Forgot your password?
That last paragraph is intriguing, Joe. Did the study give any information of what the effects of concerns ( I assume ) about "viewability" and bot traffic might be?
AR has finally got it right, like no one else before. It’s about time that dreams turn into reality or better yet Augmented Reality!
AR (http://wowsomeapp.com/forbrands.html) is the Ultimate dream Advertisers. With AR the end user able to get different features like "Gaming and Entertainment, Marketing and Advertising, Information, Education and Toys, Retail and E-Commerce, and Industrial Applications"!!
I believe this is a great market plan to get Adidas's sales and numbers up. I feel as though focusing on New York and Los Angeles the top two mainstream cities would be their best bet to get themselves back on top. I believe that their three step process is a good way to start. However, I believe in order to stay on top and ahead of the game, you should continually keep growing and expanding your brand. I think part of the reason why Adidas fell in sales is because they let their competitors make gains while they watched on the sidelines, sticking with the traditional when they should have been prepping and trying new and in a way “dangerous” techniques to advertise their brand.
In the same way that Michael Bloomberg created portfolio management software for financial traders, The Exchange Lab have created the same for programmatic trading. No one DSP performs best all the time. The Exchange Lab enables trading and optimisation across multiple DSPs - from a unified platform/interface.
When you referenced Twilight Zone I started thinking of the 1960 episode of an overwrought ad exec (James Daly) who finds himself in a pleasant make-believe town far from Madison Avenue. Willoughby. How about a peaceful end for Don in a friendly little village. Thanks Rod Serling. Thanks Barbara.
We all will come to terms that the tech stack will be forever evolving and no one marketer or publisher will be able to use one system.
The reason is simple - competition. No agency can put their entire client's budget into one DSP and no one publisher can put all their non guaranteed inventory into one SSP. Because you need something to keep your partners vying for your business.
We see the clients with the largest tech stacks, as having the most dialed in yield and ROI because they drive big competition from their vendors.
Is this hard for planners and ops teams? Yes, but there are new tools (shameless plug for STAQ) that enable pubs and marketers to scale their partner base, unifying their best of breed tech stack.
Also, as long as there are new formats and big individual, unique native formats (like Twitter, SnapChat, FB) then there will be more than one piece of the stack.... The tremendous consolidation we're all hoping for simply cannot happen. It's a cycle.
I, for one, am tired of paying my six dollars a month to ESPN, the channel I NEVER watch.
Can't wait to go fully a la carte, or over-the-top.
P.T. Barnum had the formula.
The pursuit of a mega "big idea" made complete sense when TV was at its zenith. You could make a decent-sized idea big by throwing more money at it, and you could make a great big idea huge by throwing even more money at it. Today, the media landscape is so radically reshaped that it no longer works the way it once did. Chasing a "big idea" is now often a complete waste of money at worst -- or depressingly ephemeral at best. Who among us remembers the Oreo moment at the Super Bowl or "Subservient Chicken" best? The people inside the industry who are tasked with creating such things. For the average consumer, these ideas are like shooting stars. We take brief notice of them, and then they are gone forever. Marketers must now return to fundamentals. Is the value of our product or service tightly aligned to what buyers need? Are we competing where we should play? Do we know how we plan to win? Is our value proposition obvious and compelling? These are the "big ideas" that matter most, and are most deserving a marketer's attention.
There's a lot of chasing of marketing with a lower case "m" instead of Marketing with a capital "M", It's the difference between tiny communications notions and real business ideas that genuinely drive sales and profits.
Not sure about the legal issues, but as far as their accommodations: "Welcome to Paris."
Wendy Davis is exactly correct! Thank you Wendy! COMCAST has always agreed to this or that requirement by the FCC, violated it and paid a fine as was financially always ahead after that. How can any business have the highest prices AND the lowest possible rating from its customers and remain in business? That business is monopoly and empire unto itself just not subject to normal consumer market forces. They own the regulators, congress and state regulators. Their PACs and lobbyists etc. are everywhere. Comcast focuses or running the business by controlling the entire regulating machinery. Comcast chooses to not spend its funds on satisfying its customers but by owning the regulation machinery. This is not capitalism! Comcast is a monopoly!
One point that needs to be addressed is that not only are non-sports viewing subscribers subsidizing those who view sports, but those who view only a few favorite teams are subsidizing those who watch anything and everything. The only viable solution, at least for the "my team" viewer, would be single-game, or team seasonal, pay-per-view. Fat chance of that ever happening, at least at a reasonable price.
Excellent...We used to pay $20,000/month to serve our video clips...now we actually MAKE MONEY having You Tube serve our e-commerce clips. A cost center turned into a profit center in 10 years.
We used to pay $30,000/month in bandwidth to serve our emails (in 2001). We send 3X that amount per month today and pay $1800/month.
@Rick..."How many people do we all know that want to find out if "you are the father" on Maury that have a higher education and make more money than that so called low end audience?"....um, none.
As the old "increasing returns to scale" model points out, there are moments in the growth of industry(ies) when great leaps forward are made. It flies in the face of the old model of "diminishing returns", which is determined by the maturity of an industry.
Exponential leaps are not uncommon or unusual.
But by the same token, simply giving oneself over to claims of exponential gains can create a huge gap. How many companies were bought and sold in the first dot.com bubble based on the claims of exponential growth that had yet to be backed up by a business model supporting what they had to offer?
This isn't to say any of these claims are false or fake - some (perhaps many) will be true, just as many were in the first dot com bubble. But jumping aboard too early can undo a business. Better to be a fast follower than a first mover. The old Reagan saw "Trust, but verify" is a useful tool in this space.
Sometimes we move too fast because we want to believe too much.
Tom-- In one of his typically cryptic answers, Weiner gave a hint of a suggestion that it might go up to modern day. I'm sure these 7 also follow the usual course-- very draggy in the middle, and mind blowing genius in the last 10 minutes.
If they jump into the 70s, I think it's a mistake. It started in 1960, it should end on New Year's Eve 1969 or maybe the first day of 1970. But to leap forward a couple years would be a mistake, though I'm certainly open to being proved wrong.
That's a difficult question to answer, John. Whatever the solution, I believe that the cable services and satellite distributors will have to come up with a number of "basic" packages that encompass up to 50 ad-supported cable channels, much as they do now. All of the packages would include the major services---ESPN, Fox News, CNN, Weather Channel, Discovery, Turner, etc. up to about 35-40 channels. Then it would become more selective, with one "basic" package slanted more heavily male by adding in the secondary ESPN and other sport channels, more news outlets, etc. while another tilts more to womens' tastes, a third goes more upscale, a forth is heavily "ethnic, etc. As for pricing, in order to pay the cable programmers their carriage fees, the systems would have to charge a lot more than $25 per month. Most likely their typical fee would be on the order of $50-60 per month, perhaps more, as the marketplace dictates. This is where the stand alone services come in. Beyond the basic package that subscribers are obliged to take they could pick and choose from all of the other options, not as is done now, by accepting bundled groupings which often include program content they don't care about. Instead, each add-on would be priced separately, offering a far greater choice than "pay" customers get now. The problem with the dream of totally unbundled program services is complex and involves multiple revenue sources, not the least of which is advertising. The only way that a new stand alone can get significant ad revenue is by garnering a significant subscriber base---one that pays for the service, specifically, hence actually watches it. Without ad revenues, the stand alone service may find it too difficult to develop a subscriber base and turn a profit. Once this becomes evident, the inclination will be to cut back on program costs ( quality ), employ scads of reruns, etc. which, in turn, will cause subscriber defections.
Can't wait to see where it goes, and moreover to read what you have to say about it. It's a shame it's such a short run. As for the final destination? I vote for darkness before the dawn. I still hold out a hope that Don finds his way somehow. I'd like to cry a few bittersweet tears at the end of all this. As for the '70s, I would not want to live through them again for anything. Avacado green anyone? Dingy mustard yellow? Kill me now. Here's to seven fantastic write ups and comment convos, and one more for the wrap up. I'm going to miss all this when it's over. xo
Maybe big and small brands will now create a seat at the table "during" the development of product instead of "after" that product is ready to be marketed.
How many of us in the marketing world end up having to revamp the look and feel of what is to be marketed and sold to the public because we as marketers know deep down what was created by the product maker is all wrong?
There's nothing wrong with engaging your marketing agencies on the front end. Quite frankly it can save a brand a significant amount of money in development.
I'll push back on the idea that giving patient access to their EMR data will cause "demanding patient syndrome." That myth was powerfully debunked in the premiere issue of JAMA-Oncology (link to the JAMA editorial, which included study references: http://oncology.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2108844), and the OpenNotes project led by Dr. Tom DelBanco at Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston puts paid to the idea that patients can't participate fully via their clinical team's EMR/EHR tech (report from EHR Intelligence: https://ehrintelligence.com/2015/02/26/opennotes-pilots-show-value-of-patients-annotating-ehrs/).
GIMME. MY. DAMN. DATA. is the rallying cry on the patient side of healthcare transformation, technology division. Go search for tweets with #gmdd in 'em, follow real-time/real-world discussion of this issue from all points of the heathcare system compass.
Ed, do you think a la carte would work if there was a base 'service provision fee' (say $10 a month to cover the cable cost, admin etc.) then a 'per channel' fee? We have a base fee of around $25 and you get 45 broad channels (plus free re-transmission of the free-to-air channels ... with their ads intact). You can then add on 'bundles'. 9 movie channels for $20 per month. 6 drama channels for $20 per month. 9 sports channels for $25 per month. 6 kids channels for $10 a month. 6 documentary channels for $10 a month. 6 general entertainment for $10 per month. That is, the add-ons are around $1.67 to $3.88 per month but still have to be purchased in bundles and not as individual channels. And not surprisingly, it works out cheaper per channel if you buy the lot (but definitely not cheap).
I don't know why Univision has not picked up the gauntlet through its Fusion channel.