The biggest social event in the Trinity College calendar, the Trinity Ball, is Europe’s largest private party and is a black tie event. This year, in order to create a buzz around the event leading up to ticket sales, the organisers withheld the last act until today- revealing that it is, in fact, The Script.

Today, Facebook (which holds a massive place in Trinity’s social structure, far more, I think, than other universities) is awash with complaints, dismay, and general name-calling aimed at the Ents office. I think this is a little unfair- The Script, while not my type of music, are generally considered up-and-coming high-profile stuff- but it has to be said that this demonstrates a misunderstanding of how PR works.

If you’re going to keep people in suspense, there needs to be a pay-off of some kind. Deliberately heightening the public’s expectations does not automatically create a positive response- you run the risk, as in this case, of disappointing lots of people. And in the end, it amounts to a simple case of knowing your audience.

The reason that this is frustrating? Because the Ents office at Trinity has recently recognised the fact that the students there have, by and large, a preference for indie and electronica music. So much so, that they’re holding the launch party for the Trinity Ball at a new indie night called NOIZE in Andrew’s Lane Theatre on Wednesday. It should have occured to someone that raising expectations, only to reveal an act that will, by virtue of their genre, disappoint a large number of people (there were rumors of MGMT, for crying out loud) would create negative publicity.

Again, I’ve nothing against The Script myself, and in my opinion, Trinity Ents and MCD (their partners in the ball) have consistently produced good results, and I’m sure it will be a fun night. I’m just agog that the potential backlash for letting the rumour mill turn without actually having a stellar hand didn’t occur to someone.

-END-

Posted by in •Business
(0) Comments | Permalink

This announcement regarding an attempt by Newsday to do a u-turn on paid-for content online is absolutely ridiculous. It’s far, far too late- the proliferation of free news has gone on too long. I mean, subscription options are all well and good, but to even retain a portion of free readers is becoming difficult in the ever-expanding realm of free content.

Courtesy of Jarvis’s Buzzmachine- full article.

Posted by in •Business •Journalism
(0) Comments | Permalink

(This entry is cross-posted at Tomorrow’s News, Tomorrow’s Journalists.) 

With the rapid changes affecting the media, and in particular the newsroom, one might be forgiven for thinking that “new media” is the future- and it may well be. But to assume that this is a distinct entity from the traditional and professional press is to ignore the innovative nature of the industry.

The current downturn in the circulation figures of print media is a secondary concern to journalistic organisations- the real threat to the longevity of established media is the associated decrease in advertising revenue. After all, the paltry fee paid by the end consumer does not alone pay for the production of a printed paper, and the wages of the assorted journalists, designers, and technicians. Advertising is the life blood of the media, and it seems to be spending more and more on digital outlets. Here we are, on the brink of another evolution of the media, just as important as the evolution of low-cost, high-volume printing, or the introduction of the news photograph. One in which traditional print and broadcast media will have to compete with the mammoth entity that is the online world for advertising revenue.

Or will they?

It is far too easy to think of “traditional media” and “new media” as separate corporate entities. But this simply isn’t the case.

• Read Full Post