Google has moved to secure product-design capabilities for its research X Lab by acquiring Gecko Design to focus on hardware projects. The news, announced late Friday on Gecko's Web site, adds design talent. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Gecko starts with developing consumer electronics, working with engineers early in the process -- but extends through supply chain management, which means moving the raw materials into manufacturing, to finished goods. The company is based in Los Gatos, Calif. Gecko, founded by Jacques Gagne in 1996, focuses on consumer product development, working with industrial design firms like Fuseproject, frogdesign, and Newdeal Design. Clients like FitBit, a hardware design company that automatically monitors fitness and sleep; Hewlett-Packard home and business, Logitech, and Slingmedia. The company's engineers also worked with Warner Bros on touchscreen monitor components in the futuristic product placement for Dell computers in Spielberg's production of "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" in 2000. The company's "intimate" familiarity of design for prototype and manufacturing puts Google in an interesting position when it comes to hardware, testing and manufacturing. Google will need supply chain expertise to procure raw materials and a manufacturing faculty or contract with manufacturers like Solectron and Celestica once it begins to build, test and produce hardware. The knowledge and expertise in engineering will help the company expand all its hardware ventures, from satellites to Google Glass to self-driving cars and beyond. With Gecko now under its wing, Google also could explore semiconductor manufacturing.
The good news is that awareness and interest in the digital ad industry’s so-called “rising star” advertising formats has grown appreciably in the past year -- for desktop. The bad news is that mobile versions are barely on the radar screen with most ad executives. The findings, which come from the second in a series of annual surveys of ad execs and publishers conducted by Undertone, come a year after its benchmark study found relatively low awareness for the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s desktop rising star ad formats. A year later, that awareness has improved dramatically, rising from only 31% of advertisers polled in 2013 to 60% in 2014. The percentage of ad agency execs who said they were aware of the desktop units grew from 69% in 2013 to 84% in 2014, who cited “pushdowns” and “billboards” as their two top formats (92% and 88%, respectively). The new findings, which polled 100 advertiser, 731 agency and 94 publisher executives in March and April, indicate much lower awareness and acceptance of the mobile ad formats. Less than 40% of the agency respondents said they were aware of mobile rising star ad formats. Undertone did not release findings on the awareness of advertisers of mobile rising star units, but Undertone Co-Founder Eric Franchi attributed the slow uptake of ad execs to mobile ad formats to a lag effect. “If we see the next year play out like 2013 did with awareness and usage, mobile rising stars should see a lot of growth come next year,” he predicts.
Growing TV-media measurement company Rentrak continues to add millions of TV set-top boxes it can access -- double its levels of three years ago. By the end of 2014, Rentrak will glean data from 26 million set top box homes, helped to these higher levels through deals made with pay TV providers DirecTV and Cox. This is up from the level of 13 million set-top boxes that Rentrak had in 2011. Bill Livek, vice chairman/chief executive officer of Rentrak, told Media Daily News the move to higher set-top-box totals has been gradual. “It takes time to integrate the homes, build the projections, and do impact analyses.” He adds that Rentrak will now report on nearly 300 networks and over 1,650 TV stations. Livek would not disclose specific set-top-box additions from DirecTV and Cox systems. But he says that now having over 60 million TV sets (from 26 million set-top-box homes) gives Rentrak a stronger ability to integrate into an advertisers’ particular audience needs. “TV targeting continues to be transformed from a generic age/sex approach to meeting client’s specific needs,” he says. Rentrak gets TV viewing data from set-top boxes on a second by second basis. While Nielsen continues to be the national currency for many TV networks and markets, Rentrak continues to grow on the local level among TV station and TV advertising executives -- especially when it combines the granularity of viewing data with product-purchase data. This June, Rentrak, which is already making headway into many local TV station agreements, had a big signing in getting major TV station group -- the Fox Television Stations -- as a client. Earlier this year, CBS Television Network signed on with Rentrak for “advanced demographics” ratings as a form of TV advertising “currency.”
Global TV advertising spending will slightly improve this year versus a year ago -- but will continue to steadily rise over the next six years. TV advertising worldwide is expected to grow 4% this year, up from 2.2% in 2013. By 2020, it will climb to $236 billion -- 38% higher than in 2013, according to a new report by Digital TV Research. But not all countries will thrive in the coming years. “Devaluation is a factor in some markets, such as Venezuela,” says Simon Murray, author of the TV Advertising Forecasts report. “In addition, internal conflicts in countries such as Israel, Thailand and the Ukraine have damaged the advertising industry.” Western Europe is still also under some economic stress and rise modestly this year 2.7% -- this after declining TV spending in past two years. Still, the study says Western Europe will see an overall 26% hike by 2020 versus 2010. On the positive side, TV advertising spending will double in broader regions overall -- Latin America as well as the Middle East and Africa between 2010 and 2020. The U.S. will remain the global TV advertising market leader and will contribute the largest share of TV ad spending to be added in the next few years. Of $64.4 billion TV ad spend to be added between 2013 and 2020, $22.6 billion (35%) will come from the U.S., followed by an extra $7.9 billion from China, $3.7 billion from Brazil and $3.1 billion from Japan. Free-to-air TV advertising expenditure will increase by 34% between by 2020 from 2010 to $168 billion, with multichannel TV advertising expenditure nearly doubling to $67.5 billion between by 2020 from 2010.
Orion Holdings, part of IPG Mediabrands, has appointed Sally Preston President, North America of its media investment arm Orion Capital. Preston joins the firm from Time Inc., where she served as VP, Publisher of Real Simple. She will report to Patty Norway, Worldwide Chief Media Officer of Orion Holdings. Preston will be responsible for developing the company’s strategy, partnerships, investment activities and overall growth across the United States, Canada and Mexico. She will also work closely with the teams of IPG Mediabrands’ agencies (which include Initiative, UM and BPN) to strengthen Orion’s partnered solutions in markets served by those shops. Orion Capital is responsible for making investments in all types of media, including TV, Radio, Print, OOH and Digital. During her tenure at Time Inc., she led the business side of lifestyle brand Real Simple, including the print magazine, website, tablets, mobile, special issues, books and products. Prior to that, Preston served as EVP, Integrated Sales & Marketing for Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, where she piloted print, broadcast, radio and digital for all MSLO brands, including Martha Stewart Living, Everyday Food, Martha Stewart Weddings and Whole Living. Earlier, she held several positions at publications, including O, The Oprah Magazine, Organic, Style, Better Homes and Gardens, PEOPLE and TV Guide. “Sally demonstrates a remarkable understanding of a multi-brand business,” said Brian McMahon, CEO of Orion Holdings. “With her proven track record of growing renowned media brands and leading results-driven teams, we look forward to her immediate impact on our clients’ business.”
On the eve of NBC's Monday night telecast of the 66th Primetime Emmy Awards, MediaPost television critic Ed Martin handicaps how the TV industry will recognize the best of its best in drama, comedy and long-form movies and miniseries programming. In the new golden age of television, Ed's picks are pure bullion. Will the academy agree?
The Emmys are television’s biggest night, and Samsung’s television division is looking to attract a little of its own attention on some decidedly smaller screen. The brand is using Monday night’s event to relaunch its SamsungTV Vine channel with Emmy-themed six-second videos highlighting the top nominated shows. (An image of a light bulb turning on, then growing piles of money, a competing second light bulb turning on, money disappearing, the first bulb growing brighter, and the money reappearing represents HBO’s “Silicon Valley,” for instance.) “We’re the number one television brand, and this is a chance to follow through on our promise to deliver an immersive TV experience,” Peggy Ang, vice president of marketing communications for Samsung Electronics America, tells Marketing Daily. “We’re just going to have fun, and we’re going to connect [with fans] not just with words, but with pictures and video.” The company has used its SamsungTV Vine account only sporadically, Ang says. Using the Emmys as a chance to relaunch the channel gives Samsung a chance to make a concerted effort to develop content that works with its brief, snackable nature. “Vine [has] an ability to show videos that are meant to be more of a fun nature — entertainment, as opposed to documentary-style,” Ang says. The company is looking to turn the Emmys into a “360 experience” by rewarding fans rooting for shows via social media with special prizes. While some of the rewards will be digital, in New York and Los Angeles street teams will be paying surprise visits on fans with prizes related to the shows they’re rooting for (such as a shield or sword for "Game of Thrones" fans). Determining the winners (two of whom will win a curved ultra-high-definition televisions) will be based on fan enthusiasm during the broadcast, Ang says. “We’ll be responding to them as they respond to us, and we’re going to engage with them,” she says. Though the Emmys are a one-night-only, annual event, the company is hoping to turn the short entertainment videos and connection with active social media fans into an ongoing program. “What we’d like to see is to make this a day-in, day-out experience for us,” Ang says. “This is not a one-time, one-night event, but rather something throughout the year to surprise our fans.”
Vine’s announcement this week allowing users to upload existing videos should make it easier for people to capture and edit videos. The step is also likely to please brands that will now be able to use Vine for more premium content, according to digital agency 360i. In a blog post Friday, the agency pointed out that up to now individuals and brands alike had to shoot Vine content live, making it difficult to utilize more advanced editing techniques. But along with the ability to upload previously recorded video, Vine has added a suite of elaborate video capture and editing tools. These include features like a grid view, focus lock, and mute functionality, among others. “This update opens the door to Vines with higher production quality, which means a potential shift in the visual ID of Vine content overall. That said, brands should be mindful of what the community is already familiar with and not use this feature to post videos that are irrelevant to the platform,” stated the post by 360i’s Katya Kotiyar and Fitz Maro. In short, that means don’t fall into make the mistake of using Vine as a dumping ground for re-purposed content. Given that Vine videos are only up to six seconds long, that means it won’t be as simple as converting a 15-second TV spot into a pre-roll ad. But the temptation will certainly be there to retrofit existing material to fit Vine’s parameters. “Brands will be wise to acknowledge the history of the community and stay true to what the platform stands for to maximize the value of this new video uploading feature,” advised 360i. In particular, the upload capability means videos can be produced using more sophisticated equipment before going up on Vine. It also lets marketers to plan production in advance, eliminating worries like the app crashing mid-shoot. That kind of advanced planning and production, however, raises the question of whether the rough, spontaneous quality that initially gave Vine videos their charm will be lost to slickly-produced spots. And how much more will marketers be willing top spend creating original Vines? One thing that may provide added incentive is the size of the audience for Vine videos. The Twitter unit said in more than 100 people watch Vine videos across the Web, citing Google Analytics data.
In anticipation of an increasingly fragmented social landscape, marketers are spending more time trying to figure out networks not named Facebook or Twitter. That was certainly the case at MediaPost’s Social Media Insider Summit on Friday, where attendees shared their insights into Instagram, Pinterest, Snapchat and other still-niche platforms. Instagram and Pinterest are both highly visual and open platforms, social experts agreed on Friday. Compared to Facebook and Twitter -- where users are prone to moaning and mouthing off -- Instagram and Pinterest are also “very, very happy networks,” in the words of Sharad Verma, co-founder and CEO of social analytics startup Piqora. That creates a friendlier environment for most brands, he said. Yet at least from a marketing standpoint, the similarities end there, Verma and his peers suggested. For one, audiences on Pinterest skew older and far more female, noted Aliza Freud, founder and CEO of female-focused content network SheSpeaks. Pinterest is also much more like a product and design “wish list” for users. Put another way, Instagram is at the top of the classic purchase funnel, while Pinterest is right near the bottom, she said. Also, the shelf life for content posted to Pinterest is much longer, said Verma. For example, Pinsters commonly buy products that others have pinned many months in the past. As such, the content that brands are creating for Pinterest should be targeted for an “active evaluation type consumer,” while Instagram is for “love letters back to [brand] loyalists,” said Zach Baze, SVP of strategy, insight and content at digital marketing agency IMM. Failures can equal success for a marketing industry trying to make sense of newer social platforms, said Dave Rolfe, director of integrated production at BBDO. “If we rotate failure, that’s the liberating [model]," he said on Friday. That’s not to say Rolfe isn’t “mortified” by Snapchat and similarly untested networks, he admitted. "If you use Snapchat, you're going to fail." In return, however, brands can improve their social approaches -- and possibly discover their voices and what they want to say with them, Rolfe added. Unfortunately for beleaguered brands, the social ecosystem is only growing more complex. Among other big changes, Jason Mitchell, cofounder of social agency Movement Strategy, said further fragmentation is inevitable. “The big social network is not as cool anymore,” he said. While some have suggested that anonymous social networking is a fad, Carmen Sutter, product manager at Adobe Social, disagrees. Across the social space, Facebook still controls time spent, but Snapchat is growing fast, according to a recent JPMorgan research note, citing comScore data. In July, Facebook accounted for 18% of overall Internet time, and 20% of mobile time. Albeit from a smaller base, Snapchat’s total minutes more than doubled (up 114%) in July, year-over-year.
As the American population ages, more marketers are targeting seniors with a whole range of products and services, but many are way off base when it comes to presenting images their audience can identify with. That’s according to a recent survey of 400 consumers ages 70 and over by GlynnDevins, which specializes in marketing to older age groups. Overall, the seniors surveyed gave very low marks to the way ads portray people in their age group, with 60% saying ads targeting seniors are dominated by stereotypes, versus 31% who feel seniors are depicted realistically, and 37% who say they can identify with the subjects. Furthermore, a number of key categories scored even lower, with just 8% of respondents saying they agreed with the portrayal of seniors in pharmaceutical ads, while 15% said the same for seniors in financial services ads, and 20% approved of portrayals in senior living communities. Asked what they objected to in these portrayals, most the survey respondents said images of seniors in ads skewed unrealistically positive or negative. In the “too good to be true” category included depictions showing seniors who are too active, too rich, too well dressed, too perky and too attractive. On the negative side, they also singled out images of seniors as sick, feeble and out of touch. A mere 47% said they felt that seniors are portrayed “as people to be respected.” It probably doesn’t help that most find ads targeting them uninformative, with just 31% finding value in ads for senior living and financial services, and 29% for ads pharmaceuticals. Advertisers are falling short, with just 20% of seniors surveyed saying they “like” most of the senior living ads, dropping to 13% for financial services ads, and 9% for pharmaceutical ads. Perhaps unsurprisingly 67% said they actively disliked pharmaceutical ads, while large proportions merely expressed indifference to the first two categories. Asked how ads targeting seniors can connect with them, 90% of respondents said humor is a good way to deliver marketing messages -- but once again only 10% said they found senior living ads entertaining, falling to 10% for financial services ads and just 6% for pharmaceuticals.
Have you heard of the new family of publications called Emit? It’s a sign of the times, really -- a company that has discarded tired old publishing principles in order to compete, and thrive, in the chaotic digital marketplace. Emit has a news-analysis title, a sports title, a celebrity/personality title, an entertainment title, a travel title, a cooking title, several fashion/beauty titles, several business titles….you name it. Pick a category of human activity and they have a vertical to match. In many ways, it’s like the traditional magazine publishers of yore, with one distinct difference: Emit does not impose a separation between, in the mocking words of its CEO Joi Perp, “church and state, whatever that was.” Who can remember? Something to do with keeping editorial operations segregated from the salespeople. At Emit, such compartmentalization is a relic of an increasingly remote past, when b) nobody could actually measure the popularity of any given article or any given author to the audience, and more significantly a), when advertising rates generated so much money everybody could afford editorial purity. Ethics are so twentieth century. This is now. Newspapers and magazines are gasping for life; who can afford the luxury of standing on principle? As such, in deciding who gets to work at Emit, one of seven key performance indicators is the ability to create content “beneficial to advertiser relationship.” The business plan is evolving, but stay tuned for new value-added programs, such as sharing personal and behavioral data of subscribers and fondling the genitalia of advertisers 24/7 on demand. “Wait!” you say. “Bob, you big josher…you’re making that up! What you describe is outrageous!” Haha! You got me. I am joking. There is no such CEO as Joi Perp and no such magazine company as Emit! How could there be? There is only CEO Joe Ripp and the magazine company called Time -- where, yes, the big boss actually claimed “church and state” was a mystifying concept, and as Gawker revealed last week, one of the employment KPIs actually is the creation of content “beneficial to advertiser relationship.” God help us all. Perhaps you recall, back in November, when Ripp announced that Time Inc. editors would no longer report to a central Time editorial executive but rather to the publishers of their respective titles, and that the editors were “excited about it.” He might not have been lying. I was once kidnapped at gunpoint; it was pretty exciting, as near death experiences tend to be. Nonetheless, the announcement ignited an uproar, which elicited this assurance from a Time Inc. spokesperson: "Our editors will have full responsibility for their own content. Nothing there changes." Perhaps you also recall how in this space yours truly translated that assertion: “’Everything changes.’ Editors, by virtue of their new bosses, will be obliged to show new revenue, which is a path to perdition.” Well, as Gawker demonstrated with an employee-ranking spreadsheet leaked by the Newspaper Guild, the union representing Time Inc. journalists, perdition has already arrived. In deciding which SportsIllustrated.com writers to dismiss in the company’s latest wave of mass layoffs, the category “beneficial to advertiser relationship” weighted equally with such performance indicators as “quality of writing” and “impact of stories/newsworthiness.” This was a smoking gun if ever there was one, and you can tell a lot about an organization based on its reaction when confronted with damning evidence of bad behavior. Enter Time’s content chief, Norman Pearlstine, who told New York Magazine’s Gabriel Sherman that the accusation was “bullshit.” “In a dot-com world, if you’re judging people on audience traffic, one of the qualities of those things is, are you creating traffic for advertisers that you can monetize? That’s what this question was about. Can you monetize this traffic? That’s a legitimate question.” That is, indeed, a legitimate question -- and many news organizations are exploring ways to exploit technology to broaden reach and give audiences more of what they are seeking without sacrificing the editorial judgment -- or as they call it now, curation -- that makes the publication valued and distinctive to begin with. Margaret Sullivan’s public-editor column in The New York Times on Sunday discussed a new Times hire meant to accomplish that very thing. But Pearlstine’s dismissal of the Newspaper Guild and Gawker was baloney. On the very same spreadsheet was the very KPI he referred to: “Audience/traffic.” The indicator in dispute "Produces content that [sic] beneficial to advertiser relationship,” was a separate category altogether. If Pearlstine is right (and he isn’t) then SportsIllustrated.com employees are being measured on the audience/traffic metric twice. So who’s bullshitting now? It’s hard to know what to feel worse about: the moral abdication or the accompanying craven rationalizations and double talk. By the way, on that subject, if Joe Ripp is really so baffled about “church and state” (and he isn’t) I can clear it up right now. It was the wall built between the sales side and the editorial side to keep publications from whoring out their sacred editorial product to make money. It isn’t that mysterious, really It’s been in all the papers. Plus, it was invented by Time Inc.