Forgot your password?
Another word salad official.
Fascist in chief to be said there were over 3 million illegals voting. Total like. George Stephanolpolis asked Pence in the pocket if it was OK for him to lie. Pence in the pocket said well, he believes it. So it is OK from the top down to be the source of fake news and a major network to not just not challenge it, but to let it slide. Mad people cause a lot of people to die. Expect the worst.
One day there is no war, the next there is a draft.
The people involved are not likely to take a moment to contemplate anything. We need to be realistic and realize that these aren't just ignorant people; ... they are stupid people. And in cases like this one, dangerously stupid.
(d) All of the above.
Fake news in the land of real guns and assault rifles. What could possibly go wrong?
What happens when the fox runs out of chickens in the henhouse ? Oh yeah, canabalization.
Really....hire boomers at market rates to market to boomers instead of whipper snappers.
The free report can be found at http://www.biakelsey.com/research-data/current-research/every-location-counts-seo-local-brand-engagement
Dogs chasing their tails again.
There is still a Met Life? They're still advertising? Who was Snoopy? Was he insured?Sorry to be so clueless. Must be watching the wrong rectangles.
I thought Snoopy had much more mileage in him. Agree about this replacement-- yikes! They shot the brief, exactly! when does the ad come out?
All meaningless apples vs. oranges comparisons.
Despite years of consumers showing the opposite, we are supposed to believe this research?Consumers are not showing by action that content matters this much to them - they are overwhelmed by it. And very often the content they can't find, but want, has no economic advantage (e.g. Profit) that could cause it to be created.And here's the real rub: consumers do want good content - that doesn't pitch them, underestimate their intelligence, doesn't get lost in ad agency BS, etc... But that kind of content isn't forthcoming from the agency business any time soon - because it requires incredibly in-depth understanding of the consumer, their needs, and their situation along with all the language they use within their lives and world. And it requires that agencies become honest with ourselves about how much we live in a bubble that prevents really knowing all that and communicating genuinely. (The huge hype about "authenticity" turned out just to be another way agencies proudly relabelled inauthentic communication.)
All good points. Print is universally used to differntiate the printed medium from digital and so I'd say it's a fair use.Newspapers can always drum up big numbers for readers. However, you only have look at ad spend to see which way the wind is blowing there. Trust me, as a former nationals journalist I am an 'ink man' at heart but you can't help but look at the declining share of ad revenue and come away with anything other than concern. The point here is that at least digital gains are now balancing out print losses which has to be a welcome relief. The bad news is they're now looking for growth in digital where the BBC and Facebook hold nearly all the attenition. Nothing to do with news and quality of articles etc, all about attention and ad spend.
Michael, you are spot on with your comments
What I saw is a release in Ad Age, where all of the executives are competing to have their names on it. Global CMO, US CMO, Agency CCO. And why did they leave out Gen X? Are they so irrelevant? Good grief!
You paint a pretty bleak picture Sean and omit some key points, which might temper the drama a bit…
1. 1. There is still value in print. 65% of the population are reading print newspapers every month according to NRS PADD (rising to 91% when you include all platforms), showing that they are far from irrelevant as you indicate. In terms of circulation, six million people still buy a newspaper daily and a further two million pick up freesheets (ABC). The fact that newspaper circulation surged around the EU referendum and was also up in October, as the US election picked up pace, shows that people still turn to newspapers to understand the world.
2. 2. Like it or not, there is the view that newspapers offer value for advertisers which can’t be easily replicated elsewhere – taking into account powerful context, levels of reader engagement and proven return on investment (have a look at Newsworks’ effectiveness research for quantifiable evidence of this): https://effectiveness.newsworks.org.uk/?utm_source=Newsworks&utm_medium=RPC&utm_campaign=Newsworks
3. 3. Facebook is obviously a massive presence in the digital landscape, but it doesn’t produce news. In fact, as recent reports show, it doesn’t verify it either. Paired with the various metric mishaps that have come to light, it’s fair to say that Facebook isn’t without its own issues, for both advertisers and consumers. By the same token, the quality content and context that newsbrands provide are not irrelevant to advertisers. You’ll find plenty of examples of this here: http://www.newsworks.org.uk/awards
"Influencers" are likely filling a void created by the poor marketing communications of brands, especially those in the luxury and travel categories. Both smart and insecure onsumers want and expect information from brands in order to make good purchase decisions, especially for an important and considered purchase. Much of marketing communications are largely based on imagery and emotional appeals. More good substantive product information should be provided to help the consumer.
Programmatic is not a channel, it is a method of buying - specifically it is the automation of buying. So how can one allocate from a channel to a method - unless, if what you are saying is that your traditional methods of buying the media directly should now be moved to an automated method? In which case - why not move the full budget to an automated process if the results were so promising? What were the drawbacks of the automation? People continue to not understand what "programmatic" is, rather, they just continue to throw out buzz words.
It's also pretty sad that employers need to check with MetLife to find out what is important to their employees!
This makes sense, in that social media has very low standards related to "truthiness." Unfotunately a lot of native is in that realm. At the same time, you have to wonder if advertisers are driven by access to an environment where standards of quality are not high; whether audiences are willing to accept whatever information confirms their current viewpoints; or where the method of distribution is just plain cheap.
Jim, excellent post. A great reminder and very thought-provoking. Thanks so much for sharing this valuable information.