Dunkin’ Donuts’ new, all-Spanish-language Hispanic campaign marks the first use of its long-time tagline in Spanish: “América se Mueve con Dunkin’ (America Moves With Dunkin’).” The theme of the campaign -- Qué estás tomando? (What are you drinkin’?) -- parallels that of Dunkin’s multimillion-dollar general-market campaign, launched early last year. In the general-market ads, “average Joes” are shown answering the question with: “I’m drinkin’ Dunkin.’” The Hispanic campaign, from Accentmarketing, Dunkin’s Hispanic agency of record, uses a documentary style, featuring Hispanic Dunkin’ coffee drinkers in their communities, where they were “discovered” and recruited to do the ads. The coffee fans offer testimonials such as “Me pone de buen humor (It gets me in a good mood)” and “Se siente el sabor rico del café (You can taste the coffee’s delicious flavor).” These are followed by messaging reinforcement of the América se Mueve con Dunkin’ tagline. The campaign’s creative employs insights about the brand’s Hispanic customers to authentically portray “the ways in which they move with Dunkin,’” said Luis Puerta, Accentmarketing’s VP group creative director. The integrated campaign includes Hispanic television, radio, the brand’s site (there is a version with key elements in Spanish), social media, public relations and in-store promotions. The campaign “reflects the importance and the loyalty of our Hispanic consumers” and Dunkin’s’ focus on finding ways to deepen its relationship and brand loyalty among customers in multicultural communities, said John Costello, chief global marketing and innovation officer at Dunkin’ Brands. In recent years, in select markets, Dunkin’ has introduced limited-time and permanent menu items inspired by Latin culture, such as a Cuban Flatbread Sandwich and Café con Leche, Huevos Rancheros Wake-Up Wrap sandwiches and Latin-inspired donuts.
While TV advertising and programming executives are somewhat optimistic about revenue growth of the business, they are highly optimistic that advertisers and consumers will pay for new digital video products. A survey from U.K.-based Informa Telecoms & Media says about 75% of those executives agree that "advertisers will pay more to advertise around online video with guaranteed quality of service." Some 78% of "consumers will pay more for online video with guaranteed quality of service." In addition, around 75% of those executives agree that "the open Internet will be adequate to support commercial online video services." Who will convince consumers to pay for TV? The survey says that device manufacturers like Apple, Sony and Samsung will carry the most weight: 33.7% of executives believe this. Next will be subscription video on demand/over-the-top services like Netflix, with a 27.7% score, followed by social networking companies like Facebook, 21.8%. Current distribution/network operators will carry less weight, at 16.8%. In addition, about 55% of those executives believe "content providers will pay network operators to guarantee high-quality video delivery." Who will be the big disruptors when it comes to future of TV and advertising and video? Apple and Google get top marks; executives cite Apple 32.7% of the time and Google 30.2%. Other new digital companies are way down the list: Netflix, 13.4%, Samsung 8.4%, Facebook, 8.2% and Microsoft, 1.2%. Overall, Informa says 42% of those executives agree that revenues would "increase slightly," and that 19% said it would "decrease slightly." Only 17% say it could "increase significantly."
Panasonic’s North American CTO cast doubt on whether Apple would be successful in launching a new smart TV product, which would include a voice-activated remote control a la Siri and other bells and whistles “If someone wants to get into the business of televisions and lose a lot of money, OK,” said Eisuke Tsuyuzaki wryly at a Multichannel News event. As for Siri's voice control on the iPhone, Tsuyuzaki said he applauded Apple for it, but characterized it as so-so. As for Apple cutting into Panasonic’s sales in a tough TV market, he said: “We’ll have our piece in it too, and we’ll be fine.” The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) is forecasting a slight decline in sales in 2012 at 33.6 million sets, down from an estimated 34.3 million in 2011. Reasons for the declines, Tsuyuzaki said, include an “oversupply of certain manufacturers” -- Panasonic has “made our adjustments” -- along with the industry being “slow to react” to the recession regarding price points. He also cited rising consumer interest in tablets and smartphones. Overall, while TV sales may have been hurt, the bottom has hardly fallen out as consumers still want “bigger and bigger TVs and that hasn’t changed.” 3D and IPTV could also resuscitate some of the business. So could connecting the various mobility devices with the traditional set and offering synced experiences. “It’s in our interest to figure that out,” Tsuyuzaki said. CEA projects 3D TV sales to double in 2012 to 6.2 million. On whether Panasonic would follow Sony in offering Google TV, the Pansonic executive declined to comment, but said the Google open-source platform offers pluses and minuses. One benefit is if a company feels it is behind in a particular field, such as mobility, there is an opportunity to catch up more quickly. A downside is that there could be product commoditization. Panasonic has no plans to enter the pure-play content business, where Sony appears to be aiming, in order to use its assets to make its hardware more attractive. That decision was made before Tsuyuzaki took on his role and he said: “I’d rather stick to engineering, that is our DNA.” Panasonic, however, is interested in using its technology to move into other fields, such as health care and home surveillance and energy consumption.
While TV programmers and third parties are scrambling around to craft second-screen experiences that capture TV viewers on smartphones and tablets, the viewers themselves may already have found their favorite second screens on existing social networks. “Users are ahead of service providers in this respect,” says Informa Principal Analyst Nick Thomas in a recent report on the future of TV worldwide. “Many [are] already using Facebook and Twitter and other tools to communicate via the handheld devices about the content they are simultaneously viewing on the TV,” he writes. Facebook potentially has an enormous role in the evolution of social TV on a number of levels, Thomas argues. The social network can help broadcasters retain audiences with added value for live content experiences even as over-the-top video and time-shifting behaviors erode old viewing activities. At the same time, TV on-demand entities like Netflix could use Facebook to cultivate communities around on-demand content. But Facebook could itself become a social TV platform, with video and social interactions running in parallel. In an Informa survey of TV, telecom and Internet executives, social networks were considered by 21.8% of respondents to be the types of companies that can persuade users to pay for digital content. Only 16.8% cited network operators like telcos as likely platforms for paid content, while 27.7% pointed to over-the-top services like Netflix and the largest share cited device manufacturers like Apple, Sony and Samsung. The big content winners are likely to be entertainment, cited by almost 40% of executives as representing the greatest opportunity for increasing viewer engagement. Sports and news and weather were seen as the biggest opportunity by 27.5% and 14.8% of respondents, respectively. But movies (9%) generally were not regarded as a strong content type around which to generate social engagement. Tablets emerged as the most important second screen among the executives surveyed, with 41.4% saying that tablets would be the dominant tool viewers would employ to access social TV features. 35% cited smartphones as most important; 15.3% said PCs and laptops. Significantly, only 8.6% of the executives surveyed felt that social TV interaction would occur on the TV screen itself. The results suggest just how far the industry has been moved by mobile and portable devices away from pre-existing “Interactive TV” models. Informa recommends that all of the stakeholders in future TV not rely solely on their own social networks and apps to develop social TV strategies. “[They] need to create a portfolio of external partners, including Facebook, to ensure their social offering is relevant to viewers’ needs. “ Informa also recommends that programmers build viable social TV ad models that work off of the main TV display. The second screen is where advertisers can more precisely target and segment the TV audience. It is “vital to future TV revenues, as old advertising models based on a mass audience become increasingly devalued,” Thomas writes.
Another year, and the same media question comes up as in the past: “Will digital sellers, video and otherwise, participate in the annual upfront process held by networks in June?" Many may still rail against the process, even those traditional TV sellers. And many digital advocates believe they don’t need the upfront. Yet it’s hard not to be part of the conversation when the biggest media platform garners the biggest dollars. Do you want to be in a $20 billion conversation? All year long media people are selling. That may be just philosophical stuff for many. The reality is that media planners work on their TV upfront stuff months in advance. So convincing some of those big marketers to shift money to digital can be a timing issue. Social media often works because it is a part of something bigger, like when consumers feel comfortable talking about glitzy, popular content. Much of that stuff winds its way onto television. The trouble is that traditional TV wants a piece of this as well. When a panel at the 4A’s Transformation L.A. event brought up the issue of digital being part of the upfront, IPG Mediabrands's Quentin George said his clients can’t wait for that to happen. Some did concede that digital is already part of the picture, but perhaps just as an “add-on” to the process. A couple of decades ago cable TV and program syndicators were in similar spots, vying to grab a seat to compete with the broadcast networks. They were, in fact, the “new media” sellers -- kind of like where digital is now. Of course, the major differences then were about "distribution" and "U.S. penetration coverage" and "time periods." All this now seems kind of trite since cable and syndication were selling video just like the broadcast networks. Digital, of course, does that and more. Digital has some major issues in measurement and metrics. In this day and digital age, people expect all this to be solved -- that marketers should be able figure out easily what they get from traditional TV and new digital media. Not yet. No matter. Conversations need to be started -- and talk is cheap.
My column last week about the mentor issues swirling around Fox’s “American Idol” was already in production when the show seemingly proved me right. Talented Erika Van Pelt submitted to a wholesale image change (from sporty blond with shoulder-length hair to intense Kris Jenner mode) and was promptly voted off by an audience that was likely thrown by her dramatic and perhaps alienating makeover. Van Pelt may not have been a front-runner to win the competition but she was far from the most deserving to get tossed after last week’s performance show. At least she made the top10; that’s what really counts in this competition, given the collective accomplishments of the many contestants over the years who were prematurely eliminated (Jennifer Hudson, Clay Aiken and Chris Daughtry among them) as compared to those of the actual winners -- with the notable exceptions of Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood. There are so many great performers in this year’s competition that it is impossible to make an early call, proving that when “Idol” is really on, it is still superior to any talent contest on television. Indeed, this week’s performance show may have been one of the very best in the show’s 11-year run. But I can definitely see Colton Dixon taking the top prize, and I can also see him enjoying a successful career even if he doesn’t. The same goes for Phillip Phillips. (And by the way, even though I’m less than impressed by most of the mentorship on “Idol,” I thought the legendary Stevie Nicks really brought it this week. Maybe she should turn up more often.) “American Idol” isn’t the only aging talent show serving up amazing performances this season. ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars” has assembled one of its most talented groups of celebrity participants in years. Seemingly overnight, “Dancing” has already propelled to the pop-culture foreground two celebrities who were largely unknown in this country: telenovela sensation and international model William Levy, and Welsh classical singer Katherine Jenkins. That’s the singular power of broadcast television at its best. One can only wonder: Did the threat of NBC’s buzz-worthy, hot youngster -- “The Voice” -- light a fire under these old-timers? And will there be enough audience enthusiasm for these shows to go around when its live results show joins NBC’s schedule on Tuesday? I have to say watching the “Voice” battle rounds, which don’t have the same kinetic energy as the chair-swiveling audition shows, has been a somewhat frustrating experience, because the judge/mentors went to such great lengths to pit against each other team members of equal talent that a number of lesser singers have moved through to the live shows while many singers of greater talent have been sent home. Justin Hopkins of Team Cee Lo, for example, could have easily beaten a number of finalists from his team and the others in the live show competition had he not already “lost” to Broadway veteran Tony Vincent. On the downside, Fox’s Latino-focused talent show “Q’Viva! The Chosen,” hosted by Jennifer Lopez, Marc Anthony and Jamie King, was bumped this week to late night, the victim of crummy ratings on Saturday night. (Are there any other kind of ratings on Saturday?) I’m not sure how “Q’Viva!” is doing on Univision, its primary platform, but it’s always a shame to see one of the Big Four broadcast networks try something special and fail. Just last Saturday, a well-traveled friend I was watching it with, who has been hooked since week one, said to me that she likes “Q’Viva!” because it reminds her of what she has seen on TV in other countries but has never seen here. “The thing about American television is that there aren’t any programs that show Americans what life is like outside of America,” she added. For that reason alone “Q’Viva!” deserved to survive in prime time. (I realize that CBS’ “The Amazing Race” acquaints viewers with certain aspects of other cultures. But it is all so fleeting. “Q’Viva!” really drills down into the lives of its contestants, some of them desperate to remain in America for as long as possible.) Lastly, can it be that the MediaPost TV Board had something to do with the announcement this week that Jimmy Kimmel will host the Emmy Awards on ABC in September? In my column of March 2 about this year’s lackluster Academy Awards ceremony, I suggested that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences consider recruiting Kimmel to host next year’s Oscars. As the inspired, celebrity-filled videos on his show over the years have proven, he is certainly well-liked by the Hollywood acting community, a crucial quality that any Oscar host must have. But the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences beat AMPAS to it. I’m happy for Kimmel. He’s the standout performer of upfront week every year at ABC’s presentation -- and he makes amazing burgers, too.