Ratcheting its "Oh Yes We Did" brand transformation campaign up another notch, Domino's Pizza is now posting comments from customers on a 125-foot-wide electronic billboard in New York City's Times Square. The comments originate through a new customer feedback feature in Domino's Tracker, an area within the brand's site that allows customers to track the progress of their online orders. While comments will be vetted prior to posting in order to screen out offensive or inappropriate content, Domino's says it will post "many" consumers' comments, whether "good, bad or neutral." "Our customers deserve, and have come to expect, honesty from us ... and it really doesn't get more open and honest than this," said Domino's Pizza president/CEO Patrick Doyle, alluding to the billboard. "Our hope is that most of the feedback is positive, but our top priority is that people are seeing what is real." The billboard initiative -- active through Aug. 23 -- is clearly designed to drive more online orders, as well as bring the latest element of novelty to the brand's now-familiar strategy of supporting the reformulation of its pizzas with marketing/advertising stressing its ongoing efforts to use customer feedback to improve continuously. Consumers who order online and use the Tracker feedback function can have their photos, as well as comments, posted on the 4,630-square-foot Times Square billboard. Furthermore, Domino's will send those whose comments are featured a link to a video clip of their feedback as it ran on the billboard. The billboard is being supported by a television campaign featuring two real New York-area Domino's store managers -- who watch the feedback on in-store screens and confirm that the billboard further "raises the bar" for the brand's products and services. Since launching its reformulation/turnaround strategy in December 2009, Domino's marketing campaign, from Crispin Porter + Bogusky, has included TV ads that bluntly admit that consumers were not happy with its old pizzas; an ad showing a pizza mangled during delivery -- along with an apology and promise to do better from Doyle; and an ad promising that the brand will no longer use "fake" or touched-up photography of its food and asking consumers to submit their own photos of their pizzas via social media. Domino's will announce its Q2 2011 earnings results July 26. In Q1, the company saw domestic same-store sales decline 1.4%, but that was against a domestic same-store sales jump of 14.3% in Q1 2010. International same-store sales increased 8.3% in this year's first quarter, for the 69th consecutive quarter. Adjusted diluted earnings per share rose 20% versus the same quarter of 2010.
The sprawling Nexstar station group, which operates affiliates of all major networks, is exploring a sale once again. A 2007 effort was scuttled as the economy weakened. Moelis & Co. has been retained as an advisor. Goldman Sachs held the role the last time. Nexstar says it now owns or operates 63 TV stations in 34 markets and reaches approximately 11.5% of all U.S. television households. It owns or manages stations that include the sizable Salt Lake City market and the tiny St. Joseph, Missouri DMA, as well as dozens in between. In May, it brokered a long-term affiliation agreement with ABC for nine stations. Earlier this month, Nexstar completed the acquisitions of two CBS affiliates in Wisconsin and Michigan from Liberty Media for $20 million. The company, which posted a first-quarter loss on a slight revenue gain, says it has no timetable for a sale or another financial maneuver. Nexstar reported revenue of $313 million last year. Under CEO Perry Sook, Nexstar has been a pacesetter in pushing cable/ satellite/telco TV operators to pay retrans consent dollars to carry its stations. Nexstar, which like every station group has been trying to upgrade its digital activity, said last week it had acquired GoLocal.Biz, which will be used to offer local directories, coupon services and entertainment listings to company community Web sites. Noting that three other station groups -- McGraw-Hill, Freedom and Young -- are for sale, Wells Fargo analyst Marci Ryvicker wrote: "While there is significant supply, we believe potential bidders will include both strategic and private equity groups -- both of which we believe are looking hard at these assets."
As online video continues its dramatic rise, Ogilvy & Mather on Thursday officially debuted its own specialty video practice. In development for nearly two years, Ogilvy's Advanced Video Practice will work with brand clients to take video engagement beyond the "viral" view by targeting measurable engagements that place viewers directly into the sales funnel. It is being led by Robert John Davis, who joined Ogilvy in 2008, after leading Rainbow Media's cable network sites and serving as MTV Networks' first executive producer of convergence. "It is not just TV 2.0 -- a new way to get TV programs online," Davis said of the burgeoning video space. "This is a vibrant, interactive engagement medium that goes beyond watching videos to engaging with videos." According to Davis, the new practice should augment various Ogilvy specialty areas, including digital influence, search optimization and search marketing, creative, content strategy and social selling. "Video is too important to treat as an add-on to TV or Web marketing efforts," Davis said. "As advanced video opportunities continue to grow across mobile and device-oriented experiences, maximizing this channel is vital for a brand's success." During its test phase, clients who helped shape Ogilvy's new practice included IBM, Nestlé, DuPont and others. The practice will focus on several key aspects of online video, including the creation of strategic content and video search engine optimization, as well as the production and distribution of video across multiple digital platforms and measurement. Furthermore, the plan is to bring together experts from online video strategy and production with the Neo@Ogilvy search practice and OgilvyEntertainment, to provide clients with a full-service online video platform. Needless to say, trying to maximize the potential of YouTube as a marketing channel for clients is one of the key ways in which the practice will be exploited. "Our strategy is built around the belief that views will be maximized if you optimize for the multiple forms of search first, making it easy for audiences to find, consume and share the content when they need it most," Davis added.
Media buyers and planners are embracing digital out-of-home video as a way to reach consumers who are increasingly on the go and less accessible via other, traditional media channels, according to a new study from eMarketer. That translates into large projected increases in ad spending for the burgeoning new medium over the next couple of years. The proportion of media planners who said they include digital out-of-home video in their marketing plans jumped from 65.3% in 2010 to 75.5% this year. That's on course to reach 86.3% in 2012, according to survey results from the Digital Place-based Advertising Association cited in the eMarketer study. Most DO spending is still coming from the broader outdoor category, with 54.2% of respondents saying they shifted money from traditional out-of-home, but DO is making inroads on TV: 43.8% of the respondents said they are shifting spending from TV budgets, compared to 22.9% who said they shifted money from online budgets. Some 19.8% of respondents said they didn't shift spending from another category for DO. For the outdoor medium as a whole, eMarketer is predicting that total advertising revenues will grow from $6.1 billion in 2010 to $6.4 billion this year, reaching $7.6 billion by 2015 -- and attributes much of this growth to the rapid expansion of DO. Separately, PQ Media projects that spending on DO advertising in the U.S. will increase 16.7% from $2.07 billion in 2010 to $2.42 billion this year. Putting the PQ Media and eMarketer figures together, DO spending could rise from 33.9% of all outdoor spending in 2010 to 37.8% this year.
Apple Inc. could be making an unusual bid for the networks'-owned video service Hulu. Bloomberg News is reporting that Apple is considering a move for the popular premium video site, which estimates say could carry a $2 billion price tag. Typically, Apple doesn't make large acquisitions of important consumer products; rather, it grows big-brand consumer product and services businesses internally. Hulu is a growing site looking to compete with Netflix. But not all the Hulu owners -- Comcast Corp., News Corp., Walt Disney and Providence Equity Partners -- have been happy about its direction, looking for more revenue gains. Reports suggest Yahoo has already shown interest in Hulu. As part of the deal, reports say the purchase of Hulu includes five years of access to TV shows from its media-company owners, including two years of exclusivity. Hulu would seem to work well with existing Apple products, of which it already has a connection: iPhone, iPad and iTouch. It could also click with Apple's iTunes media store, which offers TV shows and movies for rental or purchase. Current-season TV shows can be rented for 99 cents and high-definition films rent for $4.99. Those iTunes TV offerings are commercial-free. Hulu, for the most part, carries commercials in a limited number of current TV shows. The digital service Hulu Plus, a $7.99/month service, offers a broader library of programming.
SAN DIEGO - Comic-Con hasn't become what it's become because of comic books, at least as far as the military-industrial-entertainment-media complex is concerned. It's grown to the size it has through the promotion of movies and television, some of which use comics as their source material, some of which have tangential relationships to comics or animation, and some of which have absolutely nothing to do with comics at all. I'm going to be sparing in my reporting on the movies and TV stuff. Other trade publications have done a decent job covering the celebrity-driven side of it, how Spielberg and Jackson appeared on stage together for Herger's "Tin Tin"; HBO's "Game of Thrones" had the most turnaways; HBO's "True Blood" had lines before sunrise (appropriately); Teen girl angst juggernaut "Twilight" had lines before Comic-Con opened. The biggest studios stepped back from the most dominant promotions, but mini-majors Lionsgate and Relativity quickly stepped up, etc., etc., etc. There's no need for more reporting about the buzz and hype and excitement of the best the mainstream escapist entertainment industry has to offer. But beneath the flash and celebrities, the actual dirty little secret of the comics industry is that the comics themselves are not doing so hot. Sales are down, have been falling consistently for the past couple years, and, after spending a good significant portion of my waking life at Comic-Con over the past four days, my conversations and interviews have convinced me that most people in the real comics business - the big publisher, the independent publishers, the distributors, and perhaps most significantly the comics shops -- are starting to freak, I think. Can you blame them? All print material is gravitating towards tablets and other portable communications devices. Marvel and DC both featured gleaming apps for a variety of platforms, and they are not alone. But designers of the user experience for the tablets are influencing the comics themselves. At one panel, a questioner asked a DC editor if the company was pressuring artists to confirm to certain dimensions after Marvel killed a two-page "Iron Man" splash, because it doesn't translate well to devices. Some comic fan was irate, asking about it. People will always rant, of course, but I get where he's coming from. Still, in the end, I don't think that it's going to much matter. The inexorable march of technological progress means the vast majority of actual comic titles themselves are probably doomed. One of my key Comic-Con 2011 takeaways of the comics business is that that the majority of comics, actual 32-page color comic books, are now loss leaders for the trade paperback compilations that come after. It's what most of their readers do, one panel said. It's what I do. It was also just about the only thing that the four panelists at Saturday's 'Is the Comic Book Doomed?" all agreed upon: The money in print is in trade publications. Comics themselves are basically now considered disposable entertainment products. Read them and throw them away, "It's what I do," Vijay AIyer, an executive with Cartoon Books, which publishes Jeff Smith's popular "Bone" series. No one disagreed. * * * Disposable? Won't that ultimately spell doom for the printed comic - it will be easier to put the stories online first and then compile them in TBP later, no? Panelist superhero writer Mark Waid, longtime DC/Marvel writer now writing "Irredeemable" for fledgling comics company BOOM! Studios, says it will. One of the big reasons, he says, is that the cost of producing a traditional four color comic on decent paper has roughly doubled in the past five years to about $1.10. The panel's retail comic shops representative Amanda Emmert says it's 70 cents. By print time, we'd not been able to determine for sure who is on the money; when we do we'll update. But you've got to print a certain number of comics in order to get the business's lone distributor (that's a whole 'nother story), Diamond Comics, to deliver your material. The panel said that number is about 2,000. So you're in roughly $6K straight out of the gate for production costs. Unless you're taking a crazy fling on a one-shot, the strategy is four-to-six issues before you try a compilation. If you're not DC or Marvel, you're still talking some real money. And even then. And that's the biggest fear, according to the panel, of the comics industry, and the great unknown. In the big entertainment conglomerate perspective, the comic book business is but a pawn on the corporate chessboard. If DC or Marvel's corporate parents, Warner Brothers and Walt Disney, see the margins thinning and the sale of physical comic books diminishing, at what point do they make the bottom line, Wall Street driven decision to just kill the comic books and move them online? Already, DC has moved to streamline its offering and relaunch all of its storied titles at No. 1. But that's another story (See below). * * * The Entertainment Business of Comic Books - DC's "New 52" Go Back To No. 1 As the comic book business confronts a continuing downward sales trend amid threats of technology to the printed page, one of the two primary comic book companies, DC, is overhauling its entire line, scuttling many decades of chronological issue numbering, killing some titles, and restarting all its iconographic characters - Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, Swamp Thing -- back at issue No. 1. Movies and TV and games and celebrity and premieres of all of these aside, it was actually this "New 52" vision and strategy - there are 52 active DC titles launching at #1 -- is the biggest actual comic book entertainment business news pimped at Comic-Con. It's also a retrenchment for the company, which openly acknowledged a drop in sales at an early presentation. But in the true comic geek culture, this was big buzz - was this just a cynical stab by DC to jump start sales? No. 1 issues have always been relied upon to sell more copies, and the industry knows they then drop off dramatically with the next one, and the one after that even more, until obscurity. DC put a lot of effort into explaining what they're doing. They had at least two panels per day at Comic-Con for the "New 52," explaining the vision behind it, what parts of the DC Mythos still count and what have been discarded (there was one guy at a "New 52" Q&A session who was desperate to learn if the great Alan Moore Joker origin tale "The Killing Joke" is still part of the Batman mythos [it is]), with one sessions per day devoted to running down the titles that fall under each hero and genre categories. For example, Batman will have nine comic titles under his brand, the eponymous one, of course, and the one that started it all, Detective Comics. But then a bunch of other subsidiary Bat-brands, like the grown up Robin, Dick Grayson, who's now Nightwing, and then the real Robin (who I can't even recall anymore; one died, another went evil or something, then there was another one when Dick Grayson took over as Batman when the real Batman was dead, but Batman wasn't really dead he was actually traveling through time, and that was a hassle but it all turned out okay and when he finally got back he went corporate and started some kind of Batman, Inc. thing, with Batmen all around the world, which was actually kind of intriguing, but all that doesn't matter now because it's out the window - fuck it, we're heading back to #1.). Among the too many Bat-titles, it's worth giving a shoutout for the GLBT-friendly Batwoman, the first lesbian major comic superheroine to have her own title. Whoop! Superman's still straight, but as an indicator of how he's about half as popular as Batman, gets only four books. Another eponymous case, of course, but it's worth noting the other one the first ever relaunch from the original Action Comics, up until this moment the longest running of all DC titles, from the first appearance of Superman in Action #1, well past 900 issues, chugging triumphantly towards an historic one thousand issues. Now back to #1. Fuck it. To further mix it up, Action is going to be set five years before Superman, and the younger Supes is going to be wearing jeans. Other categories are The Dark and The Edge, with supernatural themes; Young Justice, with teen heroes, and something else I can't remember. There was a line for questions, mostly cautiously optimistic but hero-centric. We asked one of the few business questions, suggested by Comics Examiner's Brian Steinberg: What's the burn rate on these titles? How many of them are still standing in a year and how do you define success? DC Co-Publisher Dan Delio said they had a number but they weren't going to tell me. The other Co-Publisher, Jim Lee said 82.75%. If he's serious, I'm not optimistic for them. I think the move to tablets exclusively may be sooner than anybody thinks or thinks they want, especially now that the two dominant companies are both being run by huge entertainment conglomerates, Warner Brother for DC and Walt Disney for Marvel. * * * Other comics stuff worth knowing from Comic-Con: · 2011 Eisner Award Winners - The Oscars of the comic book world -- named after creator of the Graphic Novel and The Spirit, Will Eisner - were announced. According to the Eisner Awards, the best comic book currently being published is the very darkly humorous supernatural detective title "Chew," by John Layman and Rob Guillory, story and art respectively. It's about an FDA Agent who solves crimes through the psychic impressions he gets by eating things. Including people. · For true comics geeks, the real film event for Comic-Con was the world premiere of "Batman: Year One," a very faithful animated film version of Frank Miller's gritty graphic novel retelling of Bruce Wayne's first year in Gotham City. The story focuses as much on young Lt. James Gordon, and the dual (and dueling) lead protagonists set the story apart; it also lured a star-turn from Emmy winner Bryan Cranston as the tough but honest cop. · The film's producer Bruce Timm announcement at the panel afterward that 2012 would see a two-part adaptation of Miller's paradigm-shifting, "The Dark Knight Returns," which ignited the mainstream re-emergence of Batman in 1986. · Arguably the comic book's greatest-ever narrative genius and multiple Eisner winner Alan Moore ("Watchmen," "From Hell," "Miracleman," and a library's wall worth of other terrific material) released the long-delayed latest entry in his now centuries-spanning "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," series, the lone sporadic title that remains from his ambitious but lamented line of America's Best Comics, now published through fringe indie Top Shelf. Tom Siebert is vice president-communications of Digitaria, and a frequently contributor to MediaPost.
SAN DIEGO - You hear a lot about the 150,000-plus fan-boys and - girls who jam the massive San Diego Convention Center every year during Comic-Con. Most of them carry at least one digital communication device, and as they move through the hundreds of panels and presentations devoted to movies, television series, licensed characters of all kinds, video games, comic books and Web-based content, they furiously pump almost everything they take in right back out via Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare or other social networking platforms. The result is something like a series of spectacular mushroom clouds of digitized information perpetually rising from the convention center, all of it directly targeting the most likely consumers for the entertainment product on powerful display throughout the Con. Meanwhile, those same nerds and geeks are sought after on the surrounding streets of San Diego, as well. Media companies have expanded their Con promotional campaigns well beyond the confines of the convention center and into the adjacent and historic Gaslamp District. Costumed actors and hot models fill the sidewalks, handing out fliers and free promotional merchandise. Buses and panel trucks adorned with giant-sized images from movie and television series ad campaigns move about, tying up traffic at every turn. (This year's best: The "Walking Dead" truck, complete with bloodied arms sticking out from under the rear door.) The sides of buildings become outsized movie posters. (The giant "Cowboys & Aliens" poster art that stretched across much of one side of the towering San Diego Hilton Hotel was certainly hard to miss, but the image itself was too dark to make much of an impact, unlike the brightly colored campaign last year for "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World" that covered one side of the same building and was impossible to ignore.) They're all competing for attention as planes trailing big banners fly overhead. (This year "Captain America" owned the skies.) Call it the best of the old and new. As far as I can tell, the digitally empowered fans make Con an unparalleled example of instant viral marketing, all of it specifically directed toward people who are most likely to accept it and embrace its many messages. Meanwhile, all that physical activity on the streets makes for countless unique impressions that stay with consumers. Ask any Con attendee and they will tell you: The sights, sounds and memories of a Con weekend don't readily fade away. Of course, they don't automatically translate to back-end success, either. In recent years there have been many movies and television shows that received mammoth promotion at Con only to bomb at the box-office (think "Scott Pilgrim") or tank in the ratings. ("FlashForward," "V," "No Ordinary Family" and "The Event" come to mind.) One sure-fire promotional strategy that continues to expand from Con-to-Con is the conversion of area bars, restaurants and other small businesses into four-day showplaces tied to entertainment product. Syfy continues to set the gold standard for this with its annual transformation of the centrally-located Hard Rock Café into the fictional Café Diem from its long-running series "Eureka." Inside and out, every square foot of the restaurant is utilized in a way that promotes at least one Syfy show. The laminated, custom-made menu, in which every Hard Rock food item is re-named as something having to do with a Syfy show, is a work of marketing art in itself. This year, Syfy for one afternoon took over a second restaurant - Soleil @k in the ground floor of the Marriott Gaslamp - and staged a contest in which three make-up artists imaginatively competed for a single spot on the second season of the network's reality hit "Face Off." The event was taped and will be posted online so that viewers can vote for their favorite. Also new in the neighborhood was a gallery that had been transformed by TBS into The Museum of Conan Art (also known as CocoMoca). It was filled with art that had been sent to Conan O'Brien by fans of his late night show. A line had already formed half-way down the block when I passed by the museum at 10 a.m. Sunday morning. O'Brien himself had a major presence at Con this year, making a surprise appearance during a panel for Cartoon Network's animated "Green Lantern" series (during which he introduced a trailer for an animated spoof titled "The Flaming C") and showing up at industry parties at night. As is increasingly evident, one need not be directly involved with a genre project to cause excitement at Con. It's enough simply to have proven geek cred.
The preferred "can't-live-without" method to view videos and watch and search for entertainment remains for 68% of males ages 18-34, according to a recent Frank N. Magid Associates study sponsored by Metacafe. Consumer behavior continues to integrate more video in everyday life. It turns out that 23% of survey respondents watch daily, up from 13% in 2010. Overall, 57% of Internet users watch online videos weekly, up from 50% last year. Males ages 18 to 34 watch 7.8 hours of online video weekly, compared with 5.6 hours per week among all viewers ages 8 to 64. Many participants in the survey expect to watch 10% more online video within the next year. Short-form video content gets the views. About 66% of online video viewers regularly watch premium short-form content, such as music videos, movies trailers and clips, TV previews and clips, sports highlights, video game content, comedy sketches and original Web series. The percentage of online video viewers for each genre has remained the same since 2008, except for a few exceptions during the past few years. For example, consumer-generated videos uploaded to sites such as YouTube rose from 33% to 46%. Full-length TV rose from 25% to 30%. Full-length movies rose from 10% to 22%. Emerging technologies have begun to show promise when it comes to connecting with entertainment and video content. About 30% of online view viewers watch content on a mobile phone, Internet-connected television or wireless tablet. Internet TV continues to grow in acceptance, with 25% of online video viewers accessing the Internet through their TV set and an additional 34% interested in hooking in at a later time, according to the Frank N. Magid study. About 158.1 million U.S. Internet users will download or stream video at least monthly via any device in 2011, representing 68.2% of Web users -- up to 76% by 2015, according to eMarketer. It's not clear whether the device type can have an influence on recall of the video or the topic, but studies note the type of video ad unit does. In fact, the type of ad unit and the frequency with which consumers see a specific type of ad in a unit has a major influence on recall, according to eMarketer. The research firm said 35% of viewers in a recent study could recall seeing a common static banner advertisement, but only 13% of viewers remembered seeing a more eye-catching video banner advertisement. Interestingly, it's not that the static banner ad proves to have a greater impact than the video banner ad, but rather the frequency with which consumers see them. The ad consumers are more commonly exposed to will have a higher impact on recall. > Exposure influencing recall can also be found in streaming ad units. Pointing to stats from Break Media, eMarketer notes that 47% of respondents said they remembered the brand or product advertised after viewing a pre-, mid- or post-roll video ad unit.
In recognition of the growing size and influence of the U.S. Hispanic population, the newspaper industry this morning will introduce a new national network that will offer marketers a one-stop buy for reaching consumers in Spanish-language daily and weekly newspapers. The new service, the NNN Hispanic Network, is a new division of the newspaper industry's Newspaper National Network, and is the first set up to explicitly target and package newspapers buys for a multicultural segment of the U.S. population. "We serve all multicultural markets, but this is different because we haven't put this level of resources against a specific multicultural market before," explains Jason Klein, president-CEO of the NNN. To head the new division, Klein tapped Mike Cano, a long-time Hispanic media sales executive who had been vice president-business development and partnerships for La Opinion, publisher of La Raza, and president-CO of Impacto USA, before joining the NNN as director of Hispanic media. Klein said the new Hispanic network includes most of the leading Hispanic newspapers, which tend to be clustered in the major U.S. markets, and generally are operated by the same big general market newspaper publishers that are among the NNN's top members. Klein said the timing of the rollout couldn't be better, because the 2010 U.S. Census revealed strong growth and consumer spending power among Hispanic Americans. He said the main target for the Hispanic network is advertising budgets currently earmarked for local Spanish-language TV stations, and that digital media isn't yet a significant factor for Hispanic advertising budgets among major U.S. marketers. Klein said the NNN would continue to package advertising buys targeted at other multicultural segments, but does not currently have plans for spinning off any other new divisions to focus on them.
Reebok is rolling out its new Reebok Lite line, which it describes as a cross between its '80s-era classics and cutting-edge technology, with a TV spot and videos by hip-hop producer Swizz Beatz. But don't look for any leg warmers, headbands, or Madonna references: While the shoes themselves may evoke '80s flashbacks, the new campaign is pure urban club culture. It includes 25 dancers, 150 extras and choreography from Hi-Hat, as lasers, smoke and an acrylic box create a multidimensional Classic R, enclosed within a box. A spokesman for the company, now owned by Adidas, says it marks the first time Reebok's Classics division will use TV in a decade, and that the spots will run on ESPN, Comedy Central, Adult Swim/Cartoon Network, MTV, and BET. The "new" line includes the Freestyle, as well as the Ex-O-Fit high top, the Classic Leather Runner and the Workout Low Plus. They're even sold in the original Union Jack box, which the company claims has been faithfully remade, right down to the exact standards of '80s typography. "In our Classic Lite collection, we've updated iconic Reebok styles with materials, colors and styling details that appeal to people who live their lives at the intersection of dance, art, street culture and sport -- and it's these people who we wanted to celebrate in the Reethym of Lite campaign," Todd Krinsky, head of Classics for Reebok, says in the company's release. In addition to TV, online ads are scheduled for Hulu, YouTube, MTV.com, Pandora, Complex, Facebook, BET.com, VEVO, and Twitter, with print appearing in such titles as Fader, Nylon Guys, and Spin. The spokesperson says Reebok is also commissioning custom public artwork, featuring interpretations of "Reethym of Light," in both New York and Atlanta.
Known more for watches and other personal electronics, Casio is taking to the airwaves for the first time to advertise its phones with an advertising campaign showing off the toughness of its G'zOne Commando Android-powered smartphone. The television and Internet video campaign, with the tagline "Tougher is Smarter," depicts the phone going through a series of real-life tests designed to show off its military-grade specifications, which include being able to withstand extreme temperatures, vibration, drops and submersion. "It's trying to show [that] the phone has been tested in these environments," Charlotte Runco, a representative for Casio, tells Marketing Daily. "This phone can withstand these extreme situations." The vignettes depict the phone being put through a series of tests, such as being strapped to a surfboard, attached to the undercarriage of a sports car, being taken on a trail run and enduring a "hot yoga" class. The spots employ the question, "Are you Commando tough?" The effort is targeted at consumers who lead an active lifestyle and don't want to worry about their phones (with a secondary target at anyone prone to clumsiness and mishaps with their devices), Runco says. The television commercials began this week, airing on ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live. The commercials will during a wide variety of programming, including during ABC's "Expedition Impossible," as well as on cable networks such as Spike, Fuel, the Military Network, the Outdoor Channel and ESPN. The brand has also signed on as a sponsor of the X-Games, which will air on ESPN on July 28-31.
EA Sports looks to tap into the sometimes overwhelming devotion college football fans have for their favorite teams in a new advertising campaign touting its NCAA Football 12 title. Television commercials from San Francisco agency Heat show fans taking their dedication to the extreme in 15-second vignettes. One commercial shows an out-of-shape Louisiana State University fan lifting his "man boobs" (as the spot is called) to ensure no spot on his torso is not covered in purple and gold. Another spot shows a University of Texas fan getting his broken wrist and fingers set in the "Hook 'em Horns" gesture. A third spot shows a University of Florida fan in the gym working out by making the university's "Gator Chomp" gesture on one of the weight machines. "You're devoted," reads on-screen text in each ad. "But are you totally devoted?" "Unlike other sports where people are involved with the league or with star players, with the NCAA they're really involved with the schools and the pageantry," Dustin Shekell, advertising manager for EA, tells Marketing Daily. "This year, the campaign is about taking that devotion to a certain level. That's what the sport is all about." Targeting male college football fans between 12 and 34 (both avid gamers and non-avid gamers), the commercials are running on spot broadcast television as well as 15 cable networks, including ESPN, Comedy Central, Spike, Adult Swim and MTV. A print spread promoting the game will also appear in ESPN the Magazine, and the agency has developed 15 conference-specific flash banners that will appear on more than 200 Web sites through a geotargeted buy. The Internet elements of the campaign have proven to be particularly successful, helping identify potential customers through social media and Internet searches, Shekell says. "Things like Facebook give you a great targeting ability for fan affinity," he says. "We've put more [into] digital than in years past because it performs so well."
Netflix's second-quarter results show improving numbers when it comes to revenue, income, and the number of subscribers -- but investors still aren't all that happy. In mid-day trading, the price of Netflix shares sank 8% due to revenue that was lower than Wall Street expectations -- and because the company said it expected some negative backlash due to the recent price increases. The company's stock closed down under 2% at $281.53. In after-hours trading, the stock was down over 9%. Netflix profit was up more than 50% in the second quarter of 2011 to $68.2 million versus $43.5 million for the same period in 2010. Revenue was at $788.6 million versus $519.8 million in the second quarter of 2010. Media analysts were anticipating revenue at around $791.5 million. Subscribers grew 1.8 million to 25.6 million. Concerning Netflix price hikes, Reed Hastings, CEO, stated: "It is expected and unfortunate that our DVD subscribers who also use streaming don't like our price change. Some subscribers will cancel Netflix or downgrade their Netflix plans." Still, Netflix projects higher revenues and overall gains in total subscribers for its next reporting period. The company's streaming video business is outgrowing the traditional DVD rental operation -- although it offers a more limited library of TV series and films. But Netflix says customers still like the DVD mailings, which can be more costly to the company. Netflix has also made some recent non-exclusive library deals with CBS and NBC Universal and has committed to the expensive, new TV series "House of Cards," originally a 1990 British thriller.
Verizon increased its subscriber rolls for its FiOS TV service in the second quarter at a faster pace than in the same period a year ago. The telco posted a net gain of 184,000 customers, above the 174,000 in the same period in 2010. Verizon reported 3.8 million video customers at the end of June in markets from Boston to Los Angeles, Seattle to Tampa. FiOS also appears to be improving its customer uptake, possibly grabbing share from competitors, as the penetration rate reached 30%, up from 25.9% last year. FiOS was available in 16.1 million homes at the end of the second quarter, while AT&T had its telco TV service available in 29 million homes. AT&T said Thursday it should complete its footprint for U-verse by the end of the year. FiOS plans to make the service available in 18 million homes, but CFO Fran Shammo said on a conference call Friday, that success could breed expansion. "Based on penetration rates into the future, we will make those decisions." With ad sales, Verizon bills FiOS as an opportunity to reach upscale customers, saying the median household income for a FiOS TV home is 87% higher than the median for all U.S. homes. Even as Verizon competes for customers, it has partnered with a group of cable operators, AT&T and DirecTV to stitch together a system allowing local ads to reach homes served by all of them in some markets. That system falls under the aegis of NCC Media.
HD commercials now comprise almost 20% of all TV commercials -- about double the share they had a year ago. For the second quarter of 2011, a new study from Extreme Reach says the reason for the spike is lower distribution costs, more local TV adoption of HD commercials and a simpler execution of HD spots in overall campaigns. Extreme Research says these factors are important, considering a slower growth in HD advertising in 2010. Low-cost, cloud-based services have driven down costs for some business segments by 30%. The company says 94% of local TV stations that can take HD commercials use cloud-based services. Overall, 44% of local TV stations and 63% of cable operators can take HD commercials -- versus a 27% number for TV stations and 50% by cable operators. The boost has been pushed by different levels of advertisers. Where only major big brand advertisers had used HD commercials, now regional and smaller markers -- grocery stores and regional auto dealerships -- are incorporating HD messaging into their campaigns. Says John Roland, CEO of Extreme Reach: "Advertisers had been in a holding pattern for a while when it came to HD. The Q2 numbers reaffirm what we've heard from advertisers for a while: When key industry hurdles to adoption become less pronounced, you'll see more and more HD ads on TV."
Pandora's push to become a multiplatform service got a boost this week with Verizon's announcement that it will make the personalized Internet radio service available to FiOS TV subscribers in major media markets, beginning with California, Texas, and Virginia. The companies plan to introduce Pandora in other Verizon markets in the not-too-distant future. The new service will offer users all the interactive functionality of Pandora's online audio service, including creating new stations based on the individual's favorite artists, songs and genres, bookmarking songs for purchase, and rating songs, all through commands from FiOS remotes, including mobile devices with the FiOS TV Mobile Remote app. Verizon subscribers who already have a Pandora account can access it by entering their email address and password as they would normally. The Pandora-less can also sign up for a new account through FiOS. The deal should make it easier to access Pandora content on home entertainment centers. Previously, FiOS TV customers could stream a variety of online content from Windows PCs to TVs through Verizon's Media Manager service. Over the last year or so, Pandora has mounted a concerted effort to bring its personalized digital audio service, originally online-only, to new platforms, including cars and mobile devices. On the automotive front, in January Toyota announced that it will integrate Pandora into its new "Entune" multimedia system. Like previous auto integrations, users can connect Pandora to the Toyota Entune system via any cell phone with a data plan, including smart and feature phones. Pandora already has partnerships with several major automakers, including Ford and Mercedes, along with radio manufacturers Alpine and Pioneer, whose after-market products allow drivers to access Pandora from car dashboards.
The permission to fail is a powerful and, sadly, scarce force in the traditional media business today. Too many companies prefer to be reactive rather than proactive to change. They cut costs and resources rather than reliably earmark funds for research and development. Lessons learned from a failed attempt can be as valuable as a successful outcome. Thomas Edison recognized the value in failure. The underestimated byproduct of two years of failed experiments to invent a lighting system was learning from 2,000 ways how not to make a light bulb, he would say. There is too little evidence of creative trial and error or discovery in the television and film businesses. Television networks and film studios generally maintain costly, tightly controlled development processes, even as consumers take their creative endeavors directly to the open Net, where the viral masses quickly judge them a hit or miss. In prime time, where so many series routinely fail every season, programs are produced at the same high prices and in virtually same manner as always -- as if cancellation was not the inevitable end game. Hitting it big with one or two golden series remains the goal -- especially when Netflix and Amazon are the new "syndicators" paying big bucks for reruns. Television's program development system remains largely devoid of core incubator creativity, where cost-effective risk and failure can render something new. The same generally is true in theatrical films. In response to tough economic times, the big screen has become a safe haven for tried-and-true formulas and character franchises as movie studios seek to minimize box office losses. Ironically, the recently released Harry Potter finale is a reminder that the record $7 billion franchise would not be possible if Time Warner had not taken the risk more than a decade ago on an unknown commodity from a coffeehouse author. That's as close to creative pass-fail as Hollywood's big players get, aside from Pixar and DreamWorks, where innovation is a corporate mandate. Steady investment risk that accepts failure as the price for huge dividends is more evident among tech-media hybrid companies. The next version of Windows available in 2012, designed for tablets and marking its biggest departure ever, is the product of Microsoft's failed and successful experimentation over many years, according to Business Insider. The same is true of Microsoft's Kinect, which has steadily gained popularity and adoption by game-playing consumers, marketers and content producers through endless cycles of innovation. From its launch, Kinect has been a favorite relatively inexpensive, mainstream tool of "programmers, roboticists, tinkerers," research scientists and other experimenters, as pointed out in a recent New York Times story. Originally developed as a $150 Xbox console three-dimensional add-on, Microsoft now provides toolkits for noncommercial users to develop their own applications and experiments in areas stretching from home automation and manufacturing to the performing arts. Indeed, the most redeeming aspect to placing affordable, functional digital technology in the hands of consumers is that it perpetuates a Petri dish mindset that hinges on try, fail, succeed and repeat. The recent unveiling of the new Google+ 'Facebook killer' instantly dredged up memories of the company's failed social media effort Buzz. Like many other shortfall efforts from Google labs, Buzz was not so much an unsuccessful attempt at social media as a means to a better end -- just like Google Wave and Google Health. Timing will make Google's Buzz experience worthwhile. In a field of intense competitors that includes Apple, Facebook and Microsoft, Google is the only player to leverage both social media and an operating system -- Android, which is another example of tireless trial and error. Unlike most companies, Google's innovation culture encourages and rewards trial and error as the life blood of future growth. It's the norm and it is expected. On another level, Google Ventures is investing $200 million in start-ups recognizing that while only a fraction will pay off, trying is everything. Google and Amazon lead a growing chorus of media-tech hybrid companies investing nearly $600 million in start-ups the first quarter of this year to foster innovative risk-taking that could result in the next big thing, according to the National Venture Capital Assn. Permission to fail in order to eventually succeed offers the promise to create not only new products but entrepreneurial thinking and visionary leadership to challenge and change conventions. What traditional media -- and business in general -- need is to subsidize playgrounds where enterprise and invention are routinely encouraged. At this pivotal economic and tech juncture, television and other traditional media need places where employees can approach new concepts with the tenacity and wonder of a jungle gym, knowing it's OK to pick themselves up and try again, applying what they learned from a fall. All it takes is remembering the confidence-building exhilaration of such youthful experiences -- and run with it.
Here you are, reading the TV Board on MediaPost. So it's probably safe to assume that you, like me, love -- or at least give a hoot about -- television. Those of us who have created new companies in the space -- TRA, Invidi, Visible World, Simulmedia, Black Arrow, Media Bank, Canoe -- have joined the big players (networks, stations, media agencies, advertisers) in pursuing a big opportunity in TV and TV advertising. But have you ever asked yourself why? This is a question that the inspirational speaker/advisor Simon Sinek rhetorically asked in a TED talk last year. As Sinek pointed out, most people have no problem explaining "what" they do (broadcast a program, for instance) or "how" they do it (on a branded network addressing a specific niche). However, very few can say "why." For example, as he likes to say, Apple's "why" is that it challenges the status quo and thinks differently about everything it does. This is much more than what other computer companies do -- make consumer electronic devices and computers (the "what") that have unique designs (the "how"). So, again, "why" TV? It's not the most interactive medium around. It's not the most dynamic medium around. It's not the most innovative or even the most profitable media around (though I might argue that it's getting there). Nonetheless, as David Goetzl wrote last week in MediaPost's TVBlog, "TV is a triumphant medium." Despite increasing competition for viewers' eyeballs and advertisers' dollars, and despite new-media fear mongers who point to imminent declines in consumer spending, program ratings, and media budgets, the reality is this: · Most people -- at least most American adults -- still watch more television than any other medium. · Television ad spending is poised to increase. · Though online advertising is growing more rapidly, most ad dollars still target TV. So television continues to be resilient as ever. But "why"? Television is a great branding medium. In fact, according to a study by Innerscope Research and Fox Broadcasting, it's the best branding medium -- better than online. The study, which looked at participants' biometric response to advertising, found that "unconscious emotional responses direct attention, enhance learning and memory, and ultimately drive behaviors that our clients [aka advertisers] care about." Combine that with the fact that new data solutions now allow advertisers to track how ads are driving actual sales, it becomes clear that even as online and other platforms continue to join the media mix, television will remain a core branding platform. Viewers connect with television and its advertising. There's little question that television viewers connect with their favorite programs. But they connect with the advertising, too. Big-screen advertising is mostly branding, while online advertising is generally transactional -- users (not "viewers," note) are asked to click through to see or read or buy something. By contrast, television inhabits a certain sweet spot that may or may not lead to a transactional event. Either way, however, viewers will certainly be entertained and engaged. Television just keeps getting better. Television may be "old" media, but technology is changing it rapidly and dramatically. When was the last time the TV industry had hundreds of millions of VC dollars flood into the space? Every day, television programming is becoming more interactive, is available on more screens, Web analytic techniques are now available to create more accountability, and addressable advertising on television is just about here. As anyone who was at CES this year knows, more great change is just around the bend. For all these reasons, and despite myriad challenges, television seems not only to be here to stay, but it's thriving. You see it in the creative renaissance in programming and advertising, and in viewers' response to both. Now it's up to us to make it so -- keep the programming innovative (and mostly ad-supported), the advertising relevant, and the right audiences watching. Why? Because we love television -- and the ads that run on television.
You might love your iPad (though flash video might make it better). You might love your Netflix (though that price hike is kind of stupid). You might love your 3D movies (though you might feel ripped-off by low-grade storytelling). The overriding question is easy: Has your latest entertainment technology let you down? Moviemaker and mogul Jeffery Katzenberg said if many 3D movies feel lame of late, you have a legitimate gripe. In the last seven or eight months, he said, there has been n a rash of really bad movies, the worst in five years, many of the 3D variety. "They suck," he said recently. "It's unbelievable how bad movies have been." Much of this, he said, comes from Hollywood studios rushing to make a fast buck -- make that a fast and much larger buck -- with 3D movies. (And you still need to wear those stupid glasses!) Not all technology is good all the time. Some have passed their time -- and prime. For example, how many music CDs have you burned recently? Katzenberg said that things will get better. Higher-quality 3D movies from the likes of Martin Scorcese, Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson and James Cameron are on the way. And in 10 to 15 years, he hopes there will be 3D theatrical movies -- without glasses. Right now, it's all about weak stories -- which brings Katzenberg (and me) to another point. Cable networks -- the 2D variety -- are making great entertainment, especially in the scripted arena. Katzenberg credited the likes AMC's "Breaking Bad" and a host of other shows. And what does this mean? That some technology in 2011 may look great but, in fact, it's lightweight. While Katzenberg now credits cable, it wasn't always this way. Think back to the mid-1980s. Many media agency executives had "new technology" titles attached to their positions, work that was supposed to include ad deal-making with nascent cable networks. Back then you probably couldn't find too many cable TV program aficionados talking about all of cable's great fictional series. That's because there weren't any. In effect, that 'technology" let us down. That was 30 years ago. With any luck we won't have to wait that long for 3D -- or maybe 4D or perhaps holographic-avatar-entertainment -- to really come around. Until then -- to quote Katzenberg -- things may suck sometimes.
And here's another good reason for TV networks to dislike the Internet: they just don't get a fraction of the attention here that they do on their native platform. In a roundup of traffic metrics to the major nets this past year, Compete shows that the average unique user spend about half an hour at a network site each month. Compare that to the 34+ hours per person per week Nielsen says Americans watched traditional TV in 2010. ABC.com maintains the most consistent lead in unique viewers month to month. With peaks of about 8 million visitors in the May, November and March months, it is challenged only on occasion by CBS.com and rarely by regular third-place runner NBC.com. Presumably these numbers reflect mainly traffic to the core network URL and not the massive waves of March Madness activity that comes CBS Sports' way each year. That said, the fight for viewers online came close to a dead heat in the fall show rollout last year. Compete calculates that reality shows and their finales can drive sizable spikes. In May NBC made an especially strong showing as people flicked online to see clips and auditions for "The Voice" (+49% month-over-month in visitors to the show site) but also for "Celebrity Apprentice" (+222%). As The Donald would say, his finale was huge...huge! Despite ABC's higher audience reach, CBS tends to hold its online viewers longer each month, but still peaks at 35 minutes total for the month. There's no secret why ABC and CBS would have longer hang times: both networks encourage full episode viewing prominently on their front pages. ABC has an especially good video player interface just for navigating and playing back the current library, and CBS features the latest episodes (albeit a less compelling collection) above the fold. NBC's catalog of back episodes online frankly looks like a poorly polished e-commerce site circa 2003. Things get better once you find your way to dedicated show sites, but unlike ABC. there seems to be little encouragement to use the site as a DVR. In fact even a cursory glance at any of the network sites suggests the ongoing inner conflict over how much the web is or is not a threat to their core businesses. None of them seem clear about what they most want to do online: promote on-air broadcasts, engage viewers in enhancements of the viewing experience, or let them play catch-up with episodes.
Advocacy group Free Press recently launched a new initiative aimed at exposing what it calls "covert consolidation" in the media industry. As part of the campaign, the group created a short video with examples of how different local TV stations are sharing anchors, reporters, footage of interviews and even Web sites. Newport Television, a media company based in Kansas City, Mo., responded by demanding that YouTube take down the video. Newport alleged that Free Press infringed copyright because its clip showed the logo of two stations controlled by the company. The logo appeared in a segment of the clip that showed a Web site shared by Newport's WTEV-TV and WAWS-TV, both of which are in Jacksonville, Fla. (Newport's Web site includes both stations among its properties, but only WAWS-TV is listed as "owned and operated" by Newport.) This is the type of claim that would go nowhere in court, given that Free Press clearly made fair use of Newport's materials. Nonetheless, YouTube had no choice but to take down the clip or risk losing its immunity from copyright liability for user-uploads. That's because the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbors provide that sites like YouTube are immune from liability when users upload pirated clips, but only if they remove the material at the request of the content owner. Newport is hardly the only company to attempt to use copyright law to shut down legitimate speech. The Center for Democracy & Technology reported last year that Fox News, MSNBC, National Public Radio and other news organizations have used copyright law to stifle political speech online. The CDT examined publicly available records and found 12 recent instances of political ads' removal from the Web due to bogus takedown notices. When Free Press received Newport's cease-and-desist letter, the group fired off a response contesting the claim and threatening to sue the broadcasting company. The advocacy group reported today that Newport has backed down and that its video was restored by YouTube. While that's good news for Free Press -- and for anyone wishing to watch the clip -- the incident still raises questions, including why media companies feel so free to send takedown notices when they don't like particular content.
In roughly two months, the long-running ABC soap opera "All My Children" will end its run on the network -- and three days after that, thanks to an unprecedented licensing agreement between ABC and the production company Prospect Park, it will enter the history books as the first broadcast television series to move intact from television to the Internet. If "AMC" succeeds there, either as a free advertiser-supported Web series, or on a pay-per-month or pay-per-view and/or download platform, everything we know about the production, distribution and potential longevity of broadcast and cable programming will likely change forever. (What a shame that "Guiding Light," which Procter and Gamble and CBS gave up on two years ago, wasn't allowed a similar shot at Web redemption -- which would have made it the only entertainment series ever to move from radio to television to the Internet.) Strangely, there has been almost no new information about Prospect Park's specific plans for "AMC" since the big news about its big move broke last month. ("AMC" will stop producing new episodes for ABC in late August.) The same is true of its companion soap, "One Life to Live," which is set to end production in November, will present its final episodes on ABC in January, and will then follow "AMC" to Prospect Park's new online home, whatever it may be. ABC's much-publicized plans for "AMC's" final weeks on its air, which are said to include an influx of former stars from the show returning as their long-departed characters and numerous long-running storylines are brought to satisfying conclusions, will seemingly have to be altered if Prospect Park's plan to continue the show without interruption are to happen. Actors currently on the show will need to commit to the Web version -- if they're still wanted, that is -- while casting notices will have to go out for newcomers. With only two months to go, it would seem that bits of news about the future of "AMC" will start flying any day now. The immediate impact of the ABC-Prospect Park arrangement will center on "AMC," but it will accelerate overnight if this soap opera proves more popular online than it has been in recent years on TV, especially if millions of fans agree to pay to watch it, or its performance is strong enough to entice the right advertisers. Imagine the impact on television research if hits or downloads or other measurements of Internet viewing and engagement show that "AMC" is stronger than traditional television ratings have led us all to believe. Further, if "AMC" enjoys robust new life online, think of the firestorm of fan-fueled campaigns to come for on-the-bubble prime-time broadcast and cable shows. (It isn't that far a stretch to suggest that under these circumstances, advertisers might prove similarly enthusiastic about the continuation of certain shows even if broadcast or cable networks have lost interest.) If an established television series can be shown to survive and thrive online with no further TV presence of any kind, then everything is going to change -- and that change is going to happen fast. If a show's cancellation by a television network becomes potentially irrelevant, can the creation of half-hour and hour-long "traditional" television series specifically for the Internet be far behind? Some folks are saying that a soap opera like "AMC" is not the best test case for a TV-to-Web transfer, because soap viewers are perceived as older, less tech-savvy and not as likely as younger people to commit to watching a show of any kind online. There may be some truth to some of that, but as one of the millions of young people who were hooked on "General Hospital" during its glory years (that would be immediately before, during and for quite a while after the fabled Luke and Laura period) and who somehow managed to keep up with the show without benefit of a VCR, let alone any other electronic device, I'm here to tell you that we would have killed to be able to watch "GH" on a laptop, phone or other mobile device on our own schedules. Then again, I wonder if the "GH" phenomenon would have been as phenomenal if it had been that easy to watch the show. Half the fun at the time was the increasingly creative lengths people went to just to see it and be in on the excitement. Of course, "GH" was what it was in its heyday because of the quality of the show, which was youthful and inviting to new viewers without being disrespectful to veteran viewers or the history of its characters and their stories. This is a particular creative skill set that has largely eluded soap writers and producers, not to mention the network executives to whom they have reported, for so many years that together they have brought the entire genre to its knees. I like to think that, under the creative control of a forward-thinking company like Prospect Park, all those broadcast content barriers and outdated creative challenges will be shunted aside, allowing both "AMC" and "OLTL" to become as interesting, relevant and relatively uninhibited today as "GH" was under the guidance of the legendary executive producer Gloria Monty. But that's another column for another time.
We have all seen countless consumer-invented TV commercials and other consumer-inspired messaging -- for Doritos and other popular brands, especially during big TV events like the Super Bowl. What would happen if young millennials took a real whack at re-inventing -- or curating -- a media brand, like MTV, NBC, Netflix, or a Comcast Xfinity web brand? A new study from MTV research says that, more than ever, young digital consumers are well-versed in manipulating video, text, and ideas when it comes to their favorite brands. But what about traditional media brands? Re-inventing media logos, taglines, and overall direction would be unique. Still, this may not be much of draw for traditional TV networks. Unlike cable networks, broadcast networks don't really have big brand campaigns to begin with. Much of their efforts are concentrated on the brands of their individual shows. Still, newer media companies are always open to changeable ideas. We see how Google regularly changes its home page logo -- depending on the season or whatever. Of course, this isn't letting consumers change its brand. But the whimsy is noted. In the past, many TV and film producers have mused they might just be "instigators" of entertainment content, not "finishers" of it. For example, they might let consumers vote on storylines or character changes. Nick Shore, senior VP-strategic consumer insights and research at MTV, scratches his head, and we do the same: "What would it mean for a brand, we wondered, to be engaged in a process of constantly curating and refining its identity, especially in this online environment...?" He didn't mention media brands, per se. But entertainment is a natural attraction. "The world doesn't just talk back, it hyper-responds, and is engaged in a powerful and intense feedback loop. Is your brand engaged in a thousand points of conversation -- listening and responding?" Sounds complicated. The listening is perhaps the easier chore. Assimilating all new marketing ideas through the big and busy social media cement mixer is the harder job.
I attended the Social TV Summit in Los Angeles yesterday. (Actually, it was held at the Bel Air Country Club, but that's another story.) As the summit's title suggests, it was a day spent listening and talking about how social media is intersecting, enhancing and altering television viewing, media and advertising. It was a great conference and hit a hot topic at exactly the right time. Noted media economist and co-host Jack Myers grabbed everyone's attention with his opening remarks, boldly predicting that social TV marketing would be an $8 billion to 12 billion annual market by 2020. While I haven't fully gotten my head around those numbers yet, Jack is a good friend and has been extraordinarily accurate in his macro market projections over the years, so I'm inclined to believe them, particularly when you consider them within the context of the $40 billion to 50 billion annually which he has previously forecast for all of social media marketing by 2020. Where will all of this money come from? Here are some of my thoughts: First, what is social TV? While I don't think you can really nail down a great definition of social TV at this point, since it's so nascent, I view it as all of the activity occurring at the intersection of social media and television devices and programming. It includes second screens used while watching TV, networked companion devices that support or relate to TV, social tools and applications on connected TVs, and all of the TV-related content and conversations on social media. TV viewing plus Web and social use is big. Users spend an enormous amount of time surfing the web while watching TV. 78% of users do both at least monthly, and one-third of all Web browsing occurs in front of a TV. Companion device usage while watching TV is big, too. 35% of tablet and iPad usage occurs in front of the television, and this is before we really have that many robust and specialized applications to truly enhance or support better TV viewing experiences. Many (including me) predict that app-enabled iPhones, tablets and iPads will be the dominant "remote controls" for home television in a few years. Strong measurable linkage between TV viewing and social media expressions. Companies like Blue Fin and TrendRR are doing incredible things bringing Web-like Big Data crunching visualization to TV-related social expressions. Now, marketers and their agencies can know exactly what and how many social expressions their TV ad impressions generate. Lots of new TV-related social tool. Check-in tools have become big in location based services. Similar tools are now available for TV viewing. Services like GetGlue and Miso are helping TV networks and programmers establish loyalty-based relationships with their viewers, enabling them to "check-in" while viewing, earn badges and even get show stickers sent to them in the mail. Will this add up to $12 billion annually in nine years? I don't know, but I do think that it's going to be really big. What do you think?
When I was on the media agency side of the business, and sat through numerous upfront presentations, there would generally be at least one or two cable networks trying to sell me on some sort of value index that went above and beyond just the Nielsen ratings. While some of these indexes were interesting, all were fundamentally flawed. Some networks incorporated MRI, IAG, or some other measure that certainly have their uses, but are not appropriate for measuring viewer involvement or engagement on an immediate or ongoing basis. A few years ago my buyers asked me to develop a better set of value factors that could be used for all clients -- value factors that I could not find fault with (and anyone who knows me understands how difficult that is) and that objectively examine all networks. There were a few attributed I thought essential for developing value factors: · The size of the audience is not a significant consideration. Ratings, percent composition, or other such metrics are therefore not part of the equation. The idea is to · The data should focus not only on program engagement, but rather on minimizing commercial avoidance as well. · The measurement should be transparent and easily replicated. One should be able to provide the analysis to support how the factors were derived. No secret sauce or black boxes here. · A buyer or planner should be able to do the analyses at any time during the year covering any period of time, daypart, program, or demo. Analyses that can only be done once or twice a year do not allow for changing direction in mid-season (when the competitive TV landscape often changes dramatically). This is particularly important to analyze cable networks that air original scripted programming only certain times during the year. · The information should be based on currency data to avoid a claim that the value factors are based on metrics people don't believe in or use. The following are the critical parts in the development of the Commercial Value Index (CVI). Average Time Spent Per Viewing Event: The more time you spend with a channel or program in a single sitting, the more interested you likely are in the content and the greater the likelihood you are exposed to the commercials. The Average Time Spent Per Viewing Event provides a reasonable indication of viewer involvement. The data is available from Nielsen's NPower system. Channel Switching: Less channel switching during commercials means greater viewer involvement and a higher degree of commercial exposure. Channel Switching is calculated by taking the live commercial minute rating divided by the live program rating. The only reason the live commercial rating would be lower than the live program rating is because the channel was changed. Live Viewing: With DVR penetration fast approaching 50% for key demos, there is no question that avoiding commercials is easier than ever. The bulk of DVR playback includes fast-forwarding through commercials. Nielsen simply cannot measure this phenomenon. Even Nielsen's C3 measure misses a substantial amount of fast-forwarding through commercials. Aside from minimizing channel switching, the best way to minimize commercial avoidance is to maximize the percentage of live viewing. This is calculated by simply dividing the live rating by the live + 7 rating. Calculating the Commercial Value Index Each element in the CVI is analyzed for all networks. The average for all broadcast and cable networks combined becomes a 100 index. Each network is then indexed to the average to develop a value factor for each category. The three factors are then averaged to arrive at a Commercial Value Index for each network. I give each factor equal weight, but if you think one element is more important, you can weight them anyway you want. The CVI for 4th quarter 2010 showed: For adults 25-54 the Top 10 ranked networks were, ION, USA, ABC Family, TNT, CBS, Lifetime, Adult Swim, ABC, AMC, and Syfy. For adults 18-49: TBS and Nick-At-Nite joined the top 10 and ABC Family and Syfy fell out. All the other networks remained, but the order changed somewhat. Looking at different demos, such as persons 12-34 or men 35-64 obviously yields different results. Anyone can do this analysis and arrive at the exact same answers. Full disclosure: I am currently consulting for ION Media Networks. The Commercial Value Index, however, was developed long before I started consulting for any cable networks. The data holds up to scrutiny, and is as transparent as Nielsen data can be.
Summer is the time for networks to drive big awareness for the fall season -- especially for new shows. But sometimes with a change in characters, more marketing is needed. High on the list here is the obvious: CBS' "Two and a Half Men." What better to get our attention than an outdoor and print campaign showing -- what else -- three men, including new cast member Ashton Kutcher? Oh, by they way, they are naked behind a sign touting the start date of the new season. What's behind the sign? (A double entendre, I'm sure). Hmmm... perhaps it's what is behind the new direction of the show... or about the demise of Sheen's character. On that last point, we're betting some nasty, unique death with hookers, drinking, gambling, perhaps some fast cars thrown in. Key aficionados are no doubt tweeting a lot -- wondering what this all means. That's the hope of CBS. (We also wonder how Patrick Jane is going to get out of his mess for seemingly killing off Red John on another CBS show, "The Mentalist.") CBS' message on the "Men" ad: "All will be revealed... 09.19.11". It is a nice teaser. But maybe not all that original. A slightly embarrassed Kutcher is in the middle of Jon Cryer and Angus T. Jones, with Cryer looking down -- presumably at Kutcher's private parts. Kutcher is a key draw for women -- and young women -- a key demographic component of primetime network television. Naked and/or embarrassed looking young men go a long way in drawing attention. I prefer an earlier photo -- not of a marketing kind. In May, just after the announcement of Kutcher's addition to "Men," a photo captured the three actors seemingly screaming at each other. An argument? So they said -- with tongues firmly in cheeks. More controversy? We can only hope. In a more disparate entertainment media environment, the better question is whether "Men" can morph into a different show and find a new gear.