I’m not a football man, never have been. I dislike the professional footballer in almost every way, and the type of person who worships it too. However there’s something about the world cup that piques the curiosity of even the most indifferent among us. And we all know what curiosity will bring you… a world cup party in your flat! So there I am sharing gasps and desperation with several others, exchanging comment on such footballing matters as; how dynamic our defenders were, or how Rooney wasn’t tracking back enough..etc.. when we tie 1-1 with United States’ soccer team. Not a result that took many by surprise, if our prediction league is anything to go by, and yet serious debate ensued.

The debate itself revolved around a central theme of talent. Pundits and fans alike seem to believe that Brazil ought to not only win every game they play, but to do so with a certain style. Now consider our 1-1 draw against USA – a country that has at some point dominated such a vast array of sports including the following; golf, swimming, snowboarding, gymnastics, athletics, boxing, basketball, ice hockey, baseball, and cycling.

My question is this. Is it that Brazilians are inherently better at football because they are biologically more suited to the sport? Or is it a simple case of being the most passionate about it. Surely if it’s the latter then it’s only a matter of time before USA become dominant in football too. My supposition is if USA realise how much money can be generated from being good at football, they’ll have all the “passion” they need. It’s then only a matter of time before resources catch up – and by this I mean; man power, facilities, sport science, youth development, investment and infrastructure.

With time, it won’t only be Brazil that lives with these expectations. Soon enough USA will have to contend with the same thing.

England finally kicked off their World Cup campaign on Saturday evening with a 1-1 draw against the mighty USA. Although ITV would have been disappointed with the much publicised HD slip up, viewing on ITV1 would have pleased the broadcaster. England’s 1st game of the 2010 competition drew an average audience of 17 million during the match, a 66% share of viewing, peaking at a touch over 20 million. The programme, which ran from 18:15 to 21:45, attracted an average of 13 million, a 56% share. These numbers are the largest attracted for football since England took on Sweden in the 2006 World Cup.

The opening game of the competition, again on ITV1 saw Mexico take on host nation South Africa. Generally afternoon kick off’s attract smaller audiences, especially when none of the ‘glamour teams’ are involved. Friday’s game drew an audience of 4.2 million, the first match of the 2006 World Cup, which featured Germany and Costa Rica, attracted 5.5 million, however, this kicked off 17:00, so you would expect audiences to be larger.

The late game on Friday saw France take on Uruguay. For those who didn’t see, it was a particularly boring match, that said, the BBC’s first game of the tournament attracted an average 6.2 million, greater than the like for like match in 2006, Poland v Ecuador, which gained an audience of 5.7 million.

Sunday saw three further games, including the opening Germany match. In what was probably the pick of the competition so far, Germany demolished an Australian side, backed by some as dark horses, 4-0. ITV’s second peak game of the weekend predictably delivered a smaller audience than the England game, but was still widely viewed, with an average of 7.5 million viewers, a 31% share.

The success, or failure, of the World cup from a broadcast point of view rests heavily on the progress of England. On Saturdays showing, a quarter final exit, as many people predict may be the best we can hope for. If we can however progress further, Saturday’s viewing figures are sure to be beat….

So who watched the first Big Brother on Wednesday? Did you watch it because of it being the final season or because you genuinely love Big Brother?

I didn’t actually watch it and no I am really not bothered! In the past, when it was half way into the series I would start watching BB and become addicted right through to the end, however year after year they seem to shove in absolute weirdo’s which were very awkward to watch. Each year getting worse!

For example – the visually impaired guy, (cant remember his name as it really is irrelevant), I don’t know about you but I found him very painful to watch – rude and abrasive and wondered if the sole reason he got into the Big Brother house was down to him being blind. I wanted to hate him as he got on my nerves but couldn’t because I felt sorry for him being such an idiot!

Then there were the twins (one dated that Brian guy who didn’t know who William Shakespeare was) – again strange creatures. The list of freaks is endless.

In the first few series BB put contestants in who were just normal people but a little bit stupid ie: that welsh Helen girl! But as the years rolled on they threw in wild card circus freaks – I think that’s when we saw the BB viewing figures start to decline. Personally I would prefer to watch stupid people and laugh at them rather than idiots who are trying to break out of the norm and annoy me.

All this aside, last night’s C4 90 minute show averaged 4.6 Million viewers, around a 12% fall on 2009. Big Brother attracted a total share of 19.5% of all TV, well below the 43% Britain’s Got Talent delivered. Last year’s launch had a 21% share.

I am not ashamed to admit, I am “telly Addict”. I recently read that Big Brother (BB) bosses have announced that a live internet feed is to return for fans from the 9th of June, but at a cost. Last year channel 4 dropped the usual 24-hour streaming so devotees were only able to monitor the show on TV. For those early adopters who have embraced the sky+ revolution, this meant thousands of us up and down the country were able to fit in spying on our beloved big brother house mates in our own time. Never missing out key moments such as when In the first series of Big Brother. The scandalous moment in the shows history when ‘Nasty’ Nick Bateman was kicked out because he had influenced nominations. TV history …. needless to say, I was one of these Big brother obsessives watching religously! However in recent years I have felt that the show has began to lose its spark!

Channel4 decision to “milk” as much as possible out of the last series is understandable but may lead to the BB brand becoing commoditised. Making it no different than, Im a celebrity get me out of here. If fans forked out for daily, weekly or whole-series passes.Channel 4 said charges would go towards covering the increased costs of providing the service. Streaming will cost 49p by the day, £1.99 for a week or £14.99 for the entire 13-week series at the official site www.channel4.com/bigbrother. This will be a real financial test of our obsession with around the clock surveillance? Given this will be the last ever series on channel4, who can actually blame them.

I’ve been watching a bit too much TV recently. I get home exhausted, give a cheery wave to my wife, kick off the shoes and settle in to the telly. No recordable TV for me, so it’s a diet of whatever the channels choose to serve up. It’s an old school, passive experience punctuated by lazy flicking up and down the Freeview channel list – glorious, mindless stuff. This is TV as it’s meant to be consumed – absorbed, not chosen. I watch a lot of TV ads – and though I love it, something’s been bothering me.

There is a terrifying chart from TGI that shows how many people now find TV ads more annoying, versus 15 years ago. And it shows that Britain has steadily fallen out of love with TV advertising in a very short period of time – 40% of us now profess to finding them annoying. There are a number of mitigating factors here: TV on demand services mean that consumers don’t need to see as much advertising as they used to, and there has been a proliferation of commercialisation generally in our culture. Consumers are receiving more and more commercial messages. But I wonder if there is more to it than that.. What if TV advertising really IS getting more annoying?

Everyone remembers the glory days when most ads had a decent punchline to keep us entertained. Now many of them seem to be deliberately set up to annoy me. And it must be working, because I see more and more of them – I swear if I see that cheeky chappy from the Jobsite ad one more time I’ll throttle him. My own father  started to sing “Go Compare!” when I saw him at last week.The people who make these ads aren’t stupid, so I can only assume that these ads are helping achieve business objectives, regardless of how they tear families apart.

As an enlightened marketer I believe in building relationships between brands and consumers, but there is something refreshingly anarchic about a marketing strategy built around the platform GET everyone TO buy brand x BY making them seethingly annoyed with our communications; and since the creatives are at it – why not us media planners?

It’s actually already begun: Crazy Frog pioneered the 30 OTS optimised TV plan, and pionerring media owners are catching onto the opportunity. Last year’s annoying media gold award goes went to ITV, who forged a neat partnership with Tic Tacs whereby they cut away from their live FA Cup broadcast stream to show a minty ad while Everton scored the only goal of the match. It’s a start. I’m hoping we can all raise the bar in 2010.

Jaydiohead Ignorant Swan Medley from SUBVOYANT on Vimeo.

This week saw the launch of the new-look Times and Sunday Times websites. This marks the first time that the newspaper brands have had separate sites.
They will be accessible for registered users for an introductory four-week period before the paywall comes into effect. Access to the digital service will be included in the seven-day subscriptions of print customers, however, in a month’s time will cost non-subscribers £1 a day or £2 per week.
Search engines will not be able to display articles as the sites will only display their respective homepages to search engines.
News International has not disclosed specific subscriber targets, though it is undoubtedly prepared for a major drop in user numbers of its websites.

Those that choose to enjoy the new-improved sites can make their payment by direct debit and the £2-a-week charge will auto-renew, which is not the case for the daily charge.

I think they’ve done a great job and that the sign looks great- but is it great enough for £104 a year?

Do Wenlock and Mandeville get you excited about Sport?
This week saw London 2012 launch their Mascots Wenlock and Mandeville.
The two Mascots, Wenlock for the Olympics and Mandeville for the Paralympics, represent two drops of molten steel spilt in the making of the last steel girder used in the Olympic Stadium. In the animated video which accompanies the mascots and will form part of a series, a grandfather, George, picks up the two drops of steel on his last day at the Bolton foundry before he retires. Once home, he fashions the steel into the two figures and gives them to his grandchildren. Brought to life by a rainbow, they turn somersaults for the children before disappearing off on the road to London.
Their design is full of symbology including a headlight to represent the light of a black cab, the five Olympic rings worn as wristbands, their one eye as a camera lense and the colours gold, silver and bronze to reflect the medals. Their names are also meaningfully chosen. Much Wenlock in Shropshire is considered by many as the birthplace of the modern Olympics and Stoke Mandeville’s famous spinal injuries unit was where the Paralympic movement began.
The designs are also flexible, and the charcters can be customised into recognisable costumes and even celebrity identities. The characters also have digital potential and will tweet, have a presence on facebook and tap into the London Education Project where pupils will be able to lobby for them to visit their school in person.
It’s clear that a lot of thought and hard work went into the development of the mascots, however, they have met with much criticism over the last week from the press and the public.
Their task, however, is to resonate with children and inspire a generation to get involved in sport. They are also intended to persuade parents to contribute the £15 million the mascots are expected to raise in merchandising revenue. With merchandise going on sale in July to mark two years to the London 2012 opening ceremony- perhaps this will be the first indication of whether or not the design is a success?