Who keeps moving their legs when they are standing still? Besides maybe boxers, exercise enthusiasts, unicyclists and people standing on a hot tin roof -- nobody. So why should a car keep spinning its cam shaft and burning gas when it's not moving? That's a key message for Buick in a new campaign that touts the General Motors division's new eAssist drivetrain technology. The feature, available initially in the 2012 Lacrosse and Regal sedans, mates a compact electric motor and lithium-ion battery to a 2.4L four-cylinder Ecotec engine. The automaker says the technology boosts fuel economy by 25%. The campaign, via Leo Burnett's Detroit office, spotlights the fact that eAssist allows drivers to shift to electric power and back while stopped. The first TV spot, which has just launched, centers on the notion, "You don't keep running while you're stopped, so why should your car engine?" Creative shows an assortment of Monty Python-like scenarios in which people are running in place while getting married, going to the opera and drinking coffee. The agency's executive creative director, Steve Chavez, says the technology gives Buick opportunities to talk tech and spotlight the rebirth of the Buick brand. "eAssist is something of a calling card for the luxury space. In the luxury space technology is the cost of entry; this is our greatest focus over the fourth and first quarter." The campaign also calls out the 36 mpg that Lacrosse gets with eAssist. To that end, Buick will roll out an advertising unit in Wired magazine's iPad iteration that looks at first blush like a static ad that asks if it's possible for a full-sized sedan to go 36 miles on a gallon of gasoline. Chavez explains, however, that when an iPad user flips the virtual page of Wired the ad comes to life as the Lacrosse travels a real 36 miles on one gallon of gas -- albeit a compressed journey, as it were, within the confines of two digital magazine pages. He says the agency is filming an actually road trip for the execution. Buick will also be back in the Wired Store, a pop-up store and exhibition in New York, where Buick will feature the Lacrosse with eAssist along with explorations on automotive technology under the hood of the car. The campaign will include print, per Chavez, who adds that the TV buy will heavy up on college sports. In March the automaker signed a partnership with Turner Sports and CBS Sports around men's basketball and, more recently, with Fox Sports Media Group including the Bit Ten Network to tout Buick Human Highlight Reel, about community work by former student-athletes.
Season or no, the shoes still need to be sold. With the NBA season already delayed (and unlikely to start anytime soon) thanks to a labor dispute, Adidas is prepping a new marketing campaign featuring last year's league MVP Derrick Rose as it launches his signature shoe, the adiZero Rose 2. Plans for the shoe's debut were made well in advance of the current lockout, although the marketing strategy around it has always been to focus on Rose and his status as a top player recognized around the world. "We wanted to tell a story of Derrick Rose and ... get you excited about him regardless of where he plays and when he plays," Ryan Morlan, Adidas' global director of brand marketing, tells Marketing Daily. "We wanted to show consumers his speed and his skill in a way that's unforgettable, so we picked a venue that would reflect him as the ultimate bull." A 60-second commercial from 180LA uses Rose's team, the Chicago Bulls, as a visual metaphor. The spot takes place in a bullfighting arena with Rose playing the part of the bull. As he enters the arena, he crouches as a bull would and eyes the matador suspiciously. Then in a burst of speed (intercut with slow-motion photography), Rose avoids the matador and picadors, basketball in hand, before delivering a monster dunk. The end of the commercial encourages people to "get more d rose" at Adidas' Facebook page. "We want to start the conversation with broadcast, but [the campaign goes] across the entire marketing mix," Morlan says. "[All the elements] go on the notion of Derrick Rose and we want to sell the content in the way that makes sense. When you move into the digital space it's about rewarding the consumer with the time they spend with that content online." Indeed, the commercial's online debut (it's currently viewable on YouTube) began through the company's Facebook page, where fans could view the commercial first before Liking it. At 100,000 Likes (a mark hit after only 16 hours), the spot was made available to the general public, Morlan says. The company is also beginning another Facebook promotion, giving fans in Rose's hometown of Chicago the chance to play against him in a game of one-on-one, Morlan says. Adidas will also be offering behind-the-scenes and other special content through its Facebook page. The ad is currently viewable on YouTube and will make its television debut on Oct. 5 on ESPN programming and NFL broadcasts on CBS, NBC and ESPN. The spot will also air on Cartoon Network, which provides significant bang for the buck with the target audience, Morlan says. "They are a network programming that has overwhelmingly efficient reach with our target audience," he says.
For TV broadcasters, prime time is 7 p.m. to l1 p.m. In radio, programming and advertising are all about morning "drive time." On the Web, the popularity of social networks like Facebook, instant messaging like Skype and video-on-demand services like Hulu are pushing up usage in the evening. So what time of day do mobile apps find their biggest audience? A new study by the mobile analytics firm Flurry shows the audience for iPhone and iOS apps rises steadily during the day and peaks at about 9 p.m. That's when half the U.S. app audience is using apps. "Mobile consumers are using apps either instead of, or along-side prime-time television and the Internet," stated a Flurry blog post on the study today. The finding contributes to a growing body of research suggesting that two-screen viewing is becoming increasingly common while people are watching TV. The relative size of the TV audience during prime time was larger than that for mobile apps, at more than 60%. But app usage remained higher than TV from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and higher than the Internet almost all day. The Internet's reach peaked at 7 p.m., when 40% of the audience for that medium was on the Web. Flurry estimates the combined number of active iOS and Android devices in the U.S. at 110 million. So at 10 a.m., for example, the 30% of that population using apps at that hour would be about 33 million people. "In theory, apps are like TV shows, in that they reach specific audiences. "With the eventual ability to target apps by various criteria such as age, gender, dayparts and more, advertisers can one day target a tightly defined audience that uses different applications," according to the firm. To give some perspective on the mobile app audience, Flurry pointed out that the annual "American Idol" finale typically draws 20 million viewers. "Mobile apps already reach more than 20 million U.S. consumers per hour, from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. That's already the equivalent of 17 'American Idol' finales each day, or more than 6,200 'American Idol' finales per year," it states. That may be, but the app audience of 20 million is much more fractured than the equivalent TV one. Unlike the "American Idol" audience, not everyone is watching the same thing at the same time. And presumably, viewers are watching the show all the way through to see who the winner is. How many different apps is someone using in a given hour or two-hour period? If apps are like TV shows, what single app has 20 million users at the same time for the same length of time spanning a wide demographic range? Not even "Angry Birds" could guarantee that. And if apps are well suited to targeted advertising, that does not suggest advertisers will look to them to reach a mass audience -- even if there are 110 million app users. The ability for mobile consumers to access content when and where they want, for any time span, makes the medium fundamentally different from traditional TV. The difference remains even if usage between the two media may coincide in the evening.
It would make sense if Americans thought about their finances at the gas pump, and Gas Station TV is providing more fuel. A content partnership with Bloomberg Television will deliver personal finance and business news to drivers as they fill up. These will include custom segments created by Bloomberg specifically for the GSTV audience, reaching 27 million people per month. The Bloomberg content is well-suited to GSTV's audience members, the company claims -- as GSTV viewers are 36% more likely than the average person to be a business owner or partner, and 28% more likely to be in management, business and professional occupations. GSTV CEO David Leider added: "Affluent consumers spend a lot of time driving," racking up an average 20,000 miles per year. That's considerably more than the average 13,476 miles driven by the average American adult annually, according to data from the Federal Highway Administration, which is 16,550 for men and 10,142 for women. Last week, GSTV announced it has secured an investment valued at $50 million from Wayne, a GE Energy business, to deploy the new inOvationTVSM media platform to thousands of gas stations nationwide. The inOvationTVSM platform will carry GSTV video content, which also includes sports news from ESPN, and weather updates from AccuWeather, along with GSTV's own proprietary social media-based show, "Your Neighborhood." The inOvationTVSM system can be installed either as a retrofit to stations already equipped with Wayne's Ovation dispensers, or included in new equipment installations. Wayne will install the media platform free of charge to fuel retailers that qualify for inclusion. GSTV claims the expansion will almost triple its current audience of 27 million people per month to 70 million. Two weeks ago, GSTV competitor Outcast, which includes PumpTopTV, announced that the latter expanded 15% in the first half of the year, adding around 2,900 screens across 35 markets. Outcast credited the growth, in large part, to an exclusive partnership with Gilbarco Veeder-Root, which manages gas stations, convenience stores and other associated retail operations.
Although Fox's "X Factor" may not be a slam dunk from a Nielsen ratings perspective, social media-wise, it dominated all other new prime-time shows. Social media researcher SocialGuide says for the first week of the new season, the singing competition show had a 23.3% share of all those unique visitors (51,229) on social media sites the Wednesday night it aired, with a big 28.8% share of all social media comments (106,820). Its nearest competitor was Fox's new comedy "New Girl," which pulled in a 9.7% share (24,634) of uniques and 7.3% of all social comments (31,553) for its Tuesday night. ABC's "Pan Am" was next with a 4.9% share of visitors -- 11,645, and 4.1% of comments -- 17,535. CBS' "2 Broke Girls" came next with a 2.5% and 9,021 visitors and 1.7% of all comments, 11,018. Two ABC dramas were right behind this group: "Revenge" and "Charlie's Angels." "Revenge" had a 4.0% share on the night, but slightly lower uniques than "Girls" with 8,791 visitors. It had a 3.0% of comments, at 11,306. "Angels" was at 2.9% share of uniques (7,911) and 1.8% of comments (10,733). NBC's best numbers came from lowly Nielsen-rated "The Playboy Club" at 1.9% of uniques (6,595), a 1.4% of comments (9,334). NBC's "Whitney" was behind with a 2.3% share of uniques (6,447) and 1.5% of comments (8,857). Some older-skewing dramas were behind these shows CBS' "Person of Interest," with a 1.3% share (3,658) of visitors and a 0.8% share of comments (4,944); NBC's "Prime Suspect" saw a 0.7% share (1,822) of uniques and 0.4% of comments (2,641); CBS' "Unforgettable" nibbled 0.5% share of uniques (1,327) and a 0.4% of comments (1,669); and CBS' "A Gifted Man" got 0.9% of uniques (843) and 0.7% of comments, (1,266).
More TV programming is getting into the social TV game by incorporating parts of viewers' content into shows. A Web-based series from Warner Bros. Digital Distribution called "Aim High" will run on Facebook, and as part of its story line, will add specific elements of Facebook users into the show. Warner says viewers will be able to see themselves or their friends integrated into select scenes throughout the series -- from their photo appearing on a student body election poster, to having their name seen as graffiti on the bathroom. "Aim High" is an "action-comedy" about a young man leading a double life -- juggling his studies by day and serving as a government operative by night. It comes from noted TV/film director McG, who has worked on "Chuck" and "Charlie's Angels." The show starts October 18. Viewers need to opt in for the content on their social media profile pages to become accessible for the show's producers to use. "Facebook is an increasingly influential destination for discovering and acquiring movie and television content," stated Thomas Gewecke, president of Warner Bros. Digital Distribution. "This effort takes video distribution to a whole new level by making the actual viewing experience personal and social in a truly innovative and entertaining way." Earlier this week, new 15-million subscriber cable network Youtoo said it would be incorporating videos from viewers into their TV network's programming.
Is it possible for a series that fits squarely into the horror genre to survive on television? The debut of FX's "American Horror Story" and the second season of AMC's "The Walking Dead" will provide answers in the weeks to come. Of course, horror is in the eye of the beholder, and some genre enthusiasts will assert that it is alive and well in The CW's "Supernatural" and "The Vampire Diaries," HBO's "True Blood" and Syfy's "Being Human." But I would argue that the under-appreciated "Supernatural" is as much an action-thriller as a creepy chiller; that "The Vampire Diaries" is a teen-appeal soap opera with horror elements; that "True Blood" is excitingly violent, sexy, mysterious and humorous but never really scary; and that "Being Human," despite centering on a vampire, a werewolf and a ghost, exists more to explore the human condition as experienced by uncertain young adults than the inhuman experiences of menacing creatures of the night. "American Horror Story" and "The Walking Dead," on the other hand, serve up suffocating horror with an intensity so unrelenting that it goes beyond emotional connection to psychological interactivity. These two are nothing like most series, with their comparatively passive viewing experiences. What makes both "American Horror Story" and "The Walking Dead," particularly interesting is that they stretch to their breaking points the limitations of traditionally accepted content on advertiser-supported programs. One could say that they often breach those boundaries. At the very least, they invite a renewed assessment of content issues. Are extended scenes of unrelenting horror and unspeakable violence, especially if they involve children, more or less acceptable than the occasional F-bomb or explicit nudity -- and if so, why? Will sponsors support ultra-violence and extreme horror outside of the procedural crime genre, where the intent of such content is to maximize interest in subsequent criminal investigations rather than to terrify on a primal level? "American Horror Story," which premieres Oct. 5, has been described by critics as everything from a lunatic mess to a work of warped genius. I think there is a degree of truth in both statements. It's all about a Boston family in crisis that tries to start over by moving into a creepy Los Angeles home, the price of which has been sufficiently reduced to induce potential buyers to ignore its history as the site of much previous madness, murder and mayhem. Many terrible things happened there in the past, and increasingly odd things happen when the family moves in -- all of just strange and remote enough to be fun to watch, even if it doesn't always make sense. Series creators Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuck promise early answers to much of what happens in the pilot so as not to frustrate and alienate viewers. It is one thing to watch something horrific in nature but not actually "feel" the horror (again, for me that's the case with "Supernatural," "Vampire Diaries," "True Blood" and "Being Human"). It's another to be truly scared by something as it plays out. For that reason, the first episode of "Horror" -- which is more freakish than frightening -- may not grab genre enthusiasts in the same way as last year's remarkable pilot for "The Walking Dead." But there are two sequences in "Horror's" second episode -- one at the start, one near the end -- that are among the most terrifying things I have ever seen on entertainment television. Given a hundred years to contemplate the matter, you will not be able to understand why the fractured family that has just settled into that house would ever step foot in it again, let alone agree to continue living there. The more engaged I become, the more I wonder how "Horror" can possibly sustain itself as an ongoing franchise. The overall uncertainty about just what the hell is going on could become an obstacle for "American Horror Story" in the same way that the sustained misery and general lack of plot advancement might ultimately hurt the otherwise extraordinary "Walking Dead." The first two episodes of its second season, which begins on Oct. 16, prove that "Dead" is as riveting as ever, largely because it is grounded in reality as we would imagine it to be in a zombie plague or similarly horrific event. There is nothing to figure out, except what caused the deaths of millions (or maybe billions) of people and then made them rise as flesh-eating creatures. Tellingly, it matters little that we may never get that answer. What counts is how the rag-tag, ever-changing group of survivors handle the impossible situations they find themselves in, and the questions that are raised by their increasingly desperate existence. Can a show this dense with despair satisfy its followers without an upbeat ending? Or would unexpected happiness at the last prove as unsatisfying as that trip to purgatory on "Lost"? I hope "Dead" runs for several years, but I wonder how long it can last without giving its characters and viewers a break.
Broadcast networks are touchy about brand realism on fictional shows -- especially when they don't know about it ahead of time. CBS says it has a rule about product placement -- it will disclose what financial interests are involved when a brand's name is mentioned or seen. But not every network does this. So this week on "Two and a Half Men," when Ashton Kutcher's new Internet billionaire character, Walden Schmidt opened his laptop, lo and behold we saw some stickers of real-life companies including FourSquare, Groupon, Chegg and Flipboard. "Men" executive producer Chuck Lorre thought this was OK -- even though CBS executives supposedly knew nothing about it. For a producer's mindset it makes sense: Realistic computer brands add some credibility. Right? But there are complications -- seems that Kutcher has a financial interest (passive?) in those companies. No money was transferred (as far as we know) specifically for this product placement effort. Seems that CBS will have none of it -- even if no money was exchanged specifically. It doesn't want other producers getting the wrong idea. At least it wants knowledge ahead of time. In the old days, networks might just look the other way -- letting producers make a few bucks. (Going rate for a single network primetime product placement deal is around $300,000). But then things got crazy. Early deals for Mark Burnett's original "The Apprentice" on NBC brought in up to $2 million for a single branded entertainment arrangement -- including product placement. Finally NBC had enough and created a revenue sharing arrangement with the show. CBS later did the same with Burnett's "Survivor." Product placement deals can go way over the top -- just look at slightly longer video takes for car brands on some USA Network dramas. Reality shows always seem to have better crediblility with product placements, as real-life competitions seem a naturally-sponsored better fit. Certainly it seems weird when, on say NBC's "Parenthood," someone drinks beer and all it says on the can is "Beer." That's distracting in another way. Kutcher's millionaire computer character? Surely, any savvy Internet entrepreneur and investor would have assorted investments in new and different companies. Then again, given the variety and plethora of cool Internet brand names almost anything goes. Who is to know what's what? Laptop stickers with pseudo names like "SludgeHappy," or "FurMaven" or "PencilFencers" would have worked just as well.
The Web has exploded as a platform for people to watch all or some of their favorite shows and content, both premium and DIY. But there's been a lot of talk lately in the industry if calling your project a "Web series" is good for it long term. It depends on whom you ask -- and what the content is. Different Name, Same Game Aspiring writers and producers with long-term goals of creating for TV and film are producing "Web series" to get noticed. But how many use the platform efficiently as an incubator for developing and fine-tuning their content for multiple platforms? When you're creating premium scripted or un-scripted content is when you have to decide to call it a "Web series." Does that name take away from the project? Is your project a calling card for the content, much like a film festival entry, short film or interstitial video, which independent producers have been using for ages as a stepping stone into film or TV? Many big projects have started as short films or interstitials - for example, "Napoleon Dynamite," which was based on Jon Heder's short film "Peluca." "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia," the widely popular comedy on FX, was based on the short film "Charlie Has Cancer," which became its pilot episode. There are many independent and well-known producers now flocking to the Web, some using it as an effective incubator for TV, game, and multiple digital platform content development, and others who are using as a step to TV. Using the Web as a launching pad for trailers, sample episodes, or a half-hour pilot strung together of short episodes, can really show what the final product will look like. The Web offers real-time development where producers get direct & authentic feedback on their content, good or bad, increasing audience loyalty exponentially. Independent producers can now directly post their video content, get immediate feedback, build audience (if it is good), and possibly build a brand and following, enough to monetize, is a unique and direct opportunity. With over 2 billion videos viewed a day, YouTube gives producers a window to test new content through existing communities and channels, providing a raw opportunity never seen before. Develop for where you want to be One of my favorite quotes as a producer and entrepreneur is from Wayne Gretzky, who famously said, "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been." So produce your Web project based on where you want to take it. But remember: An independent Web series is like any other content being developed or pitched for film or TV. It's about the content. It's about the story. A good story transcends platforms.
CIMM is taking a pro-active role in advancing new media nomenclature and processes with both its Lexicon(terms and definitions associated with Set-Top Box data measurement) and Asset Identification Primer (glossary of asset terms). These documents form the basis of the Word-A-Week column which offers a common language for Set-Top Box nomenclature that can expedite the roll-out of the data for its many industry applications. For the past three weeks we have explored common usage terms for advertising and audience measurements. This week we continue with this line of discussion with a review of all common ratings terms and their definitions. It should be noted though that while the general definitions of the ratings are similar across marketplaces, the methodology and mechanisms behind the calculation of the ratings are different and often involve proprietary edit rules and algorithms. The issues of standardization and methodology acceptance continue to be hot topics in the media industry. RatingSee also: Household Rating CIMM DEFINITION : The percentage of a sample or population or a census that is tuned to a program, or during a time period or an ad or any piece of content out of the entire population or census. Types of ratings include household, Set-Top Box, program, dynamic viewer segment etc., as well as types of viewing whether "live," linear or playback. 2 : The audience tuned to a channel program or spot in a given time frame divided by the selected universe. This is not reach based. (Source: Kantar Media Audiences) 3 : Rating defined as the average second viewed. It is calculated as the total viewed seconds divided by the duration of the specified period times multiplied by the In-Tab. Can be calculated by delay of viewing (live, near live, same day, within three days, within seven days) (Source: TIVO) NOTE - Standardization - What is "live" viewing? Nielsen uses twenty-five seconds of viewing while TIVO counts viewing within 5 seconds of the originating time. NOTE - In order to gauge viewership, the boxes are "pulled" at a certain point in time. The channel that the box is turned to at that moment is the channel that gets credit for the viewership. Box pulls might be regarded as ratings (in the case of a partial footprint), delivery or perhaps a new metric? Household RatingSee also: Rating CIMM DEFINITION : The percentage of homes or Set-Top Boxes tuned into a program, daypart, time period for a certain length of time out of all homes or Set-Top Boxes in their respective universes whether in use at the time or not. 2 : The percentage of Households within a sample or population or a census that is watching a program, or during a time period or an ad or any piece of content out of the measured population or census. (Source: Nielsen) Program RatingSee also: Rating CIMM DEFINITION : The percent of viewers or homes who viewed a program in a certain time period for a certain length of time out of the entire universe of homes or viewers. 2 : The average number of units that viewed the program in which the spot aired expressed as a percent of the designated universe. (Source: Kantar Media Audiences) 3 : Program rating defines the average per-second audience for the specified program. Rating is calculated as the total tuned seconds divided by the total possible tuned seconds for the content and time period specified. (Source: TRA) 4 : TIVO reports Average Program - Second level Ratings for all programs on 112 networks. Program ratings defined as the average program second. Rating is calculated as the total viewed seconds divided by the duration of the specified period times multiplied by the in-tab. (Source: TIVO) Please refer to the CIMM Lexicon online at http://www.cimm-us.org/lexicon.htm for additional information on these and other terms.
NBC's "The Playboy Club" is having trouble finding viewers. Why? Too much association with sex? Too little? Or just not compelling entertainment? Moralists say the low ratings result from all the objectification the Playboy brand brought on women over the years. I'll listen to that argument. But then they toss in the another point, which makes no sense based on the original theory. They say it's also because of "lame" dialogue, which after two weeks gives the show a just-lying-there 1.3 rating among key 18-49 viewers. So, I'm guessing -- by this argument -- if "The Playboy Club" had better dialogue, it would be a better show? Right? You can't have it both ways. My suggestion is to stick with one strategy. You want to play TV moralist? Fine. You want to play TV critic? Sure. But keep them separate -- you'll get more attention and have a better chance at winning the argument. "The Playboy Club" -- the TV show -- might not seem right to the men who have read -- and looked at -- Playboy magazine. Where, after all, are the naked women? Sure, there is some intrigue, and some beautiful women. If this show was indeed successful for male viewers, ratings on ESPN's "Monday Night Football" would be low, and late-season Boston Red Sox or Atlanta Braves games would go wanting. Virtually all non-sports network prime-time programms primarily seek women viewers. Typically, adult women comprise about 60% of all primetime viewers. If NBC wanted to purposely alienate this audience, it would be a bad business decision. The network knows better. What do networks want more than anything else, more than "art," "fine acting," and "great writing"? They want to make money. More mis-direction: One noted pressure group says things have gone so bad for the show that advertisers are leaving. The trouble is that most times -- no matter what is claimed -- we never really know why advertisers leave. You cannot compare shows week to week and just count advertisers who are in and those who are out. Media plans for advertisers have different program mixes per week. Not only that, but many advertisers have specific media flight plans that can last a week, or three weeks, or four. And yes, some advertisers might leave because the show gets poor ratings. But the truth is that, by mid-September, there are no surprises concerning scripted shows. Media buyers and their clients see episodes long before we see them on air. These marketers are not novices in understanding what content they are buying. So let see. Have you seen any FCC-forbidden naked women on this particular 10 p.m. show? Nope. Has there been any FCC-forbidden language in the show? No. Hey, maybe if indeed "The Playboy Club" has no viewers and fewer advertisers, the show... just sucks.