Sky News presentation - new newswall

But there have been so many attempts now at viral advertising, that people are getting wise to it. About 5 years ago, viral advertising was at its most effective. Now, it's a case of diminishing returns.



Actually, community radio is quite effective, especially when you make your ads sound quite different to the standard commercial radio ad. Quality needs to be good, but doesn't have to be a slick as what you hear from commercial radio. In fact, if it is a little less slick, and spoken a little slower, it doesn't sound quite so hard sell, which actually helps. Also, community radio is a great platform for businesses who like serving the smaller area that a community radio station covers, rather than going for the larger area of most commercial radio stations.



In areas where there is community radio, the split is pretty even, between awareness from community radio, and awareness from social media. There isn't a huge advantage to social media over community radio in platform terms.

But Spotify can't give you local weather and travel info, or events happening in your area. Radio can, all in the one place, rather than going to different websites for different content.



Capital isn't targetted at 15-34 year olds? Heart isn't targetted at 25-44 year olds? Seriously, radio can be targetted, and still reaches 90% of the UK population every week. And that figure has not changed at all.

True, Spotify can't, but the home screen of my mobile phone does a pretty good job of it.

Besides, if I *need* travel news by radio, I'd just stick Radio Two on. None of those pesky adverts to sit through.



No, those stations aren't targeted, they're hardly even aimed in comparison to the level of targeting you can do with social media. I would be very interested to see the reach statistics mapped against age group... I suspect it's going up in some age groups, while decreasing in others. Not that you'd admit that, it's so very important to the radio industry to continue to publicise that everyone listens to the radio, even when obviously not true.

There is one down side with such precise targeting though - people who fall way outside the target are much more likely to speak up about how they think it's completely missing the point. Sadly, those people often don't own a mirror.

Not necessarily. You don't have to run loads of different campaigns - you could run two, or three. And depending on the model you choose and how you apportion the budget, it needn't cost any more.



I am saying that radio can't target people beyond the people that listen to their station. The station that was used has a reach of 45% of the coverage area's population - you couldn't pick out the engaged people in that group, for example, to advertise to.

Facebook can target people who are engaged, in a particular age group, in a particular area. I could even target people who like that particular radio station's Facebook page if I wanted to.

Did anyone else see the Poster of the BBC arse? just now???

Well if they did, they already know about it. You're not doing much for those of us who don't have a clue what you're going on about.

Jeremy Clarkson?

...which you can't look at when you are driving, that is against the law. But it is not against the law to have the radio on whilst driving.


But Radio 2 won't tell you about the accident on the A6068, or the congestion on the A1079. That's what local radio is there for.



You talk about all this targetting like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Experience tells me that it can be useful, but over-relying on it, and putting too much faith is a sure fire way to failure. Over the past 20 years, we have seen radio and television stations fail, mostly for similar reasons. Too targetted, too little response from the target market, and sometimes even too little marketing, because they think that as a specialist service, they'll automatically get the audience they're looking for, and it just doesn't happen.

The best results come from those services that have gone broader in terms of the demographics that they are marketing to. Sky News for instance, isn't exactly fussy about the demographics they reach with their channel, but they also know that if you want to attract a younger audience, you have to report on subjects that they actually care about.



I suspect you're correct, mainly going down in those under 35, and going up in those over 35, based upon what limited evidence I've seen. However, the official figures can be acquired from RAJAR, however it will cost you over £2,000 to get access to that information via the RAJAR website.




What a poxy load of rubbish! Anybody reading those sentences would think you'd gotten a degree in Baloney from the University of Bologna, in Italy...

Targetting can have the effect of missing more potential customers than it actually catches. That's why broader is better, cos you miss far less potential customers that way. Again, you don't see Sky News actively targetting a specific age group do you?

Sky was live at George Sq in Glasgow, talking about what else and some people started holding up posters etc, one of them had

BBC Propagranda or something or other along with a Pic of an Ass ie Donkey. ( SORRY)

Which law?

Doesn't this law cause major problems for all the sat-nav apps?

Social media alongside traditional advertising. Ok, let's try that idea.

• Create a short TV advert that's funny and engaging, show it on channels which appeal to the target audience
  
• Create a long version and put it online, making sure it's easily shared
  
• People share it, 213,000 people watch it
  
• People post comments which imply they are not regularly engaged in politics, but are now taking an interest
  
• Some of those kind of people watch on the night
  

Well that seems to be exactly what Sky have done, so I'm confused as to your argument.

The one that says you can't use a mobile phone whilst you're driving.

And if you were to be looking at a Sat-Nav app on a mobile phone, whilst the car is in motion, the police would stop you.