by Next Wave Team | May 8, 2007 | Advertising, Change the world, Everything You Want to Know About Advertising, Future of advertising, Future of TV, Marketing & the Web
If anyone thought you were getting something for nothing when you flipped on the tube- or still thinks that- they are an idiot. TV has always cost consumers money- even PBS has its fund drives. Broadcast made you sit through the same stupid commercials, multiple times- even though you weren’t ever going to buy feminine hygiene products (guys) or Cruex (girls). It cost you time- and wasted advertisers money, delivering their message to people who would never buy their products. I like watching beer ads- even though I’ll never drink one- but, that’s ’cause I’m in advertising.
Cable and satellite is another matter- everyone who gets their TV delivered this way pays- and in the US, it’s about 80% of us. So, we’re already paying for the programming- but how much are we paying for stuff we don’t want? A lot. That’s why TV via the Internet is the future- only the programs you want- with only the ads you want- so why ABC and ESPN are coming up with this stuff- it’s a case of too little, too late:
Marketplace: Putting ‘a word from our sponsor’ on demand
LISA NAPOLI: ABC and ESPN said today they’re going to offer some of their programs to Cox Cable free, on demand.
There’s a catch. They’re going to disable the fast forward button on your digital video recorder so that you have to watch the ads.
Don’t panic. This is only a test for the moment.
But media professor Ken Wilbur of the Marshall School of Business says if you’re gonna watch a TV show whenever you want, the industry has to get creative in order to make money.
KEN WILBUR: Deals are being done virtually on a daily basis. And I can’t remember a time when the television industry was in a more dynamic state of change.
TV watchers are forcing that change by recording programs and skipping the ads. But why would anyone pay for a digital video recorder if you can’t do that?
Analyst Brahm Eiley of Convergence Consulting says there doesn’t appear to be a win-win solution to this problem.
BRAHM EILEY: I mean, something has to give one way or another. These shows exist on advertising revenue. And if they’re not going to see that type of advertising revenue, then the cost of making these shows are going to be passed on to the consumer .
In other words, ultimately viewers will pay somehow — either with their time or by having to pay for shows that might otherwise be free.
As I said- there is no such thing as “free”- and the failure to understand that is what’s making this whole shift so entertaining. Why can’t we just admit it- and pay for what we want? And have our message subsidized directly by advertisers who want to reach us individually (1 to 1 marketing)- and have feedback- instead of wasting their money “Broadcasting” to people who will never buy their product.
by Next Wave Team | May 6, 2007 | Advertising, Brand Relevancy, Creativity, Differentiating Your Brand, Everything You Want to Know About Advertising, Guerrilla Campaigns, Marketing & the Web, Practical Marketing 101, Public Relations in the Web 2.0 world, The Craft Of Advertising, Viral Marketing
Call this round 5,839,493 in the continuing saga of letting customers generate your content. While everyone thinks they are an expert on advertising, few really are. While we live in a society that has the attention span that makes the 40 yard dash seem like forever- attempts to capture attention “by any means possible” are backfiring left and right.
Some may still believe that “Any press is good press”- but that was when newspapers ended up in birdcages instead of online forever.
When you start mixing religion with your brand- be aware, you could either lose or gain customers- and it may be permanent. Several times a year “Hobby Lobby” runs full page ads about Jesus- Christmas, Easter - and it makes me wonder how many Jews, Hundus, Muslims, Buddists etc. choose not to shop there every time.
When it comes to controversy as a marketing tool, it’s ok when you you are the upstart- but if you are the market leader, you are taking chances- here is the article about how God and Starbucks went on a collision course here in the flyover states:
Woman expresses indignation at quote on Starbucks cup
By Margo Rutledge Kissell Staff Writer
SPRINGBORO — – Michelle Incanno was an admitted Starbucks addict.
She’d buy the company’s coffee beans every week. Whenever she’d get the chance to drop by a Starbucks, she would, placing the same order every time: a large, house brewed coffee with nonfat milk and two Splenda. When the Seattle-based chain opened a drive-through near her Springboro home, she was in java heaven.
That was until she got an unexpected jolt last week from her coffee cup.
Printed on the cup was: “Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure.”
It is attributed to Bill Schell, a Starbucks customer from London, Ontario, and was included on the cup as part of an effort by the company to collect different viewpoints and spur discussion.
“As someone who loves God, I was so offended by that. I don’t think there needs to be religious dialogue on it. I just want coffee,” said Incanno, a married mother of three who is Catholic.
She wasn’t satisfied with a company disclaimer saying the quote is the author’s opinion, not necessarily that of Starbucks. It invites customers to respond at www.starbucks.com/wayiseeit.
Starbucks spokeswoman Sanja Gould said the collection of thoughts and opinions is a “way to promote open, respectful conversation among a wide variety of individuals. “
But Incanno said her Starbucks days are over.
“I wouldn’t feel right going back,” she said.
This morning- it was the “most popular story” at the Dayton Daily News site- which means it will be making the rounds- and eventually becoming sermon fodder for the fire and brimstone set- and possibly setting off yet another Starbucks boycott.
I went to the Starbucks site- and couldn’t find this quote on the site (btw- the site wasn’t very web 2.0) and am already wondering if this had been pulled because of complaints already.
Often times agencies look for “hot, young, talent” to “spark” their creativity- and with many of the big agencies isolated from “mainstream America” by being in the major meccas of advertising- sometimes the sensibilities of business get overlooked.
No matter what your position on religion, it’s best to check it for being a universally accepted theme before allowing it to make it into your advertising.
Note: a quick Google of this phrase only brings up the Dayton Daily News article. I’m sure that will change soon.
by Next Wave Team | May 3, 2007 | Advertising, Advertising humor, Apple Advertising, Differentiating Your Brand, Everything You Want to Know About Advertising, Future of advertising, Future of TV, Great Ad Agencies, How To Select An Ad Agency, Marketing & the Web
I own a TiVo- and I’ve used a Time Warner DVR- and that was all it took-instant understanding of why the TiVo experience is better- but, a Pepsi Challenge type campaign isn’t enough to change TiVo’s fortunes- TiVo has to do a lot more to gain market share- and the new ad campaign from Kaplan Thaler Group isn’t the answer.
From an article in the New York Times- TiVo is going to spend $15 million to try to change their fortune- and, unfortunately, they aren’t going to get it right (more on that following the excerpt)…
Avoiding Ads With TiVo? TiVo Strikes Back - New York Times
But how do you make a TiVo-proof commercial for TiVo? Executives at TiVo hope the answer is to hire an agency known for broad humor, talking animals and chirpy jingles, then approve a campaign centered on a silly (though eye-catching) visual device, meant to symbolize how much TiVo differs from generic DVRs.
The campaign, now under way, carries the theme “My TiVo gets me.” The effort, created by the Kaplan Thaler Group in New York, includes commercials on television and radio and in movie theaters, a pair of Web sites at whogetsme.com and mytivogetsme.com, (Next Wave: note- both link to the same site- and it’s all FLASH) contests, blog postings and promotional events in large markets like Boston, New York and San Francisco.
The device at the heart of the campaign is to bring to life the antenna atop the head of the “TiVo man,” the character shaped like a TV set that has personified the brand. The ads feature TiVo customers who sport antennas on their heads, which — thanks to the Stan Winston visual effects studio — seem as much a part of them as the remote controls they use to navigate the entertainment superhighway.
The campaign, with a budget estimated at more than $15 million, arrives as TiVo recorders and other DVRs loom larger than ever on the advertising landscape. Nielsen Media Research estimates that 17.2 percent of American households own DVRs and, according to an analysis by MediaPost Communications, penetration in television markets across the country ranges from 5.7 percent in Marquette, Mich., to 26.5 percent in Dallas-Fort Worth.
The proliferation of DVRs means that viewers are increasingly watching TV programs on a delayed basis rather than live. That in turn is leading Nielsen to rework its longtime methods for measuring viewership to count people who play back a program within one, three or seven days after it ran.
And because so many DVR owners fast-forward through spots rather than watch them, Nielsen plans to start providing by the end of May ratings for commercials in addition to its traditional program ratings. (TiVo has started supplying its own data to advertising agencies, showing second-by-second viewing patterns among its subscribers.)
TiVo, as the brand of DVR that has become synonymous with the category, is benefiting from the growing popularity of digital recording in the same way that brands like Band-Aid, Coke, Kleenex, Post-it, Q-tips and Xerox took advantage of similar synonym status in their markets.
But TiVo’s gains in subscribers have slowed significantly as more operators of cable TV systems sell their own — usually unbranded — DVR services.
As of Jan. 31, TiVo reported 4.4 million subscribers, 1.73 million who owned TiVo brand recorders and 2.7 million who had TiVo service through their DirecTV satellite service. The total was only 1.8 percent higher than the 4.36 million subscribers that TiVo had on the same day in 2006.
By contrast, subscriptions grew 130.8 percent from 2004 to 2005, and grew 45.3 percent from 2005 to 2006. (Subscribers who own TiVos pay $19.95 a month for one-year subscriptions, or $8.31 a month if they subscribe for three years.)
“We have spent the better part of the last year coming up with a list of significant differentiated features,” said Thomas S. Rogers, president and chief executive at TiVo in Alviso, Calif.
“This is a way to reintroduce TiVo the brand” in a way that will persuade consumers “to say: ‘I’m not interested in the generic DVR. I want the TiVo experience,’ ” he added.
Among the TiVo features described in the campaign are movie downloads through a partnership with Amazon.com, KidZone parental controls, the ability to share video clips with other TiVo subscribers and the ability of TiVo to “learn” which shows subscribers want
So- how should TiVo solve their problems?
Well, first, hire an agency that really understands new media- back in November I went to a diversity trade fair and KTG was there- they had 52 pages indexed in Google- we had 260. Today those numbers are: KTG 47 and 447 for The Next Wave. To still have the idea that large geographical markets are the answer is missing the point of the Long Tail.
TiVo has experimented with funny ads before- to disastrous results. There was one about jock itch with Joe Montana and Ronnie Lott on the golf course. They’ve also been through a ton of agencies- including some of the best. Here is an example of early work attributed to Goodby Silverstein - a truly great ad agency:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZl2Y5wX_zk
And the sad thing is- this spot still works- no need to run new, different- or more entertaining ads- the problem comes down to a few things:
- TiVo really should be partnered with Apple computer. The combination of the Apple brand which stands for ease of use- with TiVo which is the leader in ease of use would be magical. It would also be the right combination for recording and downloading- something Apple TV is sorely missing.
- The market for TiVo is the early adopters- opinion leaders. TiVo blew it with their late intro of a HD TiVo- and then insulted it’s user base by charging exorbitant prices. It should be an advantage to be a current loyal customer- not a reason to be taken advantage of. I’ve almost switched to Time Warner just to get a HD box without having to take out a second mortgage.
- TiVo’s true value hasn’t really been tapped- one of IPTV style direct delivery of targeted ads. Because they haven’t been able to get critical mass- and haven’t worked their customer relationships well enough- they may have missed this boat as well. A partnership with Nielsen to supply a TiVo to every metered home on a trial basis would have done more for better numbers- and sampling- than any campaign ever would.
TiVo hasn’t got a chance of surviving solo at this point. When they lost their partnership with DirectTV- and failed to work with the cable companies- they sealed their fate. TiVo can offer all kinds of new services- but, the reality is- they are a one trick pony- without a chance of winning the IPTV race- unless they partner with the calvary- be it Apple, Amazon, Nielsen, Cable companies, Telcos, or someone with the horses to get market penetration by taking the box as a loss leader- and the subscription fees as well - and focus on the community building relationship that TiVo has the sole rights to own in the DVR/IPTV competition.
Remember- it’s never about the technology, it’s about the content and the community- and that’s what TiVo should be placing all their effort behind.
by Next Wave Team | May 1, 2007 | Differentiating Your Brand, Everything You Want to Know About Advertising, Future of advertising, Marketing & the Web, Practical Marketing 101, Public Relations in the Web 2.0 world, Search and Business, Web strategy
Found this in the April 2, 2007 Ad Age:
More than three-fourths of consumers research products online before they buy, and they’re twice as likely to so on a retailer’s site as on a manufacturer’s site.
Do you want to know why? How about the fact that retailers build sites that are search-engine optimized, follow W3C standards and actually watch their stats- to examine how to improve their site- because a better site means more sales. There is a direct relationship from functionality to profitability. Many manufacturers sites don’t make this connection- or do everything they can to make things more complex than they need to be.
A few tips: Never move a URL- if you have a page for your product- the XYZ Widget- always have the same url. Add to it, update it- but don’t change the url. Make sure you have links to the owners manual, instructions, warranty info, a forum to discuss the product, tips on using it- etc.
Allow consumers to say good or bad things about it- if good- say thanks, if bad- try to make them happy. If they aren’t doing it on your site- they will do it somewhere else- and may not find out you have a simple fix or update for your product. Link to as many reviews as possible- making your site the hub (and first in Google) for your product. Make sure consumers can access all commercials, print brochures, spec sheets right from this page. Have S/N, date of production info available as well. Make sure you have high rez photos available so they can put your product on the report to their boss- with why they should buy it- and look good.
These are only a few of the tips for the new way customers research making buying decisions. If you are interested in more- feel free to contact us for a full site analysis.
by Next Wave Team | Apr 24, 2007 | Advertising, Change the world, Everything You Want to Know About Advertising, Future of advertising, Future of TV, Marketing & the Web, Media, Procter & Gamble Advertising, Web strategy
As the automobile became the primary transportation method for the nation, the buggy whip inventors created their best offerings. Too little, too late- and other than for collectors of buggy whips- totally valueless.
That’s our analogy for commercial ratings.
Nielsen has been ruling the roost with abstract data for decades- taking a percentage of the total viewers and making an educated, statistically based guess on how many viewers are watching a program. While this worked well with only 3 networks, in the days of cable tv, satellite tv, vcr’s and dvr’s it became less relevant- but the system was so well dug in, and the alternatives so few- that the advertising industry stuck with it.
With broadband sneaking into more homes, with DVR’s doing the same thing- and with Internet use skyrocketing- and the advent of Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) with products like AppleTV, we are seeing the last days for Nielsen- and no real use for rating TV spots.
Here is why: Advertising is expensive- and therefore, advertisers aren’t interested in reaching people via “broadcasting” anymore. Broadcast reaches “broad audiences” including those who aren’t eligible to buy your product. The web, IPTV, and hard-drive enabled TV systems (cable and satellite) are able to deliver content that is targeted and able to generate hard data back. The ultimate one-to-one marketing, where if an ad dollar is wasted- it will only be wasted one time. This is the future, and with the ad industry being a multi-billion dollar business, it won’t be long before marketers demand accountability more exact than if someone saw the commercial- as offered by Nielsen- or even if they liked the commercial- they want to know if you are a real business prospect- and what it would take to make you one.
Nielsen to Offer Commercial Ratings
NEW YORK Nielsen will begin supplying national commercial ratings starting in the fall, the company confirmed today.
If the networks and advertisers can agree on a standard, the commercial ratings could be used as currency to buy and sell ads by as early as the start of the 2007-08 TV season.
But for now, program ratings will continue to be the currency for ad transactions.
A Nielsen representative said it received requests from all five major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, CW, NBC and Fox) for commercial ratings based on live viewership plus seven days of recorded DVR playback viewing. Nielsen will begin delivering that data “sometime this fall,” the rep said. That will give the industry about a year to analyze the data before deciding whether or not to use it as currency in the following season.
The commercial ratings will provide the average audience for all paid national ads airing during each program transmitted by national broadcast and cable networks, the Nielsen rep said.
While the trade press, the buyers, and the networks talk about this “next big thing” they are just fiddling while Rome burns. The entire system of delivering advertising messages will be more like YouTube and GoogleVideo- with meta-tags driving ad choices with a rebate per-click to the viewer (that’s right- you will get paid for watching and interacting with advertising in the future) or similar to Amazon‘s suggestions with a profile built from information you have volunteered.
Soon content producers will take their programming direct, via online hubs like the iTunes store or Amazon- getting paid directly from the consumer for their content. Discounting your media bill will be accomplished by your willingness to watch targeted TV spots- that help build your profile.
If you accept more commercials than your media bill- the proceeds go to the media producers- not to the intermediaries. This levels the playing field- and allows capitalism to do its thing- the way it was meant to.
There are two articles in Ad Age- talking about “engagement” and how “YouTube isn’t getting it done” which are still based on the idea that TV is driven through the old school “Network as middle-man” model. Once you realize that the new middle man will be the one who delivers 2-way feedback and links to your product- you realize how stupid this whole commercial rating discussion is.
If Proctor and Gamble took their “Soap Operas” offline- and onto their site- and charged $1 per show for an enhanced program- with 2 way connections with the characters- and then offered the content for free- if you answered some questions about Pringles, Tide or Gillette- don’t you think they would find that infinitely more useful than a rating of the viewership during their commercial?
Commercial ratings- the best buggy whip for last centuries marketers. Get used to it.
If you have questions about how to navigate this new media landscape feel free to contact us. Surf at the next wave dot biz.
Note: in today’s Ad Age, an article called “Revenge of the nerds” talks about this very subject- it seems Backchannel media has the right idea- except the part about the delivery system still including the networks.
Mr. Kokernak’s vision is to implement long-sought dreams of fully interactive, individually addressable and accountable TV. Backchannel wants to become the software and technology backbone of a new era dawning in TV as it transitions from analog to digital broadcasting — one Mr. Kokernak likens to the broadband tipping point that ushered in the age of YouTube.
In this era, ads are served to people according to the blocks or households where they live. They respond to TV ads with a simple remote click on an icon to, say, get more information about a car they just saw advertised, buy a song they just heard on the Grammys or the book Oprah just touted, or reserve a table at a nearby restaurant. In this era, based on real-time analysis of who’s clicking on what offers and programs, media plans change continuously.
TV, like the internet, but better?
In Backchannel’s vision, TV is a direct medium a la the internet, only, as Mr. Kokernak sees it, much better — without click fraud, phishing scams and other security threats. It’s enough, he believes, to shift much of the money that’s been going into search and other direct media back into TV, replace eyeball counts with the harder currency of response, and ultimately eliminate most upfront deals as dollars gravitate daily in a continuous-improvement cycle toward programming proven to generate response.
Sounds like a pay for performance plan doesn’t it?
by Next Wave Team | Apr 15, 2007 | Advertising, Apple Advertising, Change the world, Everything You Want to Know About Advertising, Future of advertising, Future of TV, Marketing & the Web, Media, Practical Marketing 101, Public Relations in the Web 2.0 world, Search and Business, Secrets of Great Advertising, Web strategy
Everyone knows the 80/20 rule, in fact an extension of this idea has become known as “the Long Tail.” However, the 80/40 rule might become the most important rule to marketers in the age of search engines and advertising effectiveness.
First- a reminder of what the 80/20 rule is:
Pareto’s Principle - The 80-20 Rule
n 1906, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto created a mathematical formula to describe the unequal distribution of wealth in his country, observing that twenty percent of the people owned eighty percent of the wealth. In the late 1940s, Dr. Joseph M. Juran inaccurately attributed the 80/20 Rule to Pareto, calling it Pareto’s Principle. While it may be misnamed, Pareto’s Principle or Pareto’s Law as it is sometimes called, can be a very effective tool to help you manage effectively.
Where It Came From
After Pareto made his observation and created his formula, many others observed similar phenomena in their own areas of expertise. Quality Management pioneer, Dr. Joseph Juran, working in the US in the 1930s and 40s recognized a universal principle he called the “vital few and trivial many” and reduced it to writing.
In an early work, a lack of precision on Juran’s part made it appear that he was applying Pareto’s observations about economics to a broader body of work. The name Pareto’s Principle stuck, probably because it sounded better than Juran’s Principle.
As a result, Dr. Juran’s observation of the “vital few and trivial many”, the principle that 20 percent of something always are responsible for 80 percent of the results, became known as Pareto’s Principle or the 80/20 Rule.
Traditional media based advertising has a major flaw: all ads are temporary. The ad in todays paper is in tomorrows trash, the spot in the TV show is over and gone (or skipped by Tivo- or ignored the second time it’s viewed) and most importantly- the old John Wanamaker adage about half his ad budget being wasted- only he didn’t know which half- still, even in todays hyper-targeted media, is pretty close to true. I’ve seen many ads for feminine hygiene products- but will never need them.
The difference between spending your budget on old-school media campaigns and putting your best efforts into online strategy- is that only people interested in your product or service will be interacting with your site- and they are there actively looking for information to substantiate their buying decision.
This is where the 80/40™- rule comes into play- insight directly from The Next Wave: 80% of Internet usage begins in search, 40% of people using search- type your URL into a search, instead of a direct access to your site- and get search results- which could include people talking about your business negatively- or trying to steal your eyeballs- even after you have spent millions of dollars promoting your URL.
Once they get to your site- what do they get? If your site is in Flash, often times they get frustrated. Also- remember, since 80% of use begins in search- are they able to access the specific information they seek? Or just get to your site? Many Flash sites do not allow your visitors to link to interior content with an exclusive URL.
One of the new realities in advertising and marketing is that people are depending on the Internet more for researching purchases- even having access when mobile to the web through WAP enabled sites- or soon- to any site with the introduction of the Apple iPhone. Everything is changing rapidly- and if you don’t make your information search friendly- you won’t be relevant in the decision making process.
How do you solve the 80/40 rule™? Building sites to be search friendly is just the start. Also, remember, it’s not about chest-beating ego sites- it’s about delivering information to the consumer that answers their problem (and the consumer can be a B-to-B customer just as easily as a B-to-C consumer). Your site should be searchable as well. Make every piece of relevant data available- in a web friendly form- and don’t remove material- always update it with relevant news (since links shouldn’t be broken by your maintenance).
But most importantly- always be aware- that when someone is looking for you- 40% of the time, they may get search results instead of directly to your site and someone else may have the answer and steal your lunch- and that is a much bigger problem than the old 80/20 rule.
