we've been warned: Paul Gilding, Naomi Oreskes, Curt Stager discuss acting on Climate change as Sam Mostyn facilitates
so Friday evening was spent at the brilliant Sydney Writers Festival at Sydney's Town Hall. the two sessions, 'who's afraid of Wikileaks?' and the climate-change-themed 'you've been warned' had illuminating things to say on a diversity of subjects but I was particularly struck by what they had to say, explicitly or otherwise, on the subject on media.
a key element in the first session was a specific question posed to the panel on whether Wikileaks is a media organisation or a political organisation. the panel were agreed in the main that Wikileaks is a media organisation... that they exist to aggregate, organise and make available information for distribution.
the panel were of the opinion that Wikileaks is non-political in the sense that what happens as a result of the information they release is up not to Wikileaks but rather to those who consume its content. Wikileaks were, the panel argued, political only in the sense that Assange is a fervent believer in transparency of information, and its ability to hold corrupt organisations and governments to account.
it occured to me that the idea of 'becomng a media organistion' wasn't limited to Wikileaks... the model - of aggregating useful information and then distributing it - is essentially an owned and then earned media combo. and any organisation could adopt it...
The greatest sneaker archiving project is about to begin; Footlocker's SneakerPedia
there are parallels to what Footlocker are doing with the rather glorious Sneakerpedia; aggregate information - with utility - into an owned media space. then use that to stimulate earned media (3,300 Twitter followers and counting) ... bought media could come later - amplifying Sneakerpedia's greatest hits or rarest items in print ads, or short form sneaker documentary content on TV, but it doesn't necessarily have to. Sneakerpedia, like Wikipedia, is an owned and earned media combo - and that's all it has to be: the mechanics of media now not only permit that but in many ways favour it...
because bought media is developing a serious credibilty issue. the rise of owned media and emergence of tangible earned media has put bought media - as exemplified by the ad - into the spotlight, and the glare seems to be hurting it...
in the second session of the writers festival, a wonderful panel consisting of Paul Gilding, Naomi Oreskes, Curt Stager, Sam Mostyn discussed the hard choices we have to make now to preserve our planet. Oreskes described how the climate change movement had been undermined (like the anti-smoking lobby before it) by an argument of credible doubt. the proponents had used bought media to amplify their message to a broad audience.
Oreskes was asked why the pro-climate camp hadn't adopted the same tactics? her response was stark: "advertising exists to sell people things they don't need, scientists reject that [advertising] can be used to sell climate solutions" ... the message is clear, bought media lacks the credibility of owned and earned.
this should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with our industry - the reality is that we have shouted our messages to people for over half a century. we have created as a result several generations of ambivalence towards our branded messaging, the result of which is now not only passive resilience from audiences, but outright rejection of not only the message but the media delivery channels themselves...
this point is important. Channel 4 Chief Executive David Abraham noted in his RTS speech this week that according to Channel 4 research, "about two-thirds of all 'TV audiovisual content' viewing time – across TV, PC and mobile – will be 'tracked intelligently' in some way by 2020"... our working assumption should be that such tracking will only be able to be utilised if people permit us to use it. if they are similarly minded to Oreskes, that may set up a tricky negotiation between our industry and our audiences.
Groupons new ad ... geotargeted realtime promotions never sounded so straight-forward
Priscilla, who sends tweets from @thoughtcloud, (thanks Priscilla) pointed me in the direction the above video from Groupon, which - as she neatly points out - can be described as mobile + scheduled coupons + mobile micropayments = awesomeness.
the whole proposition, of aggregating local promotions which are geotargeted and delivered in realtime, is in many ways the culmination of a host of recent developments in the mobile space... a culmination that Groupon - with a view to IPOness - are keen to amplify as much as possible. it's for perhaps this reason that the company - which has been built from a connections perspective hereto on peer-demanded communications and word of mouth, has put together ... an ad.
both regular readers will be familiar with this blog's attitude towards 'the ad' - that 20th Century invention which came to be synonymous with advertising. our continued reliance on the broadcast interruption model that forms the media basis for adverts remains one of the key limiting factors in brands and marketers embracing a communications age of user-centricity, community and utility.
but Groupon's effort is perhaps a reminder that 'the ad' does have it's place in a 21st Century communications ecosystem. I can't imagine a neater or more compelling way to communicate realtime geotargeted promotions and offers... a simple, neat encapsulation of a message and a reminder of what made 'the ad' so predominant in 20th Century marketing communications.
and Groupon aren't alone. Starbucks have for several years now adopted a community and reward-based marketing approach. this blog noted in April 2009 that Starbucks were offering free syrup shots for life when you signed up to a Starbucks Card ... why? because - and this was a direct paraphrase from the Bucks' call centre - the brand was looking to what it could, given the (then) current economic climate, for its existing customers.
the last two years have seen a plethora of offers and bonuses for existing customers be deployed in store. all of which are communicated on regular emails that I'm happy to receive. like this one that I got today...
one of the regular eDM's I receive from the Bucks
the mail contains the usual offers and updates, but also invites me to 'watch their new ad' and note that "We're excited that Frappuccino® is on the big screen" ...which struck me as an unusual turn of phrase. excited that they're on the screen. they're Starbucks. that pretty big company that turned themselves around with a focus on customer service and involvement in their brand. why the excitement over an ad?
Starbucks' have a new frappuccino ad ... and they're excited
but I guess that it's precisely that focus on daily delivery of quality and service that makes their presence in the broadcast stream an exception. it's a rarity and therefore a novelty for the brand. even one as big as Starbucks. and the way I see it both Groupon and Starbucks have this exactly the right way around...
for them, broadcast ads aren't the rule, they are the exception. and those ads are therefore all the better and more valuable for it. not for these brands the shout at the millions whether they're listening or not. not for these brands is broadcast interruption the modus operandi.
rather, daily delivery of value and service and utility and innovation ... and when there is something genuinely new, or different, or compelling, they permit themselves to broadcast and interrupt. only then. conversation first and as default. adverts when, and only when, what they have to say is of sufficient value to those on the receiving end. if only all brands had their priorities in this so very correct order...
FOX8's Snag a Simpson initiative ... creating viewer engagement or bribe to increase viewer minutage?
so I returned home last night to find one of Pelican's number playing the above game on FOX8. the channel invites you to try and 'Snag a Simpson' … this involves you pressing select to play, and when you see a Simpsons character on the screen you snag them by pressing Red on your FOXTEL remote.
I know for a fact that you can do this because I watched said person do it.
only you need to 'Snag' 10 Simpsons in 15 minutes for your reward. the guide explains that it's free and you can play as many times as you want. I bet you can.
the generous interpretation is that FOX8 is genuinely looking to create viewer engagement and reward consistent viewing. the less generous interpretation is that the channel is blatantly attempting to bribe you from switching channels during the ads breaks (or shows for that matter) and at the same time increase their minutage amongst the measurement panel.
I fear that it may be the latter.
but I also fear that its another worrying sign that the implicit contract between channels and viewers (and advertisers) is broken. the contract states that you get the programmes for free (or for less if you're on subscription) and all you have to do is watch the ads…
only people don't buy that any more. in fact the contract seems a great deal less attractive than it once did... why? (1) a lot of people pay for their TV now, so they're not getting their content for free (2) the amount of choice available makes switching all too attractive (3) we're increasingly trained to consume micro-content - small packages of TV or otherwise that can be consumed in a couple or minutes (or seconds if you're browsing your Tweetdeck) - this makes catching even only a scene on an another channel preferable to sticking to an ad break (and even if you miss the rest of the show you caught the first half so what the hell) and (4) the ads in most ad breaks are pretty crap … I've taken time to watch a few ad breaks of late and I really really have been stunned by the general drivel that advertisers and agencies seem to think passes for an ad...
we made the contract together and I guess that we'll break it together; everyone involved will have been complicit in it's cancellation:
the viewers got impatient and became happy to flick around ubiquitous content.
the advertisers only cared that a small but big enough fraction of people who saw an ad responded, ignoring the fact that the vast vast majority of people who saw it were either ambivalent (neutral brand equity effect) or disliked it (negative brand equity effect) or hated it (super-negative brand equity effect and potentially damaging WOM.
channels continued to print money and fight for petty share wins, ignoring the fact that overall viewing was in decline and that viewers were distracted, multitasking and ambivalent to the efforts of the advertisers from whom they were taking money.
and what of agencies? perhaps agencies will become the most culpable of all. we failed to ask the networks the questions we should be asking, going along with their playground share battles, whilst all the time taking micro-payments in the form of a commission from every ad that we placed. agencies sat like market stall traders at the base of a dam that was about to burst; not investing in an ark but instead telling their customers that everything was fine … that the dam would hold … that the flood would never come.
we may come to see a great deal more endeavours to encourage viewers to 'Snag a Simpson", or a Robinson, or heaven forbid a Grimshaw. it's cheating. we can do better. whether or not we choose to accept our fate of SImpson-Snagging is up to us.
Zaac pointed me in the direction of the above this morning. it's the trailer for MTV America's remake of the UK's beloved Skins. as someone who watched and loved the show it makes for strange viewing. on one hand the new cast and setting looks strikingly different. but after a while the similarities between the above and the original UK version become not just clear but blindingly obvious.
the car going into the water. the quick edit phone conversation. taking to one's own genitals. even the back garden (yard now) trampoline. all conspire to indicate that this is a clean remake of the show. something which, if true, presents not only a missed opportunity but a huge failing of producing.
a missed opportunity, in that the best adaptations of shows for US audiences haven't been remakes but remixes. same show, different culture. think about how The Office transferred from Slough to Scranton, or how the boys from Manchester evolved into a very different Queer as Folk Baltimore. great remakes, or should I say remixes, protect and nurture the truth of a show whilst mixing in a new culture and society's perspectives and nuances.
from Slough to Scranton - same Office, very different culture
from Manchester to Baltimore - same, err, well totally different actually...
that "the remix is the very nature of digital", is of course now so widely held to be true that it's almost too obvious to quote it. but Gibson's elegant maxim is too often ignored. by TV makers and brands alike. just as in the case of TV shows that fail to capitalise on the opportunities that a remix affords, how many global ads do we see land on the screens of shores a far cry from their (often European or American) origins? or worse, dubbed out of their native tongue, so that we are sold to by smiling fresh-faced lip-synced avatars...
the pressure to create ads that can be deployed across a multitude of regions leads to centrally developed, but often locally less-relevant communications. distinctiveness in communications is key - it mitigates misattribution and builds brand cues that extend the return of a media investment out of the short term and into the longer term. simply deploying a global property locally is no guarantee of success.
this presents a problem for TV producers and brands alike ... a problem that, for the latter, will only be exacerbated by a shift away from broadcast interruption as the de-facto method for audience reach, towards a two-way content and community-led platform that seeks to engage an audience.
MTV's gamble with Skins - to create what looks like a remake rather than a genuine remix - should give pause for thought for marketers. to what extent are we acting in a brand's best interests by picking up and redeploying content into a country - and culture - for which it wasn't designed? how many opportunities are missed, and investment wasted, by failing to reflect the nuances of a culture with whom you seeking to engage?
last night the X-Factor hit Australia. but despite a huge marketing push by Seven, the launch episode achieved only a disappointing 1.186m, making it the fifth most watched programme of the night behind four news and current affairs efforts. the winner, Nine's A Current Affair, won the ratings battle with - ironically enough - an interview with the family of Matthew Newton, the X-Factor host recently dumped by Seven.
as a big fan of the show in the UK - where it's fair to say it's a bit of a national institution - I've spend much of today (amongst other things) pondering why it is that Australia just doesn't seem to 'get' X ...
on paper it should all add up. Australia likes Reality formats (as evidenced by the huge success of Masterchef); there's a gap in the schedule (the aforementioned Chef has just finished); there's a natural audience underserved by reality music shows (Australian Idol is a distant memory); and awareness of the show's imminent arrival was more than apparent.
but even during the day yesterday there were worrying signs. I asked a few people if they were looking forward to X that evening to which the most upbeat response I got was "oh, maybe". in fact the only person with any enthusiasm for rushing home for a night in with the format was another Brit, who assured me that his fellow Brits were similarly excited. but it seems, as judged by the shows performance, it was a decidedly British sentiment. a hangover from the glory of the show in the Motherland.
having watched the show there's clearly some issue with the content. the production quality lacks the shine of the UK version, but this may very much be a result of the hastily re-edited version that Freemantle had to get out of the door following Newton's departure. but the issues don't stop there - the judges lack conviction; Ronan's quiet as a mouse, Guy is far too puppyish and whilst he had valid comments they just weren't packaged; the Imbruglia seemed to be focusing on how attractive the talent was and poor Kyle just seemed to hold an expression of mild boredom before rolling off a pre-prepared put down. the judges, ironically, lacked a confidence that's fundamental to their role.
but the content on the other side of the table didn't fair much better. there was some good but certainly not spectacular singers; if X is hoping for an international recording artist to emerge it better have had more up it's sleeve for the second round of auditions.
but none of this explains the poor performance of last night's show - as none of this would have been apparent until the show went to air, by which time not enough people were watching (and by my straw poll of six they were mainly Brits).
we can only hope and expect that the show gathers pace. the talent needs to come through and the judges need to find their feet, and the production quality of the live finals will surely increase. but in the meantime serious questions must be being asked at Seven... about just why Australia doesn't seem to want the X-Factor; because whilst it's going to be a yes from me, how Australia votes is another matter entirely.
what does advertising say about me? that's the question I'm increasingly asking myself as the broadcast model wanes and targeted advertising becomes the norm. I'm imagining a future where my Glee is interrupted by messages from fat-burning miracle powders, or where my 30 mins with Modern Family is interspersed with messages for help with sex-addiction or an encouragement to buy some oil shares.
you see the ad-serving paradigm - with which anyone who has worked in online advertising will be more than familiar - will in the future spread beyond the computer screen. to hand-held devices and then, as IPTV gains traction, to TV screens.
it's one thing to see niche targeted ads on my computer screen; it will be quite another to see them on my TV... but as the ability to target on TV becomes widespread, niche advertisers will increasingly be able to ad-serve specific messages to targeted audiences at a fraction of the cost of even a small TV campaign today.
on one hand the future is potentially very bright... we engage more with brands that we like and therefore, theoretically, as ads become more targeted and better tailored to our interests and passions, advertising will be more engaging and, theoretically, more engaged with.
at least that's the theory.
but there's a potential downside... the lowering in the cost of entry will allow hundreds of advertisers who previously couldn't, to advertise on TV. the result is inevitable, a lowering in the average quality of the ads that get produced. this is inevitable.
to escape the race to the bottom, we're going to need choice... the only solution to such a wave of ads will be to have choice over which ones we receive. there's a double benefit - for advertisers there will be increased engagement (we do engage more with ads that we've chosen to watch), and for audiences there will be the algorithm...
because unlike broadcast, where we all have to endure the same ads as everyone else, an ad-served model offers the possibility of a world where only content that get engaged with (clicked on, liked etc) gets further propagated. if Google served TV ads (beyond their current very limited scope) they'd use a quality score (based on relevance and preformance of the ads) to propagate ads that are reaching the right people and being engaged with, and suppress ones that aren't. and that can only be a good thing? can't it?
out of interest, what does advertising say about you?
Seth Westcott, who performed in RealTime ad placements for Visa
courtesy of WARC, via Andy, comes a great article on the RealTime activation. whilst there was a fair degree of coverage of the efforts at the time, new commentary seems to show the extent to which the companies involved have deemed the initiatives a success.
commenting on broadcasting a TV spot minutes after one of their athletes - snowboarder Seth Westcott - won his second gold medal, Michael Lynch, Visa's head of global sponsorships, said "Our research has proven out that [these ads] are one of the best connections between Visa and the Olympics we have ... We know the opportunity in the moment when we're sharing with Seth his accomplishments is special, and it's worked extremely well for us."
Drew Brees, Dove Men+Care's Most Valuable Player
a similar approach was adopted by Unilever's Dove Men+Care, who's ad featuring New Orleans Saints' Drew Brees landed on US screens hours after his team won the Super Bowl. being named MVP didn't do any harm either; "It just ended up perfectly" observed Rob Master, director of media for Unilever's North American operations.
whilst underpinned by technology, and the willingness (and / or necessity) of media companies to accommodate such media buys, the above ad placements mark three interesting observations for those of us negotiating the future of media and communications.
one, that there's an interesting and clear direction of travel emerging, and it's called convergence into RealTime. so far so whatever - this we know and I've written some thoughts on that before. but the second observation - the infiltration of RealTime into the broadcast stream - shows just how far the trend is now pushing...
it's not unrealistic to assume that continued fragmentation of channels and viewing will only increase the opportunities to place more customised and relevant content in front of people in RealTime. and there's a fascinating insight into how this could be deployed in the below video, showing how Slate’s Seth Stevenson bought an ad in a low-rating spot. via Google.
it only takes a small leap to imagine how Google data could be combined with this technology to deploy a significant proportion of a schedule in RealTime, based on whatever factors a planner deems appropriate... run ads when only it's raining, or whenever a sports team wins, or when interest rate decreases are announced. to name but three - the possibilities become kind of endless...
but the final observation takes a lesson from Politics. when Harold Macmillan was asked what represented the greatest challenge for a statesman, he replied: "Events, my dear boy, events" ...both the Visa and Dove examples above resonated above and beyond delivering pure awareness because, and only because, of events.
I can't help but suspect that the future of media implementation may have events very much at it's heart. from mass events like the Olympics or the Superbowl, to macro events like interest rate changes, thru to the micro events of re-targeting someone who visited a website. politics' greatest challenge may be media implementation's greatest
opportunity.
thanks to Lauren for the heads up that NBC is today launching 'fan it', a initiative that the company describes as a "win-win opportunity that broaden's [our] shows' visibility" ... "What better way to spread the word about our shows than with the help of our loyal fans" asks Adam Stotsky, president of NBC entertainment marketing. quite right.
essentially viewers interact with shows and they're rewarded with fan points, and points mean prizes; be they exclusive early access to shows, merchandise, or discounts. you can even win 'big-ticket sweepstakes items', like props from the Office.
there's much to be lauded about NBC's effort. its rewarding fans of shows for being fans of shows, which generates that most potent and valuable of comms properties: word of mouth. but rather than having a WOM strategy that at best involves an occasional email and at worst involves crossing fingers and hoping for the best, NBC are investing in WOM that they can consistently stimulate, interact with, and measure.
but I wonder if it goes far enough, and fear that its doesn't... there's a danger that this is seen as the newest and shiniest way to promote programmes... a bit like this...
old school TV marketing trap, with Social as added-on component
but Social is a different and much more potent beast than conventional advertising... for one, its intrinsically part of the shows that stimulate it. there's no filtering or polishing, no Photoshopping up the best bits; what people generate based on what stimulates then is what gets created and deployed.
for another, there's less control over how much gets created and what the sentiment of it is... conversations and word of mouth can go both ways. NBC would never create an ad saying "this show isn't as good as we thought it was going to be, but stick with it cos its got a great team and some legs yet", but that could easily be the nature of a conversation around one of it's shows in the social space.
and finally - unlike advertising - when social media talks back you can hear it. the many whoops and sighs, cheers and jibes that echo around online conversations (and beyond) as a result of TV shows that we know and sometimes love are there for the social network and broadcast network to hear. what the broadcast network chooses to do with that social networked conversation, with that collateral, is up to them...
I'd suggest that for all these reasons, Social is better seen as a 'shell' which surrounds TV product. a shell which is intrinsically part of the TV product; reflecting, amplifying, and sometimes influencing the content that stimulates it.
new school TV marketing opportunity, with Social as shell which is amplified out
this is the real role of Social Media for TV. NBC have taken a glorious step with 'fan-it', but social is not a block on a schedule to be added on, rather its the prism thru which shows are advertised. and moreover, its the collateral that's there to be deployed online and - increasingly - on-air...
'fan-it' can be a broadcast network-out initiative or it can be social network-in conversation. the choice - and the challenge - may be NBC's, but 'fan-it' remains a brilliant next step - for both networks - towards a new TV media ecology.
many readers (well, both) may very well have seen the above intriguing video from FITC, to promote their upcoming design and technology festival in New York. its a trailer and its deliberately and wonderfully provocative, and it certainly seems to have started a degree of debate. watch it now if you haven't already. now. go on. watch it.
now consider what you're thinking. are you angry or excited? depressed or thrilled? it would certainly seem that people are one or the other. the awesome JV Willshire, who blogs at Feeding the Puppy put a post together that celebrated the thinking behind the piece:
"A point well made, I think. And yet there will still be large parts of the industry that rail against things like this. They don't understand why people in the industry would wilfully go around denouncing the existing models, as it will just hasten their demise. Why would you destroy the world in which you work?"
a good question. one that John rightly and eloquently goes on to answer:
"Every time someone questions 'the old way of doing things' (like the 'power of TV ads', or the notion of brand awareness, the established rules of campaigns or the objectives set in a brief), they're not doing it for kicks. It's not rebellion, cynicism, or mindless annihilation. It's only by burning away the old, redundant thinking that we can find something new, refreshed and powerful."
there's a counter post to this, a point that's equally well, if somewhat forcefully, made. this is the ad contrarian, who blogs here:
"There is growing movement among self-hating ad people to declare failure and join the army of digital dimwits. They have started to believe the "advertising is dead" nonsense. They have accepted the fiction that there is a new breed of humans who don't believe anything that isn't on the web. They no longer believe that advertising is about persuasion, and think their job is to create "conversations.
Excuse me, I just threw up in my mouth.
... As far as I'm concerned these people are gutless weasels. They're too tired and weak to defend the practice of advertising. They're too effete to be heard above the volume of cackling web-monkeys."
the contrarian goes on to describe the video at the top of this post as a "piece of ignorant bullshit produced by some "design and technology" hustlers in Canada and lovingly embraced by advertising's suicidal Twitterati". like I said, the argument is forcefully made.
what do I think?
well I'm as ready as the next "suicidal Twitterati" to denounce the broadcast interruption (or persuasion) model. it's fragmenting, less efficient (reach does not equal effectiveness) and ignores the multitude of new opportunities the ad contrarian so quickly dismisses.
but I'm also as ready as the next optimist to celebrate the awesomeness of the broadcast interruption model. it's capable of generating mass audiovisual reach in a way that's unparalleled by any other channel or medium and will be for a while yet to come.
which side am I on? I'm on both of course; my blog is called Mediation for a reason.
there are no easy answers to the questions our community is asking itself. our world is no longer black and white and arguments couldn't and shouldn't be made as such. to do so diminishes us in a way that technology, behavioural change or new challenges never could.
the observations of Indra Nooyi of Pepsico, as reported on WARC, from earlier this week are pertinent:
"You've got to reach the consumer through multiple methods. Through digital. Through viral networks. You've got to reach them through newspapers. Through TV ... You've got to deploy every possible media that you can lay your hands on … The new brand-building model has to encompass an extremely rich mix of items we have to deploy to talk to the consumer"
her point is clear. no one is in the business of abandoning TV. but neither are we in the business of defending it against all comers and beyond all reason. the broadcast model, the bastion of the 20th Century's marketing communications, will be with us - and used magnificently by us - for a good while to come; but it is no longer the only tool we have. in failing to see, understand and utilise the compromise of this... in failing to Mediate, we are only failing ourselves.
"the broadcast model isn't broken... yet. how prepared are agencies for when it breaks?" was the question I wanted to put to the Q&A panel at last week's iMedia Agency Summit in Sydney. whilst I didn't get the chance to ask the panel, I did get the opportunity to ask it to Rohan Lund of Yahoo!7, but more of that later.
yes, this week saw the AdTech Summit series hit Sydney, part of which was the iMedia festival which I attended along with around one hundred of my Sydney media counterparts. all in all it was a day of more questions than answers, but that was to be expected I, well, expect. that said, some genuine morsels emerged, which (after a bit of an absence from the blogosphere) I thought I'd share... here then, is what happened at iMedia, at AdTech, at Sydney...
Unilever brands that have utilised the social media space
first up, delivering the keynote welcome, was Unilever's Babs Rangaiah (@babs26) who described how he and others are pioneering in the Social Media space at the company. its necessary stuff in his opinion, pointing out that only 18% of TV campaigns generate positive ROI, and that 24 of the top 25 biggest newspapers are undergoing circulation decline.
his three observations were that Unilever is (1) living the [social media] space, (2) re-framing their thinking re Social media and Applications [ie NOT pre-rolls - thats the broadcast solution applied to the online paradigm], he cited BBH's Axe Wake Up Service app from Japan (above), and (3) rewriting its media manifesto along these lines, as would be written by customers:
be part of the world - Rangaiah pointed out the gap between time spent online and advertising spend online
penetrate our culture - the move from interruption to engagement; is what we create useful, entertaining or interesting? he cited the example of the Dove for Men campaign, which after scooping up a SuperBowl spot proceeded to land its American Football-playing star a seat on Oprah's couch
give us a voice and a role - Best Job In The World anyone?
be authentic - anyone unclear on this one just Google Dell Hell...
listen to us
create more value - "you want us to pay? ... [then] we want you to pay attention"
don't be so corporate
keep it simple - good one this, if you can't explain an idea to a non-marketing friend or partner in ten seconds then its probably to complex to ever get traction
telling friends - WoM is the most powerful form on advertising [Alleluia Babs, Alleluia]
do good
he ended on a topic that would be the subject of some debate for the rest of the day... how the rapid evolution on metrics in the online space has created its own rewards but also problems. from clicks and impressions to unique users to engagement or stickiness and now ROI ... measuring success has never been so possible nor so complex.
next up was the lovely Megan Brownlow, Entertainment and Media Editor for PWC's Outlook, which complies stats on 'where the money is' in the entertainment and media spaces... this is facts given meaning not opinions back up with stats, so worth paying attention to, especially a key observation re consumer spending vs advertiser spending...
PWC's five year view looks a lot like this
PWC revenue predictions as presented at iMedia Summit last week in Sydney
put simply, people are predicted to spend proportionately more on entertainment and media (content) than advertisers will spend on media. good news if your media business model is predicated on creating and distributing stuff that people will want and pay for. bad news if your media business model is taking commission on advertising spend. a problem further compounded by the well documented explosion in inventory, which any economist will tell you will lead to lower yields for media publishers and agencies.
Brownlow described the 'structural change' of this versus other recessions. the recovery will be shallower than any previous one, "a crawl rather than a jump out", but not for everyone. between 2003 and 2009 search revenues have increased from 31% of ad revenues to 50.4% - 90% of which, no one needs reminding, goes to one company.
the big growth is in consumer pay models, where growth is predicted to be 5.5% CAGR ('09-'13). hence media owners and publishers seeking hybrid business models (another hot topic of the day) to monetise content. Brownlow noted research suggesting that, for example, in newspapers people will pay, but only for verticals - a proportion (Finance 97%, Sport 77%) of the hard copy price as long as that same content is not available for free elsewhere. in this context Murdoch's rallying cry to the newspaper industry to declare war on Google makes immaculate sense. her final observation was that even if hybrid pay models work, lost revenues won't be replaced. the annihilation of the old model of newspaper publishing is still an inevitability.
Brownlow's final observation however was a cold shower for any Australians readying themselves for seats of honour in the digital revolution after-show party. compared to the rest of the world, the country is significantly lagging in online adoption, with revenues in the online space in the region of 25%, compared with 31% globally and up to 50% in countries such as south east Asia. "traditional media 'owns' the market in Australia for a long time yet to come". the reasons, infrastructure (and therefore effectively ISP cost) and attitude... the former understandable given the countries geography, the latter frustrating to say the least in a country with such an entrepreneurial culture (my observation not Brownlow's).
three 'game-changers' to end with: (1) the NBM or National Broadcast Network, a government initiative to hardwire the nation by 2017, but which Goldman Sachs predicts will be only 50% complete by then, (2) mobile, yes 2010 IS mobile's year and (3) interactive games, with a 7.5% growth forecast, 2.2bn market and two structural changes to boost the sector in the form of mobile and online gaming. play on.
next up the enigmatic Ed Smith of NDM who started with a topic that was to become one of the themes of the day... that of volume versus value in the online space. he made two observations - one, that (average) click rates were down from 32% to 16%; and two, that 8% of people accounted for 80% of clicks. so just how valuable is a click? how many brands and businesses are so overly obsessed with generating clicks that they're "going out of business as cost effectively as possible"? ...he questioned what the point of [100%] paid-for search was when you're not investing in product or marketing initiatives that 'build the brand'?
this was a phrase that kept on cropping up, bit of a fat phrase (and not in a good street way)... ultimately by 'build the brand' I suspect the speakers were referring to brand associations. and raising the (valid) question of how long the broadcast interruption model can create and sustain brand associations (ie what 'brands' effectively are) if we're all collectively ignoring / avoiding more, clicking less, and paying for content direct.
Smith went on to give the publishers' perspective wrt post-broadcast print... describing some of the emerging platforms he played with at a recent tech conference. I was going to ask him "how he was intending to meet the challenge of defending margins when the cost of producing content is no longer matched by advertising revenues?" ... but we know the answer to this, it's the much talked about hybrid model... of combining (lower) ad revenues with direct payment from people for the content. the 'iPad $ a day' model. Smith's retort to those who question the sustainability of the hybrid model: "People who say 'people won't pay for content' don't know what's possible". to that point, he showed us this:
he observed that the NYT's iPad application launched with three advertisers each paying US$200k for the privilege and challenged the audience with the question "are your digital media choices making your brand bigger or smaller?"
the end of the morning saw Fairfax Digital's CEO Jack Matthews take up some of the themes opened by Smith... "consumer demand for media, in all it's forms, has never been greater", "a new era of online advertising", "direct response get's too big a share of the media mix", "the future of media companies and agencies is to add value" ... there's a clear direction of travel from publishers here; away from trading debates based on the value of a click, towards trading debates predicated on the value of the audience the publisher is providing...
Matthews outlined three change catalysts in the space: (1) three screens (2) building brands on desktops and (3) agency / campaign integration
he made a delightful observation on the three screen model: "if the desktop user is a browser, then a mobile user is a hunter". I have a lot of time for that, it really focuses how you think about adding value to people in the mobile space. he reiterated the belief that "people are willing to pay for content on mobile devices", and pointed out the projected rise of video advertising on the desktop - 48% CAGR in ad revenues to 2014. he also made it quite clear to the audience that Fairfax Digital is in the business of and focusing on "building engaged audiences more than reach".
he ended with a call for integration, observing that "we have no aligned metric for measuring 'brand building' [that phrase again] online", and that there's not enough integration within agencies on aligning on and offline media. he acknowledged that his organisation had to be more prepared to work with other organisations too... an acknowledgment that he described as a "fundamental shift" in Fairfax's position.
after post-lunch sessions by Michael Hendricks, Head of Decision Management, CitibankAsia Pacific ("we're about acquiring the right customers, not the most", "our most valuable customers use all of our channels most of the time") and Corporate Anthropologist (who knew?) Michael Henderson, it was back to the media agenda with Rohan Lund of Yahoo!7...
58% of Yahoo!7's audience media 'mesh' at least several times a week: 95% on email, 63% on social networks, 54% to get more info on a show and 40% to follow-up on an ad they've seen... time spent online watching video is now 13%, and very much social.
Lund challenged the session - in a context of content, content content - to question what our business models were? access isn't enough. "we [Yahoo!7] make it easier for users to access content that matters to them most", adding that "our businesses are data businesses ... our core business is targeting".
he outlined Yahoo!7's recently launched catch up service, thru which every primetime show is available. he described how the ambition is to get the browser closer to a TV environment, and talked thru the challenges of making TV shows available for different IPTV-ready TV models. interestingly, for non-partner TVs they've introduced open-source development. and he was quite clear that he saw no reason why online video CPMs will never be lower than for TV; in effect a premium for targeting.
back to the question I asked at the start of the post, I put to Lund that "the broadcast model isn't broken... yet. how prepared are agencies
for when it breaks?" ... he believed that agencies are becoming more integrated, and understanding better the balance between on and offline. but acknowledged the elephant in the room; that "no one ever got fired for buying TV", and that people are still "hiding behind TV as a safe solution"...
good to have it out and said, and credit to Lund for doing so... but I think its less about TV being seen as the safe solution, and more the reach and delivery of the broadcast model that's seen as the safe solution. the absurdness of this just gets truer every day. if the iMedia summit made one thing clear its that the figures are now starting to track the theory. viewing fragmenting, click rates decreasing, ad avoidance up... and the solution? a continued clinging to the sinking ship that is broadcast interruption. it's like the Titanic's going down and the industry is scrabbling to get on board...
this was followed by (for me) one the highlights of the day as Sean Finnegan, President and Chief Digital Officer at Starcom MediaVest Group took us thru his vision for his media agency's digital offering.
his logic is crystal: clients are struggling to deliver accountability in rapidly changing markets where its harder to connect with consumers. agencies therefore need restructure and resource to provide a range of new offerings: RealTime consumer insight, actionable insights, and content - all created by what Finnegan describes as 'liquid talent'. how...
business intelligence and hub formations
data exchanges (in the US buying of non-identify-able consumer data is now mainstream)
standardised findings with consumers and the industry (common and consistent measurement)
instant content delivery, real time text and video (eg EA's Tiger Woods video)
strategic alliances, frenemies have never been more important...
he observed that "efficient pricing is no longer a value add", and that "marketers and agencies that focus only on price are leaving value on the table". we've gone "from a linear to a networked comms infrastructure [which] creates a transfer of power to the consumer". he noted that we "need to start understanding the passions and behaviours of individuals [across media platforms]", and observed that this would have inherent problems for publishers.
he also outlined his thoughts on the media agency offering... "because of our proximity to consumers we have to be more adept at design and messaging", but also gave a stark warning to media isolationists: "you need to be confident enough to partner with competitors that are better than you to deliver the best solutions for your clients ... the more we give away, the more we grow".
his view on the future of the Starcom's digital offering is clear: a move away from media people as aggregators towards media people as analysis of data, interpreting, modeling and projecting for clients and brands. his people will be more account managerial and who are less in the business of "killing bad news" and more in the business of "selling the best ideas".
so what to make of it all?
great day and some interesting comment and debate, but you can't help but leave with the impression that there's far more questions than answers. but perhaps that's well and good, it's an easy cliche to say that there's never been a more interesting time to work in media... but its true never the less. for more than three years this blog has set itself the task of negotiating the future of media and communications; a task is no less interesting, gripping and exciting than it was when in November 2006 I wrote my first post on TV (versus) online:
"the internet is television. but it's television on viewers' rather than broadcaster's terms. the issue isn't the demise of TV, but the decline of the broadcast model and of the broadcaster as commissioning editor and content aggregator."
its vaguely how terrifying how little has changed. the debate, the argument and the negotiation continues, and we're all the better for forums like iMedia in which to talk, and for that matter drink, it out...
Recent Comments