This blog post on our sister site (Words 101, our copywriting service) explains why we’re cheering for Jonathan Daddia to win Masterchef.

Posted by Dana Minter

Last night I sat down with my wife to watch the new series of Top Gear, which we’d recorded from its new Monday evening spot on Channel 9. (Top Gear was pretty much the same as ever – funny, but often irritating for a dedicated petrol head like me. As ever, she would say, “it’s just entertainment”, every time I started muttering about some sweeping, uninformed statement from Clarkson.)

No, the big shock was viewing Channel 9 for the first time in what felt like years, maybe decades. At least that’s what it looked and sounded like to me. What a culture shock! The same old corny “promo” voiceovers (mostly gravel – voiced old blokes), the cringe-making, sensationalist previews of forthcoming shows – the important expose of  “The Bare –Bottomed Bishop” on Current Affair (!) and even some TV commercials that took me straight back to the eighties.

Frankly, it was hard to believe how little the channel had changed while I’d been away – no wonder ratings have been plummeting – didn’t they consider it might be time for a re-vamp? Re-visiting 9 was like seeing a tragic old rock star, thirty years after they last had a hit. Fatter in the face, wider around the middle, hair much thinner, but cut in the same old retro style, desperately trying to cling to the past as if it was yesterday. Terrified to move on, to get a new haircut or, for the boys club at Channel 9, to recognise that women now watch TV too.

Despite my misgivings about the state of Channel 9, the ratings for Top Gear were higher than ever, which is kind of sad in a way. All those Channel 9 viewers could have enjoyed the Top Gear lads on SBS years ago, but they obviously found the prospect of venturing across to SBS, home of “weird, foreign-speaking news presenters and naughty films with subtitles”, too scary a prospect.

Now though, I realise just how frightening changing channel can be – just a short visit to Channel 9 certainly had me reeling in shock.

Posted by Ian Minter

Now there’s a question for you to ponder. For decades, manufacturers and marketers have been thinking big: first, they come up with a popular product and then brief the agency to come up with definitive big campaign idea.

However, today the notion of the big ( USP – based ) idea is changing fast – new mediums allow us to think smaller, with the ability to speak more directly and perhaps more honestly with our target markets.

Instead of selling hard, we have new options – we can allow consumers to decide what product they want, or don’t want, involve them in the product testing process, give them a voice, speak to them more personally, allow them to comment and share their views ( and discuss ) with other consumers.  In the “old” days, it was called soft sell, although now it might be more accurately described as personalised marketing.

This has also allowed manufactures to expand their bases, chasing new customers who might have been beyond the one size fits all approach. In addition to the mass market products, they now have the opportunity to experiment more, broaden their ranges and discover a new breed of customer.

One example is Mountain Dew, who invited customers to comment on the colours and flavours of a new range of drinks.  And, a recently launched Victorian brewer, did much the same thing and allowed beer drinkers to effectively become part of the product testing team and decide what the final beer, called Nelson, should taste like.

John Willshire of, Head of Innovation at PMD Media in London, recently discussed some interesting ideas on this subject in a talk  – “How Do You Socialize Production?”  He explains how technology is really turning our notion of big idea thinking., upside down.

Naturally, this means that we creative marketers have to really think outside the square, more than ever. If we don’t have to talk to everyone at once, we can speak to a few more intimately.

In other words, I think it’s time to start thinking small.

Posted by Ian Minter

Technorati Claim Token: N9PSKY8WYEWG

It looks like Fernwood Women’s Health Clubs might have sought the advice of sniggering schoolboys to create their latest ad campaign.

How else can you explain the screaming headline “Join for Fox Sake” ? Featured not just on their website , but on massive outdoor posters!

It’s a wince -making pun, it’s not funny (unless you’re male aged 12 – 15), it’s un-original and, worst of all, it’s likely to alienate their potential clients, which I’d imagine are likely to be adult females, probably aged 25 plus.

Or, more likely, 35 plus.

Even if you ignore the sad pun, the sentiment that you should, in effect, join Fernwood for F**k’s sake, is offensive all by itself. We could follow this up with “Join Fernwood or fox off”, or “Join Fernwood or get foxed”. The possibilities for schoolyard creativity are endless.

While not a keen observer of Fernwood’s marketing communication strategy, I seem to recall that it’s always looked a bit stuffy in the past and maybe someone thought it was time to lower the target market demographic (the MD’s son perhaps?).

To be honest, it’s all a bit cringe -making.  How many women still describe themselves as “ foxy” (other than Kath and Kim)?  Then again, maybe their customers are so old they still use words like “foxy”, groovy” and ”far out”

This campaign is so wrong, it’s hard to believe that it exists at all. Really, Fernwood’s, what the Fox  were you thinking?

Posted by Ian Minter

Like most people in business nowadays, I communicate mainly by email to business clients, colleagues, friends and, occasionally, foes. It’s fast, easy, convenient and, sometimes, less challenging than a phone call. And it’s for all those reasons, sending an email isn’t always given the attention it deserves.

I’m amazed how many people in business bang off an email at great speed, without considering how it might be perceived by the recipient. I’m not talking about being late for lunch, I mean the important emails that are likely to have a real impact – the serious matters that can seriously affect a business relationship. Here are a few examples:

1. A short while ago, I had several emails from very senior executive, who worked for a large, international company. The poor use of language, appalling punctuation and terrible spelling contained in the emails was so bad, it was impossible not to re-consider just who I’d been dealing with. When I met him face to face, he came across as a reasonably smart guy, but in his emails he sounded like a complete idiot. He was a client of our agency, so I didn’t think it wise to comment on the quality of his writing, but I did wonder what impact his emails had on his business reputation.
2. Emails can also be an early warning system, too: our business was about to entertain a relationship with someone new. Initially, they came across as warm, friendly, intelligent and well-versed in their specific area of expertise. Then, after a short while, we began to receive emails which sounded like they came from a different person – this one was blunt, aggressive and cold as ice. We had a few more meetings which saw a return of the warm, friendly human being again, followed by another volley of combative emails. They told us what our team needed to know – the tone of the emails revealed so much more than the actual content. We had seen the dark side and it was time to say goodbye. Very politely.
3. Some friends had been told by a long term client that they would not be continuing their contract. Naturally, they wanted to retain the client and were about to send an email which proposed to explain the reasons the client should re-consider. Before they did so, they sent me two versions, long and short, and asked which I preferred. In fact, there were problems with both. One was too detailed and matter of fact, while the other was overly assertive and exposed their emotional feelings about the matter. It took outsider’s perspective to see what our friends couldn’t – they were simply too involved to appreciate the tonal emphasis each email expressed. They were delighted that they were made aware of the issues before they were sent.

If there’s one golden rule regarding emails, it’s to imagine that the person you’re sending it to is sitting right next to you. If it doesn’t pass this test, don’t send it.

Posted by Ian Minter