Getting more bang for your digital video ad has less to do with its length than the video content where it runs. A new study by digital video ad sales rights/ad server company FreeWheel pegs completion rates of video ads in content 20 minutes or longer -- typically in premium TV shows -- at 81%. Shorter, professionally produced videos -- 5 minutes to 20 minutes long -- only get a 62% completion rate. "Length of video content is a more significant factor of completion rates than length of the advertising," says the report. The study says 58% of digital video ads are 15 seconds in length; 26% of digital video ads are 30 seconds long. Mid-roll video ads -- those that run mostly in long TV episodes -- have a 91% completion rates. Pre-roll ads -- still the most dominant in terms of all digital video ads -- have a 67% completion rate. Post-roll ads pull in a 50% number. Pre-roll ads comprise 87% of all video ads served by FreeWheel, with 12% coming from mid-roll ads and 1% from post-roll ads. FreeWheel processed 23 billion video views and and 13 billion video ad views in 2010. Mid-roll is a rapidly growing category; a year ago it had an 8% market share. Much of this growth comes from the growth of long video content, such as premium TV shows. FreeWheel -- whose clients include Fox, Discovery Communications, Turner Broadcasting, Univision, and CBS -- says that although ad volume has doubled during the last six months of 2010, completion rates have remained stable. This is a good sign, it says, meaning that consumers recognize the value of ad-supported TV shows and video.
They don't make ad industry seers the way they used to. Less than two years after Brian Wieser replaced Bob Coen as the top forecaster at Interpublic - and the ad industry's de facto chief bean counter - he is leaving to join early stage TV ad targeting technology company Simulmedia as CMO. His predecessor, Coen, had the job for 61 years, creating the role after the widow of McCann-Erickson Founder Alfred McCann funded a Harvard study defining advertising and endowed a position at the Interpublic precursor agency to begin tracking it. Elizabeth Herbst-Brady, president of Magna Global, the division of Interpublic's Mediabrands unit that now oversees the production and marketing of the holding company's forecasting reports, says she has a "short list" of candidates to replace Wieser, and hopes to have one in place when Wieser leaves next month for his new job marketing Simulmedia. Simulmedia, meanwhile, is about to "get serious" about making some noise in the ad industry, and Wieser's appointment is part of founder Dave Morgan's ramp up. Morgan, a regular contributor to MediaPost's "Online Spin Board," was a pioneer in the field of online behavioral targeting, founded one of the most successful companies in that field, Tacoda, and sold it to AOL for millions. Morgan has been relatively modest about his plans for Simulmedia, initially positioning it as a company that would simply help TV programmers figure out a better way of running their "on-air" promo spots to make sure they reach viewers most likely to watch upcoming shows based on their past viewing preferences. But people who are familiar with Morgan's long-term game plan say he is as ambitious about transforming the way TV advertising is bought and sold, as he was about shaking up the way the online display advertising marketplace worked. The shakeup, ironically, occurs as acute focus has been put on all forms of consumer behavioral tracking, especially the online display advertising marketplace, which has embedded the concept into many of the systems advertisers use to target their messages to consumers, and the ad industry has been rallying forces to lobby against proposed legislation to create a "Do No Track" law that some believe could be a death knell for behavioral tracking online, and TV and other media that have the kind of return path data that could be used to target them based on their consumption behavior. That likely is one of the reasons Morgan has been so mum to date, but following his presentations over the past couple of years at industry conferences and insider gatherings like MPG's "Collaborative Alliance" meetings, you could see his message shift from a simple TV promo targeting tool to a more effective way of targeting all of the $80 billion TV advertising marketplace. In fact, Morgan doesn't like to call the practice "behavioral targeting" on TV, most likely because of the emotions regulators, legislators and consumer privacy groups have against the term, but instead calls it an advanced form of "TV targeting." Simulmedia is far from alone in that burgeoning marketplace. In fact, Morgan recently created a complicated flow chart illustrating dozens of different companies and organizations - ranging from early stage ones like Simulmedia to more established players such as Google and Microsoft - as comprising a new marketplace he dubs the "Targeted TV Advertising Technology Landscape." The chart is an allusion to a similar, albeit even more complex flowchart that Wall Street's Terrance Kawaja created over the past several years to illustrate the growing complexity of the online display advertising technology marketplace. Kawaja's online industry chart contains hundreds of players , mostly middlemen who help enhance data surrounding an online consumer's behavior and thus make targeting them more precise. During a panel discussion at MediaPost's OMMA Global conference last September, Interpublic's Wieser joked to Kawaja that he had a similar chart that he's been tracking, and added, "Mine is bigger than yours." No doubt. Wieser is an inspired choice to lead Simulmedia's marketing efforts. He has no direct background in sales and marketing, though he has worked on Madison Avenue for years, and before that was a Wall Street securities analyst. But he is among the brightest and most inquisitive minds in the industry, and loves to engage in philosophical debates about the nature and meaning of advertising and media. During a one-day "sojourn" to help him understand, define, and ultimately figure out a way to categorize "social media" in Interpublic's official forecasting estimates, Wieser spent a day running from meetings with experts to experts, spouting famous quotes from Marshall McLuhan to a reporter who tagged along for the ride. At the end of the one-day sojourn, Wieser concluded that social media was not a form of advertising, and therefore should not be included in the ad industry's official estimates, much to the chagrin of hundreds, if not thousands of players, in that burgeoning marketplace. Asked recently, Wieser said he maintains that his view that social media is not a form of advertising, even though the practice seems to be transforming Madison Avenue once again. But Wieser has been a transformer of his own kind, and when he took over the job as Interpublic's chief forecaster two years ago, literally reinvented how the big agency holding company, its clients, and the media who source it, look at the world of advertising. He developed an intricate model that aggregated ad spending estimates based on actual revenues to the media, vs. Madison Avenue's standard approach of counting up the billings from the major agencies and marketers. Wieser maintained that it was a more accurate perspective, but it led to problems comparing Interpublic's numbers with the rest of the industry, including big forecasting counterparts at WPP Group, Publicis and other agency holding companies that would like to become the industry's de facto source instead of Interpublic. Interpublic's Herbst-Brady said the agency would continue to utilize the methodology developed by Wieser and considers it its unique intellectual property and a competitive advantage in the marketplace. In an email sent to friends and colleagues early this morning, after Simulmedia released news about hiring him, Wieser wrote, "Simulmedia will be a critical component sustaining long-term growth of the industry for all of its participants, generating enhanced value for advertisers, their agencies and TV networks alike." As they say in the TV business, stay tuned.
Hollywood -- The new vision of AOL as a marketing partner for television programmers isn't just bringing content to the Internet company's array of entertainment destinations. Speaking at Variety's 2011 TV Summit here, Kerry Trainor, senior vice president of entertainment for AOL, who heads all entertainment platforms, says key in inking television marketing partnerships is "how do we build custom distribution systems." Trainor says it's not only about AOL's big home page -- which pulls in 15 million users a day -- or just its network of entertainment sites. Efforts will also focus "off our networks, like with social. It's really that type of partnership that is going to define success." The challenge for TV marketers in the digital arena, says Trainor, is "how do you break out of the world of the tiny destination sites?" This includes expanding into the big footprints of Twitter and Facebook, as well as pushing content in other contextual areas, "even pedestrian areas like emails." Trainor says AOL will continue to be a complementary product to television. "It's not a pure placement for TV program at the moment. We are about a deepening relationship people have with television." Debbie Menin, head of entertainment marketing at AOL, said while the Internet is vast and growing, consumers are targeted about their wants and needs. She said 70% of consumers have just 20 sites in their core Internet mix. About 16% of the average Internet consumers are trying new sites. A typical path for a consumer in experimentation starts with 'reach,' which is the discovery phase. Then comes the trial stage. How easily sites are navigated. How personal it is. Finally comes "stickiness." Is the site credible and trusted? Does it have a quality narrative? Does it command loyalty?
TruTV promoted Robyn Hutt to senior vice president of original programming and Anthony Horn to senior vice president of current series and specials.
Adam Sanderson, current senior vice president, brand marketing, Disney Channels Worldwide, has been named to the new position of senior vice president, franchise management, Disney/ABC Television Group.
Basketball icon Karem Abdul-Jabbar makes a cameo appearance in a Priceline TV spot that started airing Feb. 14. William Shatner, an icon himself, stars in the spots for his 13th year. Actress Naomi Pryce co-stars this year as his sidekick. Abdul-Jabbar is best known as the NBA's all-time leading scorer. Abdul-Jabbar's appearance in the TV spot, created by Butler, Shine, Stern & Partners, was serendipitous. "We were shooting the spot in Los Angeles and the agency had connections," Priceline spokesperson Brian Ek tells Marketing Daily. "That specific ad was a spoof on Shatner and Naomi Pryce using different disguises as part of their negotiations. Having little Naomi disguise herself as Kareem, we thought was pretty funny." The online discount travel service's demographic hasn't changed, Ek says. "It's still leisure travelers who want to save the most money possible on their travel," he says. "What has changed, though, is the spectrum of consumers that fit the demographic, since it's getting broader." When Priceline launched in 1999, the target audience was "early adopters" on the Internet. "Now, the wired population includes seniors, families, retirees, professionals," Ek says. "They're not afraid to buy things online. And, with this economy, they want a deal." Shatner is an even better fit for the brand today because, with all his recent TV work, the actor has reintroduced himself to a younger generation and is recognized by young and old, Ek adds. TV buffs know Shatner for his work in series like "$#*! My Dad Says," "Raw Nerve," "Boston Legal" and "Star Trek." In the Priceline spots, he plays The Priceline Negotiator -- a shrewd, hard-bargaining professional negotiator who will stop at nothing to obtain the best travel deals and maximum savings for Priceline customers. The new campaign takes place in the inner sanctum of Priceline's CIA-like "Department of Negotiation", where Shatner, Naomi Pryce and Big Deal show how Priceline gets its Name Your Own Price hotel rooms at discounts of up to 60% off published rates. The spots will air on national broadcast and cable outlets. Abdul-Jabbar is no stranger to marketing. As of late, he has been appearing in ads for Skechers USA as part of the shoe brand's "Comeback" campaign. The former basketball player also has partnered with Novartis Oncology to raise awareness about Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia, a deadly type of blood cancer he was diagnosed with in December 2008.
Can you imagine consumer product shopping while combing through your TV's program guide? Rovi Corporation, the big electronic program guide company, and Delivery Agent, a longtime seller of TV related merchandise, have just made a deal where consumers can use their remotes to buy products when using their program guides. Messaging -- a lower screen banner -- for DVDs, TV-related clothing, or other products associated with a TV show will appear when consumers are reading/choosing their TV shows. Viewers are then taken to another area for shopping. "We are calling this a storefront -- being able to [buy products] from your couch," says Jeff Siegel, senior vice president of global media sales for Rovi. "The program guide is an ideal footprint for this." The deal will start with NBC's "Biggest Loser," a major merchandising TV show featuring all kinds of nutrition and fitness products, as well as NBC's "The Office." A&E Network's History channel will offer up shopping connected to "Pawn Stars." Pooling together Rovi data on TV programs and TV-related merchandise information from Delivery Agent allows this process to work. Delivery Agent says it already works with 35 programmers and networks, representing about 75% of the top 30 Nielsen prime-time shows -- 425 shows in all. Right now, Siegel says that 87% of Rovi viewers access the guide during a week, an average of nine times a day. The average time spent with the guide is 13 minutes. Delivery Agent says one of its biggest sellers last year was some synthetic blood sold for HBO's series "True Blood." Most of Delivery Agent's shopping efforts are connected with TV programs' Web sites. "We can now get that much closer to the consumer interacting with the content," says Mike Fitzsimmons, chief executive officer of Delivery Agent. Siegel believes adding a digital commerce piece for TV marketers will drive efficiency. "It's an easy extension," he says, helping move direct-response marketers to another level.
Comedian and actor Kevin Hart stars in a new Ford campaign touting the 2011 Ford Explorer. The TV, print, radio and push will break on BET's The Game. A 60-second version of the ad broke during the 2011 NBA All-Star Game on TNT. Shawn Lollie, Ford manager of multicultural marketing, says the effort is designed to extend the non-traditional focus of the Explorer campaign. The vehicle launched last year with a stunt in New York's Herald Square, where the car was unveiled, and via Facebook. Recent TV spots for the vehicle are meant to appeal to an active-lifestyle consumer with a rough, amateur-video style and a "Go.Do." theme. The company just launched a general-market extension of the campaign, called "Go. Do. Adventure." in which consumers compete for chance to have their dream adventure by suggesting on the Explorer Facebook site what that adventure would entail. "Ford has been using unique ways to talk to consumers. We wanted to create a campaign that would follow this same strategy while also adding an unexpected twist of comedy," said Lollie. The urban effort, via the UniWorld Group, Ford's African American AOR, centers on an ad showing Hart arriving very late for his brother's wedding in a 2011 Ford Explorer. As he speeds into the wedding he creates a disturbance where the Explorer steals the spotlight from the bride and groom. During the spot, Hart highlights the Terrain Management System in the SUV and how he traveled through sand, mud and water to arrive at the wedding. He also shows off Explorer's seven-passenger seating capacity by packing the entire rear of the vehicle with wedding gifts -- all while cheering on the "crazy" factor of the SUV. Digital elements will also be on FordUrban.com. Kevin Hart-voiced radio spots that will air on the Tom Joyner Morning Show, Steve Harvey Morning Show and on Radio One stations nationwide. The TV ads will appear on BET, TV One, NCC and TBS while the print ads will appear in Black Enterprise, Sister 2 Sister Magazine, Ebony, Essence, Jet, Upscale, Uptown and Rolling Out. "We are constantly looking for unique ways to introduce our product to our target consumer," said Lillie. "This campaign is a real testament to how you can creatively use comedy to appeal to your consumers while simultaneously introducing them to the unique features of a new product."
Setting the stage for it to expand beyond college sports, CBS said it would re-flag its cable sports outlet as CBS Sports Network. It had been CSTV when the company bought it. Three years ago, it became CBS College Sports Network. CBS recently brought in former ESPN executive David Berson, who has vast experience across sports programming, to run the network. That move created speculation that an expansion of the channel's scope was coming. The network is in 40 million homes, with the re-branding to happen in April as March Madness ends on CBS. The switch will have the network looking to "more closely align" with other CBS properties, such as Showtime's sports offerings, which include "Inside the NFL," "Inside NASCAR" and boxing, and Web site CBSSports.com. (It remains interesting whether Versus will take on an "NBC Sports" brand now that both are part of Comcast.) Last week, CBS said that Sean McManus, longtime head of its sports operations and former news chief, would become chairman of CBS Sports, signaling there may be an increased focus on the cable network. McManus stated that CBS Sports Network will allow the company to "create more programming opportunities and expand our viewer base." The network covers 15 men's and women's college sports and offers more than 250 live events a year. CBS bought CSTV in early 2006 and gave it the "CBS College Sports" moniker two years later.
Chevrolet, with its spending odometer clicking rapidly, will serve as one of four new sponsors on this week's "Latin Music Awards" broadcast on Univision. After a slew of Super Bowl spots, the GM brand joins L'Oréal, Old Navy and Walmart as new entrants behind the show. Meanwhile, in Spanish-language broadcasting, Telemundo said it has extended the contract of legendary soccer announcer Andres Cantor, famed for his "Goooooollllll!" call. He has been with the network for 10 years. Following his stints hosting Telemundo's coverage of the 2004 and 2008 Olympics, he is likely to reprise that role next summer in London. At Univision, another sign that auto-category spending remains strong is Honda returning at the "Latin Music Awards," along with Anheuser-Busch and T-Mobile. The telco giant will have a type of integration with Mexican star Cristian Castro plugging a new device while traversing the carpet. It is also the sponsor of the show's dedicated microsite. Thursday's show will have a red carpet pre-event. Univision said last year's broadcast drew 11.3 million viewers, while topping all but NBC for the night in the 18-to-34 demo. Univision ad sales head David Lawenda stated that the show, now in its 23rd year, offers an "opportunity for our partners to connect with the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population." Scheduled to appear are Ricky Martin, rock band Maná, singer/ songwriter Juanes and singer/actress Belinda. Performers include Pitbull and Lucero. Angélica Vale is the host along with Jaime Camil.
With the power of search engines and social media, it's possible to find any information you might want about a company or corporate structure -- but it can be time-consuming, and perhaps not up-to-date. Hoover's, the online repository of company information, is launching a new branding effort that showcases its value to its customers, particularly its ability to help them work smarter and be more successful in sales, marketing and the business of business. "Hoover's has always been about helping our customers do their jobs better," says James Rogers, vice president of marketing for Hoover's. "That's the promise that has always motivated our team -- whether we're publishing books, posting our data online, or feeding our information directly to mobile devices." The campaign, which launches this month with online and print advertisements, as well as commercials through GoogleTV -- communicates the brand promise by asking the simple question: "Where are you?" In one commercial, a girl calls her father at his office, asking that question. The father answers back that he's at the office preparing for a "sales call" and that he can't make her game. The same spot shows golfers calling their buddy, who's stuck at the office looking for leads. Hoover's, the commercial says, is the "global leader in business information." The spot concludes with the tagline "We make it easier," while the voiceover asserts, "so you can have your life back." The campaign was born out of research asking professionals what they thought of the brand and its competitors, Rogers says. Hoover's consistently came back as the top-recalled brand in the category, he says. "At the end of the day, when you think of business information, Hoover's had significant brand recognition," Rogers tells Marketing Daily. "The thing that was good for us is we had a strong brand, and we were aligned with all the brand essences. We needed to make it easier to bring all that information into [customers'] workstreams." As such, in addition to the advertising, the new brand campaign also includes a redesigned Web site and revamped collateral materials to be used in presentations and at trade shows, Rogers says.
This evening, the world learns the answer to the burning question on everybody's mind: "Are the TV game shows of the future safe for humanity?" Personally, I believe all game shows are in jeopardy unless the producers and networks embrace the reality that it's not an IBM supercomputer that threatens to make on-air game show contestants -- and the genre -- irrelevant. The real assassins will be the TV executives who continue to let everybody -- with the exception of the at-home audience -- be an integral part of the TV game show experience. I'll say it again - WE WANT TO PLAY. Offering viewers silly (and often misleadingly costly) side games, like the litigation-ridden, text-message-revenue-driven Magic Suitcase distraction, does little to engage viewers in an increasingly connected world. First, however, some casual "Jeopardy" observations from a less-than-casual game show enthusiast: The special edition game of "Jeopardy" between Watson, the IBM super computer array, and the two best players in "Jeopardy" history, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, has received a lot of attention from the media, and presumably, the public. Going into this evening's third and final game, Watson is heavily favored after having doubled the cumulative scores of his fleshy foes in the first "game." Watson has two unfair advantages, the first of which has been quietly discussed in some circles for weeks, including a report posted by PBS. It appears that Watson is amazingly deft at timing the important button presses that allow one player -- mostly Watson, as it turns out -- to answer, while locking out the others. I don't quite understand the algorithm used to "clear" the circuits to allow the players to "ring in," but I am certain that a computer has an advantage in that subtle, but most vital, department. Especially since Watson can't hear, and is fed the questions via digital text; how else would it know when it is safe to hit the trigger, if not by some formula tied directly to the computer or switch that "opens the lines"? (My gut - for Game Two this evening, IBM will have slowed Watson's trigger reflex, giving Ken and Brad a sporting chance. Shades of the Roman Coliseum, merged with the $64,000 Question scandal... oh, but it's for charity... right.) The other advantage is purely mathematical. Trigger-advantage aside, if indeed the exposition is a battle between "man and machine," then having two virtually equal, human "Jeopardy" geniuses on the same stage actually gives Watson an advantage, in the long run. One human ends up eroding into the other human's chances (sort of like the Tea Party's impact on the Republican Party candidates in the upcoming elections). At this high level of trivia games, Ken and Brad, cumulatively, likely know 85% of all answers, leaving the number of questions that only one human knows at a pretty low percentage. Watson, on the other hand, seems to be adept at answering questions that are extremely difficult, but stumbles on the easy questions, which would, with high certainty, likely go to either one of the humans. A more favorable (and entertaining) simian outcome, therefore, would find Watson competing against only one of the two "Jeopardy" champions, filling the third spot with, say, Karl Pilkington. Or perhaps even Lindsay Lohan. (Well, maybe not Lindsay - she'd probably end up stealing the show. Click here for your choice of rimshots...) Observations aside, however, inquiring TV Board readers want to know, "Is this the future of TV game shows? Or do game shows even HAVE a future?" Granted, the celebrity-versions of game shows have been a tried and true, if not cyclical staple of many game show franchises. At-home audiences may, at least temporarily, be curious about a celebrity's mental prowess. They may tune in just to see if she's wearing the latest from Dolce and Gabbana. Or, now, how many terabytes of data it houses. And, certainly Watson's celebrity is undeniable; on Tuesday, a Google News survey comparing "this week" results for "Watson," "Sheen," and "Lohan," returned 19,100, 10,200, and 9,370, respectively. But, much like the celebrity-versions of TV game shows, audience interest wanes. Which means Watson may move on to less challenging game shows (for a computer), such as "Wheel of Fortune" (early Vegas odds, Watson, 1:5), or, more challenging games like "Family Feud" or "Million Dollar Money Drop," where intuition and knowledge of human sentiment often trumps sheer data retrieval power. Either way, the "viewing" audience, with smart phones, laptops, and tablets in hand, is increasingly hungry for engaging content - and TV is NOT delivering. To make matters worse, no genre of TV programming - NONE - provides a better onramp to interactive and reactive television, meaning that no genre today wastes a greater opportunity. Consider "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," which reportedly captured over 75% of America's viewers in its first year on national television. One reason why it's been remanded to syndication is because its viewers gradually came to recognize that the more appropriate title should have been, "You Won't EVER Be a Millionaire Sitting At Home Watching This Program - I Don't Care How Smart You Think You Are!" The formula for game shows used to be, "Play along at home while you watch total strangers win huge prizes." Game show designers have changed the nuances of their games by dumbing them up, or down, and have increased the jackpots over the years, but to the at-home viewer, nothing really changed. As a result, many still sit at home, visiting the equivalent of Mr. Roger's "Neighborhood of Make Believe," yelling answers at their TV sets and patting themselves on the back for getting an occasional answer correct. And then there's the growing audience share that texts, searches, surfs and Facebooks while dedicating increasingly less attention to content, and even less to the ads. How do you reach them, Mr. Game Show Gatekeeper? What's the answer? What is "Please pass the iPad?"
Worried if Nike has ESPN's announcers in its pocket? I'm not too concerned -- though viewers might be. Seems all of ESPN's "College GameDay" crew -- Chris Fowler, Lee Corso and Kirk Herbstreit -- have deals with Nike for doing speaking engagements on the brand's behalf, and wearing footwear not seen on-air. This is nothing new. A number of network sports personalities, including others at ESPN, have marketing deals. For many, the logical conflict-of-interest question comes down to informing the public. To some, it's not like these guys are reporting on financial malfeasance, Egyptian revolutionaries, or toxins in drinking water. This is college football. But the trouble here isn't with the day-to-day reporting of college football. What happens if an off-the-field incident, perhaps a sports marketing story, needs coverage? Nike is a business partner of ESPN, and also has deals with universities. Perhaps an off-the-field incident on a college campus would need some discussion, one that might have an effect on a TV sports marketer. ESPN's crew doesn't appear in TV commercials for Nike. Thank you very much. It makes sense. Highly presentable TV personalities could moderate or motivate a crowd for a Nike-sponsored event. But let's get their profile right. Are they in fact "hosts" or "reporters"? If Tom Bergeron or Ryan Seacrest got the same deal, what would be the public's response? That's easy. Let's move to the other side of things -- what if Brian Williams, Katie Couric or Diane Sawyer had Nike deals? You can be sure viewers might want to know this information. The big question for consumers these days is to what level all this marketing stuff concerns them when supposed real journalists information are involved. Bob Steele, director of the Prindle Institute for Ethics and a journalism professor at DePauw University, told the New York Times: "You do have to wonder why a sports journalist, or any journalist, would wander in this kind of ethical minefield without recognizing the consequences." That little adjustment on Steele's part is just the issue: First, he made a reference to "sports" journalist, then to "any" journalist. We might all say the same thing. The key question to ask: Is there a meaningful journalistic difference between the two -- especially in today's complex digital marketing and content world?
Despite the proliferation of paid media models, online piracy of copyrighted materials will continue, according to a new report from PwC. In its survey of 202 people who admit to downloading pirated media, the company found that of course the chief motivator is price, supported by their perception that "everyone is doing it." Curiously, PwC found that the many ad-supported sources of free media might be contributing to the legitimization of piracy because they blur the line between legitimate and illegally obtained copyrighted material. Video is the big attraction. Among content pirates, 83% say they streamed TV shows in the last month and 69% streamed movies for free. Almost half (48%) had accessed a movie within a month of its DVD release. Apparently many consumers find even digital pricing too high: 68% completely agreed that the reason they were downloading content illegally was because the hard copy was too expensive, but 58% felt the same about the digital pricing. If content producers want to lure consumers away from piracy via pricing they will have to go lower than some of them appear to be planning. PwC found that these pirates were willing to pay a maximum of $3 for a movie and $1 for a TV show. Only about a third of these consumers worry that piracy might increase media costs. The physical disc is not an overwhelming draw, either, with 56% of this group feeling they didn't need a hard copy. Media cheats do not seem particularly remorseful. The survey finds 81% plan to continue accessing unauthorized material in the next six months. The mobile platforms will only make this worse, since 40% say they plan to use these remote devices to access content, too. The fear of being caught (68%) is a secondary concern to having their computers infected by viruses (80%). The moral issue -- that they simply are doing something wrong -- seems to concern only 59% of pirates. Figuring out a strategy to lure the media pirates away from their swashbuckling ways is a poser. The lure of free is hard to beat, especially when 58% say they want to be able to access content free and prefer an ad-supported model. Eighty-seven percent said they were willing to watch ads in exchange for free TV content, and 84% felt the same about movies. Rather than playing with pricing and packaging of individual media titles, content providers may have better luck (nominally) with a Netflix approach. Thirty-four percent of pirates said they preferred subscription-based models, and only 9% seemed to like the transactional approach of on-demand systems. Of course PwC's report was not a survey of all consumers, so the actual size of the pirating population was not considered. But the fact that many of those who access copyrighted content learned about the sources from friends or family indicates the viral nature not only of piracy but the validation mechanisms people use to rationalize it.
Last week Google and the ANA presented an impressive display of content and headliners in a wide-ranging discussion of, well, "tv and everything video" (the official name of the forum). I won't review the full day of events -- which was sold out -- but several observations are worth noting. Before the program began there were several messages from the sponsors. When it was Google's turn, the presenter briefly referenced a typical viewing day in his household, in which members of his family alternated between their Google TV, their Roku, mobile video and DVR. While I have every belief in his description of that dynamic in that household, I was left wondering if it might be stretching things a bit to suggest that it was a real trend toward the new norm. After the mandatory conference administration of identifying the wifi service, Twitter feeds, and variation on Mad Libs to qualify for a prize (who says those direct marketing involvement devices are dead), we learned/confirmed that HDTV is now at 50 % penetration, smartphones at 25% -- and we all watch TV 4 hours and 58 minutes a day. Interactive TV was an important topic, with ANA and Canoe announcing some of the details following their October 2010 announcement of their joint effort to test and measure Canoe's ITV platform for advertising. Ad-ID, the asset coding system which is quickly growing in acceptance, was positioned as "the key to improve measurement across platforms." In addition to the 4As, ANA, CTAM and IAB already on board, it was announced that Nielsen has now endorsed Ad-ID as an industry standard. MediaPost's Joe Mandese did his usual fine job interviewing Bob Liodice, ANA's CEO, discussing Nielsen's coming brand-specific commercial ratings, more on Ad-ID as one of the foundational steps for cross platform measurement, and Liodice's statement that measurement itself is at "the top of the priority list" for CM's. Al Gore, who once characterized himself as the former next President of the United States, gave a keynote as Chairman of Current TV. Trying to emphasize his Tennessee roots, I guess, he began with a Minnie Pearl joke about a police officer who shot a cow... Best Buy's CMO, Barry Judge, told the story of his brand's first step into the Super Bowl advertising experience. Among the takeaways from his speech: The big stage demands a big idea, not just a creatively memorable spot. In Best Buy's case, it was the introduction of the Buy Back program, a strategic initiative designed to ease consumer tension about the rapid obsolescence of their technology purchases. He reminded everyone, or at least every CMO, of the importance of getting the CEO on board, and to stay very flexible when using celebrities, especially if one of them is Ozzy Osbourne. And, in what has become a mandatory moment, he spoke about the pre- and post-game campaign as insurance for the spot itself. Judge said every CMO should maintain a healthy fear of "the ad sucking," and reiterated the power of prayer for ultimate Super Bowl redemption. All in all it was a very good, and honest, presentation. There was a 1 on 1 with Hannah Storm of ESPN and David Stern, Commissioner of the NBA. After the reaction to her introduction, Hannah felt compelled to say, "David Stern is here also." David Lubars, Chairman and Chief Creative Officer of BBDO North America, gave an interesting presentation about the continuing power of TV as the starting point -- the framework, as he described it -- on which additional brand messages and media are supported. Perhaps the most anticipated session of the day was the last one in which a very high-powered panel of advertiser, agency, and network executives discussed 10 issues in 50 minutes, among them CIMM (multiplatform measurement as the Holy Grail); ITV (it's early); 3D commercials (not yet); social media (see Egypt). The most intense, at times emotional, subject? The upfront. Described as a huge problem that needs to be re-engineered as well as a necessary element to facilitate long-term buying, the upfront showed it has not lost any of its power, because that's still where the money is. All in all, congratulations to those who gave us such an interesting and important program. And if you were in attendance, please let us know your observations and thoughts about the day.
Loads of free content exists on the Internet -- some professionally produced, and some not. Either way, big owners of media want to make money off it. David Carr of the New York Times makes a big issue of this -- especially when it comes to social media like Facebook, and Twitter -- and, for the topic de jour, AOL and The Huffington Post. One analyst used the term "feudalism" and "serfs" as metaphors for what goes on in this particular digital area. In medieval times, serfs use the land to grow fruits and vegetables -- but as Carr notes, "the land many live on is owned by someone else, be it Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr..." That makes sense -- but not completely. Traditional serfs needed that land to survive -- not modern-day digital serfs, for whom it's more of a recreation. Traditional TV -- as yet -- doesn't operate this way. Sure, many have social media areas attached to their professionally produced entertainment. But they aren't dependent on them for survival. Long-term, it might be another story. People use Facebook and Twitter for lots of things not connected with TV. Thus, if people are spending time looking and interacting with "free" content this could mean spending less time with professionally produced TV content. But that hasn't happened. TV usage continues to grow -- even if in a splintered marketplace. Still, it gets people nervous. YouTube continues to expand -- still a big place for user-generated videos. The premise for some is that people are lured and "entertained" by the technology of making their own content -- even if there is not a discernible revenue objective for consumers. Adding to this trend, producers only want to get viewers more involved in a TV show direction. Current TV's upcoming "Bar Karma," from Will Wright, the inventor of The Sims and SimCity video games, lets viewers decide on the arcs of the script. You can see why traditional TV companies have amped up efforts at pursuing added revenue. Versus the "free" stuff on other digital area, traditional TV companies have more immediate pressing production costs -- thus the changes at Hulu, thus the push for networks sharing of local TV station retransmission dollars. Otherwise, they'll be looking for serfs of their own.