Comments on: Avistid cutting edge?

By: pollas

pollas — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:12:46 +0000

What I’m trying to say is simple: Even if they had produced great films that people actually would send to each other, they’re still trying to avoid — just as you say yourself — to develop their product and face their customers, admitting that the internet has a lot to do with the fact that they’re selling less newspapers. And in that context, it’s just not good enough to get some of it right: You have to show — clearly! — that you understand the net. Otherwise, you just end up looking like the money-spending fool you are.

Sure, they’ve hired some good people and focused on the web. But isn’t it ironic that they obviously understand so little of it, then? By focusing on the web, they imply that they mean something by doing so. It’s very unclear to me what that is.

By: Jon Lund

Jon Lund — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:41:44 +0000

Uh, my html-tags didn’t go through. All my links disapared! Here they are
1. My post on The finger plan:
http://newmediatrends.fdim.dk/2005/11/finger-plan.html
2. My question about if the money used on Avistid could have been spend better:
http://newmediatrends.fdim.dk/2005/09/microfilms-are-cool-and-cuttingedge.html
3. The post Anders is arguing against:
http://newmediatrends.fdim.dk/2005/09/top-danish-directors-in-cutting-edge.html

By: Jon Lund

Jon Lund — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:36:35 +0000

Come on, Anders. Neither you or I know if the films they're going to produce on Avistid will be good or bad untill we see them. This far we've seen two films: the first one (I'll give you this) definitevely not working, the other one actually being quite funny - se my post: The finger plan. And I do think Avistid deserves credit for this one: Avistid is the first ever time, a danish advertizer decides 1. to hire in independent, high-quality directors, giving them free hands to produce whatever they like with only one string attached to it: that the message of the film should be one that the danish newspapers should naturally be able to identify themselves with, and 2. decides they'll run the film only on the web, thereby taking advantage of one (not all!) of the great possibilities of the web, namely the ability to distribute rich content like films. The campaign is from the very outset meant as a viral campaign, all focused on the web. The question, which I ask in this post remains, though: "Could you get the Danish media industry moving forward, if you'd had given these money (45 mio DDK - aprox. 7 mio euro) to e.g. flix.dk (the Danish equivalent to ohmynews.com) â€“ or to e.g. research in how the printed newspaper will cope with the comings of electronic paper?" Instead of pulling of a campaign for having more people reading newspapers? The answer is, as I put it, "No doubt to me!". And as a new media man, I'm sorry they didn't. Choosing to make an ad campaign instead, I am, however, glad they're trying out one of the frontiers of new media. Best Jon PS. You can find all my postings on newmediatrends.fdim.dk, including the one you're arguing against.