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.