TV’s Missed Opportunity

Right now people are watching more premium content than ever, take Net Flix, Hulu, iTunes/ Amazon and then pile on illegal downloading and you have more eyes than ever before. This is an opportunity for premium content producers, e.g. TV networks, movie studios, but unfortunately it's not being framed that way. The business problem is how to monetize those eyeballs. And, while ad rates remain low on sites like Hulu it seems that pay walls are the only answer.

I'd argue that there is a better way.

First, I think sites like Hulu need to get more research on how their ads are watched. I've found that most people I know settle in to watch shows on Hulu, and the very same people that fast-forward on their DVRs are watching the two minute ads on Hulu. Further, most audiences accept that watching ads with your TV show is part of the deal, and most viewers are down with watching them.

Second, premium content needs a business model that's a little more creative. And, as content becomes increasingly detached from specific channels, there should be a greater focus on attaching ads and building revenue on the content itself.

For example, allowing for free downloads with commercial breaks built in, perhaps they could even update periodically? Or give users an interactive experience that unlocks programming via engaging with brands. We could create a whole new type of ad format/ interactive experience for online viewing--like movie trailers (very much enjoyed) make online ads part of the whole viewing experience. Lastly, could we reach out to people who have already downloaded illegally, asking them to register their copies if they enjoy the shows, or to watch ads to help support them?

Finally, people care a great deal about their shows. They feel a sense of personal ownership with the programs they love, and beyond just wanting free programming would also seek to preserve it if given a chance or a way to show their support.

My point is this. Consumption is up, way up. Along with these new habits people also have greater emotional investments in the programs and movies they watch. But, the more the industry denies access the more eyeballs they lose to illegal consumption. Instead, they need to harness the new passion for premium content people have and get creative about making money with all those eyeballs, whatever screen they are on.

Update: A great piece by Carol Phillips on Millennial Marketing cites my article on this topic recently published by TNGG.

Image

Online is Real Life, Too

Online or virtual life gets a bad rap for being less than real, which is weird as we're essentially labeling social media as antisocial. It keeps us away from our real life social circles and robs us all of face-to-face time the advocates of real life argue. And, while they make a good case, certainly some people are on their computers far too much, I think they also do a disservice to a very important point: real life and virtual life do not need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, they have great potential to augment one another.

Yesterday I spent just about all day inside my apartment working on writing articles, editing others and watching a good amount of TV with my roommate. Under normal circumstances I would have had contact with just one person, but instead I was periodically chatting on twitter, sharing articles to read and posting on a few friend's Facebook walls to touch base. What's so wrong with that? I think my life is considerably better as a result and I see these people much more in real life because of these interactions.

I've put down some of these ideas in a much more cogent form in an article published yesterday on thenextgreatgeneration.com, titled (the same as this) Online Is Real Life, Too -- If your'e interested check it out and leave a comment.

It's time for 21st century brands

I majored in Advertising and Political Science, here is what I learned in school: Once a campaign is developed convention dictates that it be integrated, applied over every media like spreading frosting on a cake. Design a good media mix, get a little multiplier effect going on and then call it a day!

The idea being, if a brand is the same everywhere, all the time, broadcasting a message that is disruptive and persuasive, its image burns into the audience’s mind like the memory of a first kiss or that time you hurled after accidentally drinking sour milk.

It is painfully obvious however that some brands are currently writing a new playbook, and with great success. I term them 21st century brands, but I suppose you could just call them smart. Yet, with home internet access almost 20 years old, only recently has it become apparent to even these innovators that there is real value in changing things up. Look back at say, the results of online fundraising for the past three presidential elections and woah, where did 2008 come from?! Sure, the internet and mobile technology evolved a great deal in a short time, so perhaps we owe it to that? Yeah ok, maybe. But it’s not as if Facebook is worlds apart from Friendster, a permutation with better marketing at best. Far more significant I’d argue has been the sharp increase of the general public’s literacy with these mediums, that they in depth and breadth have finally grown enough to change the game.

In terms of shifting paradigms, politics are decent gauge. Richard Nixon got spanked by JFK in 1960 because by then more people were watching TV than listening to radio; and Nixon refused to tan like a girl or wear makeup. Turns out sweaty and pale doesn’t come off as presidential. But eight years later Nixon was back, and with a presidential bid hailed by many as the first “modern political campaign” – winning him the White House and two mentions in Billy Joel’s hit song, “We Didn’t Start the Fire.” Not bad.

The 1960 presidential election demonstrated the power of television just over twenty years after becoming commercially available. There is no doubt that 2008 was another game changing year. We had a new media environment, fueled by a more mature ‘web 2.0’ and sophisticated mobile technology that, most importantly, for the first time ever was actually being used by a majority of people. In other words, internet literacy had finally caught up with the technology available.

There’s no need to rehash how the Obama campaign was able to translate clicks and texts into real world actions or word of mouth buzz into persuasion by facilitating two way communication and foster community around shared meaning. Or to point out again how the supporters themselves became an integral part of the campaign/ brand structure, committing their time, money and passion to movement, and actively helping to write its story.

It is important to note, however, that for all the campaign's media savvy, none of this would have been possible without an electorate actually using and fluent in the capabilities of online and mobile technology. Or rather, using it and using it well.

What Obama did may or may not have specific lessons for brands. Let’s be honest, DEWmocracy wasn’t really that cool or successful - it was actually pretty lame. However, with a step back, one solid fact we can take away from the political sphere in 2008 is that similar to 1960, twenty or so years after its debut the net unarguably came into its own. How we interact with media has finally changed to the extent that ignoring it is simply not an option. We certainly won’t see any serious political candidate ignore this fact in the future and any truly successful 21st century brands will be the ones placing a high premium on adapting to this new space.

Marshall McLuhan coined, “the medium is the message” in 1964 and four years later Nixon demonstrated better than anyone that he got the message. Tick tock.