Forgot your password?
Thanks Barbara. Couldn't help thinking of Linus Karlsson in reference to "age of the Swedes." Karlsson worked in Stockholm before moving to Mother agency in New York, before moving again to McCann/NY in 2010 as chief creative officer. Do you think Auslander knew him at McCann?
I'm having a bit of trouble with the table, also, Mitch. No matter what one calls it people are either watching something via broadband or they aren't. You can be engaged by any content---TV or broadband---so this is not a unique feature of broadband. The implication in making this distinction---and I'm not accusing you of making it----is that broadband content is "engaging" while TV's content is not. That's nonsense.Also, when it comes to measuring audience, the fact that this does not seem to exist, as yet, for broadband does not make it different from TV----broadband is merely a media platform that is in its infancy. If broadband ever expands to the point where it becomes significant, some sort of rating system will be put in place and it won't be an infinite one but a finite one, using some sort of panel with a fixed sample size. Regarding audience definitions, here, too, there is nothing mysterious about broadband. If the audience of a broadband service or some form of content yields so many viewers, broken down by demos---per a rating service---- then it's not brain surgery to calculate ratings, rating points, CPMs, etc. for all of the audience or any part, thereoff. In other words, why make it so complicated? The two are both forms of TV, which happen to reach their audiences via different means?
Joe, great article and thanks for the walk down memory lane. I was at Vitt Media at the time and handled local advertising for Spin Magazine working with Ed Rasen. High on my list was Spin's one year anniversary party at a club called Private Eyes. Yes, fun days at 1965 Broadway with Bob Jr. and the folks at Spin.
Hi Julie, these studies are the Havas Meaningful brands study, see http://www.meaningful-brands.com/
Biggest ... if you include Search & Directories.
The thing is, there is a lot of truth in what's being conveyed. We found parts LOL funny. And there are a lot of "ice box laughs" (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/nov/09/entertainment/ca-31466) too that make me glad I didn't delete the episodes off my DVR. Thanks for posting about the show. I was eager to read your take.
Mitch your table doesnt make the case. It's about the user experience. Just like what separated Blackberry from the iPhone was the user experience. Television is a one way and curated medium. Video streaming is the opposite, two way and user controlled. A Cross device experience is not Television. The only rationale to the "Television" label for Broadband Video is the urgency to keep that $66B pie which has looked pricier the past 15 years where more money has been buying less Audience, and further the Major Broadcasters are now engaged in massive Audience Fragmentation distributing content through various OTT apps not realizing they are undermining the Foundation Element of Television which is Audience Aggregation within a Closed System..
..OR IF it isn't worth watching, this column is always worth reading...
With nothing to watch on tv lately, we keep surfing, trying to land on something...we landed on Happyish and with one episode both of us said, "Meh!" I didn't know Shalom Auslander was involved...his memoir is the book the made me actually laugh out loud like a crazy person on the subway....that alone is enough for a second try. And of course I trust you Barbara....with a housebound, broken husband for the summer, good to know there is something worth watching...
They'll have work to do certainly justifying their position, though I'm sure they'll find a way to adjust their models so they are not cut out one way or another.The reaction from some agencies thus far, though not all, is not necessarily that sophisticated though. They simply demand full site/app-level transparency for brand clients, as if that magically solves all brand safety, viewability and fraud concerns. If questioned they make vague noises about pirates and various nasties lurking in dark corners and how they couldn't possibly allow their clients to go anywhere near it.That is the equivalent of only eating at 5 star restaurants - and never at the local kebab shop God Forbid- in the belief that they are immune from food poisoning, when of course they are not. It may improve the odds but you'll pay through the nose, and now and then when you do want a kebab, the local guy might in fact have the better, healthier, cheaper product in that specific case.They key point being neither "premium" or "transparent" automatically equal 'safe' nor 'quality'- depending on your definition of quality as far as your business objectives go.The more important thing is to work with people who are *transparent* in terms of their tech and processes, know where your ad is going, and who are accountable for delivering you the product you pay for. With programmatic the risks here are greater and so need to be taken even more seriously, so the industry finally waking up and creating standards and means of verification is a good thing certainly.It's not clear whether (some) agencies are always being that proactive in educating their clients or whether they are simply following through on brands' knee-jerk reactions, but if brands ask their agencies more awkward questions about the value they are getting and the accountability in the process, and agencies focus on real 'lower funnel' results for their clients, money will naturally drift away from fraudsters to genuine suppliers who have their houses in order and work with the IAB, JICWEBS etc etc.
I checked out the creator of the series, one Shalom Auslander, on IMDB. I thought he was young as his credit list is short, but he did write Paradise Lost which heretofore I always ascribed to Milton, John not Berle. In truth, I had not heard of Happyish until this column. That is not a criticism of the publicity arm of Showtime, but more a statement of just how far out of it I am.
Agree with a lot of that Ari, especially regarding "native" advertising aka the programmatic advertorial, to borrow a phrase from a friend.Personally, whatever the lofty ambitions of 'best in class' native, and I'm sure there are or will be some good executions out there- if so then great- overall I remain sceptical for a few reasons:- most of what is in practice being sold as "native" is frankly trash and is clogging up otherwise half-decent sites- "native" is a fluffy, unhelpful word that grandly purports to newness and superiority whilst being neither new in any sense (despite what we are sometimes told) nor necessarily superior. Ad tech needs less fluff and not more in order to attract more brand spend.- the basic pitch behind native's supposed better performance than display- that it allows advertisers to 'borrow' a publisher's 'story-telling' tools, and to ingratiate itself into the fabric of the site as some sort of benevolent force- is also exactly why it is both flawed and intellectually dishonest. I'm with John Oliver on this one- it is extremely damaging to editorial integrity (if that is still a concern to any "premium content providers" anymore) and it doesn't say much for advertisers' opinions of their audience's intelligence.There's two issues behind this to my mind- native as it generally works in practice - i.e. dressing up ads as editorial to trick people into responding more- would not be needed if standard advertising was done well enough (a discussion in of itself). Deteriorating response rates to display in developed markets (as yet not seen in growth markets in e.g. Africa) will inevitably catch up with native once the novelty has worn off. Then we'll be left looking for the 'next big thing that is definitely not just an old thing given a glitzy revamp'.Secondly as you state, native would be getting less traction if publishers were able to effectively monetise their operations via paywalls/micropayments/subs etc- this is a big subject about generational shifts, the 'deal' between readers and publishers, and how digital originally positioned itself and is now being hoist by it's own petard (same applies to why brand dollars are late to the party) etc. Plus it feeds into the fundamental causes of the current issues around ad blocking, which will not leave native unscathed either.The above said I am always willing to be proved wrong and native perhaps has a time and a place if done well and real-world results back it up. But I can't stand marketing fluff, 'techy' obfuscation and blatantly saying one thing while in reality doing another- it does the industry no good and doesn't help bring in sustainable revenue in the long run.
Barbara, so glad you wrote this! I agree, that Happyish got better as the season progressed. I thought the finale was very touching. I live in Woodstock, so was determined to watch it not only for the ad biz satire, but also for all the local color and familiar locales. Have heard Shalom Auslander at writers' conferences, etc. Love Kathryn Hahn. Her blonde girlfriend is the only character who doesn't seem Woodstock-y to me.
Minor correction, but the WWE Network has been around since last year (February 2014) as it launched weeks prior to WrestleMania 30.
Better to be on top of the pyramid scheme (what there is of it) than on the bottom that gets further from the top the more there are. Then again, for Lifetime, what is their costs now for just putting what they have now for $4/mo vs creating more content for the 26th hour of the day.
When I dislike a product/service, I make a conscious effort not to spend my money on that again, just like eating something you find distasteful. Race to the bottom services are those which I cannot contribute to their usage. In the long run, we will all lose.
Whimsical and always entertaining, Ms. Barbara. I'm inspired to switch over Roger's Happy Trails to Happyish Trails! BTW, Happyish 4th Amurrica!
@Chris -- funny stuff -- my brother's dog goes nuts during those fireworks. And Paula thank you as always for chiming in with your insight and support. I don't mean to be "gloomy" but I can't help sharing what I see and the picture keeps getting worse by the quarter for an industry I grew up in, respect and am a part of.
What happens to the people without caregivers ? There are millions of people who do not have them. Caregivers are outstretched. The point is: There is a major problem looming even larger just around the corner and no affordable solutions. Those who can do something about this problem as a whole ignore it because the powers to help are not willing.
I'd ask you "Why all the gloom, Ari?" if you didn't articulate the reasons so well.
Silver lining: Slitting my wrists now means I won't hear the dog barking at the fireworks.
Great delineation of the real and imaginary differences Mitch. Perhaps this year more folks will utilize it. I know I see it in my day-to-day,
Hi Robert Payne.Caregiving will touch all of us at some point.Please visit the CaregiversSpeakUp.com site, watch the documentary and share your story.And thanks for commenting!Best, Elizabeth