In a surprise development sure to make Bacardi incumbent media shop Universal McCann feel a little uneasy, the spirits marketer Tuesday assigned its newest brand to a dark horse media agency. And while that agency--KSL Media--was the incumbent for that brand, Grey Goose vodka, the fact that Barcardi retained KSL following its acquisition of Grey Goose, speaks volumes in an era in which consolidation has become the norm. Bacardi purchased Grey Goose in July for $2 billion, and conducted a brief internal review of its $15 million media services account two weeks ago, opting to keep the business with KSL over Universal. The account includes media strategy, planning, and buying for print, TV, online, and alternative media, as well as so-called "special media partnership development." It was finally the last element of that assignment that played so heavily in Bacardi's decision to keep KSL. The agency has specialized in developing the kind of branded content relationships that are all the rage on Madison Avenue these days, including "The Grey Goose 19th Hole," a half-hour talk show airing on The Golf Channel. The agency has developed a similar franchise with Conde Nast Publications dubbed "Taste Makers," featuring editorial content on vodka drinks, which is scheduled to break soon. That KSL would win such an assignment on the basis of strategy and creative media executions might come as a surprise to some outsiders, given the agency's reputation as one of the last true independent media buying services, but the win says as much about the direction KSL is moving in as it does about the media services business overall. "Grey Goose is a pioneering brand that needs an entrepreneurial approach to advertising and media," stated Monsell Darville, group marketing director at Bacardi, calling KSL an "integral part" of the vodka brand's success. The assignment is the third in a row for KSL, which was tapped by Fuse Networks in June and Callaway Golf only a few weeks ago.
The summer of scandal in the newspaper circulation business has left advertisers and agencies worried about what could possibly be next. Most say they are placing increased scrutiny on audience statements and newspaper ad budgets, though they believe the power of the medium will protect it from any immediate advertiser backlash. Last week's decision by Belo, the owner of the Dallas Morning News, to pay $23 million in compensation fees to advertisers after acknowledging circulation errors was the latest in a series of high-profile blemishes on the newspaper industry's credibility. Earlier this summer, the Tribune Company's Newsday, Hoy, and the Chicago Sun-Times were censured by the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) for particularly deplorable circulation practices. Many wonder whether more announcements are around the corner. "The real question is, for the industry, 'Is this the tip of an iceberg or an ice cube?'" said Scott Harding, chairman and CEO of Newspaper Services of America and a member of the ABC board. "We are all just waiting with baited breath," said George Janson, managing partner and director of print for Mediaedge:cia. "Just when it seemed like it was over." Harding recognizes the possibility of more bad news. "There has been tremendous pressure on circulation managers to maintain growth," he said. "As we've seen, people under that sort of pressure sometimes do things they would not normally do." He added "Do I think it's systemic? No. Would it shock me if there were others? No." However, despite the looming fear of more discrepancies, it appears that newspapers are not yet paying a price in terms of ad dollars. Last week, the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) reported that total newspaper ad expenditures rose 4.1 percent for the second quarter of 2004. In recent weeks, most major newspaper companies, including the beleaguered Tribune Company, have reported modest ad revenue growth for 2004. "I don't think it has affected people buying newspapers or not [buying newspapers]," said Steve Lanzano, executive vice president and general manager at MPG. Harding explained that newspapers are all too important for local advertisers, who are faced with few worthy alternatives. "For many categories of retail, it is their core medium," he said. "One thing about retail, when the cash register rings the next day..." Janson said that if anyone was going to hold back spending, it might be national advertisers. In any case, nearly everyone agrees the reputation of the medium has been severely damaged. "What's scary is the criminal nature [of the misstatements]," said Janson. "It goes beyond accounting errors. It takes time to rebuild that trust." "It has tarnished the industry," agreed Lanzano. "It leaves something in the back of your head. Circulation is the currency in the industry." John P. Murray, vice president of circulation marketing for the Newspaper Association of America, said that most papers have acted quickly to stave off potential problems and remedy advertisers' concerns. "The majority of newspaper companies are going through some type of self examination," he said. "It has caused papers to say to themselves, 'How are we doing, could we get surprised?'" To avoid such surprises, Murray said that more auditors are going out into the field to meet with local publications and that most newspapers have put together a list of best practices and potential red flags. "They want to be able to say to advertisers, 'Hey, we did an independent look and we feel pretty good about it.'" Murray contended that the current climate is not entirely negative. "I don't think people are waiting for another shoe to drop," he said. "You might see some small adjustments come audit time. Not in the category of deception, but in lack of follow-through or flawed execution." Yet if a particularly scurrilous misstatement were to emerge, most believe it would have major ramifications for the industry.
Further capitalizing on the week of September 20, Advertising Week in New York City launched digital "trading cards" yesterday, featuring the 52 finalists from the online vote for America's Favorite Ad Icons and Slogans. The winners will be announced at the unveiling of the Madison Avenue Advertising Walk of Fame on Monday, September 20, the opening day of Advertising Week. The free digital trading cards consist of 26 ad icons (ranging from the Trix Rabbit, Smokey Bear, Tony the Tiger, and Mr. Peanut to the Coppertone Girl) and 26 ad slogans, including "A mind is a terrible thing to waste," "It takes a lickin', but it keeps on tickin'," Reach out and touch someone," "Where's the beef?," and "Time to Make the Doughnuts." Users can register online for free to collect and trade the digital cards. Upon registering, you have automatic viewing access to two cards. Users can "buy" cards via credits accumulated by correctly answering questions about America's favorite brand names, inviting friends to join, or by visiting sponsor Web sites. "Trades" can be made among registered users by offering duplicate cards in exchange for another card. Think of it as Fantasy Baseball for the ad industry.
The fourth and final part of this series begins with the primary lesson learned from the accelerating migration of branded messages out of the commercial rotation and into the programs themselves in the form of product placement, nowhere more obvious than in the rapid proliferation of reality programming. This migration -- part of a greater movement away from the traditional commercial advertising model -- illustrates one of the more brilliant and enduring falsehoods perpetuated by the advertising and marketing community: the myth of ad-supported programming. There is no ad-supported programming. Never has been. The ads were never there to support the programs. Indeed, the proliferation of reality TV finally reveals what has always been the case: The programs are there to support the ads. Advertisers don't buy programs; they buy positions. The only things I, as an advertiser, want to know about any proposed media buy is how those positions will contribute to the delivery of my message, and how much the exchange will cost me. In other words: What the hell are all these programs doing between my ads? But by reversing the truth, by claiming that their program-supported advertising is in fact advertising-supported programming, advertisers can then claim credit as the ones responsible for bringing us our daily fix - when in fact we already pay through the nose for it, with or without them. The neighborhood drug dealer thus becomes our best buddy in the exchange. Besides, it's not as if we're addicted to specific programs. We're not; we're addicted to the media. We don't watch less TV when our favorite programs get cancelled any more than we consume fewer drugs because our favorite neighborhood dealer gets pinched. We just find new programs and new dealers to service our habits. The implied logic behind the ad-supported programming suggests that fewer ads will somehow result in less programming, and that less programming will result in less media consumption. But that logic is built on a false economy. Just ask anyone who owns a DVR. They watch fewer ads but more programs. The result: more media consumption, not less. The Internet is another case in point: What started out as a legacy-branded advertising model has evolved over the past decade to include many different performance and transaction-based revenue alternatives as the era of the dominant commercial advertising model winds down. The result: more media consumption, not less. As marketing and advertising professionals we have fallen prey to our own mythologies. As a result, we see only deprivation in the midst of plenty. We mourn the loss of a media audience that only continues to grow, and deceive ourselves into thinking that the only way we can stem the loss is to deceive others, steal their business, or prey on those too young or too old to defend themselves. In so doing we find ourselves defending even the most unsavory practices by cloaking ourselves like scoundrels in the Bill of Rights, and respond to angry consumers with the measured suggestion that they simply learn how to say "no." Change the channel, we advise with cavalier abandon. Yet we are wholly incapable of following our own counsel, or taking our own medicine. We no longer believe in the power of what we do, so there is little reason to believe that what we do or how we do it changes lives. Over the next several weeks I will begin to propose specific ways to be more mindful of what we do and the power we yield. Meanwhile, let me know what works for you. Many thanks as always for your gracious time, dear reader. Best to you and yours... Please note: The Einstein's Corner discussion group at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/einsteinscorner/ is dedicated to exploring the adverse effects of our addictions to technology and media on the quality of our lives, both at work and at home. Please feel free to drop by and join the discussion.