Mother have made a 5 minute documentary on tea that will be shown in cinemas - trailer here. I would post the youtube video or link to it, but it seems to have made the pages of Guardian media but not youtube. Perhaps it is on BR's creative review?
I'm only sniping because I think it is a great idea. Stories are so much more interesting than brands, eh?
Good article about people who rate stuff online. Apparently ratings tend to be good or bad because you don't really bother to review something you are apathetic about. (Hence 99% of Sun readers wanting the death penalty. Or 80% wanting a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Brilliantly demonstrated in Ireland, where they had to hold a second referendum on the treaty of Nice, after only 34% turned out and voted "No" in the first one...)
Similarly, Wired reports on the ratings system on Netflix which shows that people who watch three rubbish films then a decent one will mark it high, whereas people who watch three great films and then a decent one will mark it low. The implications for the role of data in digital is too big to go into here.
Goes to show that comments/feedback/ratings should always come with a health warning.
My title, by the way, comes from the Guardian blogs, which regularly feature disappointed readers, who would expectmore from the Guardian. Which is sweet.
Interesting post by Richard on Brand Ecosystems. I love the idea of brands forging alliances based on beliefs, but then I love anything that's based on beliefs. So much more sustainable than anything else. I'm trying to get clients to reduce the level of focus that they have on audience research when defining their digital activity. I think clients end up with the website they deserve - if it's cool and full of interesting stuff it is usually because they are cool and interesting. So if their business is based on some solid beliefs, drawing those out and presenting them to the world is a good thing. Unless "maximising ROI over the short term while maintaining a long term focus on shareholder value" is a belief, in which case they get the website they deserve.
Similarly, I've always been a fan of agencies defining the type of brands they work with (What, you you don't run an agency? I hear you cry. With a rock solid business model like that?) My current employer has been very successful because their earliest clients were cool and gave them a lot of scope to express their design skills. Consequently they have been able to build a stable of clients that are cool and allow them to express their design skills. I'd stop short of claiming it's an ecosystem, but it's a window box.
What I'm elliptically approaching here is a thought relating to that recent Forrester report (the link is probably behind Brand Republic's border wall) that predicted the way agencies will be working in five years despite not having a single example of any agency currently working that way. Their premise was that agencies will nurture an audience that they will then put in touch with brands. Like, I dunno, one of those "media owners" that used to exist before web 2.0 destroyed the world as we know it.
But what if you presented you agency in such a way that made it very clear what kind of clients you would work with before accepting a brief? What if you turned down brands that didn't fit? Would you end up with a kind of ecosystem? And would that be a good thing?