Jack Daniel's and the Zac Brown Band (ZBB) have announced a partnership spanning events, TV, in-store and other elements. This is the distillery's first formal sponsorship of a band in more than a decade. There is significant affinity and overlap between Jack Daniel's and Zac Brown Band fans -- both embrace authentic values, music and spirits, summed up Jack Daniel's master distiller Jeff Arnett. ZBB's first album ("The Foundation") went double-platinum and was one of Billboard's top 20 albums of 2009, and its second ("You Get What You Give") was recently certified platinum. The sponsorship will kick off at ZBB's upcoming concerts on September 5th and 6th at Red Rocks in Morrison, Colo. While the brand's activities will vary from venue to venue, they will include stage signage, some kind of beverage presence, ticket giveaways, Jack Daniel's' "Lynchburg on Wheels" traveling distillery experience, and a presence at ZBB's pre-concert "Eat & Greets" for VIP attendees. (Brown and band members are foodies who travel with a chef, who also prepares treats for the guests from a cooking trailer.) Two TV spots featuring the band will be aired beginning during the 2011 holiday season and into spring 2012, according to Jack Daniel's PR manager, Andrea Duvall. One aspect of the partnership is launching and promoting a responsible drinking campaign, and one of the TV spots focuses on this messaging. The other will be more music- and tour-related, says Duvall. Social media and in-store promotions will also drive awareness. In addition, a JD commemorative bottle program will support Camp Southern Ground, Brown's camp for children with special needs.
More than half of the U.S. population and 80% of Internet users are now streaming video as part of their regular TV diet, according to a new study from Omnicom media agency OMD. The study suggests that the video streaming trend is poised to grow further with technological advances that improve the quality of the experience. Streamers already deviate from the traditional viewing standard: about 27% of their TV intake occurs outside of regularly scheduled programming times. It prompts the question -- just how a big a threat is streaming to normal programing patterns as transmitted by broadcasters, cable and satellite operators? The study showed that 24% of the nearly 1,600 respondents who regularly stream videos have either already cancelled their cable or satellite service or are open to doing so. The research did not specifically address the reasons for that churn, or the mindset to consider cancellation. But at the very least, the growth in viewing to video streams should be setting off alarms at mainstream TV programmers. Of course, many are on the case: CBS has an agreement with Netflix and NBC, ABC and Fox are partners in Hulu, to name just a couple of examples. OMD researchers say they don't believe that video streaming will become the primary TV programing source, at least in the foreseeable future. "We don't look at it as a replacement for TV, but rather as a complement to traditional TV viewing," said Erin Bilezikjian-Johnson, group director, custom Research & Insights, OMD. The reasons for the growing popularity of streamed content are pretty clear. People don't want to be tied to programming schedules dictated by others; they find the number of ads and interruptions -- as well as the general tenor of the messaging in traditional TV channels -- to be annoying, per the study. That said, the study also found that nearly two-thirds of respondents would not cancel their cable or satellite service and rely solely on streaming video. For now, quality appears to be an issue curbing the growth of video streaming. When asked why they don't watch more streaming videos, the answer most often provided (37%) by those polled was that they simply prefer watching regular TV. And 22% said that streams were "difficult to watch with other people." Twenty percent cited general quality issues, while another 20% said streaming screens were too small. But those objections will likely vanish with "improvements in the quality of the video streaming video experience," thus fueling additional growth, the OMD report stated. Among those who regularly view streamed content, about one-third of respondents said they do it daily or multiple times a day. Another 14% said they do it four to six times a week, while 20% reported viewing streamed content two to three times a week. Overall growth is likely to come from older viewers -- as two-thirds of respondents 35 years old and up said they would watch more streamed content in the next 12 months than they do now, compared to only about a third of the 18- to-34-year-olds. But younger viewers will drive video streaming to additional technology platforms. About half of the respondents age 34 or younger said they planned to watch more content on portable devices in the future, compared to just 7% of those 50 and up. The top five most popular streamed genres, the study reported, are weather reports, news, full-length TV shows, celebrity news and gossip and music videos. The takeaway for advertisers, said Pamela Marsh, director of custom research and insights, OMD: "If the intent of the advertiser is to achieve larger reach," then news and weather and other "time-sensitive content" should be part of the buy. The top reasons cited for watching: entertainment, the freedom to watch at any time, to catch up on a missed programs, the ability to watch anywhere and commercial avoidance. As to formats, most of those polled said they would prefer to see an ad before a video stream than in the middle of it. And half said they would prefer to have a choice of ads to consider being exposed to as opposed to being forced to watch a specific ad. Seventy percent said they would prefer to watch funny ads in video streaming -- more than double any other ad genre.
I am going to confirm what New York Times advertising/marketing columnist Stuart Elliott all but officially proclaimed with his column this morning: We are smack dab in the middle the Annual August Advertising Doldrums. While news-generating brand marketers of the world cavort on Cape Cod and other likely destinations, Elliott grinds it out with an entertaining column on ad-related entertainment headlined, "Summer Diversions to Fill the 'Mad Men' Void." "For the last four summers, Madison Avenue has been absorbed in 'Mad Men,' the AMC series about the advertising industry in the 1960s," Elliott writes. "But a delay in production for the coming season means there are no new episodes until early next year." Elliott's alternative fixes range from a BBC series "The Hour" that he says is "evocative of 'Mad Men' despite being set in London in 1956 rather than Manhattan in the '60s." Citing colleague Alessandra Stanley's review, we learn that "this narrative also unfolds through an amber haze of cigarette smoke, whiskey and social taboos." Then there's a host of old movies you might TiVo, RedBox or Netflix stream, (including a citation of Adweek's "25 Best Advertising Movies Ever Made" by David Griner. If you're in the mood for lighter fare, there's the likes of "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying" on Broadway (if you're visiting the Big Apple or one of the 291 people stuck in town) or "Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?," which is coming up on The Movie Channel. Speaking of lighter fare, TiVo and being stuck in town, I was vegging out in front of the TV set last night and clicked on the first of a series of shows for which I'd forgotten that I'd taken out a "season pass": IFC's "Rhett and Link: Commercial Kings." I watched the first few episodes. If you appreciate sales and marketing at its grittiest, have any affection at all in your heart for pure schlock, or just enjoy being entertained by clever people on top of their craft, it's a hoot (and a woof and a meow). Rhett McLaughlin and Link Neal, a Mutt-and-Jeff pairing of a high school hoops player and his science fair buddy, are evidently best buddies since first grade in Buies Creek, N.C. While rooming together as engineering students at North Carolina State University, they taught themselves filmmaking. Then, YouTube was invented for people just like them. Their careers as "Internetainers" took off -- their main YouTube channel, as of this morning, is ranked as No. 70 "Most Subscribed (All Time)" and is No. 23 among "Comedian" sites. Their shtick is making the sort of cheesy local commercials you see on cable TV in dayparts when most people are REM-snoozing away. "The show has revived interest in wacky, late-night television commercials -- the type that are so bad, they're good," Corey Kilgannon wrote in the New York Times' "City Room" blog last week, while covering the creation of a low-budget spot by Nakia Rattray, a Bronx-based entertainer with the stage name Uncle Majic, the Hip-Hop Magician. Like Uncle Majic, Rhett and Link appreciate "the canon of New York-area low-budget commercials: spots like Crazy Eddie's, or Tom Carvel's for ice cream cakes that featured Cookie Puss or Fudgie the Whale." The first episode of "Rhett and Link: Commercial Kings" shows them creating spots for a cat motel and a doggy day-care service in Los Angeles that, beneath all the clowning around and cute animal shots that will appeal to the Aunt Millie in you, exhibit raw marketing genius. Adweek's T'L' Stanley reported earlier this summer that Rhett and Link also had initiated the LoCo Awards & Sweepstakes -- "a contest to honor other locally produced spots. They envision it as the Cannes of kitsch, or the Oscars for small-business owners who gyrate, warble, and overact their way through 30 seconds of airtime." Rhett and Link discuss the business of YouTube and their transition from the Internet to cable television with Devon Brown on CBS/What's Trending. "We embraced the fact that we needed to incorporate brands and sponsorship into what we were doing so we could make a living. We are communicating with fans all along saying this is how we're going to bring content to you," Neal tells Brown. Aspiring Internetainers and Social Media Marketers take note: They say that are "EVERYWHERE You WANT To Be":
More consumers with cable, satellite or telco TV services have downgraded their services in the last year -- and more are on the way. Dallas-based researcher Parks Associates says 13% of consumers who have broadband connections have made cutbacks within the last 12 months -- with another 9% to come. The study says this includes some 3.9 million people who regularly watch Internet video. These "downgraders" or "cord shavers," who typically spend $20 or less on monthly video services, are heavy TV users. They watch, on average, 4.2 hours of Internet video on their TV each week. Parks Associates says the growth of downgraders is more closely linked to the growth of broadband adoption than watching more Internet video. It recommends that providers of pay TV improve their video on demand selections -- especially to compete with Netflix and Redbox. The study says 22% of all broadband households now use the Netflix Watch Instantly service. It was also suggested that set-top box distributors find a way to include YouTube, the digital video service, which is already being included in many Internet-connected TVs on the market. The reports says "TV Everywhere will be an ineffective retention tool." The data suggests that 11% of all pay-TV households, or 6.5 million homes, would pay an extra $15 a month. Many consumers view TV Everywhere as a "premium package." The study suggests that "TV Everywhere" providers will see gains if many offer no-frill packages. Park Associates notes that nearly 50% of all flat-panel TVs sold in 2011 will be Internet-connectable and about two-thirds of U.S. broadband households will have a video-game console connected to the Internet. Consumer sales of Internet-connectable TV devices will climb to nearly 350 million units worldwide by 2015. In terms of overall pay TV provider, the study ranked DirecTV the highest in overall TV viewing experience satisfaction, and AT&T in second place.
It seems that youth-oriented cause-marketing campaigns are hitting their mark. Millennials (a/k/a Gen Y) are more aware than Americans of other generations of campaigns such as Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty (33% versus 21%) or Gap RED (26% versus 9%), according to a new study of this cohort from the Barkley marketing agency, Service Management Group and The Boston Consulting Group. Millennials also report greater exposure to such campaigns through social media (40% versus 22%) and online news (28% versus 22%). Media-wise, Millennials watch significantly less TV than do other generations. Just 26% report watching 20-plus hours per week (versus 49% of the rest of the population). Furthermore, they are much more likely to consume TV on their laptops (42% versus 18% of other generations), and somewhat more likely to watch it via DVR (40% versus 36%) or on-demand (26% versus 18%). The survey of more than 5,000 respondents probed Millennials' attitudes about cause marketing, grocery and apparel shopping, restaurants and travel, as well as digital and social media habits. Other findings:
Future digital TV/video consumption will shift to tablets from PCs. Scottsdale, Ar.-based media researcher In-Stat says 65% of the U.S. population will own a smartphone and/or tablet by 2015 -- that comes to over 200 million people in total. The survey says this estimate will have an impact on how video entertainment is acquired and consumed. Other surveys suggest that laptops and PC business have already taken a hit because of new portable tablets. The In-Stat survey says 86% of smartphone/tablet users will view video on their mobile devices -- and that 60% of smartphone/tablet owners will also be viewing so-called over-the-top (OTT) video services at home. The survey also says there will be nearly two smartphone/tablet owners per OTT household. The dominant brand in homes in this context: Apple. The average Apple household will have four Apple devices, while the average Google Android household will have over two Android devices. Keith Nissen, research director of In-Stat, stated that the company's study, the U.S. Multiscreen Video Database, "quantifies consumption and interaction with video entertainment on mobile devices both outside and inside the home." He added that this complements its other entertainment database products, which track the online/pay-TV video market.
NBC has started its typically slow rise to the top of ratings on Sunday for the fall. Its "Sunday Night Football" pre-season game on a mid-August Sunday tied for best-rated show of the night. The San Diego Chargers-Dallas Cowboys pre-season game earned a Nielsen preliminary 3.3 rating/10 share among 18-49 viewers -- which, along with a "Dateline NBC" rating/share of 1.5/5 earlier in the evening -- gave the network an easy Sunday night win, averaging a 2.9 rating/8 share. A week ago, it earned a 1.0/3. CBS also pulled in a 3.3/10 for its big "Big Brother" reality show, up 22% from the week before. A week ago, the show was disrupted by the overrun of the PGA Championship. But that's where the good news for CBS ends. Repeats of "The Good Wife" at 9 p.m. and "CSI: Miami" took in a 1.0/3 and a 1.2/3, respectively. CBS was in second place, over a full rating point behind NBC with a 1.7/5 among 18-49 viewers, and two-tenths of a rating point lower than the week before. ABC was next with a 1.3/4, one-tenth lower than the week before. ABC's new episodes of "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" and "20/20: The Sixth Sense" rang up a 1.1/3 and 1.4/4, respectively. Fox had reruns of three of its Sunday comedies, and its 9:30 p.m. variety show, "In the Flow with Affion Crockett," earned a 1.2/3 -- the same numbers it earned a week before. Fox scored a 1.2/3 for the night overall, the same results as the previous week. Univision also earned a 1.2/3 for the night, up one-tenth from last Sunday.
While HDTV penetration is growing markedly in the U.S., a new report suggests that it is set for a boom globally. Informa Telecoms & Media, the research firm, projects that HDTVs will be in 131 million homes by the end of the year -- a figure that should triple by 2016. The bulk of the sets are still in the U.S., where HD content continues to expand. Nielsen recently projected that about 77 million homes have an HD set, up 20% from a year ago. This year worldwide, 34 million homes will add an HD set, according to Informa. The company suggests that free over-the-air broadcasters in certain countries are increasingly offering HD feeds of sports events, such as the Olympics and World Cup. This is critical, because broad penetration will only occur when the free broadcasters offer HD content, as they do widely in the U.S. Informa notes that massive growth has occurred since 2005, and by the end of 2016, it predicts that many countries will be nearing a point when most homes will be heavy HD consumers. That could bring a round of upgrades to an "UltraHD" model.
NBC Universal said it has hired a former executive at the ABC-owned stations to lead marketing at its group of 10 owned stations. Therese A. Gamba becomes senior vice president of marketing for the group. Gamba had served in marketing roles at the ABC stations in Los Angeles and San Francisco. She will report to Valari Staab, the new president of the NBC group. Staab joined from ABC-owned KGO in San Francisco in April, where she overlapped with Gamba several years ago. Gamba will serve as an "in-house consultant" for the NBC stations, helping them "define and develop their unique brand strategies," NBCU said. The company is making an effort to decentralize control of the stations and allow each to carve out a stronger individual brand in its market. Staab changed the name of the division from NBC Local Media to the NBC Owned Television Stations. Staab stated that Gamba is "one of the most talented, creative and results-driven marketing professionals I've ever worked with." After leaving the ABC stations, Gamba was a consultant working with clients such as Warner Bros. syndication group.
I wrote something several months ago about Peter Rabar, an agency legend I had the privilege to work for, and to learn from. It was called "In Peter We Trust." The piece, on one level, talked about the nature of the client-agency relationship -- that is, what it takes to achieve a long-term, productive one. And it questioned whether we were talking ourselves out of the notion that such a quaint concept can apply today, with so much more specialization, technology and pace. Of course it can. In fact, it is needed more today than ever. If we need to debate that idea, perhaps we can do it another day. There was another lesson Peter taught me, which happened on a very busy winter day. I mentioned that he was the former secretary to the agency's founder, and had become over time the head of its largest and most profitable account -- a position he held, brilliantly, for three decades. He ran this account with one assistant for all those years, and for a few of them, I was that assistant. We were working on our key, first-quarter member solicitation campaign. It involved the integration of television, print and mail, with the kind of complex test vs control plans that direct marketers routinely execute. This was just on a major scale. One of the key components of the campaign was tens of millions of preprinted newspaper inserts. They were to be supported by the TV buy and provide a supplement to the mail, to build up a critical penetration level in each market. We were really busy when we got the call. One of the trucks carrying several million of the inserts was late with its delivery. After a few more phone calls, we discovered there was a massive snowstorm on this route, and no one could assure us when the delivery would be made, or if it would be made. This was our key campaign of the year. As John Belushi might have said, millions of dollars and thousands of lives (or maybe the other way around) were at stake. Several hours later we got another call. The truck was found. It had slid off the side of the road and lost its cargo. We were frantic. Production directors were calling printers, media directors were calling publications and TV stations, and we were all trying to figure out what to tell the client about the status of the campaign. We gathered in Peter's office to review the options. After allowing us to vent and pretend to have a plan, he sat back in his chair, removed his ever-present cigar and asked, "How's the driver?" No one else had asked that question. We looked at each other, understood that we had lost sight of the important stuff, and left his office to find out. The driver was OK. The inserts were lost. We reprinted them and everything else fell into place, delay and all. It always does. I think of Peter often when things get a bit frenetic. And I thank him for reminding me of the important stuff.
On June 24, location-based social network Foursquare trumpeted an infusion of $50 million in VC capital -- a piece of news that deservedly received the attention of hundreds of news outlets. The day earlier, however, Foursquare announced a myriad of strategic alliances, which included one with American Express, allowing users of the Foursquare mobile app to receive credits applied directly to their Amex cards when purchasing goods (after checking in) from participating Foursquare-tagged locations. The $50 million announcement quickly overshadowed the prior day's release -- but in hindsight, the Amex news will likely have much more historic value. Having now seen and tested the Foursquare / American Express process firsthand, I can honestly report that Foursquare has bridged the complexity of couponing in one of the most seamless ways imaginable. And I'm excited about the implications this will have on TV advertising, direct response, and home shopping content. First, let's be clear -- there are some pretty cool "ease of purchase" apps out there. Let's take the Starbucks app, for example. Load a Starbucks gift card with $25+, register the unique card number within the Starbucks app on your smart phone, and you can pretty much leave your card at home. Visit any of the hundreds of Starbucks enabled with their special scanning technology, open the Starbucks app on your phone, hold up the special QR code it displays as you confirm your purchase, and the total is instantly deducted from your gift card balance. Seconds later, your phone reflects the reduced balance on your physical (and virtual) card. This is good stuff; elegant, fast, and slick. But the Starbucks experience is primarily confined to, and within, the Starbucks environment. The location needs to have the enabling hardware installed, the consumer has to display the app's QR code to the cashier as part of the payment process, and the cashier must hold the scanner up to the phone to scan the code, in order to complete the transaction. Training and retraining staff (and newly hired staff) adds another, hidden burden to the app's overhead. By way of comparison, what Foursquare has accomplished is more complex in the background, yet provides consumers and retailers with an even more seamless, less labor-intensive experience than the Starbucks example. Since we're using coffee shops as illustrations, let's look at Dunkin' Donuts. By visiting participating Dunkin' Donuts, and then "checking in" using Foursquare, you'll see a special offer on your phone's display (at least in the Tampa Bay markets), offering $2 off any purchase of $10 or more, during the month of August. The caveat: the purchase must be made using your American Express card. Once you link your Amex card to your Foursquare account, there's really nothing else you need to do, other than spend the requisite minimum using your American Express card. Here's the cool part: At the retail level, the cashier does nothing out of the ordinary. There are no codes to scan, no text messages to verify, no coupons to tear out, deduct, and mail in to redeem, and no end-of-day accounting needed to balance out the account. No training is necessary; in fact, the cashier and management appear to be completely unaware of anything special going on. At the consumer level, once you check in using Foursquare, you behave as you would with any other transaction Select the food, get a total, and give the cashier the Amex card. Done. I checked in recently via Foursquare, saw the offer, bought three Turkey Bacon and Cheddar flatbreads, and placed the charge on my American Express card. Viola. I remember thinking that some form of digital receipt would have been helpful, but quickly acknowledged, mentally, that this would require a massive amount of coordination, and would have required involvement by the retail outlet. Seconds later, my iPhone chirped as this new message arrived: "Congratulations! You just saved $2.00 off your purchase of $11.20 at Dunkin' Donuts by using your Amex Card. Expect a statement credit in 2-3 business days." I'm completely blown away. I can only imagine how sophisticated this infrastructure must be, to allow five parties -- American Express, Dunkin' Donuts Corporate, a local Dunkin' Donuts outlet, Foursquare, and a consumer -- to transact "direct credit coupons" without burdening either the consumer or the retail outlet. So, you might be asking, what does this have to do with TV? Let's imagine, for a moment, another transaction between multiple parties. The currency: consumer attention. The parties include the advertiser, the cable or broadcast network, the MSO or Satellite service provider, Foursquare, American Express, and the consumer. Current ITV technology, and upcoming SmartTV technology, all still require considerable levels of cooperation between devices, MSOs, networks, and advertisers. Set-top boxes and even more capable SmartTVs struggle with version control, application conflicts, scale, and mass adoption. The Foursquare technology and American Express alliance provides the framework within which a consumer can now watch a commercial, "check in" using a combination of QR code and Foursquare's location-based technology, which can then load a special (even demographically targeted) promotion, tied to the advertised product and retailer, directly onto the consumer's phone: in real time, or during time-shifted viewing. While they're at it, the advertiser/retailer could ask a question that proves the consumer paid attention to the ad (NOTE: shameless plug for our patented CRAVE process) as a condition of being rewarded with the promotion or discount. Instructions, QR codes, and the actual interaction can completely bypass most of the hardware, though STBs and SmartTV's can enable or ease the process. And just like the Dunkin' Donuts cashier, the content and MSO / satellite networks can do what they already do, without being burdened -- or tolling the gate.
Product placement in the political process? Who knew this was a ripe area for entertainment marketing? This is where Stephen Colbert, comedian/host of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," comes in. Starting a real-life Political Action Committee (PAC) , Colbert looks to build on earlier marketing spin related to the fun of politics -- and then some. Inserting himself -- and the Colbert brand -- into the real-life political process kind of puts branded entertainment into the political marketing arena. Backing the PAC, Comedy Central has started a website -- naturally - and is running commercials on Iowa TV stations. One spot looked to have fun at the expense of newly announced Presidential candidate, Texas Governor Rick Perry, by asking voters to write in a candidate of a slightly different name, "Rick Parry," in the Iowa straw poll. Nearly 170,000 people have registered for Colbert's new effort. Still, some believe this product placement is causing confusion. One of three Des Moines, Iowa TV stations didn't want to air Colbert's SuperPAC commercial because it might confuse viewers/voters. Colbert SuperPAC, Citizens for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, is real. But not necessarily to get voters. It's more to get viewers, of course. Whetting the appetites of viewers with comedy in a very serious political process is a great angle. No doubt that is why political cartoons have always worked well in newspapers. Colbert's stuff riffs off his other seriously fun critiques of the political scene -- as well as that of his Comedy Central partner-in-crime, Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show." Colbert and Stewart upped their brand association into the political scene when they held their own political rallies in Washington, D.C. a year ago: "The March To Keep Fear Alive" and "The Rally To Restore Sanity." Ratings effect? Both Colbert and Stewart did show some ratings gains earlier this year. But it is hard to say all this came from their extra-curricular political marketing efforts. Comedy Central surely also runs more mainstream-looking marketing for the shows. One thing is for sure: Stuff like this is only the beginning of efforts to gain comedy -- and promotional -- fodder.
While more than $135 billion was spent in the last year on brand advertising in the U.S., marketers only allocated 3% of the budget to digital campaigns, which includes programs that leverage a promising mobile market. However, the latest industry stats reveal that advertisers will be dedicating $50 billion over the next five years to reach consumers through social channels, signifying a tremendous opportunity to interact with a target audience in new ways.To effectively reach consumers in the new social environment, brand managers need to learn how to translate their budgets into the digital realm, which also means understanding the advantages that digital can provide over television advertising. Here are five "Vs" to help guide the way as you shift your vision from television to digital.1. Opt-in video. Great brands are great storytellers. However, too many brands create compelling video without a captive audience to watch it. In other words, they have no idea how to tell who's actually paying attention. While commercials interrupt consumers' enjoyment of a TV program, social media allows video to enter the conversation between friends in a non-intrusive way with an opt-in choice. Brands such as Microsoft, American Express and Unilever are among the many advertisers who are mastering how to pick the right moments online to tell their story, and in turn, are able to gauge the attention levels of their target audience. By empowering consumers to choose when and with whom they would like to engage, brands are more likely to reach people who will embrace their message. Recent studies show consumers average over 60 seconds of engagement with brands when they willingly opt-in to a video ad experience.2. Value exchange. Consumers value their personal time and are loyal to those companies that make their lives more productive. Brands gaining some of the biggest successes in social media are engaging with millions of consumers through value exchange. By offering consumers something relevant to their online experience in return for their time and attention, value-exchange advertising is crucial to gaining a consumer's active attention in a mutually beneficial way. Broadcast television and radio pioneered the original media value-exchange model as networks provided consumers with free content in exchange for listening to a word from the sponsor. The digital media uprising has allowed the model to pivot, making value exchange, and its corresponding ROI, now possible on a 1-to-1 level. And now, with virtual currency (perhaps worth its own "V"!), moms seeking Facebook Credits to build their Zynga farms, office workers trying to read an article buried behind a paywall, or travelers trying to access WiFi at an airport can all be helped with value-exchange advertising - allowing brands to provide instant gratification.3. Virality. In the "old days" (as in, less than 10 years ago), a television commercial earned additional buzz at the water cooler. Today, these same conversations take place on Twitter and Facebook, creating the water cooler gossip of thousands. This distinction is important because 24% of all viewers now have a second screen open while they watch TV, whether it's a tablet, a PC or a smart phone. Clever brands like Kia and Best Buy are synchronizing their TV spend with social media ad engagements to speed the virality of their message. This synchronicity should be given special heed: consumers who share a brand's message as part of an engagement campaign typically share it with an average of 130 friends online. Earned media by way of the online water cooler is a vast multiplier of digital dollars spent, and greatly increases a brand's effective reach and conversion down the sales funnel. 4. Validity. Millions have been spent over the last half-century on research to justify the value of TV advertising. What social media may lack in 50 years of studies, it is making up in concrete and measureable results. According to a recent OTX Research study, about two-thirds of people use information they find through social media to influence their buying decisions, and over 60% trust information they find through social media more than traditional advertisements-pointing to the effectiveness of social media campaigns to change consumer behavior. Moreover, as social media migrates to the mobile environment, marketers will be able to track consumers' purchases at physical store locations, and social ROI will have irrefutable validity - making the current industry standard of 0.1% for display ad CTRs shameful and baseless. 5. Vision. What's really holding back billions of brand dollars from digital advertising? Vision. Most CMOs who are giving speeches about the power of social aren't backing up those words with budgets and smart execution plans. For brand dollars to migrate from TV to digital, brand managers are going to have to lead the way and prove the strength of this next generation of marketing. Those with the Vision today will quickly become the CMOs of tomorrow.
UPDATED WITH CLARIFICATION. Last week's Social Media Insider Summit in Lake Tahoe saw a series of great presentations addressing some of the cutting-edge issues in social media marketing -- including of course measurement and analytics, always a favorite topic for media types and especially important for making social media transparent and accountable, which will in turn allow it to attract more ad dollars. But one presentation, by Nielsen research manager for measurement science Nina Stratt Lerner, was interesting for addressing social media as a source of information about consumer sentiment -- specifically buzz about TV shows, and its relation to actual program ratings over time, which should allow TV broadcasters (and advertisers) to make predictions about the popularity of shows. The Nielsen case study tracked the volume of online buzz over the course of the TV season for four shows: "Jersey Shore," "The Bachelor," "Modern Family" and "Gossip Girl." As one might expect, for most of the shows there is a preliminary spike around the premiere, followed by slowly (and unevenly) mounting buzz in mid-season, and then a big spike around the finale. Where is all this buzz occurring? Interestingly, Nielsen found that discussion boards and blogs were far and away the biggest sources of buzz about TV shows, compared to Facebook (including Groups). In fact, the volume of buzz on Facebook including Groups basically appeared to flatline across the TV season, while blogs and discussion boards showed increasing buzz along the lines described above. Nielsen also found that online buzz tends to correlate with actual ratings more strongly among younger demos than older demos: for the 50+ cohort, the correlation is low across the board (males, females, and all persons), while buzz in the 35-49 set is somewhat correlated, and the highest correlation between buzz and actual ratings is seen among 12-17-year-olds. I'm guessing that the overall volume of buzz is also higher among the younger demos (although I suppose there could be millions of 50-something women breathlessly posting about Gossip Girl). Lerner's presentation also included an interesting graph showing correlation between buzz and actual TV ratings for broadcast versus cable TV. For some reason (I'm curious why this might be) the correlation between buzz and ratings is quite a bit higher for broadcast TV than it is for cable. Is it simply that broadcast TV shows tend to have a wider distribution and larger audience, including a larger -- and therefore more representative -- crowd of social media users? I'd be interested to hear any thoughts readers have on this. (As I write this I see that Nielsen just launched a new social media measurement and analytics service, BuzzMetrics Exchange, which the company is billing as "a full service social media monitoring and engagement platform," designed to allow clients to directly engage with consumers who are talking about their brands online.) Correction and Clarification: This column originally attributed the research to Nielsen, but in fact it was performed by NM Incite, a joint venture of Nielsen and McKinsey. Additionally, although only four TV shows were discussed in the presentation, the full study actually covered 250 shows. Finally, it should be noted that the portion of the study addressing Facebook buzz versus blogs and discussion forums only looked at public-facing Facebook fan pages, which may explain the lower volume found there.
The media landscape shifted seismically yet again last week with Google's announcement of plans to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion. In what appears to be a brilliant move, Google managed to consolidate its positions in the three screens of media -- computing, television, and mobile -- in one fell swoop. This is as big a deal in the media and tech space as has come along in years. While industry pundits have speculated on Google's reasons for the acquisition, my bet is that Google's longer-term rationale for the move is about data. With unprecedented access to data from mobile devices, browsers, ad networks, and set-top boxes, Google will ultimately be able to take audience targeting to entirely new levels within and across platforms. Even in the near term, though, the implications of this deal for those of us in the TV space will be at least as significant as they are for Google's current mobile manufacturing partners (who, at the moment, must still be trying to figure out which way is up). Here's why. The Google acquisition of Motorola Mobility is a three-legged stool, resting on mobility, television, and intellectual property (patents). First, mobility is all about computing anywhere, and that's where our world is headed. Computing at home, on the go, in the air, on TV, and anywhere else you can imagine. But what is computing? Now it includes any media, anytime. And Google has a powerful and popular mobile platform in Android. Combining it with Motorola's manufacturing prowess could bring Google the tight integration between hardware and software that Apple has. (But will this mean Android becomes a walled garden?) Second, as for television, with Motorola Mobility Google gains fully half of the market in set-top-box manufacturing, giving it a more demonstrable foothold in the home. Google TV hasn't gained the traction Google had hoped for, but with the integration of set-top boxes, Google TV will be able to provide a far more compelling and immersive television experience than it has yet been able to deliver. And if it really wanted to leverage the television piece, the possibilities are near endless. I mean, think about what the android platform is -- an interactive entertainment platform on your big screen at home. Of course, the jury's still out on how involved Google will be - and how involved MSOs will allow Google to be - on the television front, but things could definitely start to get interesting. I know I'll be watching closely for Google's next move on this front, as I'm sure will many of you. And then there are the patents - more than 17,000 in all (plus 7,500 applications). More and more, companies are beginning to appreciate the value of patents as an essential driver of innovation. Patents protect firms' investments in innovation; without them, individual competitors would be unable to help move an industry forward. Even in our little corner of the tech industry, there have been a surprising number of patent disputes over the last several months, with at least three pairs of competitors engaged in lawsuits even as I write (including, in the interest of full disclosure, my own company's row with WPP). Google has often gotten the short end of the IP stick. (Just last month, it lost out on a bid for Nortel's patent portfolio to a consortium that included Apple and Microsoft.) But with the patents Google is set to acquire from Motorola, it'll have ample IP ammo to defend itself from competitors seeking to slow it down on the mobile and television fronts. Of course, even from the security of its Motorola-amped position, Google will face some formidable challenges in consolidating the operations and assets of the two firms. First, there will be the cultural challenges. The two companies share certain characteristics in common, but in many ways -- from dress code to cafeteria menus -- they couldn't be more different. With Motorola's strong identity and near parity on employee population, the cultural pendulum isn't likely to shift easily in Google's direction, either. Another major challenge will involve Google's acquisition of a second-place position in TV. After all, Motorola only owns half of the set-top-box marketplace; the other has belonged to Cisco since its 2006 acquisition of Scientific Atlanta. Even as it inherits a rich legacy of innovation from General Instrument (part of Motorola since 2000), which led the digital revolution in 1989 with the first digital HDTV submission, Google will find it more difficult to drive the entire TV industry as it has the online ad marketplace. Finally, the acquisition introduces a new level of complexity -- and a new kind of impetus for partnership -- to Google's business. Google has not enjoyed the best reputation when it comes to partnering in a complex ecosystem (see: Viacom); this at least partly explains why Google TV hasn't yet found its legs. Will Google's relationships with its 39 Android mobile hardware licensees remain intact as Google itself joins the manufacturing ranks? We'll all have to stay tuned to find out.
Programming executives live for "lightning in a bottle": out-of-nowhere shows that hit it big. But can reality shows with hard real-life components hit too hard? And start fires? The husband of one of the "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" committed suicide recently. Real-life tragedies surrounding reality shows aren't new -- there have been other suicides and attempted suicides, as well as criminal activity such as stalking. Advertisers understand the risks -- and some have glommed on to these efforts even though many shows have changed drastically. TLC's original "Jon & Kate Plus 8" turned upside down after a couple of years: A friendly little family show about a couple struggling to raise eight kids ended up documenting a tawdry breakup. "Jon & Kate" was originally bought by advertisers because it promised a safe "family" reality show to run their messages against. Then the content changed big-time. Marketers then had a choice -- stay in, with short-term big ratings gains, or leave. Producers can do a whole lot in the editing process of reality shows -- such as framing someone to be the "bad" guy" -- but when real life works itself into the mix, they need to adjust. So do marketers. Bravo says it will delay September's start of "Real Housewives," probably to re-edit some things. But it is not canceling the series. In the past, some reality shows had no choice. A couple of years ago, VH1 pulled a couple of reality shows when a contestant who was a suspect in the killing of his ex-wife killed himself. With "Housewives," some of this drama is already there. You expect talk of divorce, scandal and betrayal. But do you expect suicide? Years ago, TV advertisers had real-life "hit lists" -- those shows and topics where they didn't want their advertising to run. Airline advertisers didn't want to be in a movie of the week where, say, an airline crashed in the storyline; Japanese-based automotive makers didn't want to be in some World War II movies. The question is: Are advertisers more accepting of risky content now than they were years ago -- or are they more discerning, given the plethora of TV media platforms available?