The challenge for this year’s competition, which is supported by the United Nations, is biodiversity.  The challenge for entrants is to communicate that our lifestyle and consumption habits have to change if we want to stop the destruction of our ecosystems and keep our planet alive.

The brief is wide open for creative interpretation.  Students must respond to the following criteria:

1. One big idea executed in a poster format.  This could be as an 8-sheet, 30-sheet or transit poster.
2. Entrants are requested to create a branding device or logo that can be instantly and international identified with biodiversity.
3. Taglines and headlines provide instant information on a topic.  Entrants should include either or both of these on their poster.
4. Entrants must support their ideas with a compelling rationale that identifies your target audience and explains the inspiration for the idea (max. 300 words).
5. Poster and rationale must be in English.
6. Entrants should not include either the IAA or Dentsu logos in their work.
7. Entries must be submitted by 1 March 2010.

Full details for the second IAA-Dentsu Global Student Poster Competition are available here.

The Global Winner will receive a trophy, cash prize of US$1,000 and the opportunity to present their work at the United Nations. 

• A travel allowance of US$3,000 is also included in the prize.
• The second prize is US$500
• The third prize is US$300

Regional Finalists will receive trophies and all entrants will receive an IAA-Dentsu Global Student Poster Competition certificates.

The Global Winner will be announced on May 1st 2010.  And, the top three winning entries will be exhibited at the 2010 IAA World Congress May 12th-14th 2010 in Moscow, and at the 2010 Cannes Lions.  The competition provides a great opportunity for aspiring talent to show off their creativity, insights and art work on a global industry stage.

The first Global Poster Competition focused on the issue of climate change.  The first prize (World Champion) went to Matias Fernandez, Universidad Argentina de la  in Buenos Aires for a piece of work entitled Thermometer.  

I am a Board Member for the Australian Chapter of the International Advertising Association. 

No related posts.

• The Australian: Big Brands Are Failing Social Media Test (Simon Canning)
• Marketing Magazine: Social Media Still Misunderstood by Brands
• Campaign Brief: Australian Social Media Study of Top 20 Brands Shows a High Number of Inactive Accounts

One of the challenges that we encountered with this study was sourcing a list of the top brands in Australia.  Initially, our intention was to survey the ASX100 but this presented us with a few challenges, not least the increase in project scope that this would lead to.  Many of the companies in the ASX100 own multiple brands and so we would have been presented with a challenge of what to include and what not to include.  Including everything was not an option.

Ultimately, we opted for the Interbrand Top Twenty Australian Brands report for 2009.  Although relatively limited in scope we felt that this was a good option as it covered a broad spectrum of Australian brands in various sectors while enabling us to identify some industry sector trends in financial services and retail. 

Our thoughts on the findings are included in the media coverage and in our release/ report. 

Ultimately, my view is that many social media campaigns continue to be the preserve of the PR and marketing department.  I don’t believe that business leaders have recognised the need for authentic communications or the benefits of social media, as a component of PR strategy.  The vast majority seem focused on the risk over the reward.  The US is a different story.  Corporations are far more advanced when it comes to social media.  Its becoming ingrained within standard business and comms practice, we’re yet to see this in Australia. 

I think there are a couple of reasons for this if we put the fact that Australia has a more conservative business culture to one side.  First, the majority of the world’s IT industry is based in the US.  Clearly, the IT sector has been an early adopter, leading the way for many other American industries. 

Second, many large American corporations faced serious PR and reputational issues as a result of the GFC and social media provided them with the tools they needed to begin re-building and re-orienting their reputations and corporate culture. 

Neither of these factors apply in Australia. 

We’re seeing a lot of interest from our clients and are actively engaged in this space with many organisations.  I am looking forward to seeing a more flattended, transparent and communicative corporate culture in Australia.  We are hoping to speed up the process by providing good advice and compelling insights. 

The fact that corporate blogging is virtually non-existent is evidence, for me, that we are yet to see this change at the highest levels of Australian business.

We produced the following report of the results and developed a media release, which was offered to The Australian as an exclusive. There’s more where this came from. B-M Australia will be announcing additional research over the coming weeks and months.  

Related posts:

1. Six Reasons Why Corporate Australia is a Social Media Laggard
2. Article for Digital Media Magazine: CEO as Chief Communicator
3. Social media traffic catching search in Australia

I wrote an article in favour of these guidelines for Mumbrella.

BzzAgent refers to its network members as volunteers.  I thought volunteers worked for not-for-profits.  I think its inevitable that the WOM agencies will have to make full disclosure and transparency core to their service offering in order to stay on the right side of the FTC and similar enforcement agencies in other countries and for the reasons that I pointed out in the article for Mumbrella.

This graphic from BzzAgent provides a neat summary of the obligations under the FTC Guides and the steps that PR professionals and marketers can take to ensure compliance.

Subscribe to Just Another 24 Hours by Email

Related posts:

1. Mumbrella article: Time to regulate paid Aussie blog comment
2. Ten reasons why Public Relations should play the central role in Social Media
3. PR agencies and the blogosphere

• Facebook has 250 million active users to Twitter’s 19 million (eMarketer research via Mashable)
• A large number of users quite within the first month (Nielsen)
• Twitter has no revenue stream

So, is Twitter the new attention dashboard? I have my doubts. I think that’s a very limited view of the conversations that are occurring online.

Will the real-time Web be a major influence on communication in the future? Absolutely.

The focus on the newness of things, the tool and its features and the immediacy of information (Twitter beat CNN to the Tiger Woods story this week by 45 mins) is compelling – but only to a point.  Beyond that point, Twitter discussions tend to become rather sycophantic, repetitive, tactical and/or theoretical.

This stuff is important though; The immediacy of micro-blogs like Twitter influences the way that we value information and perceive it.  It speeds up the news cycle and makes information even more of a commodity.

In a presentation at the recent Media140 event in Sydney Barry Saunders spoke about the danger of not considering context when we use the real-time Web as a primary source of information.  This is among the most insightul and interesting things that I’ve heard said about this space.  Its a very valid point, which is – along with others -  being overlooked in a plethora of hype fuelled conversations about Twitter.  Mr. Saunders make some additional points on related topics here.

The Twitter purists consider Twitter to be a conversational tool but many organisations are, in my experience, approaching it is a broadcast medium, as research that we are releasing tomorrow will show.

I will leave you with this analysis from BlogPulse, which shows comparative mentions of ‘Twitter’, ‘Unemployment’ and ‘Iraq’ in all forms of consumer generated media over the past six months:

Related posts:

1. Revenue streams for Twitter – Will Google and Microsoft provide an answer
2. Twitter becomes the third most popular social network and spawns a raft of new tools
3. Twitter may peak but only while Jo Bloggs takes a quick peek

This conjures up some amusing / disturbing images of breakfast at the hotel with patrons munching away and imbibing (via straws) at various stages in their recovery with a multitude of bits and pieces bandaged, stitched and stretched.

The over 55s: A sizeable and wealthy segment of the Australian population with an increasing penchant for all things Internet.

I am not planning on cosmetic surgery.

No related posts.

“Stop maltreating your dog, take it for longer walks and feed it less.”

Yeah, yeah, your dog has problems with its glands… heard it all before.

Stupid product supported by a stupid ad for stupid people.

Jesus!!

Related posts:

1. Food tampering and political smear campaigns: Dominos and Labour Government online

Related posts:

1. Six Reasons Why Corporate Australia is a Social Media Laggard

No related posts.

The FT reported today that News Corp and Microsoft are in ‘discussions’.  Microsoft is determined or desperate to catch up with Google in search, the latter being streets ahead.  Microsoft has made it clear that it will invest heavily to achieve its goals. 

Could Microsoft turn the tide in search through exclusive partnerships with publishers? 

Update: Some interesting perspectives on today’s developments…  

Tom Foremski at SiliconValleyWatcher: Is Murdoch Setting Up a Bidding War for News Corp. Index?

Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Land: Why an Exclusive WSJ Deal Wouldn’t Help Bing

Related posts:

1. Microsoft bids US$44.6 Billion for Yahoo!
2. Revenue streams for Twitter – Will Google and Microsoft provide an answer
3. Facebook re-design takes the News Feed closer to Twitter

Julian posed the question: Is Google Sidewiki a threat or an opportunity? I think that it is both and made the point that active participation in conversation via Sidewiki provided another PR opportunity for organisations to communicate with their customers.

I also suggested that businesses develop a policy for Sidewiki and that they publish this so that customers know what to expect when using this form of feedback. Brian Giesen makes a great suggestion when he says that companies should ‘claim’ their Sidewiki by making the first comment (if possible).

A quick scan of major corporate websites highlights the fact that Sidewiki is yet to take off in a big way. Potential commenters need the latest version of the Google Toolbar and they also need to be aware of the service. The digerati set will be well aware of this but I am not convinced that Joe Bloggs has this on their radar. There is more activity around social media related news sites and social networks, check out Facebook as an example of a active Sidewiki.

Google Sidewiki is an extension of an existing service from Google; which is the ability to place comments on search results.  This didn’t take off or hasn’t taken off as yet (it continues to be available – check out the speech bubble icon below organic search results in Google).

Radian6 announced last week that it now offers the ability to monitor Sidewiki, an important development for businesses that need now to be aware of conversation in a wide range of digital tools.

I think Sidewiki represents a major PR opportunity for small businesses, who may not necessarily want to invest in discussion boards, recommendation and feedback mechanisms for their websites but are provided a free infrastructure for exactly that via Google Sidewiki.

Sidewiki causes a PR headache

ALREADY struggling with the mountain of blogs, forums and social networks, public relations consultants are weighing up whether a new Google tool that enables consumers to leave comments next to a brand’s website is a threat or a challenge.

Google Sidewiki gives a new and very transparent avenue for disgruntled customers to air their grievances against companies.

Travel websites already carry customer reviews of hotels and resorts.

Google says it is all about ”facilitating the conversation on the internet” between general users and experts but the PR industry is watching closely to see if Sidewiki will become as popular and as powerful a tool for opinionated internet users as Twitter and Facebook.

Gabriel McDowell, the managing director of Res Publica, said companies that failed to understand Sidewiki risked damage to their image and reputation. ”This is going to sort out the wheat from the chaff when it comes to managing corporate reputation,” Mr McDowell said.

Although Sidewiki presented ”yet another channel for them [corporations] to manage”, Daniel Young, the digital director of Burson-Marsteller, said it could be a useful tool. ”If one person has a complaint and you respond to it then, in a way you are answering others before the question has even been asked,” he says.

Brian Giesen, who heads the digital consultancy in the Asia-Pacific for Ogilvy PR, says Sidewiki could prove to be a handy way to spot potentially hot issues and the pressure groups pushing them.

”It just reinforces the need for brands to listen to such media. This is also a useful way for companies to find out who are the people who are making the comments and then to reach out to them,” said Mr Giesen, who recommends companies race to be the first to make a Sidewiki comment on a page, a privilege Google extends to website owners.

Mr McDowell said Sidewiki could also provide an avenue of redress by corporations that felt they misrepresented in the mainstream media. For example, a public relations consultant could post the entire statement given to a journalist, rather than the truncated version that might appear in an article. ”One of the major complaints about the media is the time it takes to get a correction up. This could go some way to rectifying that.”

But there are concerns that because Sidewiki is ”completely unregulated and uncontrollable”, as Mr Young put it, it will be harder for companies to sort out the legitimate complaints from the serial sledgers. Deciding on whether to answer was going to be key, he said.

Mr Giesen said Google ”needs to take greater responsibility for the comments that appear on Sidewiki”.

A spokeswoman for Google Australia said it had not received any concerns from Australian publishers. ”Website owners and publishers here and abroad have told us that they see this as another way to connect with their users, similar to conversations they’re already having on their blogs, YouTube channels, Twitter feeds and Facebook pages.”

Related posts:

1. Google accesses consumer surfing behaviour and stakes a claim for a bigger share of marketing dollars
2. Google and Hasbro team up to offer Monopoly game via Google Maps
3. Front page news