advertising, planning

No end in sight for London’s Freesheet War

London_paper_1the announcement that News International’s thelondonpaper is set to increase ad rates from tomorrow by almost 46% comes amidst the latest volley in the battle for the capital’s evening freesheet audience.  the same title recently increased it circulation by 100,000 to 500,000 – fueling further an explosion of paper onto the streets (and tube carriages).

in a presentation this morning, the title’s main rival, London Lite, outlined research that showed what most media planners suspected…  that there’s essentially nothing to separate the titles, with the exception that the majority of thelondonpaper readers prefer the editorial and layout of London Lite.  the thing is – so what?

the same research showed that there is around 50% cross-over between the titles.  they’re reaching the same audience and so as far as an agency is concerned we should be going with the most cost efficient title – something that won’t bode too well alongside tomorrow’s significant rate increase.

this is all a little like watching two boxers of equal weight and ability (if very different styles) battle it out in a ring.  who no matter how exhausted they get, have powerful backers with deep resources in each corner pushing them right back into the ring…

its a costly war for both parties.  money is being lost.  but there’s even more to lose if either title vanishes – and pride can be a very powerful motivator.

Standard
advertising, planning

Begun, the Media Owner Science Wars have

BrainI’ve noticed a recent escalation in the battle for share of media planners’ minds, by media owners.  it marks what is probably the third age of the media planner (MP) / media owner (MO) relationship.

the first was informational – MO gets the MP what they need to know and all was a bit one way.  phase two became a great deal more collaborative – with MOs generating ideas and concepts relevant and unique to the media channels they represented.  NB this subject was recently picked up by the IPA Strategy Group in a debate centered around whose best to come up with media ideas? – MPs or MOs.  both – silly – is of course the correct answer, we are – or should be – a generation of collaborators.

but recently a new front has opened.  it was marked by two different presentations from two different MOs.  the first – from Carlton Screen presented findings by work research which demonstrated the extent to which single vs multi tasking affects our ability to take in and recall information.

Abbeysingle01_4the above image shows a drawing produced when someone who had been shown a series of ads in the cinema was asked to draw all they could remember.  the ad was for Abbey National. source

essentially it produced behavioral evidence for the assertion that "attention plus emotive experience equals higher level of recall", but it was grounded in psychology and neuroscience in order to do so.

you can see full details of the research here.

Johnny_metro

the second intellectual volley came from Metro newspaper, who last week invited MPs to attend not only a presentation on engagement, but a presentation by none other than Johnny Ball, who talked us through the four rules of engagement.  this wasn’t just a media owner presentation – it was a full blown television production.  let battle commence.

for more on Johnny and Metro click here.

what both of these projects represent is an escalation in the arms race that MOs use to grab share of mind – and hence share of schedule – with MPs.  the challenge for MOs is that as buying is increasingly commoditized, the conversations with MPs are increasingly based on what the media channel can strategically – and scientifically – bring to a schedule.

did we learn anything we didn’t know intuitively from these experiences.  I suspect not.  did we leave feeling better about the extent to which Carlton and Metro understand whats going on in planners’ worlds.  I suspect yes.  mission accomplished… let battle continues.

Standard
advertising

No excuse for small copy

Small_copyI would like to get a slight bug-bear off my chest.  on the way out last night I caught this 16-sheet at Goodge street tube station.  its for a bed company and they’ve taken the tried and tested approach of utilising long copy on a cross-track.

but the copy is too small to read.

now I’d be the first to confess that my vision is hardly 20:20.  but I’d like to think that it’s fairly representative of the population as a whole.  and I simply couldn’t read the poster.

there’s no excuse.  Viacom (now CBS) can electronically mock-up copy in-situ and quickly get it to a client or creative agency.  whilst this won’t let you exactly see if every word can be read, it does give you a reliable idea of scale – allowing you to judge to what extent the copy can be easily read.

CBS optimistically estimate that they are asked for mock-ups of creative for only one in every thirty campaigns.  this just doesn’t seem like anywhere near enough.

waiting for a tube train is frustrating enough.  let’s not make it any more so!

Standard
advertising, branding, engaging, planning

five thoughts on peer to peer (viral) marketing

Network_p2pwhilst there aren’t rules per se, and the way a brand creates viral – or what I’d suggest we term peer to peer marketing – will vary depending on the market, brand, and most significantly the target audience; there are some general principles that I think are pertinent:

one – motivation

the consumer’s motivation to pass on will always be grounded in what’s in it for them, this can be one of a variety of things…

> credibility – getting kudos for finding something first, the act of passing it on is implicit proof of this

> financial reward – people who do something as a result of you passing something on earns the sender a reward (many online promotions work like this)

> exclusivity – you could famously only join Gmail if you were asked to join by an existing member

the rule of thumb therefore is don’t create peer to peer marketing material on your terms, but on consumers’  …what’s in it for them?

two – mechanism

consider how the material will be seeded, received, consumed and passed on…

> seeding / receiving – who are you originally sending it to and how?  material that comes from a known source will have more credibility

> consumption – is it easy and quick to access the material?

> passed on – is it easy and quick to pass it on? – remember consumers are time poor and information heavy

facilitate the spread – minimise viral file size (or host remotely) and allow forwarding easy

three – methodology

historically – viral comms were spread via the garden fence; communities were geographically limited

with the advent of tintinet – it became possible to quickly reach a multitude of people very quickly (exponential spreading of material)

more recently the creation of hosting platforms has attracted attention – eg MySpace, YouTube… which has meant that material is hosted independently of the viral location of it (ie it’s the link that’s viral – the content is hosted by an aggregator eg YouTube)

so… consider where and how you choose to host – it will convey independence (or otherwise), but this will have consequences for the extent to which – as creator – you are given credit

four – contemporacy

novelty value – if it or it’s like has been seen before, it will be less likely to be passed on

currency – easier to spread if its grounded in current affairs or the zeitgeist

reportage – ideal is to get established media to report the activity – such breakthroughs are rare but massively extend the reach of the viral as well as convey credibility and ‘buzz’

make it relevant to something beyond the current state and needs of your brand

five – measurement

whatever you’re putting out there, make sure you keep track of what’s happening to it

who’s getting it, who’s passing it on, who comments? – technorati, delicious and blogpulse all can help brands do this

Host the content somewhere where there is inbuilt measurement (YouTube, MySpace etc)

basically… don’t send off all you hard work into the ether without tying a lead on it first

Standard
internet, user-generating

Entertaining hijacking at a time of mourning

Oc_castI was going to write an entry mourning today’s decision to axe The OC at the end of season four, which is about to screen in the UK;  but on conducting a quick scan on the web to see what others were saying at this (sad) time I discovered something much more entertaining.  reading the Guardian blog on the subject I found that the entire conversation had been hijacked by people posting comments re the prevalence of Jews in the US broadcasting industry.

now that’s more than a little off-piste for my little media blog, but it does highlight the extent to which internet discussions are free from the conventions of traditional publishing.  in the latter, a subject is extensively (or otherwise) explored and described, opinions given and conclusions made.  there is no such rigour on the web…

in the above’s case the discussion veers widely off course to the dismay and despite the pleadings of those wishing to grieve:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a forum for those mourning the passing of the OC. This is not a space for anti-Jewish rants. I wish to dialogue with others who share my depression at the passing of a true phenomenon. Those of you who cannot empathise with those of us who are grieving, there are many other places on the GU blogs where you can express your views".

Posted by TomBrown on January 4, 2007 05:41 PM.

no chance Tom, the rules don’t apply.  as many a brand has learned to their detriment, the internet is not the place for rigorously researched and tested messaging, at least not if you want consumers to own, discuss, and distribute it on your behalf.  and quite right too; consumers own internet content – the cut it, change it, re-edit it, and then of course they may distribute it for free on behalf of a marketeer.  you can’t have it both ways.  as William Gibson so succinctly put it; "The remix is the very nature of the digital."

its worth noting that this flaw is conversely on of the traditional media’s greatest strengths.  whilst the Guardian’s blog veers wildly – if entertainingly – off subject, consumers can be confident that the traditional version of the paper will not.  and are happy to pay for such.  for this amongst other reasons, predictions of the demise of the newspaper are extraordinarily premature and wildly off the mark.

and the same applies for TV.  there remains – and will remain for a good while – the need for quality studio-produced broadcast entertainment.  as I’ve often said to TV clients when discussing how they negotiate the flood of user-generated content we are increasingly consuming (occasionally but as not as often as is implied to the detriment of broadcast impacts); you’ll never make the OC in your living room.  which is a shame really, cos after today’s news that’ll soon be the only place it can be made.

Standard
advertising, planning

Good and aren’t good enough any more

Match_ug_48s

I like this ad.  I like the line and the insight behind it – namely that in a time-poor, work-dominated busy London life it’s no longer enough to expect love to find you; you have to find it for yourself.  Make it happen.  With a little help from Match.com of course.

It’s also a good looking ad – it’s bright and stands out on a drab underground platform. But I hope that the campaign hasn’t stopped with this one good rectangular underground ad… Good ads are all well and good.  But good ads simply aren’t good enough any more.

Its an insight (and indeed a brand promise) that deserves to be taken further – in short it’s a comms insight and there’s the potential for media channels to be much more than just the medium for the conveying of the make love happen message. Rather, there is the opportunity for the role of media to be a facilitator of making love happen, or the educator to help the increasing numbers of single people to make it happen.

A few starters for ten:

  • Awards for venues that are proven to offer the best chances of meeting a Match
  • Commission a survey to identify the best places to meet people
  • Inserts in magazines featuring entertaining advice on finding a Match
  • Free cinema screenings with drinks afterwards when you register – use the common ground offered by movies, maximise this with in-cinema media
  • Online in-ad questionnaire – an application that determines (based on where you go out / what you like / do) your best strategy for getting a Match

None of these of course could and should better the product (ie the site), but they do offer the opportunity for media to be a true taster for what’s on offer; and – crucially – to make the brand evident through behaviour, not just through messaging.  I hope that Match.com are doing it …their insight deserves it.

Standard
converging, internet, user-generating

broadcasting user-generated content

I’ve been pointed in the direction of two recent examples of the convergence of established and emergent media.  the first is UKTV G2’s Totally Viral; which each weeknight at 10.30pm showcases ‘the best of the internet’ as sourced by the editors as well as viewers.

G2_totally_viral_1

I commented in a recent post  that the BBC was making a news programme consisting entirely of articles suggested by the public, and suggested that what it was doing wasn’t as significant as the fact that it had taken a stand on how (as part of the established media) is was going to relate to the emerging user-generated world.  in creating Totally Viral, UKTV has made a similar statement.  is it TV or internet?  its both.  and better for it.

another example is from the states, where Channel 101 (based on Los Angeles) and Channel 102 (New York) play host to 5 min-long programme pilots.  each month the pilots are screened to audiences, who vote whether to renew (for another month) or cancel the shows.

Channel_102

the ones voted top form the ‘primetime’ of the schedule (which because it’s streamed online is a by-word for the best rather than a description of how it’s broadcast).

so users are generating content, which is showcased and voted on by offline audiences.  the best stand out and the rest vanish, the aim being to stay in syndication for as long as possible.  the established world connection?  Channel 101 has signed a deal with VH1 to broadcast 3 min-long clips in a broadcast show called The Department of Acceptable Media.

both great examples of how emerging media can and will complement the established broadcast worlds.  the rules of programme development and commissioning remain the same, it’s just a much more democratic way of doing it.  and given that anyone can have a go, and the fact that TV companies don’t have to invest in programme development, get ready for the dozens of examples that will no doubt make it into commercial production and onto broadcast TV.

as a final thought – it will be interesting to see if advertisers attempt to use these examples to cost-effectively develop their own content.  I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t.  although how non-commercial user-generators will take to competing against commercial producers remains to be seen…  advertisers will have to be transparent in their ownership of content, and that may compromise the point of them doing it in the first place.

that said, some of the best bits of content showcased on Totally Viral are commercially produced.  the only rule; good content is good content, and in the new world no ones even sees – let alone remembers – the bad stuff.

Standard
broadcasting, converging, user-generating

What is TV?

Tv_1a colleague last night took part in a panel at the Branded Content Marketing Association’s annual networking party.  the question to be addressed is a straightforward one.

what is TV?

it’s a simple question with a less than straightforward answer; TV is about aggregation of content.  it is the act of aggregating content that I think turns what would otherwise be a collection of stuff into TV.

the recent turmoil in the UK TV industry has largely come about because of two fundamental shifts in aggregation …which used to be a monopoly; first with the BBC and ITV, and then with Channel4 and five, there existed a limited group of aggregators that determined what content was commissioned and bought, and aggregated into TV.  this monopoly of aggregation remained unbroken and profitable until a few years ago, at which point the monopoly was broken on two fronts.

first, the monopoly was broken by the evolution from a few into many more commercial aggregators.  the rise of digital television started as far back as the early days of BSB in the early nineties, but the pace of this evolution increased with increased consumer adoption of digital satellite and latterly Freeview.  there are now over 400 commercial aggregators broadcasting in the UK, some of them directly from brands (for example the Audi Channel).  that’s a lot of fragmentation, a lot of content spread very thinly (hence the necessary rise of the strong niche channel brand) and a lot of impacts being fought over.

but it’s the second break of the monopoly that has caused most discussion of late; and far from being an evolution within the industry its a people’s revolution.  the aggregation of TV requires content and distribution.  technology has allowed citizens to produce the former, and the internet has allowed them to do the latter.  we are all – should we wish to be – content aggregators.  we are all budding broadcasters.  and a generation is learning to watch TV aggregated by commercial entities as well as fellow citizens.

what is TV?

TV is the act of consuming aggregated audio-visual content

this is important.  because if we run with this definition – and I do – it means that watching YouTube is television.  it means the monopoly is broken forever.  it means that there are hundreds of thousands of aggregators.  it means every one of us can start broadcasting right now.  and I find that a very exciting prospect indeed.

Standard
internet

Google disappearing acts

Google_logomy colleague is in this band called gamages model train club, and despite the interesting name, he thought – when forming the band – it best to check if there wasn’t already a band with that name.  all well and good.

so where did he turn?  what database or listing did he use?  neither.  he used Google.  he Google’d the name and nothing came up.  so he proceeded confidently in the knowledge that it was very unlikely indeed that there would be two Gamages Model Train Clubs ever playing the same bill.

the fact is that there could be a band out there called the Gamages Model Train Club.  but they’re not on the internet and – more importantly – Google can’t find them.  so to all intents and purposes they don’t exist.  Google has disappeared them!

Standard