Are brands going to be the new executive producers...and will they use UGC (User Generated Content) as their new talent pool?
In the 50's, Marlin Perkin's 'Wild Kingdom' was not just sponsored by, but actually produced by Mutual of Omaha. They were intricately involved in the production of the show. Those were the early days of television. Days when the consumer actually loved the shows and the commercials in between. Remember Kraft Television Theater or Colgate Comedy Hour?........never mind...
The point is, they did what brands still strive for today. To build a deep, authentically emotional connection with their audience. The audience did not mind the sponsorship or the commercials because they were being given something of genuine value.
Who feels that way about any of today's commercials or sponsorships?
What goes around comes around - and for good reason. While a few of us experiment with buying shows, sans commercials, off of the likes of iTunes, this will most likely play out to be an exception to the rule. Why own something when you will most likely only want to watch it once, especially when most things will most likely be available on demand anyway? Most consumers are used to and will continue to prefer to get their 'TV' for free. So, we need sponsors & advertising. It pays for things. So, how to execute it in a way that is not intrusive, and makes the treasured connection in a new, but lastingly authentic way...
Brands as the new executive producers and solo sponsors of entertainment makes sense for a number of simple reasons. For starters:
1. It will render DVR & Tivo ad skipping as irrelevant.
2. Brands can now engage consumers on an authentic level, bringing them value. Pull vs. Push.
3. TV/Internet convergence will be all about niche markets, and brands know these segments even better than the networks.
As for UGC (User Generated Content) as the new talent pool? The convergence will bring a two way dialogue with a 'TV' audience in the same way that social networking influences the internet now. So, yes, it makes sense to use UGC if it starts to bring this two-way conversation. It does NOT make sense to use UGC as the answer to ill thought out marketing campaigns.
Two recent Nike pieces illustrate this. The first is a spot shows Ronaldinho, one of the most recognized figures in soccer, breaking in some new Nikes with extraordinary feats of his soccer skills. It is an amateur attempt, and the problem became that it was found out that digital manipulation was used in exaggerating the skills of this already skilled athlete - rendering the brand as unauthentic. That hurts the brand because it is fake. Shown here on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6h4WACknkY&search=nike%20ping%20pong
Alternatively, "The Longest Soccer Chain" is so simple it is brilliant. Nike invites users to upload a video of themselves kicking a soccer ball around and passing it to 'someone' else. This is accomplished by cutting one piece against the next. What we end up with is a world-wide community of soccer fans, all playing around with the ball - connecting with one another. A forum for the game's collective creativity.
http://nikefootball.nike.com/nikefootball/siteshell/index.jsp#,us,0;jogatv,,0,0,0
Now, the 'Longest Soccer Chain' is a simple idea and hardly constitutes a whole show, but it is a start. It could even be the start of a channel. It engages, is entertaining, and is forming that illusive connection with their audience in a way that is authentic and unobtrusive.
Now, NBC & ABC have both launched in-house brand integration departments in order to bring brands back to the table. If they don't participate, they risk brands running off and doing it on their own. Remember, it is the internet & TV convergence I am talking about here- and nothing will stop ideas like these from becoming the next channels when they do. The networks and advertising agencies must participate in bringing ideas like these to brands or risk losing out. The brands that take matters into their own hands will be sitting pretty, and their audience will love them for it.
So, perhaps what goes around does come around, albeit in another form...
More food for thought...
More Video Ads Move Online, Rivaling TV.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052300045.html
Procter to teach on the tube.
http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/04/24/daily56.html
TLC Creates a show inspired by their Home Made Simple online newsletter.
http://www.homemadesimple.com/en_US/tvlanding.do
More Marketers Using Branded Entertainment
http://www.adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=108717
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Traditional Media Buying - Dead in the water!
Traditional media buying will soon be on it's last legs...What will replace it?...most likely Media Bidding. Then there are fast emerging mediums such as the online gaming ad space - along with its unlimited real estate - most agencies do not even have gaming on the radar yet.
Let's face it, everyone is just now getting clued on search; and because search needs to be continuously monitored & managed, the cost associated can be prohibitive to most clients, forcing it in-house. In fact, I'll argue that search should only be managed in-house, as it requires a refined understanding of the linguistics associated with the brand. Something that is inherently lost in translation with a traditional agency relationship, along with the inability to turn on a dime.
With traditional media, the days of advertisers accepting standardized ad rates that are based only on yearly readership or viewership audits and not bottom-line business results are coming to an end. Google recently experimented with the offline world on behalf of a group of publishers. It was a bold move that did not pay off as well as it should have, and the industry went back to their snug little boxes confident of the fact that the traditional media model would stay the same. Kudo's to Google for trying to shake things up. I feel sorry for everyone who thinks that will be the last they hear of it...it will be back and when it does, ad inventory will go through the roof, resulting in an even greater complexity than what media buyers are used to today.
It is a scary thought to most agencies and publishers alike. The idea of a purely traded media marketplace. Many clients still believe large media buyers get them better deals. After two years of monitoring about $3 billion in spending from 17 clients -- or about 5% of U.S. TV market -- MPMA, the U.S. arm of Billetts, has found that advertisers often pay vastly different prices for the same inventory. It also found that the ability to fetch low cost-per-thousand rates had little to do with being part of a massive bulk buy: Big advertisers often paid premiums for their spots while little guys got discounts-and vice versa.
From an agency perspective, does the lack of correlation between clout and value undermine the very premise of media-agency consolidation? Anyway, enough of that, I'm just a creative guy without the 'creds' for serious money talk.
The convergence we are witnessing will all end up online, with all traditional channels competing in similar space. In other words, publisher's will end up as the next niche channels competing alongside the networks.
This will allow all broadcast & publisher advertisers to target more effectively, measure results, and connect with the user in ways that were not possible before. If the goal is to produce campaigns with the highest ad completion rates, the highest click-through rates, the highest user interaction rates, and (ultimately) the most sales - there is no other way forward.
Proof of the convergence lives within new alliances such as that between TiVo & Brightcove:
TiVo will now deliver internet broadband video to subscribers. In a partnership with Brightcove, a group of online content providers will be the initial offering to TIVO subscribers who have a Series 2 DVR box connected to the internet.
TiVo is also in the process of rolling out "Product Watch", delivering on the promise of "Advertising on Demand". The premise is simple...self-select a category such as automotive and TiVo finds and files all related/relevant content and commercials on the subject matter. Permission based tagging vs. new marketing.
It is also all going to be about locally targeted, niche markets. The more targeted, the better the results.
Traditionally, most stations have at least 50% of their broadcast time when they schedule their own programming. That's a lot of free time. So, the more they can can create original, local programming that makes that connection, the more they're going to be able to capitalize on that local bond.
Local advertising is a $94 billion dollar market. Brands get about 30% of it. The local online market is a $3.4 billion dollar market and Brands get about 4%; this represents an $850 million opportunity for local television. That's exciting. That's real money.
This will also make media buying much more complex. Think about it...in many cases, the exact same video content can be on multiple sites. Does that make the targeting value of that content the same? Does an ad in "Friends" on NBC carry the same demo target value as an ad in "Friends" on TBS? What about "Friends" on YouTube? The theory behind contextual advertising in current online advertising models like Google's AdSense is that the context of what is on a page matters more than the brand name of the Web site it is on.
The notion that all advertising may become biddable, with portfolio management and technology playing an important role is real. Media buying firms, including search marketing agencies, are going to have to adapt. It may have started with search, but will expand to include fully integrated ad buys that includes Print, Radio, TV, VOD, OOH, Blogs, Podcasting, Online Gaming, etc, etc, etc. To manage this likely scenario effectively will require sophisticated tools (such as optimization technology) and portfolio-management expertise.
The market is maturing and will quickly reach a critical mass of buyers. Search engines will build an integrated marketplace. Advertisers will fast become educated. Media buying companies that do not actively participate in that, will be wiped out.
Media Agencies in Danger of Becoming Obstacles, Not Enablers
Siloed Planners and Buyers Are Lost in a Platform-Neutral World
http://adage.com/article?article_id=108739
Wal-Mart Backs Online Auction for TV Ad Dollars
Retail Giant and Other Marketers Look to Build $50 Million Test System
http://adage.com/article?article_id=109109
Double Fusion Acquires In-Game Ad Firm · MarketingVOX
http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2006/05/09/double_fusion_acquires_ingame_ad_firm/
Blog Spending Leads Alt Media
http://www.insidebrandedentertainment.com/bep/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002315283
MediaVest, Carat Fusion Tap Klipmart For Scaled Video Campaigns
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=41985&Nid=19676&p=350414
Let's face it, everyone is just now getting clued on search; and because search needs to be continuously monitored & managed, the cost associated can be prohibitive to most clients, forcing it in-house. In fact, I'll argue that search should only be managed in-house, as it requires a refined understanding of the linguistics associated with the brand. Something that is inherently lost in translation with a traditional agency relationship, along with the inability to turn on a dime.
With traditional media, the days of advertisers accepting standardized ad rates that are based only on yearly readership or viewership audits and not bottom-line business results are coming to an end. Google recently experimented with the offline world on behalf of a group of publishers. It was a bold move that did not pay off as well as it should have, and the industry went back to their snug little boxes confident of the fact that the traditional media model would stay the same. Kudo's to Google for trying to shake things up. I feel sorry for everyone who thinks that will be the last they hear of it...it will be back and when it does, ad inventory will go through the roof, resulting in an even greater complexity than what media buyers are used to today.
It is a scary thought to most agencies and publishers alike. The idea of a purely traded media marketplace. Many clients still believe large media buyers get them better deals. After two years of monitoring about $3 billion in spending from 17 clients -- or about 5% of U.S. TV market -- MPMA, the U.S. arm of Billetts, has found that advertisers often pay vastly different prices for the same inventory. It also found that the ability to fetch low cost-per-thousand rates had little to do with being part of a massive bulk buy: Big advertisers often paid premiums for their spots while little guys got discounts-and vice versa.
From an agency perspective, does the lack of correlation between clout and value undermine the very premise of media-agency consolidation? Anyway, enough of that, I'm just a creative guy without the 'creds' for serious money talk.
The convergence we are witnessing will all end up online, with all traditional channels competing in similar space. In other words, publisher's will end up as the next niche channels competing alongside the networks.
This will allow all broadcast & publisher advertisers to target more effectively, measure results, and connect with the user in ways that were not possible before. If the goal is to produce campaigns with the highest ad completion rates, the highest click-through rates, the highest user interaction rates, and (ultimately) the most sales - there is no other way forward.
Proof of the convergence lives within new alliances such as that between TiVo & Brightcove:
TiVo will now deliver internet broadband video to subscribers. In a partnership with Brightcove, a group of online content providers will be the initial offering to TIVO subscribers who have a Series 2 DVR box connected to the internet.
TiVo is also in the process of rolling out "Product Watch", delivering on the promise of "Advertising on Demand". The premise is simple...self-select a category such as automotive and TiVo finds and files all related/relevant content and commercials on the subject matter. Permission based tagging vs. new marketing.
It is also all going to be about locally targeted, niche markets. The more targeted, the better the results.
Traditionally, most stations have at least 50% of their broadcast time when they schedule their own programming. That's a lot of free time. So, the more they can can create original, local programming that makes that connection, the more they're going to be able to capitalize on that local bond.
Local advertising is a $94 billion dollar market. Brands get about 30% of it. The local online market is a $3.4 billion dollar market and Brands get about 4%; this represents an $850 million opportunity for local television. That's exciting. That's real money.
This will also make media buying much more complex. Think about it...in many cases, the exact same video content can be on multiple sites. Does that make the targeting value of that content the same? Does an ad in "Friends" on NBC carry the same demo target value as an ad in "Friends" on TBS? What about "Friends" on YouTube? The theory behind contextual advertising in current online advertising models like Google's AdSense is that the context of what is on a page matters more than the brand name of the Web site it is on.
The notion that all advertising may become biddable, with portfolio management and technology playing an important role is real. Media buying firms, including search marketing agencies, are going to have to adapt. It may have started with search, but will expand to include fully integrated ad buys that includes Print, Radio, TV, VOD, OOH, Blogs, Podcasting, Online Gaming, etc, etc, etc. To manage this likely scenario effectively will require sophisticated tools (such as optimization technology) and portfolio-management expertise.
The market is maturing and will quickly reach a critical mass of buyers. Search engines will build an integrated marketplace. Advertisers will fast become educated. Media buying companies that do not actively participate in that, will be wiped out.
Media Agencies in Danger of Becoming Obstacles, Not Enablers
Siloed Planners and Buyers Are Lost in a Platform-Neutral World
http://adage.com/article?article_id=108739
Wal-Mart Backs Online Auction for TV Ad Dollars
Retail Giant and Other Marketers Look to Build $50 Million Test System
http://adage.com/article?article_id=109109
Double Fusion Acquires In-Game Ad Firm · MarketingVOX
http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2006/05/09/double_fusion_acquires_ingame_ad_firm/
Blog Spending Leads Alt Media
http://www.insidebrandedentertainment.com/bep/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002315283
MediaVest, Carat Fusion Tap Klipmart For Scaled Video Campaigns
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=41985&Nid=19676&p=350414
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Video games - The future testing grounds.
I've never been into video games. I'm willing to bet that most of you reading this have not either. But we all better start paying attention, not for the obvious reasons like the fact that gaming is one of the fastest growing billion dollar industries, or that it is fast becoming a medium in which brands can advertise in.
There are more subversive 'going's on' - going on. The games with the fastest growing audiences are communal in nature, with the online communal component playing the most important part. These games are becoming less like games and more like constructions of alternate societies living on the web. While the environments are fantasy based, they are all grounded in realities we are familiar with. You pick a character, live a virtual life, earn points for that life, are able to buy virtual land, build virtual companies & make new friends in the process. Think of them like a much more complex, 3-dimensional version of Monopoly. But, like life, the game never ends - it just keeps evolving.
As marketers, we need to pay attention as this is fast becoming an effective, measurable new medium. A new survey, conducted by Nielson Interactive and Double Fusion, says that in-game advertising yields significantly better results in product awareness and purchasing decisions simply because the user is engaged; with a 60 percent improvement in new product awareness, and that 3D advertising creates nearly twice that of static 2D billboard advertising. The spending for online gaming advertising is from USD 35 million in 2004 to a forecast of USD 875 million by 2009, growing to somewhere between $1.6 billion and $1.8 billion in the U.S. by 2010, or roughly 3 percent of total media spending. I think it is underestimated, much like the web.
But there is more to it than that. Think of this as a virtual testing ground. If I owned a large media or consumer research company, I would want to buy a piece of one of these environments, simply to test the receptiveness of my clients brands and campaigns. If I had enough money, I may even want to build an envirmonment of my own. Some product companies are looking to subsidize the virtual development of a line of products within these games. Good for the game, and good for the company wanting to see if a new innovation gets any interest before they actually prototype or manufacture it.
Sort of like how the military uses gaming to test new weapons & strategy. Seems crazy, but it makes sense.
Pharmaceutical companies are looking into gaming to help patients. For example, many patients recovering from a severe car accident suffer from severe trauma. it has been proven that patients recover from the trauma and are much more receptive to getting back into a car if they have been 'practicing' driving within the confines of a game first. Something as simple as racing game works.
For something as intangible as cancer, there are games in development to help child cancer patients visualize the disease and actually fight bad cells with good cells. Initial testing shows that the visualization helps the child’s immune system and may have a significant effect in the receptivity and understanding of the treatment.
Why not tie brands into these applications. The consumer wins as funds from the brand go to developing better 'games' with research that helps patients. The brands win, by giving back and being associated with these free forms of assistance.
There are even games taking on real world political issues. The game below allows students in the middle east to actual battle it out in a virtual environment. Clearly something most brands would want to steer clear of...but you get the point.
Students fight for Mideast peace in video game
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/fun.games/04/24/serious.games.ap/index.html?section=cnn_tech
Gaming demographics have also moved well beyond the 18-34 male. Women are the fastest growing demographic within online gaming and studies have also found that because gaming keeps the mind sharp, the elderly in Asia are 'excercise' their brains with gaming. Another cool opportunity for Pharma companies to give back.
Japan’s Elderly Rides the Brain Craze
http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,70640-0.html?tw=rss.technology
But here is where it gets really exciting. The 'value' created within these games is taking on real world value. On one of the games, a user paid another user $100,000 US to buy a piece of property that was already 'developed' by the first user. It had taken the first user many years and many points to be able to 'build' this virtual property and so had virtual value to someone who did not want to spend that time doing the same. This piece of property (space station), was receiving visits from thousands of other users. The purchaser 'developed' areas within the property where users could have fun (games within the game). He even 'rented' off retail areas for other game-players to create smaller versions of commerce. He also sells advertising space to brands. The space station is now generating $12,000 a month in real revenue. But the money is virtual right? Wrong! Remember, real dollars were paid for the ‘property’ in the first place which means there is real value. So, the gaming company is now creating an ATM card that you can use to get actual cash or use online like PayPal...and so real value is created, generating real opportunities for brands.
Below are articles and links to two of the most exciting online gaming communities. Enjoy!
Second Life
http://www.secondlife.com
Entropia Universe Players Can Cash Their Online Earnings at the A.T.M.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/arts/02entr.html
There are more subversive 'going's on' - going on. The games with the fastest growing audiences are communal in nature, with the online communal component playing the most important part. These games are becoming less like games and more like constructions of alternate societies living on the web. While the environments are fantasy based, they are all grounded in realities we are familiar with. You pick a character, live a virtual life, earn points for that life, are able to buy virtual land, build virtual companies & make new friends in the process. Think of them like a much more complex, 3-dimensional version of Monopoly. But, like life, the game never ends - it just keeps evolving.
As marketers, we need to pay attention as this is fast becoming an effective, measurable new medium. A new survey, conducted by Nielson Interactive and Double Fusion, says that in-game advertising yields significantly better results in product awareness and purchasing decisions simply because the user is engaged; with a 60 percent improvement in new product awareness, and that 3D advertising creates nearly twice that of static 2D billboard advertising. The spending for online gaming advertising is from USD 35 million in 2004 to a forecast of USD 875 million by 2009, growing to somewhere between $1.6 billion and $1.8 billion in the U.S. by 2010, or roughly 3 percent of total media spending. I think it is underestimated, much like the web.
But there is more to it than that. Think of this as a virtual testing ground. If I owned a large media or consumer research company, I would want to buy a piece of one of these environments, simply to test the receptiveness of my clients brands and campaigns. If I had enough money, I may even want to build an envirmonment of my own. Some product companies are looking to subsidize the virtual development of a line of products within these games. Good for the game, and good for the company wanting to see if a new innovation gets any interest before they actually prototype or manufacture it.
Sort of like how the military uses gaming to test new weapons & strategy. Seems crazy, but it makes sense.
Pharmaceutical companies are looking into gaming to help patients. For example, many patients recovering from a severe car accident suffer from severe trauma. it has been proven that patients recover from the trauma and are much more receptive to getting back into a car if they have been 'practicing' driving within the confines of a game first. Something as simple as racing game works.
For something as intangible as cancer, there are games in development to help child cancer patients visualize the disease and actually fight bad cells with good cells. Initial testing shows that the visualization helps the child’s immune system and may have a significant effect in the receptivity and understanding of the treatment.
Why not tie brands into these applications. The consumer wins as funds from the brand go to developing better 'games' with research that helps patients. The brands win, by giving back and being associated with these free forms of assistance.
There are even games taking on real world political issues. The game below allows students in the middle east to actual battle it out in a virtual environment. Clearly something most brands would want to steer clear of...but you get the point.
Students fight for Mideast peace in video game
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/fun.games/04/24/serious.games.ap/index.html?section=cnn_tech
Gaming demographics have also moved well beyond the 18-34 male. Women are the fastest growing demographic within online gaming and studies have also found that because gaming keeps the mind sharp, the elderly in Asia are 'excercise' their brains with gaming. Another cool opportunity for Pharma companies to give back.
Japan’s Elderly Rides the Brain Craze
http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,70640-0.html?tw=rss.technology
But here is where it gets really exciting. The 'value' created within these games is taking on real world value. On one of the games, a user paid another user $100,000 US to buy a piece of property that was already 'developed' by the first user. It had taken the first user many years and many points to be able to 'build' this virtual property and so had virtual value to someone who did not want to spend that time doing the same. This piece of property (space station), was receiving visits from thousands of other users. The purchaser 'developed' areas within the property where users could have fun (games within the game). He even 'rented' off retail areas for other game-players to create smaller versions of commerce. He also sells advertising space to brands. The space station is now generating $12,000 a month in real revenue. But the money is virtual right? Wrong! Remember, real dollars were paid for the ‘property’ in the first place which means there is real value. So, the gaming company is now creating an ATM card that you can use to get actual cash or use online like PayPal...and so real value is created, generating real opportunities for brands.
Below are articles and links to two of the most exciting online gaming communities. Enjoy!
Second Life
http://www.secondlife.com
Entropia Universe Players Can Cash Their Online Earnings at the A.T.M.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/arts/02entr.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
