The story dominating the news this week is the slightly cringey punch-up between media moguls James Packer and David Gyngell. The fact that the fight was between billionaires fails to make the story anymore remarkable, but what is interesting, is that News Corp managed to make national headlines just through their use of watermarking!
Apparently they paid in excess of $200,000 for the images, and to be sure that no one else used them, they used extremely enthusiastic watermarking across the photos, effectively blocking the vision. Within 30 minutes of the images being published online both #NewsCorp and #watermark were trending on Twitter, panel shows on TV were discussing it and it became a story in its own right. A good thing for News Corp? The watermark story dilutes the focus of the original story and prompts the nation to mock, but at the same time they’ve created publicity, and all pr is good pr or so they say…
So if a picture paints a thousand words, what have people read into it…? Not only has it led to a number of spoof images being created, but it’s sparked huge social media banter:
“When will #watermark have its own Twitter account?” “Has anyone seen the News corp water mark with Packer and Gyngell fighting in the background?” etc. And even one of News Corp’s own publications got in on the action:
“FORGET PACKER v GYNGELL, WE HAVE PICS OF @AlboMP TOUCHING UP A CROC #watermark “
“A picture paints a thousand words” is a quote coined in 1921 by Frederick R. Barnard. He was commenting on the value of graphics in an article. So even back in the Gatsby era people knew the effectiveness of an image. So why as media leaders did News Corp think it was a good idea to ironically distort their $200,000 images when the intent was to dominate headlines with them? It seems they have maybe forgotten the photo’s purpose entirely and their key story was made a joke of across the media industry as a result.
Pictures are so important in communication, whether it’s through creative photography or video. The demand is high, because as time goes on, businesses understand the importance of telling a story, whether it’s through a video newsletter; promotional video or marketing campaign. Maybe News Corp won’t be quite so protective next time and let the photo do its job and tell the story…
Lucy Helliwell
Yep, bit of a silly thing to do really. Why they think they need to own Packer’s embarrassing pictures is a good question… Perhaps James could put spy cameras in some of the suites at Crown and catch News Corp Execs out in dubious poses. Karma is a bitch…
Cheers
Richard
The word “own” is interesting isn’t it! It just shows how they haven’t quite got it - the new content marketing world doesn’t need to own - it wants to share! News Corp need to add that word and that approach to the mix!
200 kids kidnapped in Nigeria but News Corp see two rich men having a slapping contest in the street as more important. That is the fail and that is what they don’t understand.
Having a news site full of click bait will only lead to the erosion of their news brand because this is not news it is gossip.
Mocking the watermark is a symptom of a wider view that their content isn’t worth serious consideration. They may get high traffic to their sites but there is no value in the content they publish. Most of it is chip wrapper which can be found on humour sites across the web. Now suddenly their brand is at the level of sites like Mamamia and Buzzfeed.
The new “media bus” has moved on in our view and they’ve missed it completely! They’re still too busy working off an old model - trying to ring more dollars out of a machine that started showing wear and tear years ago! Instead of being audience focused, they’ve been sales and shareholder focused. Naturally business has to be sustainable, but when it’s all about profit and financial opportunity the audience start to see through it and move on! A 21% drop in revenue announced today just proves the point! Thanks for the comment Dennis.