Personally I felt uncomfortable with the number of tweets published by numerous crime reporters on Twitter these last few days.
How many tweets are too many tweets?