Home » Brand Fails, Media

Channel Nine’s New Viral Tactics

3 February 2009 4 Comments

What’s going to win the TV ratings for the three major networks this year? Boobs, bums, bullets, bonking, brawls, balls, bruises and bad language if you ask Nine. The problem is: how do you promote realistically in primetime? You can’t. And that’s why Channel Nine have attempted to release it virally and ‘anonymously’.

First, we had the Underbelly 2 uncut preview. The suspicion was that it was ‘leaked’ by Nine (forgive me, there will be a lot of inverted commers used because I am implying eg. Thorpie has a male ‘friend’). Nine denied having any involvement yet was only leaked through affiliate news.com.au which unsurprisingly resulted in a number of follow up articles. “Hey, while we’re at it, someone give Fred Nile a call – he’ll always give us something quotable“. All in all, good publicity and talkability for the new series of Underbelly.

Then, when this foul-mouthed Australian Wipeout video landed in my inbox directly from Nine, it confirmed to me that viral video was one of Nine’s main strategies for launching new controversial content:

It was accompanied by a note that said “Attached is the Wipeout Australia viral video. Feel free to forward to friends, family, or anyone else who might get a kick out of it (pardon the pun!)”.

Ahem. Two things. One, if you want a video to be passed around don’t label it ‘viral’. Sure, it could be called ‘uncut’ but it’s not ‘viral’.

Two, if you are promoting something make sure you shout it out and be transparent. If you find this clip on YouTube you will notice that it was posted by checkthisvideoout and jb9254gmail. No sign of Channel Nine claiming the glory here. However, they are obviously planted by Nine as checkthisvideoout’s description says “Outtakes from the upcoming Aussie Wipeout…for more go to ninemsn.com.au/wipeout”. They also tagged ‘underbelly’ on the Wipeout clip. Both users joined 28-29 January 2009 and have no other videos apart from Wipeout Australia ones. Obviously this is a channel ‘anonymously’ set up by Nine (or someone really hanging out for Wipeout Australia… no, it must have been Nine).

There’s obviously been a lot of thought put into both these releases from Nine. The question is, why don’t they take the credit for them?

Both videos, especially the Underbelly preview, have been popular. Instead of diverting the attention to third party sites, they could have capitalised on this surge of traffic to allow users to delve deeper into program information or lead them into even more Channel Nine content (eg. linking from the Underbelly preview to the Wipeout preview linking to the Gordon Ramsey preview). Rather than having a one off, ‘secretive’ viewing the user would be able to access cast info, starting dates, synopses etc etc all in the one place and while engagement is high. This could be as part of Channel Nine’s existing site, a micro site for ’09 or a seperate YouTube channel.

All it would take is for Channel Nine to put up their hand and say: “Yes, we have some questionable content. Yes, it may not be for everyone. Yes, some will actually be offended by it. But here it is. And if you like it, here is more of what you might like.” Nine should not be ashamed of controversial content when it is this content which they believe will win them the battle. What difference does it make if you whet appetites with footage that you’re actually going to run in prime time TV? Surely, if it’s passable for prime time TV, it’s more than satisfactory for the net.

Nine, I like the way you’re heading. It’s got the potential to be much more cost-efficient, engaging and effective than those hideous double page press spreads. But just be honest with us. We know it’s you. Come out from Kerri-Anne’s ghastly wardrobe and play with us. We know that behind your matronly, uptight demeanor there’s a playful little sexpot that’s waiting to have a good time. Slide off those glasses and jump into bed.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Out-Viraling a Viral

4 Comments »

  • nextbrett said:

    Looks to me like a last minute effort to gain as much ‘buzz’ as possible without a lot of forethought… If you say, have a whole heap of video content, and are happy to share it surely there’s at least a dozen ways to engage internet users in a transparent, innovative and useful way. That’s where you need a social media advocate on the books!

    Stay tuned for my next post after the tennis.

  • Zac Martin said:

    They sent you an unsolicited email? That’s a breach of the Spam Act 2003.

    I think you summed it up, why don’t they take credit for it?

  • Nathan Bush said:

    @nextbrett – I’m not sure that it was last minute, it looks like a deliberately planned strategy to coincide with mainstream advertising (or am I giving them too much credit?)

    @zac – That’s OK, I sent them back a copy of my post. Got a nice reaction.

  • Daniel Oyston said:

    @Nathan the thought that crossed my mind was how they manage the classification of the content. Obviously they can’t put an ads like these on TV but they feel they can just send them out onto the internet?

    I wonder what would happen if one of these videos lobbed into a child’s inbox or they stumbled across it on YouTube? Sure parents have a responsibility to keep on eye on what their kids are consuming but Nine would certainly have a massive target on them!

    Maybe that’s why they haven’t openly claimed ownership?

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes