broadcasting, engaging, regulating, viewing

Here we go again: why brands should care whether or not viewers trust that their votes will count

the last few weeks have seen the spectre of viewer trust raise its head again, but unlike last year's Blue Peter name-the-cat debacle and Ant and Dec's Jiggygate affairs, recent events are far more opaque.

last time round, the cheating was obvious. judgments were delivered and calls were made that clearly ignored the voice of viewers. sanctions were duty handed out and much hand-wringing ensued. everyone learned their lesson, got it off their collective chests at Edinburgh, and everything was OK again, right?

well no actually. because the last few weeks have seen the voting viewer confidence undermined once more, again in the arena that is Saturday night event reality TV, and by both ITV and the BBC.

first up we had Dianagate courtesy of the X-factor. to cut a long story short she let rip at a bonfire party, was ill, the producers gave her a get out of jail free card and Laura went out. cue a call for the decision to be referred to Ofcom, a massive online petition to get Laura back in, and a mention in Parliament.

up next we had of course Sergeantgate on the BBC. one of the biggest stories of last week saw the big guy pull out saying "The trouble is that there is now a real danger that I might win the competition. Even for me that would be a joke too far." Sergeant hinted at the existence of pressure to go (from the BBC / judges / other contestants), The Daily Mail suggested that the reason was a P&O cruise that was beckoning, whilst Richard & Judy writing in the Express blamed his wife.

why does this matter? why is this getting a post? why can't we all just accept that it's just a TV show, get over it and all agree to get along? and most importantly why should brands have any beef with all this?

because it's either reality TV or its not – if Sergeant winning isn't an option (in his or anyone else's mind) he shouldn't
be taking part in the first place; if we're going to ask the time and
money of viewers to participate then they have to believe that their
contribution will count.

because the principles of viewer interaction and contribution are too important to allow rules to be broken. because the principle of 'have your say and the majority will determine the outcome' has got to be seen to be upheld. and most of all because the difference between voting-viewer and contributer / co-creator is in name only…

in both the above cases we're asking people to engage with branded content. similarly in both cases the decision of producers – to allow Diana to stay and to allow John to go – took the ability to control the outcome out of the hands of viewers and into the hands of producers.

brands should tread carefully where Saturday night producers seemingly don't fear to tread. in a digital age that demands engagement and co-creation with brands thru media, brands (1) have to remain transparent and (2) have to be content for power – once devolved – to lie and remain with their consumers.

this is the reward for engagement; the quid pro quo for the time and energy of getting involved; consumer ROI if you like. time will tell what the fall-out is for X-Factor and Strictly – but brands that fail to learn the lessons will find it less easy to waltz off in to the sunset with their credibility intact.

ad funded programming, advertising, branding, broadcasting, content creating, converging, engaging, gaming, innovating, internet, planning

From theory to practice: the challenge of planning Transmedia

Keith Arem's graphic novel Ascend, for which a game is currently in development

it's now been over two years since Faris bought transmedia planning to our attention in his post of the same name on TIGS. the theory has been well expounded in the period since then; with a post by Jason Oke at Leo Burnett Toronto which explored the TP concept within the context of a single ad quickly kicking things off.

I'm sure that the idea of TP has cropped up in most media, comms and ad agencies by now… it certainly has in Mediation's. but we've yet to see – as far as I can make out – a significant campaign emerge based on TP principles. the same is actually true of the entertainment industry; in an interview with Games TM magazine(edition 75), Henry Jenkins – the Godfather of TP – concedes that truly persuasive examples have yet to arrive.

they're doing better than us though. transmedia planning should be everywhere by now. the theory is familiar and is not only relatively unchallenged, but is offers the very solution to some of the biggest marketing challenges of the moment. of its many advantages, the primary benefit has to be the extent to which it pays back on the time taken to consume it. Jenkins goes on to observe that "regardless of the commercial motives behind it, transmedia entertainment done well also provides rewards for fans".

so why is getting the theory working in practice so difficult? here's some starters for ten…

firstly, the financial investment required. the reason the best examples of TM largely remain in the entertainment arena (the Matrix, Cloverfield, Heroes, Lost etc) because it takes a significant chunk of investment to develop and then create the content often required. the commercial models for Fox or Paramount are set up to do this, the commercial models for marketeers often aren't.

but this is a bit of a cop out. for the cost of making three 30 second ads you can certainly afford to make an episodic drama for online distribution. and no it doesn't matter if it's not going to go on broadcast TV because those people who consume AV content online are exactly those people most likely to 'get' transmedia narratives… this means of course that the media budgeting has to evolve just as much as the production pot.

no, the real issues in making TP happen lie much closer to home than 'we don't have the budget' territory. they are twofold, the first of which is we're bound to the conventions of the media spaces we use. in the Games TM article mentioned above, Keith Arem discusses the TM principles behind his graphic novel Ascend (the image above). he observes that:

"if a project requires a 30-minute budget introduction, games can do that, but the medium could just as easily offer six high-budget five-hour episodes to revolutionise the story. film and television are still limited by rigid series structures and minimum lengths".

advertisers on those channels are bound by those same conventions; conventions we as an industry – planners, buyers and media-owners (and indeed Ofcom) alike need to start challenging. it's the limitations of the spot model that in many cases is preventing transmedia's breakthrough into broadcast channels; and as long as transmedia only exists online, it's unlikely to capture the imagination of marketeers or the budgets of FDs.

but the final barrier to making TM happen in brand comms is the closet to home of all. Jenkins notes that TM experiences can "be a source of … frustration [for consumers] if it's inconsistent, undermines the coherence of the work, or promises insights it never delivers". Arem's solution is simple: "have a good team of like-minded individuals around you … my philosophy for all of our projects is to have a core team to supervise all creative and technical aspects of the production. the main focus of that team is to keep the story and assets consistent, and integrate them with the entire franchise".

I think you know where I'm going with this. agency structures are lucky if they can do this internally let alone with other agencies, resulting in the presention of a joined up and unified transmedia solution to a client. not only might different creative agencies have to work to one vision, but that vision has to be molded by the space planned by its media agency, and of course vice versa.

the reality is that as long as the conversation with a client only gets as far as "how big is the pack shot?", both agencies and clients will be bound to a dynamic that not only acts as a barrier to transmedia planning, but actively works against it emerging into the mainstream where it so surely deserves to belong.

ad funded programming, broadcasting, selling, television

‘Together we’re stronger’ is the message as ITV takes an optimistic tone at the 2009 upfronts

as optimistic as it gets: ITV's Britannia High

'together we're stronger' was the message to media agencies at last week's 2009 upfronts presentation on the Southbank. and strong is indeed what ITV is going to need us all to be. with Tesco now openly talking about Q1 2009 being an 'Ice Age' in consumer spending, all media owners are bracing themselves for tough conditions ahead. the message from ITV is simple: TV is the most effective channel for brand building and behaviour change, commercial TV is more popular than ever, and in real terms the cost of airtime is the same as it was in 1992. that and a billion pound commitment to the programming budget to boot.

it's all compelling stuff and ITV has plenty to be pleased about; ITV2 and ITV3 are the top two MC channels, over 80% of the schedule is UK original programming, and (with Kangaroo still in the pipeline) itv.com is starting to make some strides in online for the corporation – we were informed that three alternate endings to the Liam storyline generated 650k views in one weekend. who knew.

upcoming programming looks good (you can view the reel here) and includes the remake of The Prisoner with Sir Ian McKellen, and Demons (an early Saturday night partner for Primeval). ITV have also recently locked down a deal which will see Sage ad-fund the return of the Krypton Factor, with Julian Smith, Planning Account Director at ITV, commenting that it marked "the biggest ad-funded and multi-platform programme ITV has
commissioned and the first one to appear in ITV1’s prime time schedule".

Mediation asked Peter Fincham – ITV's new Director of Television – why it had taken so long for an AFP to make it into primetime. he noted that commissioning lead times are often very different to those of brands, and that keeping an audience and a brand happy aren't always the same thing. but the main barrier seemed to be cost – with a Q&A panel adding that brands often baulk at the price tag that comes with making your own show. this is probably fair and true, and a new approach that starts with what the schedule needs rather than what advertisers dictate is a good starting point – no brand wants to invest in a programme that is simply not going to rate no matter how on-brand it is.

one of the stars of the show was Sunday nights new effort Britannia High (above) which despite buying pretty much every 6 sheet on the underground was severely trounced in the ratings by Antiques roadshow on BBC1 (its viewers may be – according to Fincham – a "coach load of old people", but that there quite a big coach).

part of the problem with Britannia High has been the marketing. not sure that a 6 sheet campaign really cuts it – especially with a show like this. my guess is a lot of people just didn't know what to expect, that's not a position a new peak-time show on ITV wants to be in. it would have been so easy to run some kind of audition-concept format in the run up to TX that would have also explained what to expect. suspect that it will have momentum but it's an opportunity missed for the channel. you only get to launch once.

one other gripe is that ITV do rather want to seem to have their cake and eat it… they're very happy to deliver mass audiences (and so they should), but their targeting ability was demonstrated at a channel level (see below), with ITV1 equaling optimism and ITV2 fun and younger etc. solid positionings but in a multichannel world you can get more precise targeting elsewhere for less.

stronger targeting delivering effectiveness (source: ITV upfronts presentation)

the case study for targeting was Harveys' sponsorship of Coronation Street which has generated 3.5m red button interactions with the brand. a great result but hardly the best example of a targeted proposition.

all in all though a confident performance from the corporation. here's to the optimism holding as the chill of an economic ice-age starts to bite.

advertising, broadcasting, researching, television, viewing

Getting more out of the ad break: how ITV prove the extent to which content affinity is transferred to advertising

some new research from ITV attaches some numbers to what we all – should – intuitively know. the network's Event TV research, which can be viewed here, quantitates the simple theory that "compelling content generates higher levels of interest and awareness" in advertising.

the research looked at 'event TV' – programming that is anticipated, time-sensitive (ie less likely to be time-shifted), and which often involves ritual behaviour (getting the pizzas in for example). what most defines such programming however is the extent to which it is a shared experience. 'true fans' – those more likely to seek-out additional programme content and talk about it – are also those most likely watch in groups. the shared experience doesn't of course stop there – they are very much aware that the same broadcast is being watched by millions of others at that very moment.

watch with other (source: ITV)

the research goes on to quantify the extent to which such fans are less likely to flick over when the ads come on, and therefore more likely to watch the commerciality that is the break (eg true soap fans are 97% more likely to watch the ads during their shows than their non-fan equivalents). finally, it demonstrates the extent to which affinity for programmes seems to be transferred to ads, with fans of TV shows having more positive opinions of the advertising in breaks throughout the show.

it must be said I find myself asking what this actually tangibly means for planning and buying. the benefit for ITV is clear; this research makes the case for the justification of investment in event (and therefore often peak-time) programming. but this airtime is oversubscribed as is – further encouraging agencies to plan into this space will only lead to further premiumisation (I know that's not a word btw) of said airtime.

that quibble aside, this is not only a solid bit of research to add to our collective canon, but is research brilliantly presented in the form of a video-diary of a day ('sofa-Saturday') in the life of a household from the perspective of the TV. you can view it from the above link, I recommend it.

it also highlights the extent to which viewers will track desired content across platforms; there's an interesting multi-platform (transmedia) opportunity for a campaign that wanted to acknowledge and capitalise on the multi-platform relationship true fans have thru their content.

advertising, broadcasting, experiencing, television, viewing

Things I’ve learned about TV ads; courtesy of a Night of the Adeaters

TV ads sometimes get a bad press; often seen, unfairly, as the blind refuge of the creative process. they're blamed for narrowing creative thought into a pre-determined construct that's allegedly irrelevant in a digital age.

well a night with the Ad Eaters is more than enough to demonstrate otherwise. what occurred to me last night, as I sat watching several hours of TV ads from around the world, was how perfect the audiovisual short is for communicating a brand – or indeed any – idea.

it's no surprise that the 'TV ad' became the common currency of the advertising agency. indeed one can't help but think that even in the absence of a broadcast model that reinforced the TV ad construct, the short AV piece would have emerged as the vessel of choice for brand ideas. forcing clarity, relevance and conciseness, it may come to be seen as the 20th / 21st Century equivelent of the cave painting or Aesop fable.

there was as much joy and pleasure in seeing again BBH's Underwater Love for Levi's (above) or early Smirnoff efforts, as there was in seeing for the first time some of MTV's campaigning work or an Audi ad with a dog chasing a car in the snow…

some other things I learned last night:

most of the best ads are for cars. fact.
it's impossible to make a good fragrance ad. fact.
some brands have the right to set agendas and others just don't
an audience of ad types loves a bit of worthiness – ads for the UN Development Fund were guaranteed a splattering of applause. as the lovely Jon A puts it: "the skill of communication is like the skill of swordsmanship: it can be applied in play or in war, for better or for worse". we collectively aspire – it seems – to do the formers.
it's impossible to aggregate ads around a city – "ads set in Paris" just doesn't work as a filter

all in all a very cool evening. if there's one observation it's that the filtering could have been better. an evening like that is essentially acting as an aggregator – so Ad Eaters has to work as hard as possible to be the best aggregator that they can be. not doing so will only undermine future efforts – and contribute to the feeling of watching a very extended version of Tarrant On TV. only without Chris Tarrant. and not on TV.

Kudos to the IPA, CBS and Metro for sponsoring, and a big thanks to David at Metro for facilitating…

advertising, broadcasting

Brands lose out as Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

what's most surprising about Channel 4's announcement that it is pulling out of DAB is not that it's abandoning the platform, but that it took the broadcaster so long to do it. it's been a long road for C4 since the consortium it led (which included Channel 4, Bauer Radio, UTV, UBC Media Group and SMG) 'won' the second DAB digital radio national commercial multiplex in July last year. delay has followed delay; we were supposed to get the first stations this summer gone, but plans were subsequently scaled back to just one station (E4 Radio) to be launched in 2009.

as the MediaGuardian podcast panel observed, Andy Duncan's strategy to move into radio (and particular speech radio) was more than sound – indeed it formed a key part of a broad range of announcements and maneuvers under the 'Next on 4' banner designed to shore up Channel 4's PSB credentials, with the aim of pursuading the Government to part-fund the broadcaster as it faces a multi-million pound deficit in its budget. but almost as soon as the announcement was made DAB ran into trouble.

the problem for the platform is simple. DAB is an interim technology; one that in future media history lessons will sit neatly on the timeline between FM / AM signals and the internet. as soon as internet-enabled radio listening was available on mobile phones the writing was on the wall for the platform. in this context it would be madness to even contemplate now going ahead with a second national multiplex.

unfortunately this simple problem doesn't have a simple solution. for a start the 30% of households which have invested in a digital radio aren't going to be jumping for joy if the signal goes down the pan. but more importantly there doesn't exist an internet-based commercial platform to replace DAB. there is no commercial iPlayer and certainly no commercial investment available to build one (commercial radio was struggling even before the recent downturn, and shows no sign of improving soon). access to the iPlayer platform is emerging as the most cost-effective and consumer-centric solution.

but the group set to lose out as much as any other are advertisers. what Channel 4 radio offered was a viable commercial offering to rival BBC Radio 4, an audio space to produce more upmarket and sophisticated audio content and advertising. it was a space I as a planner was looking forward to exploring, and I'm sure I wasn't alone. for a radio landscape crying out for diversification and innovation, Friday's announcement heralds a loss far greater than any one station. it is the loss of an opportunity that may never come round again.

broadcasting, X_Factor-tipping

X Factor Tipping: live finals – week one

so here we are. a whole eight weeks in, and it's time for the live finals of the X. but there's an extra edge this year thanks to the lovely Dale who's organised a tipping competition of all things. the rules are simple, every week until we get to the final five Mediation has to pick two acts I think will
survive (yes’s) and two acts that you think could
be sent home (no’s)… scoring is more complicated:

5 points for
each ‘yes’ that survives
5 points for each
‘no’ act that's in the bottom two,and
10 points for each ‘no’ act that is sent home

but there is, however, a
twist. if one of Mediation's ‘yes’ acts is in the bottom two I lose 5 points and if
one of them is sent home I lose 10 points!

so it's all to play for and with all the acts unproven on live TV there's been a fair bit of discussion, with the final tips going as follows:

first up to stay, Alexandra. outrageously robbed of a place in the live finals in 2005, this year she gave a performance for Cheryl head and shoulders above the other girls. she's worked for three years for this chance and Mediation expects her to grab it with both arms.

next up to stay was more tricky but I've settled for Laura. quirky, down to earth and vulnerable, reckon the public are going to love her. and great voice makes her solid from a vocal point of view

first of my nominations to go is Girlband. admittedly Louis had not a lot to choose from (so much so that the producers had to form a band from solo contestants that didn't make it) and it's not a strong line up for the groups. they're up against another – and arguably stronger vocally – girl group who'll divide the girl group vote in week one. not a chance.

the second nomination to go again is harder and despite lots of lobbying for Dan, who can't sing for toffee but has a flawless back-story so will stay in the competition for way longer than he should, I'm reluctantly settling on Ruth. just not convinced that the great British public will buy Enrique-esque stylings on prime time… sorry.

it would be nice to think that this is all is aid of proving Henry Jenkins' theories of Convergence Culture – demonstrating how the evolving ecology of broadcast and consumer-generated media are developing in a harmonious and mutually beneficial way. it would also be nice to think that this proof that the live-TV model is still very much (a)live and kicking; proof that this kind of involvement just wouldn't be feasible if the broadcast was time-shifted… but it's not. Mediation just loves a bit of X.

finally it should be noted that Mediation is very much in two minds about Austin. please please can someone stop him crying, its all very distracting. plus the poor boy has been styled to within an inch of his life… I don't know who put Morticia Adams in charge of styling but they need to be pointed in the direction of the pasture. fast.

enjoy the show.

Austin before…

Austin after Morticia had her way… poor guy.

branding, broadcasting

Visa settle for Silver as the BBC takes Gold in Olympic branding negotiation

all smiles; announcing the acts for the VISA London 2012 party in July

in a few hours the Olympic Games will be handed over from Beijing to London. to celebrate, the city is hosting a party on the Mall. McFly and The Feeling are going to play. its all very exciting for everyone taking part.

its also been an exciting time for Visa – the corporate sponsor of the party – and the BBC. they've had to come to an agreement over the prominence of Visa's branding on the stage. why? because its going to be broadcast live on BBC One and Radio 2, and the presence of Visa's branding contravenes BBC's editorial guidelines on product visibility.

this is only the earliest of many negotiations that brands will be engaged with over the coming four years in the run up to and during the 2012 Olympics. in the wake of TV trust scandals over the last few years – and specifically the BBC / Robinsons association (read: sponsorship) of Sports Personality of the Year controversy – the BBC is more keen than ever to ensure that its seen to be upholding its own standards of non-commerciality.

but this poses a big problem for LOCOG and Olympic sponsor brands… how many future marketing opportunities are going to be compromised because of the BBC's stance? the contradiction that lies at the heart of the debate is that the BBC is the broadcast partner of a commercial event. LOCOG has to facilitate a better deal on this… Visa has given the most ground this time – but we need to avoid setting a dangerous and potentially costly precedent.

advertising, branding, broadcasting, internet, planning, viewing

Negotiating the digital divide: why immigrant brands must learn to go native

Natives going to meet the Spanish navy in 1792 (source)

the Pew Research Centre's biennial report into the
changing nature of news audiences has confirmed what we've known for a while;
that a generation of digital natives are growing up demanding immediacy and
plurality of content. the report described 13% of the US public as 'net newsers'; under
35, affluent, and sceptical of many of the mainstream media's offerings.

it comes hot on the heels of last week's report by Ofcom which confirmed what
TGI and CCS have been telling us for a while… that as our world shifts
from one ruled by digital immigrants to one dominated by digital natives, an
entire generation are defaulting to multi-tasking their media consumption.

this isn't just behavioural – our brains are physically adapting to enable us
to compulsively multitask. digital technology changes the way we absorb
information. as such – as Lord Saatchi was reported as pointing out in 2006 – the digital native’s brain is
physically different; “It has rewired itself. It responds faster. It sifts out.
It recalls less.”

the fact that recall rates for traditional television advertisements have
plummeted led Lord Saatchi to the conclusion that companies must now be able to
sum up their brands in a single word if they are to grab the attention of
restless digital natives, but this is to miss the point…

if digital natives demand multiplicity, brands – far from retreating to one-word over-simplification – must give it to them. both
the above reports confirm that TV remains predominant in the media consumption
habits of digital natives. in the UK we're watching more TV than ever;
communicating to digital natives doesn't mean abandoning TV as a means with
which to communicate; rather it means using it in conjunction with other media
channels – specifically the internet.

brand communications need plurality
– the notion of what constitutes 'critical mass' within a media channel has to
be rethought and replaced with consideration as to what constitutes critical
mass across channels.

some may not like this compulsive plurality of consumption – in his G2 column
last week, Alexander Chancellor bemoaned a "compulsion to keep in
touch" liking it to a "kind of disease". "Addiction
to communication" he comments "seems to me as dangerous as addiction
to cigarettes or alcohol".

as hard as it may be for digital immigrants to comprehend, consistent and
constant consumption of content is as natural to digital natives as
breathing. both immigrants and brands has better get used to it.

broadcasting, internet, praising, viewing

How South Park gave a little love and it all came back to view

pop quiz… what would most brands give to have people say the following about them?

"And in widescreen format, too! Oh God, I just pooped my pants!* This is
an awesome gift! Thanksyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou…"

"It's true! You do love us! This entire website is proving that! And you don't stop surprising us! Thank you for Imaginationland!!!!"

"O.O…..I….I….ILUVYOU"

the above posts are from the South Park Studios website, where (if you're in the US) you can watch all the South Park episodes for free. the site this week added the full, uncensored, directors cut of the acclaimed three-parter Imaginationland for free. all packaged up as a reward for the fans of the series.

the genius of this is twofold. in the short term they're packaging up something that anyone can get, as a reward for the show's fans. because they're fans they'll be on the site, pick it up first, and get the social currency of being able to tell their friends about it.

but in the longer term South Park understands that giving their back-catalogue away for free will encourage and maintain viewing of new stuff. which generates a fair few impacts and revenues for Comedy Central, so South Park can keep getting made. so everyone's happy.

what are your brands doing to demonstrate how much you love the people who consume you?

	Martha on What is TV?
	Streaming’s Next Dec… on Streaming’s First Decade: Thre…
	Streaming’s First De… on The Netflix Spark: Why the arr…
	AI vs. AI: Why the R… on Things we never thought we…
	Donnell King on Visa settle for Silver as the…

MEDIATION

negotiating the future of media and communications

Category Archives: broadcasting