Olympic Winners and Losers – Empty Seats and Byzantine Ticketing

What a fantastic ad from Channel 4 advertising their showcasing of the Paralympic Games, beginning soon. Meanwhile, what of the Olympics? Though there have been tales of Tube and travel chaos, Zeitgeist has not personally experienced problems with public transport, either for commuting or for travelling to the Games themselves. And while our mayor may have been left dangling like a pinata the other day, he certainly seems not to have left London in the lurch in its preparedness for the Games.

LOCOG, however, have had to face two severe lines of questioning since the Games opened last Friday. The first, which became immediately apparent to anyone watching the first few days of events, was that thousands of seats were unoccupied, including for events LOCOG had deemed sold out. The fault, it seemed, lay mainly with the Olympic Family, who weren’t turning up to events. Seb Coe tried to shrug off the incident, saying it was normal for the few first events of an Olympic Games. It must be particularly galling for him though after the same thing happened in the 2008 Games in Beijing and he pledged to avoid such an occurrence in London. It is unfortunate then for all concerned then that, despite releasing more tickets, the problem is still not resolved as of today.

Moreover, this brings us to the second big problem. The selling of tickets. The whole balloting system originally set up was pretty arcane and inefficient to begin with. But now with tickets being released on a rolling basis throughout the day, the chaos is all the more apparent. Yesterday, eConsultancy published an excellent article with a blow-by-blow account of just why “the Olympic ticketing website is so bad”. Worst, for Zeitgeist, was firstly not having a mobile version / mobile-optimised site. Secondly it was not having anything informing users of when certain tickets became available. Thankfully, as in any well-functioning democratic society, where there is a market failure, substitute products or competitors will come in to correct the situation. Such was the case at the weekend, when the completely unofficial @2012TicketAlert account was launched on Twitter, which used automated tweets to alert followers when any Olympic tickets became available. It was a fantastic idea, and seemed much in keeping with the ‘hack’ trend we see nowadays, when companies like Microsoft and Transport for London open up their APIs for users to develop their own programs. Such examples clearly had not occurred to LOCOG though, and earlier this evening, after amassing over 8,000 followers, LOCOG denied the @2012TicketAlert account further access. As the administrator of the account, Adam, wrote,

“[I]t seems someone at LOCOG has taken exception to our idea (or the publicity it is getting) and instead of reaching out to us or addressing the lack of a notification system, they have simply blocked our access to their server. This means we are unable to check or post any new ticket alerts… we would point out that the alert was not against the Terms of Use of the http://www.london2012.com website, nor have these terms been updated to make it so.”

It seems a poor PR move on LOCOG’s part, and more importantly a poor operational move because it makes it that much harder again to check for newly available tickets. Taking into account the immense budget that must have been allocated to the ticketing website, the result is severely lacking, and many thousands of people have been put off the Olympic experience because of it. Ticketmaster, which has branding on the website, has also come under fire. These acts, as we predicted in an earlier article, may well be the undoing of those involved, for, once lost, a good reputation is hard to recover.

One big Hitch

While the rest of the world quickly comes to grips with the passing of Kim Jong-Il, master of North Korea, Zeitgeist is still pausing for thought over the death of Christopher Hitchens, master of the painfully incisive, devastating epithet. Zeitgeist has had the pleasure of reading several of Hitchens’ essays over the years, mostly from Vanity Fair. Christopher Buckley, writing in The New Yorker, delivered an excellent obituary on the man. As well as managing to anger pretty much anyone, no matter what their political or religious creed, Hitchens also had some thoughts on his own oeuvre. Writing more than ten years ago in his book No one left to lie to, Hitchens wrote of Drudge (of Drudge Report infamy),

“Drudge… openly says that he’ll print anything and let the customers decide if it’s kosher. This form of pretend ‘consumer sovereignty’ is fraudulent in the same way its analogues are. (It means, for one thing, you have no right to claim you were correct, or truthful, or brave. All you did was pass it on, like a leaker or some other kind of conduit. The death of any intelligent or principled journalism is foreshadowed by such promiscuity).”

Something for anyone who writes a blog to bear in mind. It certainly points to a larger trend, which, ten years on, is still a problem for those writing online, that of a lack of regulation. Not that any such regulation has prevented widespread abuse of power in ‘legitimate’ journalism, either. The problem with tougher rules and sanctions – ex ante or ex post – is the worry that such pressure will negatively impact on the quality of stories journalists deliver. It was the press, after all, who broke the story of the phone-hacking scandals. The dilemma will not be an easy one to solve, especially at a time when most newspapers continue to experience financial losses and a resultant brain drain of staff to more stable and lucrative lines of work. The loss of luminaries like Christopher Hitchens will not help matters.

Hermès Family Fortunes

Luxury group LVMH acquired what is to be a 17.1% stake in Hermès, it was announced at the weekend. Historically, the group has a tendency to purchase a minority stake before settling in for a full assault on the target acquisition. In order to leverage such a purchase, it is rumoured that LVMH is considering selling off the “MH” part, Moet and Hennessy, which Ogilvy client Diageo is understandably very keen for. Any rumours of takeover may just be that, of course.

But what of Hermès? Zeitgeist has paraphrased current IPA chairman Rory Sutherland before when he spoke of clothes today being about much more than mere “atoms”; these goods, especially in the realm of luxury, are sold on their intangible benefits, not on the assumption that they will merely keep you warm. Hermès, futhermore, really is a world unto itself, having been controlled by the Dumas family (offspring of Thierry Hermès) since its inception. The death of the brand’s patriach clearly left room for a potential hostile takeover.

LVMH must tred lightly however. One of the things that makes the Hermès brand so coveted by so many people around the world is that it is fiercely independent. Its heritage is bound up in the history of a single family, rather than a more homogenous consortium of initials. This family history has, without doubt, strong – though intangible – brand equity for its consumers, for obvious reasons. If it is to become subsumed into a phalanx of other brands however, the loss of this familial association might having a thoroughly tangible impact on the brand’s bottom line.

The tablet to end all tablets: iPad’s product journey

As with lots of much-hyped products, the incredible furore that built before the iPad’s release quickly dissipated into overt wretching and other disgusting complaining noises, not helped by the connectivity problems some users are experiencing. Cooler heads seem to be prevailing a little over a week after the US release, and Brand Republic have a very interesting, celebratory yet sober article on what the iPad will mean for both consumer and ad man. Our Ogilvy colleagues over in Asia have more.

TV Evolves Before Our Eyes

From the October Zeitgeist…

As Octavius once said of the Roman Empire, so now says the TV industry and the advertising that supports it: we expand or we die.

In the US, the once niche and piffling cable networks now command a much larger slice of the advertising pie, and in terms of quality, their output speaks volumes; Mad Men, The Sopranos, Sex and the City and Dexter; these same shows are rewarded at the annual gush‐fest that is the Emmy Awards in Los Angeles. In the UK, the BBC is defending attacks on its unique position in the marketplace as a Public Service Broadcaster. It’s licence fee revenues mean it is moving relatively easily through the recession compared to its moribund rivals. ITV is desperately trying to find someone crazy/stupid enough to take control of the network and Channel 4 is angling for a slice of the BBC’s licence fee to help support it’s own PSB commitments. Sky meanwhile, under the stewardship of heir apparent James Murdoch, is resilient. It is having little trouble courting advertisers as the little personal liquidity that exists is sunk into home comforts like HDTV.

The crowded and volatile marketplace in both countries has led to audience fragmentation, but some are convinced there is not yet saturation. Variety wrote recently about the US push to broadcast TV to devices over ad‐supported mobile DTV; creating a “world where travelers waiting in an airport lounge will watch golf live on their laptops, or homemakers who have to dash out… won’t miss the last 10 minutes of Oprah because they can catch the end… on their cell phones”. 70 TV stations will soon be making their broadcasts available to the country’s 270m mobiles, providing another way for advertisers to create more impressions and reach more eyeballs.

Last month, Culture secretary Ben Bradshaw announced the end to the ban of product placement on commercial TV. The ban was somewhat arbitrary since imported US and Euro shows flagrantly display their wares already. The FT believes benefits to broadcasters are “hazy…a lot of the [money] would simply be transfers from traditional spot advertising”; they also might be tightly regulated, discouraging use. Advertisers though are really more fearful of no one watching their product. DVR penetration continues: most people tend to fast‐forward the ads. US networks are now trying to blur the lines even more between entertainment and advert; American Idol now inserts auditions in the middle of ad breaks.

All this risks putting off the consumer, but Brand Republic notes that viewers think product placement will “add a sense of realism” to fictional fare. If done sensibly, that is.