If you’re one of the billion-plus people who watched the Oscars last night, you probably already know how emotionally engaging cinema is. Now there’s some scientific proof. In the first research of its kind, cinema advertising network NCM utilized some state-of-the-art technology that measured the unconscious responses of moviegoers to ads shown to them in movie theaters -- and not surprisingly, they were considerably more engaged than the same type of ads shown on other media such as TV or the Internet. The findings could be a boon for NCM as it heads into an especially cluttered, pre-upfront advertising marketplace, where hundreds of TV, online video and even place-based video networks are all vying for an emotional connection with their intended audiences: advertisers and agencies. It’s also the latest in a wave of research from the burgeoning field of neuromarketing research, which many believe could grow to rival -- and maybe even supplant -- conventional forms of media and marketing research. Instead of simply asking people, or measuring their behavior, neuromarketing researchers utilize various biometric methods that tap unconscious physiological responses of people and correlate them with science about the brain to reveal not simply what people are thinking about advertising and media content, but what they are feeling. “The brand engagement was off the scale,” boasts Doug Pulick, senior vice president of strategic insight and analytics at NCM Media Networks, who has been conducting a series of “dog and pony” shows presenting the findings to some big advertisers and agencies prior to this morning’s release of the findings. Pulick, a long-time TV researcher before joining NCM, said he has presented more than a dozen of the briefings -- and that in most cases the ad execs were in fact emotionally engaged, and even asked to watch and replay videos of the consumers being measured to better understand their responses, which generated disproportionately higher levels of emotional engagement than equivalent TV ads. Following exposure in cinema, the “lift in brand resonance” -- the unconscious emotional connection to a brand -- was 75% higher on average than the norms generated by an ad watched on television. Noting that the content of the ads themselves is a factor in making those emotional connections, Pulick said some of the cinema spots generated levels that were 194% higher than television’s. Pulick acknowledged that there are other important differences in environment between cinema and TV ads that likely influence their impact on consumers, including the fact that even when they were the same ads, the moviegoers were “captive” viewers, who didn’t have the kinds of distractions and other competing content that viewers watching spots at home on their TV sets might have. But he says that is one of the points of NCM’s pitch: That for whatever reasons -- environmental or otherwise -- cinema advertising has more of an emotional effect than TV ads do. “My answer to that is, that’s exactly the point. There is a difference between seeing an ad on a 40-foot screen vs. a 42-inch screen,” he said. The research was conducted by Boston-based Innerscope Research, one of the leaders in the field of neuromarketing research, which has even come up with sophisticated models to explain the correlation between content and the environmental factors influencing how people experience them on different platforms. The research, known as the Brand Immersion model, shows that all things being equal, an immersive environment like someone watching a movie -- or even ads in the pre-show reel preceding one -- are more likely to immerse a consumer in the experience than ads shown in a more “flexible” media environment where they can be more easily distracted. The fact that cinema performs so well vis a vis TV is significant, because TV, by and large, is also deemed a highly immersive environment -- a fact that has been borne out by the so-called “TV In Context” research that Innerscope conducted for Turner Broadcasting. Pulick acknowledged that the research is new, and more needs to be done to understand the full effects and differences between advertising in theaters vs. other media. He also acknowledges that consumer behavior is evolving along with consumer media technologies, especially the increasing availability of a “second screen” -- their handheld smartphone or other device -- while they are sitting in what previously would have been a one-screen environment. Pulick said NCM is already thinking about some research to measure that new behavior, but also doesn’t necessarily believe it will be a net negative for movie advertising. In fact, he said NCM is exploring new mobile apps that would enable consumers to interact with ads, and presumably other content, on their handheld screens while they are watching it on the big screen. “We’ve had this discussion,” Pulick said, adding: “You can either get on this bus or get out of the way, but you can’t stop it.” Pulick said it’s unlikely that theaters will be able to stop consumers from using their handheld devices while in the theater, so it might be better to utilize them than to ignore or try and fight them.
Mercedes-Benz USA is using the national broadcast of the Academy Awards ceremony as a springboard for its new marketing campaign, "State of the Art." The campaign throws the limelight upon the sixth-generation 2013 SL 550 Roadster. The Montvale, N.J., automaker's campaign launches with a 60-second TV ad that is tied to a live broadcast from New York's Times Square and a digital extension on oTRC.com ("On The Red Carpet") where the company also touted the M class SUV. The ad is a timeline of SL cars through history -- with history's passage expressed by the next generation zooming past the previous one, starting with the 1952 300 SL Carrera Panamericana racecar. The 2013 SL is introduced as "our most breathtaking model ever." During the Oscars, the ad was simulcast on the Times Square super sign, along with other SL ad creative, promos and vignettes two weeks prior. The digital extension continues on YouTube whenever people search for content from the Academy Awards. In addition to the Academy Awards premiere, there will be a six-week television flight in April and May to coincide with the vehicle’s retail launch. Broadcast placements include special events such as the PGA Masters, the NCAA Final Four tournament and network season finales. Print includes such titles as GQ, Departures, Forbes, Fortune and Town & Country. It is also the last campaign in which Steve Cannon will have had a direct hand. Cannon this year was promoted from VP marketing to president and CEO of Montvale, NJ-based Mercedes-Benz USA. He says, by the way, that he isn't giving up marketing: "It runs in my veins." Cannon was very successful in his former position. He helped reinvigorate a brand that was hobbled and starved by parent Daimler's experiment with Chrysler earlier in the millennium. But under Cannon's watch (with a little help from engineering), the brand re-established its core lineup, aligned nameplates like C and E to appeal both to loyalists and to younger, performance-oriented customers, and touted vehicle safety technology by featuring real owners. He also shifted dealerships into high gear for the tablet age. And there was that naming rights deal with the New Orleans Superdome, which probably couldn't have been timed much better. Cannon tells Marketing Daily that the new campaign may focus on a relatively low-volume car, but that it deserves larger focus because of what it represents for the brand. "It has been an iconic car for us in every era and generation," he says. "Even though it's not a volume model -- and we don't have to advertise it to sell it -- as a leadership story; it's great brand-building." On the Oscars, the spot ran just before Billy Crystal's initial monologue. Cannon says the ad will live on. "It works terrifically as a 30-second spot." Last year, Mercedes-Benz did a similar -- albeit smaller -- program to tout its top-end sports car, the gull-winged SLS AMG. Although at around $185,000, it's not a vehicle that many people will go out and buy, "these vehicles make us different from other automakers," says Cannon. "While the majority of our marketing will always be focused on C, E and M, [the SL and SLS] let us flex our muscles. So we will continue to spend money on icons. These are not 'come in and buy' spots; they contribute to our brand position and mindshare with customers. It's something we get to do that others can't, and it's always good to draw a clear line between us and everyone." In addition, Cannon says the campaign also has a "launch and leave" media commitment, but will have legs throughout the year, including during March Madness on CBS, and the U.S. Open tennis tourney, of which Mercedes-Benz is an official sponsor.
JCPenney unleashed a handful of über-adorable new ads during the Academy Awards, using spokesperson Ellen DeGeneres to herald its new look and strategy. But some critics say the ads, from San Francisco-based Brandadvisors, are premature -- and may even drive business to competitors like Kohl’s and Macy’s before earning it any new fans. “I didn’t get it,” Howard Davidowitz, of Davidowitz & Associates in New York, a retail consulting and investment banking chain, tells Marketing Daily. “First, ads like that cost a fortune. And when you do something new in retail, the opening shot -- the customer’s first look -- is tremendously important. First impressions stay. But right now, JCPenney is a train wreck. It’s much more disorderly than it used to be.” Ads for the Plano, Texas-based chain focus on the store’s new “fair and square” pricing strategy, including many fewer sales and markdowns, as well as a “one happy return” agreement. It’s incorporating them into its online efforts, too -- including Twitter. Since consumers no longer have to hang onto receipts to return items, for instance, the site has step-by-step instructions on how to fold receipts into origami cranes or frogs. Now that doorbusting and early-bird events have been eliminated, there are soothing sleep noises. Without coupons to clip, the site offers a pictorial called “11 things to do with scissors.” The policy was unveiled earlier this month as part of sweeping changes introduced by Ron Johnson, Penney’s new CEO, who had previously been at Apple and Target. Those include widespread upgrades to the retailer’s merchandise as well. But Davidowitz points out that promoting the new pricing before management has had a chance to get that improved merchandise and assortment into stores could well backfire. “In effect, they are disarming,” he says. “The new customer who comes in because of these ads will be turned off. And the old customer -- the one who likes the chain’s highly promotional old strategy -- will head over to Kohl’s, which is its most direct competitor and is sharper than Penney is on price. Or they will go down the mall to Macy’s, which is one rung up in demographics but still has plenty of promotionally priced mid-tier and private-label lines.” Meanwhile, the ads are generating plenty of positive buzz online, as has Penney’s decision to stick with the 54-year-old comedian, even after One Million Moms, a conservative Christian group, organized an online boycott. In a rare break from her usual policy of ignoring detractors, DeGeneres addressed that issue on her show. “My haters are my motivators,” she told her studio audience. “I am proud and happy to say JCPenney stuck by their decision to make me their spokesperson. It’s great news for me because I need some crew socks,” she says. “If they have a problem,” she adds, referring to the One Million Moms’ 44,450 supporters (“I guess they round up to the nearest million,” she quips), “What about the Pillsbury Dough Boy? He runs around without any pants on.”
Walls are going up all around the media, particularly at newspapers and on social media. Will the construction of TV walls keep pace? A number of newspapers around the country, including the Los Angeles Times, are setting up pay walls that pretty much require all consumers to pay to see their journalistic wares. It's not just big media pulling back content, but some of their customers as well. Only 20% of users’ messages on social media platforms are completely open to public scrutiny. Not only that, but now 11% of regular social media users regret remarks they post; and among younger people 18-29, that number is a higher 15%. Fifty-eight percent say their privacy controls are set so only their friends can see their messages. And then there's TV: Hulu has started its pay site Hulu Plus. Cable operators -- and other multiple video network sellers -- have been pushing networks and other TV programmers to join their TV Everywhere efforts -- which in turn might become a full-fledges separate pay operation years from now. Big media companies are making deals with subscription video-on-demand services like Netflix. All this meets at the intersection of privacy, content, and data -- not just with everyday data, but increasingly with remarks made on social media. TV networks hope these reticent-looking social media numbers aren't growing. They want consumers to talk about their shows and perhaps their marketing/advertising partners -- even if they hate stuff -- as long as they are "engaged." No one wants to give away stuff for free – whether one's personal thoughts, one's expensive-to-produce real journalism, or one's multi-million-dollar TV shows. This is not to say that some things won’t still be free every now and then -- a sample newspaper (or limited access to a newspaper app) or a TV network's new show for promotion of a special episode. Perhaps this is a good thing. Maybe we don't have to have an opinion about every TV show, and every bit of entertainment or public activity -- especially when big companies use those opinions to monetize their business. Maybe social media users should charge for their pontifications. TV programmers would understand that business formula.
You know what they say about the best-laid plans: more often than not, they don’t really get you anywhere. That was the lesson of last week’s top media news. On the one hand, you had the demise of Canoe Ventures, whose plans couldn’t have been better laid by its big corporate sponsors. And on the other, the totally unanticipated, stunningly meteoric rise to NBA stardom of an undrafted Harvard grad named Jeremy Lin. How’s that for a contrast? (And, yes for this avid hoopster, all analogies, metaphors, and business lessons these days pass through the Land of Lin.) The effective sinking of Canoe (sorry) marks a significant milestone for our industry. We collectively have big hopes for addressable advertising, but the dream is not to be realized, at least not through Canoe. David Verklin and Kathy Timko -- both phenomenally smart and accomplished executives -- did the best they could. Verklin’s original vision was compelling and Timko’s execution was on target. But consortiums always present serious challenges, and in Canoe’s unfortunate case, its stakeholders were also its competitors. So this was a structural issue, not a strategic one. I don’t believe for a moment that Canoe is the failed experiment some commentators have claimed it to be. Canoe made important headway in getting the broader industry excited about the power of Big TV Data and the potential reach of targeted TV advertising. Addressable advertising remains one of the most promising developments in television today, but the iTV industry has its work cut out for it, as Deloitte confirmed in a report this week. What we need to see now is a solution (or multiple solutions) that can bypass the technical, privacy, and structural hurdles of our industry to offer advertisers easy and reliable access to the right audiences. And maybe we can get most of the way there by using single-source data to simply target the right networks and programs. The result? More ad dollars for networks and more efficiency for advertisers. As P&G’s CEO Bob MacDonald said this week in announcing $10 billion in cuts: "We want to increase reach, frequency, and the effectiveness of our advertising impressions to consumers. Even delivering a modest level of efficiency each year can amount to nearly a billion of savings versus just letting these costs grow at the same rate of sales. We're very confident we can do this while building the number and quality of consumer impressions each year." Canoe’s problem was that even with $150 million of support from the biggest cable players, they couldn’t deliver on their promise, because they were applying traditional-media practices to an emerging-media problem. As I’ve written before, this is always going to be a losing battle. Innovation can’t originate with entrenched players committed to conventional technologies and business models. Too much friction. In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that Canoe failed for the same reason that Jeremy Lin went unnoticed until a few weeks ago: The conventional approach to scouting and drafting left him to slip through the cracks. Lin isn’t the first surprise star in sports, but he might just be the biggest. Talk about ROI -- look at the effect he’s had not only on the Knicks, but on our culture in general. Lin has singlehandedly ended our collective post-strike indifference to the NBA -- lifting ticket prices, television ratings, and global interest to their highest levels ever. He’s helped resolve MSG’s stalemate with Time Warner Cable, attracted new audiences to the game, and changed the way pro scouts look at players from smaller colleges -- all in the space of a few weeks. Like Harry Potter, Susan Boyle, and even Mark Zuckerberg, Jeremy Lin arrived out of nowhere and made us question everything we thought we knew about how to find the right diamond in the rough. Lin’s the right person on the right team at the right time. And now everyone is trying to figure out how to find the next Lin, by using “best practices” to target the next undiscovered star. What’s that mean to us in television? Quite frankly, this is where the comparison breaks down. So let’s stop trying to understand and just sit back and enjoy the Lin Show. And use the best technology solutions to create a more accountable TV.
Everyone knows that the “screens” (TV, laptop, mobile device, another mobile device) are colliding and overlapping, but how exactly do online behaviors and TV viewing interact? TV Guide took a whack at understanding the relationship between social media buzz and TV watching with a new survey of 3,041 U.S. adults, and found that social media buzz does indeed help drive TV watching. Overall 71% of respondents reported having seen social impressions about TV shows, meaning any kind of mention in social media, covering a broad range of venues including the usual suspects like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and so on. Meanwhile 17% of respondents said they have started to watch a show because of a social impression, and 31% said they’ve continued to watch a show because of a social impression. Among those influenced to start watching a show by a social media impression, 76% said they were prompted to start watching by positive comments about the show, 64% cited social media buzz about topics or storylines that interested them, and 13% said “I like to watch what others watch.” Among those influenced to continue watching a show by social media, 77% said it helped keep up their interest in shows, 66% said the topics or storylines discussed on social media were interesting, and 34% said social buzz around controversial moments helped keep them engaged. For comparison’s sake, among those who haven’t been influenced by social media to start watching a show, 80% cited TV ads and 46% cited word of mouth as reasons they start watching shows. Interestingly, the survey found that social media influence on TV watching can take some unexpected forms. For example, 27% of respondents said they’ve begun watching more live TV because of plot spoilers revealed on social media -- up from 20% in 2010. I’ll call this the “social media spoiler aversion effect.”