How does a camera company get away from the product-attributes trap? You know -- "Our camera has flex-focus, a double-shot shutter that senses your mood, and a built-in espresso-maker with telephoto lens that doubles as a foam dispenser." Well, Canon U.S.A. and its AOR, Grey, have been putting the focus, so to speak, on the camera as conduit for visual expression since last year, when it launched the "Long Live Imagination" campaign and its "Project Imagin8ion" program, wherein film director Ron Howard chose eight photos taken by consumers and gave them to his daughter Bryce Dallas Howard, who made an award-winning short film based on them. Now comes "Project Imaginat10n." The effort brings back the Academy Award winner Howard but now instead of one film, there will be an entire film festival comprising 10 films again inspired by consumer generated photos uploaded as part of a social media campaign. The films will be directed, respectively, by Eva Longoria, Jamie Foxx, Biz Stone, Georgina Chapman, James Murphy and five others. The effort, at imagination.usa.canon.com, allows consumers to submit photos, which will be screened, vetted, and winnowed down by Canon, Ron Howard and community voting. Ultimately each of the ten filmmakers will choose ten photos representing ten storytelling elements, and then hopefully find a way to apply those images to a storyline. The campaign will culminate next year with the Canon “Project Imaginat10n” Film Festival. Canon USA's long-time AOR Grey New York developed the campaign with Alliance, the activation and public relations division of Grey, which is handling the talent partnerships, promotional, event and public relations efforts. Says Rob Altman, manager of camera video marketing at Canon U.S.A.: "The campaign grew out of the idea that Canon supports consumer creativity and imagination and allows people to elevate their photography." When we started looking at this we found that messaging all about performance, features and spec, made it hard for consumers to differentiate us from the others. So we realized we needed another approach around encouraging sharing and communication between us and customers and between customers." Ari Halper, executive creative director at Grey New York, tells Marketing Daily that the 360-degree supporting campaign will include page takeovers and banners and viral films, PR stunts, event marketing, press releases and media hits. But there will be no television advertising at least during the first phase of the contest, which will take about a year from the initial call for photos to the produced films. Halper says Alliance looked for a range of people, not just directors. "We knew from the beginning we wanted to cover a range of participants. The whole idea was spawned by Ron Howard's statement last year that we are all creative, so to prove it this time we chose movie stars, TV actors, a fashion icon, and a tech person." Altman tells Marketing Daily that engagement from last year's program far exceeded Canon's goals. "We got 96,000 photos over three and a half weeks; it blew away anything else we had done, but it also generated lots of communication with fans and consumers. And that's what we want: we want it to be a community for photographers and consumers." The filmic approach replaces a more celebrity and athlete endorsement focus that Canon had used. Canon had been, for example, the official camera of the NFL, and had run ad campaigns featuring tennis star Maria Sharapova, and on products technology. "We really want to make it a two-way conversation rather than just advertising."
If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Apple Inc. has been talking with some of the biggest U.S. cable operators, including Time Warner Cable, about teaming up for a new device for live television and online video content, according to a new report. Unnamed sources tell The Wall Street Journal that while no deals have yet been reached, Apple is eyeing a similar kind of deal to the one it struck with mobile wireless providers for its line of iPhones. In theory, the cable operators would offer content and data services for an Apple-made device loaded with Apple software. The report said it’s unclear whether the device in question would be a new technology embedded into televisions, a set-top box or an updated version of Apple TV, an existing Apple device that allows users to access Web video on their television sets, but not cable TV content. The sources said that Apple CEO Tim Cook met with Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt at the annual Allen & Co. media conference in Sun Valley, Idaho last month. They also mentioned Time Warner Cable as one of the cable companies in talks with Apple. An Apple spokesperson declined to comment on the story. If the sources are correct, it would appear that Apple -- by teaming with cable operators instead of trying to license content directly from broadcasters and cable networks -- is not pursuing the U.S. television market with the same boldness with which it went after the major record labels in the past. Of course, cable providers and media companies are reluctant to see Apple dominate the television industry the same way it has come to dominate digital music. According to the sources, Apple has been in talks with cable operators about partnering on a set-top box for years, but the cable companies have been put off by Apple’s demands for a 30 percent cut on certain transactions going through the box. Partnering with Apple would reduce the amount the cable operators spend buying set-top boxes, the sources said.
News flash: Apple TV might not change the TV world. Sorry about that. Want a TV business savior? You might have to look at other wannabe TV-changing companies -- Google, Comcast, maybe Facebook. Right now, Apple can't do for TV what it seemingly did for the music business. There are too many powerful and monied TV companies involved, and revolution is hard to come by. You need the right business environment, people, perhaps some on-the-ground mass protest. A report in the Wall Street Journal says Apple is now looking to sell cable companies, as well as satellite and teleco multichannel TV programmers, the next set-top box. Not a TV set. This would be a major shift on the Apple TV efforts. Scant information has come in about an Apple TV set – a device that could capture the imagination of consumers, possibly magically sync all possible information to every possible device and app consumers own, which news reports would show people lined up around the block to buy. No surprise here: The WSJ story says Apple is getting flatly turned down for its set-top box plan, which is familiar ground. When Apple started up its Apple TV unit some years ago -- an initial set-top device -- the rub was that it couldn't attract a critical mass of top TV providers to come on board. So this latest initiative is a rerun, for sure. Consumer products come and go. But fancy life-changing TV-related equipment can be tough sells. The original Apple TV effort is one of the company's rare lapses with a less-than-stellar sales performance. Manufacturing a new TV set isn't what it used to be. Consumers want a lot more, like a choice of a services that attach easily to their new TV equipment, and access to good apps. Then there’s the issue of the “right business environment”: Apple was able to make its iTunes work because the music business was in major disarray, with lower CD sales and rampant piracy. While the TV industry has its problems, it still pulls in major billions for TV rights holders. Because consumers are still buying, a real TV revolution isn't in sight.
With just the scent of a new initiative, Apple can fascinate people throughout the entertainment business. It’s remarkable. So, of course, a Wall Street Journal report that the company is talking with cable operators about a set-top-box yielded lots of industry buzz Thursday. With speculation Apple would launch a standalone TV set in 2013, it would be a surprise. Apple has leading hardware in the mobile phone, personal computer and tablet arenas. Would it really abandon a quest to dominate in that fourth realm: the traditional TV? One analyst, Credit Suisse’s Stefan Anninger, suggests a set-top-box collaboration could be a plus for cable operators. Reasons are extensive: Operators would welcome Apple abandoning any plans to launch a groundbreaking over-the-top service -- powered by a new TV set -- which might lure subscribers from them. Operators could benefit from Apple’s genius in helping develop more consumer-friendly interfaces, helping people search for content and use DVRs. Improved Apple-developed set-top boxes might allow operators to better collect viewership data. Selling that to Nielsen or another measurement company could bring big money. Also, cutting-edge boxes might allow operators to accelerate their own ad sales businesses by offering lucrative addressable and interactive ad opportunities. And, if Apple had designs on acquiring exclusive content, cable operators would appreciate not having to engage in bidding wars with its bottomless wallet. There may be an element of surrender brewing here. Credit Suisse's Anninger wrote that a partnership with operators might suggest Apple is not on “the verge of launching a strategy or technology that is highly disruptive" what cable operators do. Of course, that’s not to say the set-top-box business couldn’t be hugely enriching for Apple or it couldn't still launch its own TV set. In fact, it come together through a collaboration where a cable operator offers a package of TV and Internet service, along with a spiffy Apple Internet-connected TV. Credit Suisse's Anninger writes that as with iTunes, Apple wouldn’t necessarily sell a set-top box to an operator and walk away, but look to “reap revenues” from the content distributed. Anninger also suggested Apple may be offering an endorsement of the current cable video business. “The traditional pay-TV bundle may be more change-resistant than some of us, and Silicon Valley had expected,” he said. A hint may come in how successful Google is in encroaching on that space with its Kansas City fiber project. Anninger suggests over time, Apple could use a link with cable operators to burnish its brand in the TV arena and then move in more aggressively. An Apple-branded box on top of the TV set could be a marketing boon. So, while it is a plus Apple may want to work with them, cable operators need to “judicious,” Anninger says. Oh, they will be. It seems everyone feels about dealing with Apple. Except consumers. (A TVBlog this week suggesting HuffPost Live needs a standalone TV app prompted Robert DelaCruz, general manager of AOL On, to note HuffPost Live has one on Samsung, Roku and Sony devices.)
The “golden age” of television (1950s and 1960s) offered limited offerings (and channels) of high-rated programs easy for viewers to find. Consumers now have an overwhelming number of choices, and must spend more time identifying their options. In the 1980s scrolling electronic programming guides (EPGs) appeared on cable systems, and in the late 1990s these became interactive program guides (IPGs) --which, combined with digital video recording in the 2000s, allows viewers to search for, record and replay the programs they want. With 50%+ U.S. household penetration of DVRs within the 80%+ U.S. cable, teleco and satellite subscriber homes, consumers are paying a lot to program their own “personal channels” of recorded and stored content. With thousands of T/V (television/video) choices now available each moment, the search function is a vital choice management tool. Here’s a look at the current and future role of T/V search from the perspective of four key stakeholders: 1) Viewers will need more and more help finding the programming they want as new platforms (online, tablets, smartphones) are used to access new delivery formats (linear, time- scheduled TV, video-on-demand (vod), pay-per-view (PPV) and “TV Everywhere”). Without great search, the time and energy consumers save in commercial fast-forwarding and time-shifting could be lost to major “hunter-gatherer” activity. Already many cable, telecom and satellite distributors have sophisticated search functions within their IPGs supporting search/DVR-record activity based on keywords. For instance, the name of a sports team can be set through search to auto-record all games the team is playing, when, for example, all hockey games are initially organized in lists under “NHL Hockey” with sub-menus by game/teams/dates/times. Because cable, teleco and satellite operators can comprehensively organize the viewing experience and continually improve the search and record technology, viewers gain a special experience that cannot be replicated (yet) on the Internet for “cord-cutters.” 2) Advertisers have the most to lose short-term in the current stage of “search and record” technology, as the viewer’s power to avoid ads provides them much value in the pay TV subscription model. If advertisers were never sure what proportion of advertising was “wasted,” it’s now certain that proportion has increased dramatically with DVR penetration, lengthy commercial pods and high commercial clutter. Some “smart TV” or connected TV manufacturers are exploring ads on IPGs, as are some pay TV operators; however, these tend to be more static display and less sight, sound and motion. Someday a different way of exchanging viewer attention to ads for free or reduced-cost programming will validate the idea of contextual advertising involvement. This is inevitable if advertising is to continue its role in how content is paid for. 3) Content producers (studio and network creators of actual programming) have largely withheld first-run content from over-the-top (OTT) distributors like Hulu, Netflix, Amazon and others not part of the cable/teleco/satellite ecosystem in order to maintain their current cash cow. As advertisers tire of paying for commercials that are skipped by viewers, and younger audiences comfortable with search tools move to cord-cutting options, producers will need to find alternate means of monetizing content. Some OTT distributors are now getting into the content creation business themselves, making them production competitors. The younger generation of what Credit Suisse analysts call “cord-nevers” (who would never consider subscribing to cable or satellite for content they can eventually get via wireless devices including smart or connected TVs) may never know broadcast or cable networks as the primary sources of T/V content. As producers expand distribution channels to reach them, search will be a key element for finding these younger audiences, and vice versa. 4) Cable/teleco/satellite distributors (Pay TV) love the linear model for its dual revenue stream and because they are able to promote program viewing within programming, driving viewer awareness and sampling of new programs, new seasons and special events. As search increases viewers’ ability to go anywhere to find quality programming and avoid ads, this “in-program” marketing option is weakened. In DVR homes, the interactivity of each system’s IPG allows recording right from search, a feature OTT providers can’t touch. Smartly, many distributors also include VOD and PPV programs along with linear schedules in current search functions. This will be important to the adults 18-49 audience that advertisers crave, who grew up on Internet search where everything is a click away, and ads are far less invasive than on traditional TV. Cable and satellite providers are already seeing some subscription declines due in part to this dynamic. There are four major players outside of the cable/telco/satellite ecosystem currently able to provide T/V content who excel at search. They all use Internet broadband wireless to fuel their content ambitions and have an added skill set: the “predictive recommendation” logarithms that shape search results according to the user’s past behavior and trends of similar searches. These companies are of course Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft. Their Internet selling platforms, along with predictive recommendation capabilities, will be a more valuable organizing feature as viewers face an explosion of OTT, VOD options. Rumors of an Apple or Google “Smart TV” entry abound, Microsoft’s already real X-Box Live technology, and Amazon Prime’s recommendation platform -- all these are strong starting points from which to offer search-based, cord-cutting options highly desirable for the up-and-coming generation of T/V users. If any of these companies can get the search function right, they could ultimately move to the front of the race to be primary gateways to content -- relegating traditional, legacy cable and satellite operators and media companies to serve the aging baby boomers and modern-day Luddites averse to technological change.
The dumbest reason to be annoyed by circa-2012 online video is an excess of product placement. At this point in our commercial and cultural evolution, railing against product placement is like railing against shoes, or against the arrival of night. Product placement is a fact of life. No matter how much it may irritate scold-ier viewers, no fiscally conscientious production will refuse those dollars. This is the way it is, and the way it will be. Besides, it looks dopey when a character is shown caressing an iPad recast as a "uTablet" for the sake of copyright/patent sanctity. We live in a world of brands. No-label products, I think, deliver more of an authenticity jolt than all but the hammiest instances of product placement (read: the self-aware ones, like when a fictional being holds up a Snapple bottle, winks four times and punctuates a long swig with a euphonious "aaaaaaahhh!"). At the same time, I can't help but imagine an alternate universe, one in which brand-larded series are stripped of anything bearing a too-visible tag, logo or imprint. So as an experiment, I decided to see how an episode of the web series "Dating Rules From My Future Self," an Alloy Entertainment production whose title tells you everything you need to know about its defining premise, would play minus its Ford and Schick worship. The episode I examined was "Kool Aid," the penultimate one from the show's second season (which was less-famous-actress-ily recast from season one). A brief primer: season two of "Dating Rules" chronicles the adventures of Chloe, a young lass who, if you can get past her lack of direction, self-esteem and intellectual curiosity, is a real catch. We know this because she has blonde hair and accessorizes with great, furious abandon. In the second season premiere, sweet Chloe starts texting and video-klatching with a still-single version of her future self. Based on the unbranded-Skype sessions, the difference between Chloe 2012 and Chloe 2022 is a hardened heart, emotionally cauterized by too many mornings in which she awoke staring at an unfamiliar ceiling. Ha ha, no - the difference is a haircut and glasses. In the future, the show posits, we will all be tastefully shorn and myopic. This does not appear to be intended as metaphor. Anyway, Chloe used to be into this dude Marc, an unfairly handsome surfer with aggressively landscaped tufts of facial hair and eyes as translucent as freshly Windex'd glass. But, see, Marc totally broke her heart ("I'm sorry for the way that I hurt you, for sleeping with your sorority sister...s") and Chloe - along with her brassy best bud, scheme-y brother and stick-up-her-ahem sister-in-law - can't get around to trusting him again. Or can they? Will Chloe find love lasting and true, either with Marc or one of her "five-night stand" dalliances? Will she wallpaper her so-cute Venice bungalow with Schick Quattro For Women packaging? Good questions, all! That's the show. It is written, acted and blocked as competently as the average one-season-and-out CW sitcom. At no point do we see continuity glitches or boom mics dangling near the top of the frame. It's even the teensiest bit edgy, with Chloe endorsing Hawaii's "amazing weed" (holy PG-13, right? I sure hope that pre-teens watching "Dating Rules" on unsecured screens don't marijuana themselves to distraction). But without the product stuff, there's no reason for the show to exist. Getting back to that brand-removal exercise, first we'd have to eliminate the pre-scene bumpers, many of which show our heroine's shiny red Ford Escape parked in front of her house. Then we'd have to exorcise the numerous scenes set in the car, during which Chloe does a trade-show-worthy demonstration of the in-dash computer's many features. Finally, we'd have to ditch about 62.5 percent of the action that takes place in Chloe's house, because the maid somehow forgot to tidy all the Schick wrappers. In "Kool Aid," that would mean losing two of the aforementioned bumpers, the opening scene (in which Chloe shaves her legs which conversing with future Chloe, who takes that as a sign that the present-tense version of herself hasn't given up on love) and most of the Chloe/Marc scene in the car, during which the in-dash computer figures so prominently that it could apply for actor's guild membership. What would remain? A quickie scene in which Marc starts to win over Chloe and her crew with the sheer brute force of his awesome-dudeishness. That's about it. Again, I have no issue with product placement, which alerts me to the existence of products like cell phones and flooring. My problem is when content that uses it as a crutch doesn't bother to add some bare basic minimum of plot and character development. As such, "Dating Rules" is a wisp of a fleck of a series, less an entertainment than a cautionary tale. If it lives to see a third season, the producers might want to pay a bit more attention to, you know, the show itself.