commentary If you caught Van Helsing on Channel 10 on Sunday night, you're probably wishing you had those three hours of your life back, but you may also have noticed a promo for the upcoming drama Jericho.
While the show doesn't look hugely compelling, one feature of the trailer was certainly noteworthy. Instead of promoting an official Web site like www.jericho.com.au or perhaps www.heydoesanyonerememberteenidolSkeetUlrich.com, the ad directed potential fans to search for Jericho on Wikipedia.
There are several problems with this approach, not least of which is the motive behind promoting the open-source Wikipedia as an authoritative, officially sanctioned information source. Is this meant to be part of some sort of innovative, "we're down with the Web 2.0 kiddies" street-level marketing campaign? Is it an invitation for viewers to incite a bit of cheeky digital mayhem by vandalising the Jericho page? Or is it more likely that a bunch of Channel 10 work experience kids are being told to chuck content onto the page in order to drum up interest in what looks to be a pretty ordinary TV series?
Whatever the motivation, the Jericho Wikipedia page is currently in lockdown mode, having been subject to a variety of unusual additions and alterations. Checking the history of the page reveals one contributor "chose to sprotect [Wikipedia-speak for restrict contributions] under the grounds of recent unrelevant edits due to a url to wikipedia being displayed with jericho on australian tv".
Surely the people at Channel 10, being so in touch with that magical 16-39 demographic, would have realised that screening the Wikipedia URL during a top-rating program on a Sunday night might lead to a viewer or two signing in and making mischief. Then there's the problem that despite Wikipedia's prevailing "the wisdom of the masses will correct the idiocy of the few" philosophy, untruths and subjective information creep into articles on a regular basis. Why on Earth would a major television station align itself with an information resource that can be edited by any old geezer?
I've previously had a go at Channel 10 about the complete lack of an online strategy, and it seems the approach to Internet marketing hasn't improved. Sure, it's cool that you can text comments to Mark, Marcia and Kyle during Australian Idol, but that's not going to cut it when you've got NineMSN and Yahoo7 to compete with. This latest Wikipedia blunder is just one example of how the station is struggling to keep up with its own demographic. Chase those viewers, Channel 10 -- if you're wondering where they've gone, check BitTorrent and YouTube.
Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!
Join CNET.com.au Free newsletters, post to forums and win prizes. Join now - it's free and easy!
-
Channel 10 & the Web
Channel 10's threadbare online presence stands out among the other TV networks' swish Web sites. But why?
Wikipedia
Wikipedia offers rich, frequently updated information, but you might need to verify some of its facts.
-
Wikipedia racks up 1 million articles
The English-language version of Wikipedia has racked up its millionth article.
Xavier
15/11/2006 03:24 PM
It's quite ironic that Channel 10 should be bashed over this. Here is an Australian network that is actually screening episodes of a series only a matter of hours after they screen in the US. It's precisely because of this that they're able to point their viewers to a global site. Unlike 7 and 9, who in their continuing disdain for the Australian public, have no option but to have their own website discussion forums simply because the discussions happening there are not current. Channel 10 should be looking for their viewers on Bit Torrent? They're the only Australian network making any sort of effort to stem the flow.
Report offensive content
Anon
16/11/2006 11:29 AM
Let's face it! No one is going to sit through 15mins of APPALLING Australian "rugs-a-million" ads when it takes 30mins to download and watch current TV series episodes without all the ****. Ten? what channel is that again?
Report offensive content
Wayne
07/12/2006 12:47 PM
sounds like you need not only to get a life but a brain.. now then, there's an open source, free, informative website that isn't censored because of "legal issues" like might I say big brother was.. if you don't like it.. ever heard of a great invention called the OFF switch
Report offensive content
Chris Dowling
09/12/2006 08:09 AM
Well I just checked the page and it's not protected, and seems to be full of relevant edits as the story has evolved. The wisdom of the masses certainly seems to be at work here. Frankly the stations need to start to show some interest in the technology and using it as the old model is dying. We are no longer a captive audience. I, for one, applaud their efforts.
Report offensive content
Nathan de Vries
05/01/2007 01:33 PM
"Wacky" is one way to describe it, but perhaps not the most accurate. Their marketing techniques *are* strange, but only because you're not used to them. Is this a case of Channel 10 not understanding the new trends in online media, or are they embracing it and their audience hasn't quite caught up yet? I would argue the latter. You'll notice that the wiki entry has now been restored to its' former glory with some worthy additions. It's openly editable and, funnily enough, doesn't look as bad as your article implies an unauthoritive source should be. Perhaps those "old geezers" on Wikipedia are the same "old geezers" watching the show?
Report offensive content
Anonymous
30/05/2007 06:00 PM
I find wikipedia a good source of info for various television shows, although I haven't watched jericho or looked it up on wiki. As someone else said, if you're going to bash channel 10, do it over the amount of advertising they squeeze within, around and over their programs. Of coure it's not just channel 10 either - all the commercial networks consistently demonstrate their lack of respect for both their viewers and the shows they air.
Report offensive content