Infiniti's new "Challenger" campaign, via TBWAChiatDay, which launched last week with a 60-second anthem spot positioning Infiniti as an innovator and iconoclast in the premium segment, is continuing with a more aggressive creative and a social-media component in which consumers help decide the ads' media rotation. The new "Challenger" chapter comprises a pair of 15-second spots that will not even air on TV until social fans of the luxury auto brand decide which of the two ads deserves the heavier media rotation. The new spots also target Lexus. One of the spots, "Lullaby," shows an infant in a cradle looking up at a mobile of suspended paper cutouts of luxury cars. "There's luxury that lulls," says the voiceover as one of the paper cars bearing the Lexus grill ornament swings past. Cut to a shot of an Infiniti M sedan in full slide. "And there's luxury that thrills." The other spot, "Spa," says luxury can be a sedative (shot of a man and woman in the driver and passenger seat of a car identified as a Lexus, with avocado muck on their faces and cucumber slices over their eyes) or a stimulant. Right now, the ads are only on the brand's Facebook page, YouTube Channel and Twitter. Infiniti is asking its Facebook fans which spot they want to see most frequently on air; vote count will determine the media weight of each of the two spots on network, cable and spot market TV starting July 18, and running through August. An Infiniti spokesperson says the point is "basically to get our fans and customers engaged in what we are doing; we are taking a different direction in the commercials and in doing so we want to involve fans in the process and let them actively be a part of it." He said there is another spot in the pipeline. Said Ben Poore, VP of Infiniti Americas, in a statement: "We believe in telling compelling stories with an attitude that feels more energetic and optimistic than traditional luxury brands. Our commercials are bold, and serve as our proclamation of confidence in our ability to move our customers emotionally as well as physically. The automaker is also in the midst of teasing the 2013 Infiniti JX crossover with sneak peeks online, prior to its reveal on Aug. 18 at the Concours d'Elegance at Pebble Beach in Monterey, Calif. The "Power of 7" teaser campaign on social media sites like Twitter includes a sweepstakes offering a trip for two to the lifestyle event and luxury auto show.
Racing is a big deal at Ford, especially when it comes to reaching Millennials who really could not care less about more traditional four-wheel speed feasts like NASCAR and drag racing. So the company's new mega-deal with the X-Games franchise is all about new racing forms made popular in Asia and Europe and finding a growing audience of social media-savvy twenty-somethings. Ford's group VP of global sales and marketing Jim Farley, speaking at a press conference on Thursday, said there is no one way to reach Millennials -- referencing Toyota's Scion division, where he used to work. "I've been doing what I've been doing for more than two decades. Millennials are the heart and soul of the business and there are some other companies who have formed total brands to attract them," he said. "That was a rewarding discovery for me as a leader -- that marketing tactics and product strategy can be totally different." Farley said the key vehicle in the automaker's efforts to reach the next generation is the Fiesta compact. "It has really been a groundbreaker for us. It may be the most affordable Ford in the U.S., but it's also the most important Ford." And the car, along with the Fusion sedan, Mustang and Ranger mid-sized truck, is also central to the new X-Games partnership that includes racing, marketing and promotional relationships in four racing categories with Rally Cross Ford Fiesta racer Tanner Foust; Stage Rally racer and one-man Web sensation Ken Block, who also drives a Fiesta; Mustang drift-racer Vaughn Gitten, Jr., and off-road truck racer Brian Deegan, who drives a Ranger. In addition to creating a social media-fueled experiential program with the racers called Octane Academy, Ford will also be exclusive auto partner with X Games, "which fits perfectly with us as a brand," said Farley. "We have been involved in gaming, and gaming is a big deal for Millennials -- it's a big part of their day." Farley said the program, and socially driven efforts that preceded it, like the Fiesta Movement campaign (where Web-savvy consumers got to drive the vehicle for several months before it hit the U.S. market) reflects something Farley said he learned over the years: reaching Millennials means having to start really early, especially if one's brand is not really relevant to younger consumers, asking for help and listening. "If you have something cool, if you give to socially connected people, they will talk about it," said Farley. "In the past, digital and social were seen as a small incubator for marketing, but the scale of social now is huge." He said Fiesta Movement grew awareness of the vehicle to 50% among the cohort. "That's ten cents on the dollar. We learned from that." He said, in fact, that one of the parameters for choosing the racers in the four categories, in addition to their records, was their social fan base. He added that people who are race fans are also much more likely to buy or consider one's product. "A couple of years ago, we started to engage [racing] talent. As much as it's great to talk about motorsports drivers, they are also incredible content producers -- they get the excitement of it and deliver it every day, often through digital." Jamie Allison, director of North American motorsports at Ford, said 80% of Ford's Facebook fellowship is under 35, and the four racers Ford has tapped have a combined three million social followers. Allison said the racers are also stars in the digital realm beyond the popularity garnered by their racing success: Tanner is in digital games like "Gran Turismo 5;" Ken Block started the Gymkhana series of extreme driving videos, which were in the YouTube top 10 last year; Gitten is featured in EA's "Need for Speed" game and Deegan founded the "Metal Mulitia" media and merchandise group. John Felice, Ford's general marketing manager for Ford and Lincoln, said 39% of in-market shoppers consider themselves motorsports fans. "We see 50% higher consideration of Ford products from Ford motorsports fans," he said. The aforementioned Octane Academy, said Felice, is the first and only dedicated action-sports campaign and marketing platform. Launching with X-Games, the program -- which will be supported by TV ads in which the four racers exhort viewers to participate -- involves consumers creating their own videos on why they have the mettle to participate. The racers also select the winners. The winners are thrown into one of four four-day training programs that pit the chosen applicants against each other for tenacity, athleticism and general competitiveness, one for each of the racing platforms and its associated vehicle. The participants' experience will be captured in reality-show style. "Followers of action sports will have a chance to experience it," said Felice. In addition to the TV ads, there will be digital and print ads. "The racers will be looking for personality and character -- not just skill," he said.
Internet video ads keep growing. Some 5.3 billion video ads were viewed in June -- 15% more than in May which had 4.6 billion, per comScore Video Metrix. Video online commercials reached 49.2% of the U.S. population in June, up from 45.4% in May. Total ad minutes climbed to 2.3 billion from 2.01 billion. Video ads per viewer rose to 38.8 from 33.7 a month before. Looking at the video ad networks, Tremor Media Video Network was first with 753 million ads (and in second place overall to Hulu, which had 1 billion). Other video ad networks: BrightRoll Video Network had 629 million. Specific Media was at 422 million, Undertone was at 322 million, and SpotXchange video ad network was at 282 million. Ad exchange Adap.tv bested all other exchanges at 678 million, according comScore. In terms of reach for the total U.S. population, Tremor Media was 44.3%, BrightRoll Video Network, 38.5% and Break Media, 37.6%. Video ads surveyed include streaming-video advertising only and other types of video monetization such as overlays, branded players, matching banner ads, home page ads, etc. The digital research company says time spent watching video ads totaled more than 2.2 billion minutes during the month, with Tremor Media Video Network delivering the longest duration of video ads -- 429 million minutes. Video ads reached 49% of the total U.S. population an average of 35.6 times during the month. Hulu had the highest frequency of video ads to its viewers with an average of 38.8 over the course of the month.
Video advertising continued to grow last month in tandem with the expansion of the online video audience. Americans watched 5.3 billion video ads last month, up from 4.6 billion in May, according to the latest data from comScore. Video ads also made up a larger share of all videos viewed: 13.6% compared to 12.6% in May. As a proportion of time spent, ad viewing increased slightly to 1.3% from 1.2% of all minutes watched. Among video ad networks, Hulu was again tops with more than 1 billion ad impressions in June, followed by Tremor Media, with 753 million, Adap.tv, 677.7 billion, and BrightRoll, 628.6 million. Hulu's total, however, dropped by about 300,000 video ads from May, while Tremor and BrightRoll added about 53,000 and 63,000 ads, respectively. Time spent watching video ads totaled more than 2.2 billion in June, with Tremor pushing ahead of Hulu to deliver the highest duration of video ads at 429 million minutes. Hulu dipped to 424 minutes from 560 in May. Since broadcast and cable TV shows generate most of the viewing on Hulu, the season's end for many TV series in May likely accounts for some of the drop-off. Video ads reached nearly half (49%) of the total U.S. population an average of 35.6 times during the month. Hulu delivered the highest frequency of video ads to its viewers with an average of 38.8. The top video ad networks in terms of their reach of the overall population were: Tremor Media at 44.3%, BrightRoll at 38.5%, and Break Media at 37.6%. ComScore data reflects only streaming-video advertising and does not include other types of video monetization, including overlays, branded players or matching banner ads. Looking at overall video consumption, the total number of viewing sessions cracked the 6 billion mark for the first time, rising to 6.2 billion in June from 5.6 billion in May. The number of people watching video increased by 2 million to 178 million, or 85.6% of the U.S. Internet population. The average time spent watching Web video also increased, to 16.8 hours from 15.9 hours. YouTube drove the biggest share of that activity, with 149 million unique visitors racking up 2.3 billion viewing sessions. Users spent an average of 5.4 hours on the Google-owned video hub. Music video site VEVO was second to YouTube in audience with 63 million viewers, followed by Yahoo (52.7 million) Microsoft (50.7 million), and Viacom Digital (49.5 million). Facebook fell a spot to sixth place, with 47.7 million video viewers, while Amazon broke into the top 10 in June, with a video audience of 23.3 million.
People have a lot going on in their lives, and many of them don't want to add more stress by endlessly researching appliance purchases online or in stores. In a new, digitally focused marketing effort, Amana looks to ease some consumer stress, introducing the idea of "Life. Simplified." The heart of the campaign is an online shopping tool that helps consumers decide, in three clicks, the appliance that best fits their needs. "Our target consumer really wants an appliance that's easy to use, but they also want an appliance that's easy to shop for," Carolyn Kelley, a senior brand manager for Amana, tells Marketing Daily. "We have always created our products to be easy to use and straightforward. What we've done now is we've created a campaign that simplifies researching and shopping for them." The shopping tool, as well as in-store materials featuring QR codes, takes users to videos that focus more on how the appliances fit consumers' needs and less on specific product features and attributes. "They really communicate the essence of the Amana brand and tell [consumers] that they show how we simplify the life around them," Kelley says. "It's not a laundry list of features; it's more about the fact that any of our products is easy to understand." The videos are available on Amana's YouTube channel and are also optimized for mobile and viewing through the company's iPhone app, so people can view them in the stores. Amana will promote its brand and the "Help Me Choose" feature via digital advertising, as well as through a Facebook sweepstakes, through which consumers are encouraged to post the things, times and/or anything else that makes their life easier. "We're really making them think about that and associate it with our brand," Kelley says. "Once they're in there they'll be more aware of Amana and once we're in [awareness], we know they'll consider us."
According to Nielsen, video streaming is on the rise again in May as Americans streamed more than 15 billion videos, up 2% from last month's all-time high of 14.7 billion streams. The number of online video viewers also increased from April, up nearly 3% to 145 million unique viewers. Overall U.S. Online Video Usage May, 2011MOM % Change Unique Viewers 145,030,000 2.5% Total Streams 15,020,811,000 2.2% Streams per Viewer 103.6 -0.3% Time per Viewer (hh:mm) 4:20 -3.8% Source: Nielsen, June 2011 Among the top online video destinations, MSN/WindowsLive/Bing saw the largest month-over-month growth in unique viewers, followed by Fox Interactive Media, Hulu and AOL Media Network. During May 2011, 111.8 million unique U.S. viewers watched video content on YouTube using PC/laptops from home and work locations. Top Online Video Destinations by Unique Viewers (May 2011, U.S.) Video BrandUnique Viewers (000)MOM % Change in Viewers YouTube 111,782 0.5% VEVO 36,364 4.0% Facebook 29,218 -4.3% Yahoo! 26,195 -3.6% MSN/WindowsLive/Bing 17,895 29.3% Hulu 14,621 18.0% AOL Media Network 14,410 14.1% The CollegeHumor Network 11,803 -5.4% Fox Interactive Media 9,934 20.7% CNN Digital Network 9,142 7.3% Source: Nielsen, June 2011 Double-digit growth in unique viewers also brought double-digit gains in streams for MSN/WindowsLive/Bing, AOL Media Network and Hulu. CBS Entertainment Websites also saw a notable increase in streaming activity during May, up 13% from April to 120.7 million streams. During May 2011, 8.9 billion videos were streamed on YouTube via PCs/laptops from home and work locations. Top Online Video Destinations by Total Streams (May 2011, U.S.) Video BrandTotal Streams (000)MOM % Change in Streams YouTube 8,860,520 1.3% Hulu 852,173 12.1% VEVO 414,615 0.3% MSN/WindowsLive/Bing 266,712 26.9% Yahoo! 193,344 -5.9% Dailymotion 150,340 -4.6% Turner-SI Digital Network 149,102 4.5% AOL Media Network 148,727 25.2% Facebook 135,168 -8.3% CBS Entertainment Websites 120,707 12.8% Source: Nielsen, June 2011 On average, U.S. viewers spent the most time watching Hulu content during the month of May, spending 4 hours, 43 minutes viewing Hulu videos across the Web. Hulu was followed by Ustream.tv and Justin.tv, both of which streamed replays of the April 29 Royal Wedding causing average time spent viewing video on these sites to increase by 61% and 55%, respectively. As the traditional television season wrapped up, viewers also increased their time spent watching video content on network-related destinations ABC Family, Lifetime Digital, Cwtv.com, and MTV Networks Entertainment & Games. Top Online Video Destinations by Time per Viewer (May 2011; U.S. 250K Unique Viewer Minimum) Video BrandTime per Viewer (hh:mm)MOM % Change in Time Hulu 4:43 -8.8% Ustream.tv 3:40 61.4% Justin.tv 2:35 55.3% YouTube 2:31 -3.3% Megavideo 2:29 -14.8% Cwtv.com 2:17 11.5% ABC Family 2:04 28.4% Lifetime Digital 1:57 12.4% CBS Entertainment Websites 1:12 -8.7% MTV Networks Entertainment & Games 1:11 6.7% Source: Nielsen, June 2011 To read the sourced information from Nielsen, please visit here.
As marketing, media or advertising professionals, we all suffer from PBS. I'm not referring to the ongoing debate on funding of the Public Broadcasting Service. Rather, the affliction that needs your attention is your own Personal Bias Syndrome. This condition can be attributed to the way, in the course of hectic day-to-day professional and personal lives, we all tend to assume that the way we enjoy media and embrace new technologies is pretty much the same way everyone else is doing it, too. Let me share a few prevalent examples that illustrate how our PBS is out of sync with what is actually happening. You might recognize some of these symptoms. DVR rules! Because we tend to think of ourselves as heavy users of DVRs and watch plenty of time-shifted content, we assume that this is quickly becoming the norm. Actually, as incredible as it may seem to us, less than half of TV households have a DVR. Consequently, total time-shifted viewing across all TV households remains less than 7% of all time spent watching TV. Beyond that, it is important to note that the rise in watching time-shifted TV content is being driven by the greater penetration of DVRs and not by the average amount of time individuals watch time-shifted content. According to Nielsen research, among households that have had DVRs for at least one year, the time individuals devote to watching time-shifted content has held steady at around 26 hours per month, which amounts to less than 20% of their total TV consumption. Internet rules! There's persistent talk about the rise in online video options in the business and trade press. But just how much time is broader America spending with these online video alternatives? Not much,when compared to traditional TV consumption, is the answer Online video viewing amounts to less than 2% of the total time watching traditional TV. Sure, this figure is growing rapidly because it's coming on top of a very small base. And to further emphasize this point, according to Nielsen's latest "Three Screen Report," measuring total minutes of year-over-year growth, traditional TV viewing actually grew more than online video viewing. Youth Rules! As a whole, the marketing, media and advertising industry tends to skew relatively young, and as such, we tend to empathize and even worship youth culture. So it is no surprise that we often hear that the differences between traditional TV and online or mobile video consumption are generational. However, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average 8- to 18-year-old spends nearly 3.5 hours a day watching TV versus 1.5 hours on the Internet -- and while the time they spent on the Internet grew, the growth in amount of time spent watching TV was even greater. Recent comScore research revealed that the average 18- to 24-year-old spent 32 hours per month on the Internet in 2010, but as it turns out 32 hours was also the average across all age groups. It is noteworthy that the research found that the heaviest users of the Internet are persons ages 45-54, with an average of 39 hours online each month. It turns out that when we look outside of our own PBS, and actually examine research data that provides us with a broader perspective, we realize that our own media consumption and technology adoption behaviors do not reflect what is happening in broader America -- not even among young Americans. Sure there are emerging behaviors that are important to keep an eye out for as these may be leading indicators. However, we must also keep in mind that the actions of early adopters rarely reflect the future behaviors of the majority of the population, both in terms of degree of adoption or magnitude of usage. Why is this important? Well, as marketing, media or advertising professionals we are supposed to be in tune with our target consumers. So, we must work at keeping our PBS in check.
I wrote about the dilemma of being Netflix in an earlier post; this is a sequel. This week Netflix's announcement of pricing changes has created a stir in the industry. Netflix issued a seemingly reasonable explanation for the increase. That is what PR is for. However, one has to look at this move in the context of a simultaneously complicated playing field and dynamic industry environment within which Netflix is trying to both survive and shape the future. In that sense, this price increase should not come as a surprise to anyone, other than those who think that everything on the Internet should be either free or subsidized. At the end of the day, when most media (if not everything) moves to the Internet, expect more price parity between traditional pay TV services and emerging Internet video services than was typical before. Netflix was a flush-with-cash, successful company based on its DVD business. Its explanation that this recent price increase is due to the high cost of mailing physical DVDs suggests that the DVD-by-mail model is broken. Since Netflix has done well with this model for more than a decade and a not insignificant number of DVD customers underutilize the service (myself included) -- i.e., go weeks if not months between swapping DVDs -- there is more to this picture than a cost-plus pricing scheme. Netflix is clearly taking a portfolio approach to managing its business. The (mature) DVD-by-mail is the cash cow funding the (emerging) streaming business. It's not a stretch to see how a profitable, unique service (DVD-by-mail) with a limited future runway should be able to fund the nascent but promising streaming future of Netflix. Within this pricing change is a tacit testament that the DVD-by-mail service still holds value for subscribers, and that they will not abandon the service en masse. For one the streaming selection is dwarfed by what is available on DVD as well as the timing of available titles on DVD. Secondly, if these users were price-sensitive, they would have switched to services like RedBox when the appeared (only the most heaviest user of Netflix makes out better price-wise than (s)he would with renting kiosk DVDs). As I wrote in the earlier post, Netflix has no direct competitor for its DVD-by-mail service. Not so for its streaming service, where substitutes and direct competitors abound. I surmise that Netflix has assessed that the DVD-by-mail users are its least-price sensitive users, and are therefore going to be subsidizing its streaming service. After all, increasing its streaming pricing is going to throw a big monkey wrench in its subscriber acquisition strategy as well as its competitive position in the streaming market. What started out as basically a "free" service for its DVD-by-mail subscribers, is now being charged and in effect, DVD-by-mail subscribers are expected to pay the difference to keep this service. While this is strikes me as bait-and-switch, I also wonder why Netflix did not simply offer its DVD-by-mail subscribers the option to either sign up for a paid streaming service or discontinue it. A few possible explanations: one, that the number of DVD-by-mail subscribers who may have opted out of streaming may not be insignificant. Two, the streaming subscribers count is really important to Netflix. Three, it is easier to hit subscribers with a price increase and have them take it than to give them an option to choose and risk them opting out. The last of these sounds a lot like how price increases are implemented by existing pay TV subscribers, doesn't it? It is obvious that Netflix's business model is going to be driven by content licensing costs. As content providers are waking up to the reality of the value of the content in online streaming, expect the early largesse enjoyed by Netflix and others such as Hulu to be over, and greater parity in the cost structures of video services (online streaming and traditional pay TV) vis-à-vis content licensing. Consequently, the pricing across different types of services will also start converging. Expect online video services trending upwards and traditional pay TV services downwards with market forces at work. The halcyon days are coming to an end for everyone - traditional pay TV services, online streaming services and streaming video subscribers. Traditional pay TV has enjoyed pricing power for most of its existence; early online services caught incredible licensing deals that allowed them to ratchet growth rapidly with disruptive pricing, and consumers got a cord cutting option for the first time. Netflix's new pricing scheme is just one indicator of the level-setting underway. That Netflix has chosen to hit up its DVD subscribers first is a good calculated decision on their part, but the way it was done is also an indicator of the high-stakes game in online video where market dominance is still up for grabs by anyone. __________________________________________________________________________________________________Editor's Note: Are you a Video Insider? We're looking for more folks who can write clearly about trends/issues in the online video space and/or provide guidance to marketers who want to use video more effectively. To be considered for a Video Insider spot, please include your industry credentials, an article idea, and writing sample if possible. We're also open to considering (non-self-promotional) one-off posts as well Please email pfine@mediapost.com. Thanks!
You'd think that viral video fever would have run its course by now. But judging by the number of marketers who continue to ask their agencies to take their brand messaging and turn it into the next Evian "Roller Babies" or Dove "Evolution," it's clear the epidemic rages on. Please, people, take two aspirin and call me in the morning. I'll cite you the latest statistics on just how many of those online videos designed to go viral actually do. And then I'll let you in on some good news. Only 1 in 500 of the online videos that brands produce gets more than 500,000 views. Meaning, viral hits are like capturing lightning in a bottle. It's amazing if you can do it, but miracles don't make for good marketing strategy. What's more, even those that "make it" tend to net only 10 million views. If that's all you get after a huge production investment and a lot of "seeding" (digital media bought to promote the video), what have you really won? Is viral video a game worth playing? I'll plunk down 10 bucks on the lottery when the prize is $300,000,000. But if the prize is only $10 million, and it costs me $250,000 to play -- the average cost to produce a viral video -- well, how often should I do that? The real issue is, why aren't consumers eating up those high-cost videos? Ask anyone who's tried to write hit songs, get elected to office, or land a starring role: it's just a lot harder than it looks. There's a much more reliable formula for producing hits when it comes to online video. Change your paradigm from branded entertainment to branded information. Nearly 60% of searches are for information -- meaning, tens of millions of your prospects are out there actively trying to solve a problem or improve their lives. Whether that means help for their heartburn, tips on how to copy a celebrity hairstyle, or answers on how much to feed their newborn, a few things are true in every case: · There's a brand out there that is THE most credible on the subject, and chances are, hasn't laid down the answers on video yet · Information-based searches most often yield no paid search results. A shampoo company will buy the term "shampoo" but not "rockabilly hair," leaving the space wide open for consumers and others to answer the implied question, "How do I get rockabilly hair?" · Most consumers are in a "needs" state. Brands advertise for decades hoping to marry the moment when the consumer's need matches the ad campaign; here is a fountain of people who NEED something, who WANT something....NOW. Brands have a lot to say on these topics. But how you say it -- and who speaks for you -- makes a huge difference. Consumers want to be informed, not hit with a hard sell. So share your expertise - and trust me, consumers will share their love. You need more than informative video to achieve TV-like reach online; you also need effective distribution. The dirty secret of many so-called viral videos is that brands can end up paying for 30% to 50% of views. It's not enough to post the video on your brand's site or rely on the "post and pray" approach on YouTube. And beware of those who say they'll distribute your video, only to ad buy the space. Your information is worthy of earned media. If you really want TV-like reach and internet-like engagement, that two-part formula - 1) making information-based content that people are already searching for, and 2) distributing it editorially, through earned media, is effective when done right. But first, you have to give up the viral pipe dream.