Why Masterchef works

Masterchef has truly been a phenomenon in Australia over the past 2 seasons. A ratings boon which is rare in our fragmented media environment. In fact it was watched by an average 3.54 million, up from 3.29 million last year. This makes it the most watched non sporting event in Australian history. It’s not hard to find a Masterchef fan, but not being one I was curious what all the fuss was about so I endured a few episodes. I didn’t catch the bug and so asked some colleagues why they believe (from an advertising, marketing and media perspective) it did so well. The best description I got was from Paul Gardner who summarised it as follows:

He said there has been three distinct phases in the evolution of reality TV.

1. Hoons & Havoc. Lock up a group of  highly charged youths in a house filled with alcohol and sexualy energy and see what happens. Think Big Brother.
2. The Challenge. Take a group of normal people outside of their comfort zone to compete in a Spartan like fashion.  See what behaviour humans will stoop to in order to win and prove superiority. An observation of social interaction at a draconian level. Think Survivor.
3. Denied Talent. Take a group of people who have some genuine flair for something, who have not been given the chance (for whatever reason) to display their talent. Give the competitors potential for a new start, to chance become entrepreneurs. Make the show inclusive, yet competitive. Add a sense of collaboration and educational good for all. Build a result into the show which isn’t purely financial but provides recognition and a new direction. Overall, make it represent the values of a modern civilised society. This is what Masterchef has done.


The thing that’s really impressive about Masterchef from a marketing perspective is that they took the well worn genre of ‘cooking’ understood the important nuances of human behaviour and made it something much bigger than anyone ever expected.

twitter-follow-me

Bratz dolls & stealing ideas

It was recently decided in an appeal court that success of the Bratz dolls brand is not based on the idea. It’s my favourite court ruling in a long time. In April 2009, a federal judge upheld the $100 million jury verdict that essentially gave Mattel ownership of the billion dollar plus Bratz brand. Which basically gave Mattel the rights to most of MGA’s Bratz products. A jury in the case found that the designer who created the dolls was working at Mattel when he conceived of the idea and the name and made the initial drawings for the pouty and multi ethnic girls.

But this decision got over ruled a few a days ago by a unanimous panel of the ninth circuit.


“It is not equitable to transfer this billion-dollar brand, the value of which is overwhelmingly the result of MGA’s legitimate efforts, because it may have started with two misappropriated names,” the appellate panel said in its ruling today.

“It is not equitable to transfer this billion-dollar brand, the value of which is overwhelmingly the result of MGA’s legitimate efforts, because it may have started with two misappropriated names,” the appellate panel said in its ruling today.

The great thing about this decision is that it reconginizes where true brand value comes from, everything ‘but’ the idea. As I’ve always said on Startup blog ideas are near worthless when it comes to building brand equity. Rather it’s the rich combination of design, building supply chains, inventing demand, effective distribution and the constant iteration of these factors. It should not only be a lesson for entrepreneurs, but large lazy corporates who try and beat their more nimble and innovative competition in the courts.

twitter-follow-me

Grandparents circa 2010

Here’s some surprising statistics about those over 65 in Australia.

  • 75% are online
  • 70% use search engines
  • 63% shop online
  • 30% instant message
  • 56% share photo’s online
  • 46% bank online
  • 45% are on social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Yahoo! Groups

Yep, the former young male demographic bias we love talking about on the web is now truly busted. The web is everywhere and everyone.

Web startups, you’re market may not be tech savvy, mac fan boys after all!

twitter-follow-me

(stats provided by Eye of Australia 2010)

Snails

In business some people are snails. They move slow. They only slide in and out when the conditions are right (it’s wet). They leave a trail of slime behind them. And they are in constant danger of being crushed but others who just didn’t see them. They’re inconsequential. They’re existence seems superfluous even though they must have some kind position within the economic (food) chain.

Snails can’t live in startup land. They’re too dependent on the right conditions, even though Snails can be found in a very wide range of environments, both the human kind (human = government, private industry and SME’s) and the slug kind (slug = ditches, deserts and the abyssal depths of the sea).

Snails don’t build anything or change their enviornment. Instead they hide in the depths of some rich natural environments. Take a small portion of food and hope not to get crushed. There is a bit of snail in all of us and it’s something we must decide to avoid before we start anything important.

twitter-follow-me

TED talks – What the world needs

This talk by Hans Rosling on population growth in the world is incredibly insightful. It goes for about 10 minutes and is worth the investment. His contention is that raising living standards in the poorest countries is the only way to reduce population growth.

Another thing I love is his presentation method and props. Very engaging and a method all entrepreneurs and marketers should consider. Enjoy!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg]

twitter-follow-me

Seagull Management

I heard a great new (old?) terminology the other day called “Seagull Management”

Fly in, shit over everything, steal any hot chips or good food and fly away.


Of course all the other seagulls fight over the food that was stolen in the first instance. It’s an intersting idea we see in many corporate scenarios, less often in start ups.

Here’s an alternative idea “Koala Management”

Give birth to new things, put them on your back while you teach them to navigate the world, nurture them until they are strong enough to stand on their own two feet (four claws?).

No wonder seagulls have such a bad name, where Koalas are so loveable.

twitter-follow-me

Wasting money

As we embark on new projects we hope will be the one, a lot of money gets invested. Hard earned money we’ve saved from busting out a living on week days. The left over money after we’ve paid the mortgage and paid the bills. Sadly, much of it never returns. It’s easy to feel cheated when our projects don’t pay off.

But let’s for a few moments consider the alternatives:

A flat screen TV

Dinner at fancy restaurants

A better car

A new gadget for the kitchen

Other stuff which will eventually gather dust

…….

Turns out the money we lost in startup projects was never really wasted. In fact, it wasn’t lost at all. It’s the investment we have to make to get that elusive win. The alternatives are very poor substitutes with zero chance of a return. Which means we should never be afraid of investing in our projects. What we should really be afraid of is succumbing to pointless consumption.

twitter-follow-me