I tend to voice my theory fearlessly in all kinds of social settings such as dinner parties. I reckon is a tremendous boon to the host as it guarantees a lively discussion. Sometimes I misjudge my opponents’ commitment to their mad theories and cause a total riot. The ride home after these dinners can be a quiet one.

I am regularly called upon to defend the Sydney Morning Herald against accusations of elitism (which can be a hard one); the ABC against accusations of bias; Channel Nine for being generally buggered; New Idea for making everything up; the Daily Telegraph for being unilaterally unkind to the Labour Party and for publishing Piers Akerman; Channel Seven news for confusing cheesy on air promotions of it’s upcoming shows with actual news; Media Watch for being up itself (another hard one); Today Tonight for allegedly paying alleged drug addled former friends of convicted smugglers for their version of events pre-Bali (impossible); and Channel 10 for bringing Big Brother back.

Speaking of Big Brother, I think that Jackie O is a fantastic actress. She doesn’t look horrified at any point during the telecast. I was horrified momentarily when they introduced the small person Rina as a house guest. I immediately thought a new depth had been plumbed – think circus act – until Rina began to strut her stuff. I was immediately taken by her sassiness. Here was a tiny person with great conviction, wit and a sense of style. Things were looking up.

Unfortunately Rina is out with a broken leg which occurred when she landed during a house activity “during which she fell on a padded surface”. Not soft enough it appears. Big Brother doesn’t appear to have an insurance company as a sponsor. Yet.

Mark Day recently opened up on the “Once great Nine” for converting Sixty Minutes into shock schlock when it covered an incest story which he thought should have been left on the shelf where it belonged. I found myself agreeing with Day as he linked the degradation of a once great current affairs programme to the departure of Kerry then James from control of the empire. It was as if the program’s integrity survived because its owners could afford it then but can’t afford it now.

More recently Kerry Stokes has been unloading on the West Australian on just about everything from having no web strategy; for having a hopeless distribution system; for allowing circulation to decline; for having no media experts on the Board; for not having a plan to change any of that; and for not agreeing with him. On the circulation declining issue, the West Australian is in pretty good company globally but what the hell.

The most entertaining moment of this ten round fight occurred when Kerry gave an exclusive interview to Channel Nine in Perth where he back slammed the Board and Chairman of the West for free. To ensure the maximum number of WAN shareholders heard what he had to say he participated in a promotion of the Nine News that night, the direct competitor to his very own news program.

It didn’t win the ratings that night but it did demonstrate that Nine still knows what news looks like and Kerry knows when to stay away from his own cameras.

Peter Miller is managing director of AdStream

I’ve still to meet a kid who wants to be treated like one, or a mum who wouldn’t rather be treated as a woman, at times. The following distinctions between males and females are nuances, with multiple crossovers. If there’s one thing that universally characterises online behaviour, it’s the deliberate mixing of content, genres and identities. Online behaviour reflects people’s natural tendencies. What may seem surprising at first, soon makes sense in the context of their lives. Middle-aged women may not be anyone’s idea of ‘gamers’, themselves included, but they are the biggest online casual gamers worldwide. They do admit to enjoying a girls’ night, chatting over a board game, or game of cards. Now they can play together online, while having an online conversation, through social network iVillage which incorporates Pogo games.

Some people like to make a big impression instantly. They wow a crowd with their wit and expansive gestures. Online, they share impactful, funny videos. They’re more likely to be male teens and twentysomethings, as Microsoft and MTV’s international study Circuits of Cool indicates. YouTube is best known, but College Humour is a popular source of puerile videos, while Bragster’s outlandish video dares do the Jackass boys proud. While the boys play the fool, others reveal their personalities and skills over time. For them, what they do online says a lot about who they are and they don’t want to be misrepresented. They are the creators of blogs, podcasts and websites and they’re more likely to be female.

Over 35% of teen girls online create content, compared to 22% of boys, the Pew Internet and American Life Project reports.

Some websites demonstrate ingenuity and commercial understanding of online audiences’ needs. Ashley Qualls’ widget website Whateverlife inspired other girls to create web pages and soon became the authority on customising MySpace profiles. Miriam Brafman’s Rasba reconciles online shopping, social networking and advertising. It makes shoppers brand advocates through innovative use of social – and real – currency and provides advertisers with customisable virtual storefronts.

Offline, girls cultivate dialogues and confide in each other. Online, PostSecret is a popular ‘confessional’ website. Girls are more active in online social networks, where they mostly relive shared experiences with existing friends.

Nearly 70% of girls aged 15 to 17 create their own profiles – versus 57% of males (Pew) – and 64% of girls visit sites weekly (Circuits of Cool). Males and females often have similar drivers, manifested differently. In competition, males go head-to-head on Bragster. They collect Facebook friends competitively to demonstrate their popularity. Girls jealously guard their online identities, lambasting online imitators who steal the look of their web pages.

Moensie Rossier’s blog is at www.sendupalargerroom.com.

Fast forward to 2008 as marketers put brands centre stage to tell a story, to connect with an audience and to hopefully create a meaningful impression through a live brand experience.

Too often the meaning is lost because those involved in producing a live experience have little or no expertise whatsoever. Anyone can fit out a promotional team in bright coloured t-shirts and hand out product but I am referring to unique live experiences with challenging technical and creative elements. Not everyone can do it.

A brand manager, client or marketing director would be unlikely to brief a big brand TVC to a complete amateur. So why would you contract a company with no experience to produce high end live brand experiences.

As an events producer of some 20 years, I have heard countless stories from company executives who have been over promised yet under delivered with live brand experiences. They have identified need for a live component in their overall communications plan. Unfortunately the outcome is often a failed event component which has wasted a large amount of money, resources and caused considerable damage to the brand.

A brand can be damaged by your event in countless ways if not professionally managed. It can be misrepresented in its character, its personality and its values by inappropriate casting, production design or creative.

I’ve seen clients incredibly nervous before a product launch. They have invested large amounts of money (budgets of $1m plus), invited key trade guests and have seen little of what is to be delivered beyond big promises, and pretty words. There is a huge amount at stake. But what if the execution in the live component fails? What can go wrong?

Finagle’s Law says, “Anything that can go wrong, will - at the worst possible moment.”

One of the roles of an events expert is to reduce that risk.

So why would an organisation take an excessive risk and employ a company with no events experience. Why are PR companies, ‘experiential’ agencies and promotional companies attempting to produce high end live brand experiences?

The culture of PR / comms agencies producing events stems from the belief that the live event component is inherently part of the overall communications strategy.

There are PR/comms agencies that do outsource the live component to experienced event producers whilst retaining the client service mechanism. This model works effectively as it enables the client, agency and event producer to work collaboratively.

Effective development of the event creative enables the client/agency to focus on the suitable concept whilst the event producer can play a ‘bullet proofing’ role in assessing viability, cost and effectiveness.

A well conceived, strategically developed and seamlessly executed live brand experience with effective leverage and measurable return on investment (ROI) is a platform for an exciting, sensory, emotive and memorable experience that cannot be achieved in any other form of marketing or advertising.

Unlike all other media whether it be TV, radio, print, on-line or mobile advertising, a live brand experience often allows for only one take. The moment and the experience for the audience may last minutes, hours or days. It’s often impossible to rehearse given time and budget restraints. For this reason, little can be left to chance and only an experienced team can identify the potential risks and deliver content on time, on budget, and most importantly, on brand.

Ant Hampel is the founder of think creative events www.thinkcreativeevents.com