Marketing Blogs
|
by Online Editor | Scotlandon Jun 25 |
PubCamp Melbourne: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The Bad
'Old' vs 'New'
The whole debate seemed to have learned little from the Sydney event, which by all accounts was mired in the same 'old' vs 'new' media bickering. Let's stop for just a second and consider how ludicrous these terms are anyway, apart from as so many flags planted in quicksand. Having a clan of self-identified 'new media evangelists' in the audience and then filling the panel with apparently 'old media' luminaries was always going to be a recipe for disaster, and the debate topic - whether new media is a "dagger in the heart" of content producers and distributors - only helped to fuel this futile and ultimately rather boring confrontation.
Come on people: the advent of new technologies does not herald the end of the old technologies (vinyl anyone? radio? So-called 'old' technologies with important and relevant applications today); it does not mean we all have to re-learn all the rules of engagement (yes, some things are different in the blogosphere, but some things aren't - like treating your audience/customer/client with respect and wanting to build a long-lasting and fruitful relationship); even if we are in a difficult transitional period for print and new media publishers, no, this doesn't mean one has to win out over the other - both will continue to coexist, and the people who want to sit around and have a bun fight over which is better can do so - the rest of us will be busy spending that time thinking and acting creatively to try and find innovative solutions to meet the challenges posed by our increasingly mediated environment, solutions that are focused on both maximising revenue and consumer engagement across multiple touchpoints and which employ appropriate technology tools capable of meeting the needs of the stakeholders.
Yes, I know this also appears under 'Good', but that's ok people (see above debate on why one doesn't have to win out over the other). At one point during one of the short presentations I looked around the room and saw lots of hunched over bodies tuned into their phones and laptops. I know that many of us are becoming accomplished multitaskers, but many at the conference seemed to be afflicted by Shiny Object Syndrome (see David Armano for definition of SOS), transfixed more by the small screens in their hands than the speakers in front of them.
- Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next
- Single Page
- Article links
I wasn't at Melbourne PubCamp but it believe this review could have been cut and pasted for the Sydney event. Spot on summary and analysis in my opinion.
I couldn't agree more on the debate re: old v new media. It drove me to post my own rant after Sydney.
Having said that...the participants and audience for this event are really at the bleeding edge of Web 2.0 ad social media thinking in Australia and so there is bound to be some rough and ready debate. While many of us believe in this technology and direction, lets face it, its still emerging and
far from perfect.
But there are some amazing opportunities and many of these thinkers will be right there in the thick of it.
Craig Wilson
itechne levelled the playing ground by providing an open opportunity for everyone to get involved, and will do it again - as a FREE event to anyone wanting to attend (and yes, Im part of itechne as if you couldnt have guessed without this disclosure).
Marketing magazine is not putting on the Advertising and Media Summit 2008, we are working with them to bring our registered members the benefit of a $200 discount from the actual cost. I would think that this initiative would actually be seen as a step in the right direction by those 'average interested parties' (whoever this ill-defined group are supposed to be).
Relative to a free conference such as iTechne's PubCamp, I agree the price seems high. But then comparing the two events - as I think you intend to do by juxtaposing your positive discussion of one with your denigration of the other - seems rather irresponsible, especially considering the relative scope of both.
I don't have to defend the Advertising and Media Summit 2008 - I haven't seen their balance sheet and they don't pay my salary. But you don't have to be an accountant to realise that bringing in the chief creative officers of Time Warner and Goodby Silverstein & Partners from the US, as well as Harold Mitchell and 25 other presenters over two days has costs associated with it, for good or bad.
I also think you may have missed one of the key points in my post about PubCamp. This is not a bun fight between some evil axis of 'paid media' and the ground-levelling 'free media'. Both sides of this debate would do well to put down their fistfuls of mud and engage in reasoned discussion of the complex debate around the emergence of 'gift economies' alongside the existing paid-for content models.
Reducing this interesting and engaging area to some binary bitch-off between two entrenched enemies is woefully reductive and serves none of the parties involved. While there is demand for this model of content delivery, there will be those willing to build a business around the supply. To claim that attendees of the summit will somehow be incapable of critically engaging with the topics to be discussed is laughable at best, and downright insulting at worst.
Please @mediamum, go back and read my review of the Melbourne PubCamp event. You will find that I had plenty of positives to take away from the event. That said, I also think that the purpose of attending these events is to critically engage with the materials presented, and if sometimes this means that opinions will be given that not all agree with, then so much the better.
To claim that Marketing magazine is led by 'such people' is, I'm afraid, nonsense in the most wonderful Learian sense. As an existing masthead with over 20 years of history, Marketing faces the same challenge as many print publishers at the moment. Because our primary objective is to continue to provide valued (and yes, at times, even paid-for) content to marketers across Australia, we decided to invest heavily in this website as a completely free and open resource.
Considering the lengthy and (I thought) engaging discussion we shared at PubCamp based around the value you claimed to have gleaned from the pages of our magazine over the years in relation to your teaching, I found your comments here somewhat bizarre.
Let's lose the dogma @mediamum, roll up our sleeves and get stuck into the debate. You'll no doubt be disappointed to hear that I will be at the Advertising and Media Summit. As part of our ongoing commitment to bringing marketers valuable content, we'll be interviewing the speakers and getting them to provide their insights on camera and on this site.
Oh, and did I mention that the videos will be free?
Marketing is about marketing and commercial growth. Its not about saving the whales!
I think events like PubCamp and the Summit are completely different beasts and the world needs both of them.
PubCamp is an alternative approach. It tries to bring together a community around the future of media, partly as a conversation and percolator for ideas and new faces, and involves a different set of voices and perspectives to something like ADMA or Ad:Tech or the Advertising and Media Summit.
It is not any sort of replacement for them, however.
I know how tough it is to put on a free event. Theyre free to attend, not to run. The folks at the traditional event companies are running them as a business and have every right to charge for the valuable content and information they provide. And there is clearly a good market for them.
PubCamp is just an attempt to try something different, not replace the other worthwhile events that are out there covering different topics in different ways.
Cheers,
Jed
Or, better still, that will let us bring in some pizzas or something, or charge more reasonable amounts for food. Rydges was better than the Marriott in Sydney though - the Marriott was going to charge us $1350 for chips and nuts on top of the drinks bill. Goodness only knows what they would have charged us there to add biscuits! :)
I have worked with enough ad-serving systems myself to know that there is no question whatsoever that this would have been an accident of the ad serving software on the website. But you gotta admit when things like that happens it looks pretty bad and gives completely the wrong impression.
Anyway, glad to have had you had the event and thanks for the comments and coverage. As much as just about everyone disagrees on which speakers and panelists they liked or found valuable (it was a very diverse audience), the feedback about the value of running PubCamp has been close to 100% positive (with David there being the only exception I can find so far).
The mission of the event is to foster understanding and dialogue between social and digital media, technologists, traditional media and publishers, commercial new media and futurists, and create a shared community of practitioners around the people who will create the media landscape of the future. As it stands today there are real gulfs between those groups, and PubCamp is primarily an attempt to get a conversation and meeting of minds going between them. Thats a tough challenge, but Im hoping that the feedback from the first two events can help make the future ones even better, and that its a step in the right direction.
Cheers,
Jed
I respect your views and opinion, since thats what blogs are all about. But I think youre off the mark on your assessment of the panel. I totally disagree that putting so-called "old media" up in front of the "new media" audience was a "recipe for disaster," as you put it.
How many times have you heard a boring panel where everyone agreed with each other and simply sang the same old tune that everyone in the audience was expecting? Panels are meant to be dynamic and controversial. This panel delivered on that level precisely because of the dynamic Jed injected via the choice of speakers.
Theres a second, more important reason why I thought it was a success. Yes, this is an age-old debate. But as someone whos spent a long time in both print and digital media, I can tell you there are many digital natives in this world who are very quick to overlook (or spend time understanding) the publishing lessons learnt by traditional media. If you want to make money or be successful with digital media youd be a complete fool to ignore the basic lessons in good publishing that have been honed by "old media" over the decades. Disagree with them, sure. But first make sure you understand at a deep level why you disagree, then make your argument. Some of the angst that cropped up at PubCamp Sydney, for example, I felt were uninformed and purely emotional arguments.
So I thought the panel was a great chance to butt heads and learn something new on both sides of the fence. Judging by sparks that have continued to fly, Id suggest it was hugely successful.
Finally, if youll excuse the blatant plug and want to have another listen, an edited version of the panel features as this weeks episode of my AFR/MIS podcast, The Scoop: misaustralia.com/thescoop
Firstly, the new v trad media debate was initially amusing to me but then mystifying as the passion levels rose. Its an evolving media landscape folks. There isn't necessarily a right and wrong camp. Both forms of media are interesting and both are imperfect. As a marketer, both are useful.
I could probably say the same thing about the "paid seminar v free seminar" debate. Both useful, both stimulating and both imperfect.
At the end of the day the true judge of who was right and wrong is the market. People vote with their feet and wallets.
One last observation. I enjoyed PubCamp and would attend the next event, but found it curious that less than 100 people (by my rough count) attended the Sydney event. This was for a free event in a city of almost 4 million. I would have thought here would have been more bums on seats.
@mediamum - its all good. I just wanted to clarify our relationship to the Advertising and Media Summit and to make clear my position on the paid-for/free content debate (if we really have to legitimise it as a debate at all).
@jedwhite - thanks for your thoughtful comments. I agree, theres space for paid-for events and free events, and its not a case of one winning out over the other. The work iTechne put into the smoothly-run Melbourne PubCamp event was evident and I especially enjoyed the mixed format of panel and unconference sessions. Ill be looking forward to the next iTechne event, so make sure you keep us informed and well let people know through our calendar.
Also, I totally take your point about the criticisms around PubCamp appearing next to advertisements for the Advertising and Media Summit being potentially misleading. Once again, I think this is more the case if people subscribe to an either/or view of paid-for/free events, but well chalk this one up to experience.
Ad serving online continues to be a fun and challenging space to be working in, so its nice to know that when situations like this arise, there is space for the community to debate it. Cheers for your thoughts @mediamum and @jedwhite.
Look, I agree by your criteria that the panel was a success - it was dynamic and controversial. But I guess my question is then what is the overall goal here? To get people who disagree with each other in the same room so they can ... shock horror, disagree?
I agree that some of the arguments at PubCamp were a little angsty, and that this doesn't really help to drive reasoned debate. In fact, in my review post that is precisely the point I make about people fighting over terms like 'old' and 'new' media as if we somehow have to decide between them. As I said in the review, this is a "futile and ultimately rather boring confrontation," and I call for more reasoned and challenging debate.
But there's a bit of a problem here: perhaps engineering a deliberately controversial panel and then expecting nothing but reasoned debate is a bit of a zero-sum game. Ultimately we're in agreement though - less bickering and more challenging debate is the goal, and it's here that I defer to @jedwhite's last post above. It's a tough challenge, but nice to have people such as yourself and the iTechne crew stepping up to that challenge.
As for posting the edited panel discussion AFR/MIS podcast link, more power to you. I have added it to the hyperlinks at the end of this original article so that people may continue to follow the content and make their own minds up about the debate.
Scanning the comments I saw someone mentioned the Web 2.0-heavy audience, and perhaps this is where my frustration came from; if the conference had been pitched at us, nobody speaking (again excepting Trib & Bronwen Clune) would have had any idea what the hell we were on about. When the technological and creative capital is weighed heavier in the listeners than the speakers, in my book something is amiss. Again I am speaking about what i would have deemed valuable, and while yes it is monetarily free, you are asking people to pay with time. As we all know, we can earn more money, we cannot get those hours back, and it is to be respected as much as the almighty dollar.
Hats off to Itechne however for putting it on in the first place, credit where credit is due.
Keep sharing such important posts.
Product NameGucci New Style Fashion Ladies Leather Handbag 223963 in Black
Product NameGucci 09 New Style Fashion Ladies Oil Wax Leather Handbag 211959-Rice White
Product NameGucci 09 Latest Fashion Frosted Leather Handbag 211960-Black
Product NameGucci New Style Casual Shoulder Bag 211940-Apricot
Product NameGucci New Style Beautiful Handbag 223953-Earth Yellow
Product NameGucci New Style Beautiful Shoulder Bag 211941-Light Coffee
Product NameGucci New Style Ladies Shoulder Bag 218780-Black