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

Consumer Bashing

I get asked about my career choice a lot. One of the best moments in my life thus far was the first time I got to say, “I work in advertising,” when asked by a stranger what I did. One of the worst was right after, when he replied, “So, you’re into lying to people for a living?”

It’s no secret that advertising isn’t highly regarded as a profession. I could say that I agree, and that would be easy. Certainly there is enough bad advertising out there for me to point at and say, “no that’s not me.” And I often do. I read Ad Busters, and sometimes I agree.

On the other hand, I think it’s important to call some things out.

First, chill out, because bad advertising is nothing new.

And, I empathize, I really do. That Toyota, “Saved by Zero” ad was one of the most obnoxious things I’ve ever seen. But, it’s partly our fault as consumers that this happens. When we live in a country that freaks out over part of Janet Jackson’s nipple or with blogger moms offended by a Motrin campaign, it’s not exactly easy for agencies to convince their clients to go out on a limb creatively. Our society is just as much to blame for bad ads as advertisers themselves.

Second, people are really lazy. Consumers are so used to commercials putting information right in front of their faces, that they've grown to rely on it.

Standing in a CVS aisle looking for deodorant, apart from advertisements you’ve seen, how much independent knowledge do you have about the category? Almost none. Maybe you chose based on what your dad buys, the cheapest, the best looking label or the brand you’re used to—but you have almost no independent knowledge outside of what’s right in front of you other than ads. It’s like a 20-year-old shopping for wine. "Well I've heard of Yellow Tail..."

So, before you complain to me, just think about the last time you read up on toothpaste. I thought so.

Finally, not too many people pay for content. Anyone who has donated to Wikipedia can claim absolution here I suppose, but the rest of us just aren't supporting the things we like. We expect free, and ads come with that. Even on things like Facebook and Twitter, there’s no such thing as a free profile.

If you've made it this far without throwing your computer out a window, let me say, I’m not claiming that any of this makes up for all the evils of advertising, even if you do buy the “necessary evil” argument. Also, there is good advertising out there, and it’s worth your time. So go find an ad you love, and one you hate, then we can talk.

Edit: If you're still not convinced, check out some of these ads.

Sex Ed vs Censorship

Sex and Gen Y is a messy subject, if only because not that many people want to be open and honest about their kids getting it on. My latest post on The Next Great Generation (TNGG), Does Pornography Always Objectify?, was posted as part of Sex Week -- where we explored some of the issues surrounding sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, relationships etc., for Gen Y. On the surface it may not appear that we ever had a 1960s style sexual revolution, but if sexting and internet porn are taken into account, we certainly had one and it was virtual.


There's a lot this revolution has influenced in terms of how Millennials think, and among other things it's led to a greater acceptance of sex on mains street. Though certainly not everyone agrees this is ok. The core idea of the article is, that while some of us disparage hyper sexual images in advertising and in the media at large, the fault is not inherent to the image. That is, there's nothing wrong with pictures of boobs... as long as we talk about boobs too.

And, while we must be cautious of things that may stunt or hinder the healthy development of girls, and boys (let's not forget them), that censoring sexual images is probably not the answer if we want real results: healthy, balanced adults. As a culture we run away from sex, but maybe if we just confronted it head on, talked about it, talked about our values etc.; we'd likely see much better outcomes than what we get from teaching our kids abstinence only or not letting them watch south park or anything on MTV.


Photo Credit: 8136496@N05

Dear Retailers: Your Biggest Fans are Working for You

Young people are typically treated as a disposable, easily renewable commodity when it comes to working mall retail and other teenager appropriate, "unskilled" jobs. Unfortunately, us kids have a reputation for being unreliable, and compounded by the fact that we're are available only during holidays and after school, it's no wonder employers don't see fit to invest more time and effort in us young workers.

But, one glaring misconception on the part of companies hiring gen y-ers is that we'd rather not be there. In truth it's quite the opposite. We're often your biggest fan!

I worked at a coffee shop when I was in High School and with only a few full time employees they relied heavily on a staff of young people. We were paid very little (around $6.50/hr), made to pay for our drinks and food, and no tips were allowed. In spite of all this we all loved our jobs and wanted the shop to do well. Yet, we were often treated by the management as if our next shift would be a "no call no show." Despite our friendship and desire to do a good job the attitudes of our managers became a self fulfilling prophecy and drove many people away.

Employers would do well to consider that often young people want to do well at their jobs and have a deep desire to establish a place where they feel they belong. We develop an emotional attachment to the store and the other employees we work with, but need to feel we are valued and respected as well.

I explore this issue in more detail and offer some suggestions of what employers might improve in an article published on TheNextGreatGeneration.com, Dear Retailers: Your Biggest Fans are Working for You. Check it out and leave a comment!

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.

Since when is "social media" just a Facebook fan page?

Ad Age recently named Mother, New York agency of the year. And while the article covers much of their recent work, which is all very interesting stuff, one of their ideas in particular really caught my eye:

"For Target, Mother recaptured the marketer's design-oriented sunniness with a nine-faced Times Square billboard-turned-product. The agency recruited four New York artists to create the 20,000 square foot poster and then, adding a green/design/turn-your-marketing-spend-into-revenue twist, the agency repurposed the vinyl into 1,600 mini works of art, each available for purchase on Target.com, and then re-re-purposed each piece into a handbag designed by Anna Sui. The handbags sold out in a week."

On the same day, other news comes from Ad Age that P&G is planning to invest heavily in making Facebook a big part of its marketing plan.

“‘P&G's explicit goal for 2010 is to assure that each of its brands has a meaningful presence on Facebook, and they are willing to pay dearly for that,’ Mr. Hornik wrote. ‘And while P&G's thought leaders expressed some skepticism about the efficacy of Facebook's “engagement ads,” they certainly view Facebook as a must-have for digital advertising and brand building.’”

What jumped to mind after reading these two articles was that both of these “ideas” could probably benefit greatly from the other.

With a stronger Facebook strategy Target could have facilitates spreading news about their event/ stunt/ product to fans of the brand and a wider audience in general. I really like Target and I would have enjoyed hearing about this, but I didn’t. It’s a great story and there’s no reason they couldn’t have told it on Facebook and other social media platforms. Why limit the exposure of this event to NYC when your customers are all over the world and connected? Even if I don't buy a bag just knowing about them elivates the brand's identity in my mind.

On the other side, P&G might incorporate Facbook into their marketing plan, but unless they have something more to bring to the table other than a fan page, contest or quirky app I just don’t know if anyone is going to care. Why on earth would I friend P&G? Tide or Duracell? The unspoken transaction that advertising trades entertainment for attension is just as true online as off. People want something interesting and fun, and just because they are sitting at their computers all day doesn’t mean they want to feel that way. Social media is a channel or a tactic for disseminating a message, and not much of a message in itself.

I think this all ties back into the discussion of what creativity means in a digitally connected world. I don't think you need to be on social to be social--but, if you want to be successful on the social media channel it seems that we need to think about the conversation and what it means to be conversational.

Scion’s Missed Opportunity

It might not make sense for every brand to jump head first into social media and start conversing with their customers (though for many it does). Yet, with the widespread adoption of this new platform the dynamic of marketing has changed, and campaigns designed without the existence of these conversations and communities in mind will undoubtedly fall short.

Scion's marketing efforts toward hip hop and graffiti groups offers a great example of how misunderstanding the way targets interact online, even when engaging them elsewhere, can lead to negative results and missed opportunities.

What not to do:
A few years ago Scion rolled into Scribble Jam, an annual Hip Hop and graffiti festival, on a mission to promote their message of individuality. With several graffiti painted cars and carefully produced fliers about the 'indie-ness' of their brand, it was by all accounts a text book street-team style operation and a fantastic failure; the ‘graf’ community was underwhelmed, to say the least, at the relevance of Scion's message and its poor understanding their community.

Some background on the graffiti community:
To say they are rebels is an understatement. Getting caught for painting can easily lead to more jail time than a sexual assault conviction and the lengths to which these artists go to complete pieces in obscure, unreachable places is unreal. They put themselves at great personal risk for their art, their name, and “sticking it to the man.”

They paint, among other things, freight cars. And, most are careful never to paint over tracking numbers so that the cars keep running. As various pieces travel the country other graffiti artists, along with another group of people dedicated to tracking and documenting graf, snap pictures and post them online.

But they’re not posting on Facebook; the graffiti community was online before Frienster, using forums to trade painting tips and pictures. The online component of their community is largely responsible for the shaping and growing the real world community that exists today.


What could have been:
Graffiti artists are anti-establishment, read ad busters and have no love for marketing. And this is how I’d sell them Scion.

Arrive with a fleet of blank, white cars and offer them to the painters as open canvases. No brochures.

Take the best cars from scribble jam along with a few others tagged by well know graf artists and take them off the road. Place them in prominent spots where graffiti is typically found; under bridges, on the roofs of building, on flat bed train cars mixed in with freight. Then do nothing.

Because tracking and sharing found graf online is such an important aspect of the community there’s no need to build flashy micro sites or a fan page on Facebook. When members of the community see the cars word will spread. The unique look of Scions makes the brand unmistakable and the message is a powerful, silent endorsement of the community’s work and culture.

Take away:
I'm sure there are ways to drastically improve my plan, but the core of my argument is about the importance of research, and how online communities aren't just online. The media ecosystem is clearly more complex these days and the value a social agency provides is much more than creating a twitter strategy or improving SEO (though this is essential as well). An agency versed in social understands how social media networks work and how their target interacts with them. This is the type of insight your brand needs today.

Is your agency fluent in social?