A day of insight into action sports marketing

img_0836Yesterday, I attended an interesting event for action-sports website push.ca. It was called a media lab, and was intended to explain to agencies and companies that might be interested in advertising on the site how the world of action sports works, and how best to market to it. It is a rather necessary exercise, because mainstream marketing and action sports are wary foes, due mainly to the legions of terrible marketing ventures that have tried to co-opt “extreme sports” and failed miserably in doing so. Action sports — skateboarding, snowboarding, etc. — are communities based on cool and cool, as most in the business know, is an ever-elusive thing to capture. After a day of discussion and excercise (planned and executed by mar-comm agency Hypenotic) much of the discussions boiled down to several key ideas: mainly that in order to impress an audience, you have to respect it first. And for these communities, it’s all about legitimacy and authenticity. There are many non-endemic brands that have done this well — Gatorade’s new G campaign was cited as one of them — but there are many terrible examples too. It’s a theme I revisit often when I do my annual “Best of” review of resort ads in snowboard publications for SAM magazine, which was just released in their May issue. Resorts, out of anyone, should “get it,” but so often they just don’t, and end up looking like a dad who just gave his kid knucks and said “That’s just how I roll.” Do your research, folks, and take a look at how this community interacts with one another. Social media sites have made this very easy. You’ll notice that images are key, and people are extremely critical of them. So if you’re going to use action-sports images in your campaign, make sure they’re legit. Becuase skimping out and being lazy with an ad campaign to this community is much worse than not advertising to it at all.

Wikipedia, the media, and the fake quote

The recent news story about an Irish student’s fake-quote hoax/experiment on Wikipedia brought again to light the problem that has plagued the internet from the start, especially in academia: unverified, rapidly propagated, information taken as truth. A discussion about it on CBC Radio One right now brought up an interesting point to the discussion, that dovetails nicely with the recent conversations about the future of traditional journalism: the troubling ratio of sources of information versus the amount of people spreading information. (The fake quote rapidly spread around the world in media outlets and blogs.) Although the hoax reveals the problems inherent in an instant-news culture (and of lazy, internet-based research) it is, I think, the very ratio that will determine the survival of traditional journalism, as people need to get “real” information from somewhere and that need will not go away. Traditional, established media outlets have the infrastructure in place to ensure things like this happen as infrequently as possible, something that blogs and small indie sites don’t have. And although this is stark reminder that it is in no way infallible, original, traditional, shoe-leather-wearing reportage remains the best source of news today.

PS: I still can’t believe people use Wikipedia as anything more than a starting point to research (which is is great for). My friend was an educational-book editor and once told me that someone handed in a manuscript with entire chapters lifted from the site. How stupid do you have to be????