Old Media Scare Tactic… About New Media

This week’s issue of U.S. News and World Report features a blurb about the future of political communications.  It reads:

Political Ads: From Bad to Worse

Sorry if you hated all those candidate calls at dinnertime during the last two weeks of the midterm elections, but it’s only going to get worse in 2008. Both parties plan to invade your computer with instant messages and pop-up ads, and your cellphone and BlackBerry will get zapped with text advertisements. But there is good news. They plan to cut back on TV advertising because it just isn’t as effective as the Internet.

I don’t disagree with the facts — political campaigns will absolutely adapt to meet the changing communications needs of the audicence.  I do, however, take issue with the presentation.  The tone of this little blurb is a sad example of how old media — the stodgy magazine writer in this case – has to scare traditional political folks into believing that more focused, more personalized communications is somehow bad. Campaigns will not recklessly send text messages or use pop-ups (nobody uses pop-ups anymore!  c’mon!) to reach voters. 

Puhlease. 

Candidates Click Into Interactive Tactics

My CEO, Dan Solomon, has an op-ed in today’s Media Daily News.  It begins:

SINCE THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, we have seen a seismic shift in the online world–a transition that took political campaigns and advocacy organizations from a dependence on text-heavy, “static” Web sites and vaulted them into the dynamic world of blogs and vlogs, RSS feeds and news aggregators, social networks, video and photo-sharing, mashups and video e-mail.

Political campaigns, both issue- and candidate-based, are experimenting with the new interactive tools, and trying to figure out how to turn clicks into loyal followers and convert energy into action. Not every technology that is available to candidates is a good fit–and campaigns and other issue-oriented groups traditionally trail the consumer marketing world when it comes to trying new things. But, with the communications landscape changing and audience expectations rising, the need to adapt is clear.

Four of these new technologies seem to hold the greatest promise and deserve a closer look for those wishing to have their message in the mainstream–or even a small rivulet of community thought: social networks, video, mobile and mapping.

Read the whole essay…

From Lima With Love…

Thomas Friedman penned part of his column [Dateline: Lima, Peru] about the benefits of being disconnected.  I thought I would excerpt a good portion of it here:

As for the Internet in the rain forest, my point is this: There is none. Yes, I had to go to the Tambopata Research Center, deep in the Peruvian Amazon, to find it, but I can report there is still a place with no Internet or cellphone service. Of course, there are still many such places, but the fact that people could use their cellphones from atop the sacred Incan ruin of Machu Picchu, in the Andes, reminds one that there are fewer and fewer every day.

I have to say, as a wired junkie myself, there was something cleansing about spending four days totally disconnected. It was the best antidote to the disease of our age, what the former Microsoft executive Linda Stone aptly labeled “continuous partial attention.”

Continuous partial attention is when you are on the Internet or cellphone or BlackBerry while also watching TV, typing on your computer and answering a question from your kid. That is, you are multitasking your way through the day, continuously devoting only partial attention to each act or person you encounter.

It is the malady of modernity. We have gone from the Iron Age to the Industrial Age to the Information Age to the Age of Interruption.

All we do now is interrupt each other or ourselves with instant messages, e-mail, spam or cellphone rings. Who can think or write or innovate under such conditions? One wonders whether the Age of Interruption will lead to a decline in civilization — as ideas and attention spans shrink and we all get diagnosed with some version of Attention Deficit Disorder.

I know that connectivity means productivity. But it is possible to overdose. There is such a thing as “too connected,” and modern society is heading in that direction, as more people at more income levels get wired. Everyone we met in Peru had a cellphone, since Peru, like so many developing countries, is going straight from no phones to cellphones, skipping over land lines.

It means everyone is always “in.” You’re never “out.” Out is over. Maybe soon we’ll have to artificially recreate “out.” Maybe soon we’ll see an ad for a Four Seasons resort that says, “We guarantee that every room comes without Internet service.”

What struck me about our Peruvian rain forest guide, Gilbert, though, was that he carried no devices and did not suffer from continuous partial attention. Just the opposite. He heard every chirp, whistle, howl or crackle in the rain forest and would stop us in our tracks and immediately identify what bird, insect or animal it was. He also had incredible vision and never missed a spider’s web, or a butterfly, or a toucan, or a column of marching termites.

He was totally disconnected from the Web, but totally in touch with the incredible web of life around him. I wonder if there’s a lesson there.

I wonder too, Tom. 

Quitting Politics by Text Message

[Via PoliticalWire]

“When Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jose Ramos-Horta resigned from his East Timor government posts, he did so via a mobile-phone text message,” Reuters reports. Ramos-Horta sent an SMS message to the prime minister “announcing his intention to quit on Sunday, and received a reply in the same format from the premier.”

“The country has been embroiled for months in a political crisis, and text messaging has emerged as the fastest and most reliable means of communication.”

What Do You Want On Your Mobile Phone?

A New York Times article this past Sunday profiled a company, Virtual Chocolate, that is developing games and applications specifically for mobile phones.  Deep down in the article was this interesting nugget:

AT the media company that is arguably embracing the mobile world most aggressively — ESPN — there appears to be no limit to the amount of personalized information that consumers demand. It has made a big bet on Mobile ESPN, deciding to sell a special phone under its own brand name and to handle all the customer support.

For monthly fees ranging from $39.99 to $199.99, subscribers can get game updates, breaking news and other material. To watch video and to get news alerts, they have to pay an additional $24.99 a month.

Even though the editors and product managers understood that the first buyers for this phone would be die-hard sports fans, “I don’t think we realized how voracious sports fans are,” especially those in fantasy sports leagues, said J. Kieren Portley, product realization manager for Mobile ESPN.

As Mr. Portley, the Mobile ESPN editor Anthony Mormile and others adapt material to the phone, they have learned some tricks of the trade. Wide-angle shots are to be avoided, while slow-motion clips are to be welcomed. The sweet spot for video clips appears to be between 45 and 75 seconds. Short clips of confrontational conversations, like the big finish on the talk show “Pardon the Interruption,” are popular, and the network’s hosts and guests can satiate users’ hunger by providing punchy, informal commentary that they do not have time to deliver on the air.

ESPN has more content avaialble to it than almost any entertainment or news property out there.  But the lessons they have learned can be applied to anyone who is looking to program content for mobile phones.  Simply put, mobile is not a medium where you can simply repurpose your existing content and expect success.  But it is a medium where you can continually generate new content and push it out to your audiences. 

Read the article. 

Boston Globe: Mobile Marketing Is Here

From today’s Boston Globe:

Last year, 12 percent of major US brands did some form of mobile marketing, and US spending on wireless marketing and ads may surge to $602.3 million in 2009, from $104.4 million last year. Why? Mobile ads work. A sweepstakes SMS code printed on McDonald’s Big Mac boxes increased sales by 3 percent. And 20 percent of cellphone users say they might be induced to receive promotions if they come with free air time, ringtones, games, or a free cellphone. Look for advertisers to try all kinds of ways to get the other 80 percent to convert.

iMedia Panel: Mobile Case Studies

Mike Baker, the President and CEO, EnPocket, presented some new information about mobile.  Here are my notes:

- Mobile phone ranks second in importance, only TV beats it out.  Among young people, mobile ranks second to internet.  Awareness, Purchase intent and engagement are all higher through mobile.   Response rates are higher also (online banner - .25% vs mobile marketing - 6.5%)

- Mobile provides a lower cost of delivery, no print or postage costs, immediate fulfillment, etc. - that makes it the future of advertising.
There are three mobile formats to consider:

- Text messaging: Options include text to win, polling, mobile coupons, voting, alerts, and trivia.  About 40% of people who have mobile phones have sent a text message in the last 30 days.  For 18-34 year olds, the number is closer to two thirds.  20-30% of people have sent a mobile picture in the last 30 days (over 30% among young people).  15% have use mobile internet in the last 30 days (25% among young people).  Untargeted response rates: 1-5%.  Targetered response rate: 30-35%

- Mobile Internet Ads: Options include Store locator, text links, click to buy, click to sms, sponsored content, click to call. Untargeted click through: 1-6%.  Targeted click through: 10-24%

- Multimedia Messaging (MMS): Options include: Audio, Rich Graphics, Video, Reply to Buy, Click to mobile internet, slideshow style.  This is a native mobile ad unit - requires you to attract/grab attention in 15 seconds.  Hard to do, but if you can, this is very effective.  Example: sending movie trailer, combined with theater locator, coupons, etc.  Untargeted advertising response: 1-5%.  Targeted advertising response: 20-50%

iMedia Panel: Myth vs. Reality: What’s Real and Actionable?

The main panel this morning was titled: Myth vs. Reality: What’s Real and Actionable?  Here are my notes:

Moderator: Doug Weaver, Upstream Group
Participants: Kate Everett Thorpe - Venture Partner at Walden VC, David Adelman - Media Director in Johnson & Johnson, Adam Gerber - VP of Ad Products and Strategy, BrightCove

Doug: There is no problem spotting breakthroughs, there are breakthroughs all the time. The challenge is figuring out which ones are important and where they will go.

Four things we will talk about:

Alternate delivery of video to the home
Small screen applications (iPods, etc.)
Mobile
Gaming

Three Questions:

1) How big is it?  Are consumers really using this application?
2) How important is it?  Is it something that is going to help us deliver marketing value?
3) How soon will it happen?  You want to be about 15 minutes ahead of the pack.

Q: What is your checklist for determining what is important?

Kate: Focus on whether users will actually use it.  Advertisers are not going to put budget, investors aren’t going to back it - unless there is distribution.  Example: The thought that nobody would watch TV on their mobile was a US-centric view, but the rest of the world was using their mobile for more than a phone for a long time.

David: Its not about technologies — or even individual technology companies.  Creative is the question, how are all the ways that it can be used.  Does it allow me to tell a great story or reach a consumer?  If yes, we can use it. If we just look at audience, or distribution, we might miss the real reason for adopting it.  We are really thinking hard about content and finding alternative ways to get it out.  Need to conceive of brand stories that can live in these spaces - short form, long form, interactive, etc.

Adam: We are moving into a fragrmented world that is multi-dimensional.  The number of channels they can enage, in different platforms, at different times.  Three basic things — simple, scalable, and solution oriented.  If I can envision an opportunity has the potential to scale, can be easily delivered and managed, and can meet a client need, then I will pursue it.

Q: What is the future of the agency?  Is there something fundamentally broken in the model that prevents an agency (or client organization) from responding?

Kate: There will be a fundamental change in the agency relationship.  Media is being focused on search model and arbitrage instead of strategic (top down/bottom up) model.  Content also.  Agencies need to be set up to create content.  You have to have one piece of content that can be altered for a variety of venues.  TV advertising in these spaces will be the lazy man’s advertising, the popup all over again.

David: Re-integration of communications strategy and creative development - its really hard to get it done with these huge agencies and separate media buying groups.  Medium size, fast moving agencies are able to move into these new spaces with a lot of fresh work.  We need to try and create structures where marketers feel comfortable taking risks - that creates some new innovations, opportunities to learn, etc.

Adam: I think Agencies are set up to success - the media services companies are far better positioned to deal with communications planning and unbiased selection of media investments.  The large creative shops are in danger of becoming dinosaurs.  They are not positioned well to succeed.  Generally their creative talent has a limited view, they approach things in a linear way - don’t understand how consumers are engaging new platforms.  Will see a lot of work moving away from large creative shops in favor of boutiques.  They will invest in analytics and data and they will become the ones that can figure out what is working and not.

Q: What is overhyped/? What phenomena that is getting too much press?

David: Video on mobile phones is a little bit of a push right now.  I think there is a lot you can do on the mobile platform, and its exciting to see video getting distributed.  But as an advertising vehicle, we still have a lot to figure out. 

Adam: Need to separate overhyped into two buckets - consumer behavior and marketing value.  Consumer generated media is overhyped with respect to its value from a marketing standpoint.  A big wake up call will be when major brands are integrated into controversial citizen generated stories.

Kate: Bright Cove! (laughter).  The hype around consumer generated media is too much, because we don’t know how to use it yet.  But the people are there, the audience is doing it, so we have to figure it out.  There have already been some disasters where people tried to fake consumer generated media.  We need to find a way to communicate with our audience through social networks and consumer generated media if that’s how they want to communicate with us.

Q: What happens when the big brands try to use these tools?

Kate: Authenticity is king.  If you are not authentic, you will be called out, ,whipped and beaten in public, and then they will hold you up as a prize.  If you allowed the audience to create a dedicated page, helped them, or made tools available to them, then you would have something good. 

Q: Alternative methods of delivering video… what’s important?

Adam: There are major issues with the ad model that are causing friction.  TV shows generate between $0.30 and $0.60 in revenue per viewer.  When distributed online, the networks are making close to $1.00.  You can’t have an ‘ad-pod’ with a 6-10 ads in it.  They might accept an ad at the beginning, or at the end, but they don’t want to be interrupted.  So the numbers don’t work.  The financial model doesn’t work.  That’s why there is friction.

David: I’m board with pre-rolls.  When you factor in that the consumer is in control, and this media can be very personal, it doesn’t work for me.  There is a lot more demand for this inventory then there is supply - which can mask a bad model.  The big question is, can brands create and own really compelling content that people want?

Kate: You are funneling more viewers off a broadcast model where they get to choose whether they see your ad or not.  The ad model has to be worked out still.  A ‘paid for by’ model could work. 

Adam: Advertisers are used to talking in big groups, with unspecific ratings data.  In the new area, engagement models are going to be the measurement. But you can’t compare these different models.  Marketers can’t figure out how to make the change.  And until they do, these different models will not evolve quickly. 

Question from the audience: What do you see as a VOD ad model? 

Adam: There are marketers who have content, interesting content, that they can deliver direct to consumers — auto, travel, movie, music.  Build a virtual channel and build access direct to consumer for marketers.  Model for VOD will be more about invitation that gets them hooked and telescopes them into larger interaction.

Question from the audience:  Are you creating new metrics?  How are you getting people not on the bandwagon to jump on?

David: How do we justify a long engagement with a small audience?  The marketing research industry needs to step up.  We are looking for new ideas for how to measure and communicate this stuff?

Question from the audience:  What is the threshold for overall engagement?  How do you divide it up?

Adam: I think marketers need to do a much better job setting their communications goals and charging their agencies to execute.  They do not need to reach everyone on everything.  Understanding who the 10-15% of the consuming target it as that will truly cause an influence change, and then planning around that, are the critical inputs that your agencies should be hearing from you.  Agencies can only do as good as the input they get.

Kate: Have we ever heard the word ‘engagement’ in talking about offline/traditional media (my note: yes, in politics).  We need a reality check.

Q: Small Screen Applications.  How important?

Kate: How many people have ipods?  How many are accessing video?  That’s when it gets exciting.  People are getting mugged in New York for their iPods - there is obviously something there.  But not all VOD is created equal - Tivo and iPod video are totally different.

Q: Gaming.  Worth the hype?

Adam: Its something a lot of people do so it’s a huge opportunity.  The challenge is understanding how you use gaming.  But all ‘gaming’ is not the same.  Just as mobile is three or four different things and you have to understand the differences.  Console based, network based, mobile platform — the ad opportunities and engagement opportunities are different through each of those platforms.  Simply sticking branded icons or other simplistic messaging units won’t do much.  Does it actually engage the consumer or drive intent? 

Kate: The development cycles for games are very slow.

[The panel ended, somewhat abruptly, when the fire alarm went off. No, I’m not kidding.]

iMedia Keynote: Why Breakthrough?

Rick Parkhill, CEO of iMedia Communications gave the morning keynote.  Here are my notes:

- Why is this conference called Breakthrough?  These technologies aren’t new, they have already emerged - so calling this an ‘emerging technologies’ conference or ‘new media’ event wouldn’t make sense. But, there are so many breakthroughs happening — technology, consumer acceptance, content companies embracing these new things. 

- What is changing?  78% of marketers (surveyed by ANA/Forrester) said TV advertising has become less effective in the past two years.  Almost 70% of advertisers think DVRs and Video on Demoand (VOD) will reduce or destroy the effectiveness of traditional 30-second commercials. When DVRs spread to 30 million homes, 60% of advertisers say that they will spend less on conventional TV advertising.

Fun with numbers (i.e. predictions):

- TV: TV ad spending will decline 5-10% next year.  If TV advertising represents a $75 billion market this year (according to Robert Coen, Universal McCann) - there will be $7.5 billion from TV going into interactive.

- Games: Over 70% of 18-34 males are gamers.  3/4 of households own a videogame system.  Young men spend more time playing games then watching TV

- Mobile: More mobile phone subscribers in the world than landlines.  200 million subscribers in the US, over 70% penetration.

- Video: VOD, DVR, Digital TV, iPTV, Mobile Video (cell phones, iPods), Online video, outdoor or Place based video - they are all opportunities to serve video.  There is no excuse for not developing and distributing video.

iMedia Panel: Influencers in the New Digital World

John Geraci from Crux Research presented a session titled: “Influencers in the New Digital World.”  Here are my notes:

- There are lots of nicknames for this audience: Millennials, Generation Next, Dot Y, Gen Y.  They are hard to understand.  Hard to Reach.  But everyone wants them.  They are the most “Critical” Media Consumers in History (meaning they are the most important, and they hold advertisers and marketers very high standards).

- They are more influential than ever before.  Compare 1966 Teen Spending - $12 Billion (avg $4568 per year) to 2005 Teen Spending - $233 Billion (avg $10,420 per year) That’s a 2.3 x increase in spending power.  Today, 1 in 3 dollars being spent are either being spent by, or influenced by, teenagers in America.

- “The Net Generation uses digital tools to pass the time, play, learn, communicate and even think in new ways.  As a result, they develop new kinds of consumer needs, behaviors, and relationships to brands.” (Don Tapscott - Growing up Digital)

- Poll Results: More than 2/3 of teenagers distrust ad messages they see. 

- Poll Results: Teens Trust TV Ads the Most (more than radio, internet, magazines). They love the infinite nature of the internet but they don’t know what to trust.  

- Poll Results: Some Media Seem Off-Limits for Ads.  Teens say it is appropriate to advertise in magazines, radio, on the TV and the web.
- Poll Results: Teens Admit that Old Media Ads Influence Them. They buy products they see on TV, read in magazines, see in movie theaters before show starts, etc.
- Poll Results: The N-Gen is critical of Word-of-Mouth as well.  Only 36% are extremely likely to go buy something their friend suggested.  Compare that to what reception professional marketers would have.
- Poll Results: Recent digital ‘hardware’ penetration has been greatest in mobile devices.  Teens are buying cell phone with cameras (+35%), web enabled cell phones (+8%) — the ‘on the go’ devices are growing while the ’sit and watch’ devices (TV, computers, even video game consoles) are slowing.

- Fragmentation of media is real: 200+ cable tv networks, 5500 consumer magazine titles, 10,500 radio stations, 30 million + websites, 122, 000 books publicshed, 240 million televisions sets (two million TV sets in the bathroom).  But fragmentation doesn’t scare this audience.  Teenagers feel empowered by all the media - they value being in control of their media environment.

- Media use has reached a saturation point.  Almost all media use is dropping (-4%). Radio (-20%), Newspaper (-20%), TV (-7%), Magazines (-24%).  But the Internet (+63%) is growing. New media is taking time away from old media.
 
- How must marketers adapt?  In the ‘old’ Analog world, advertising and engagement was: Media bound, passive, and supportered a “sellers” market.  In today’s “new’ digital world: content is unfastened to any medium, interactive, ‘buyers’ market (producer ceding control over content to their customers).
Bold Predictions
1) Advertisers are about to show you the money - spending on new media is about to hit a tipping point.
2) Targeting will be as dominant as the message and creative
3) The Media Planner will soon becomes the Rock Star of the Agency - because targeting is why new media really works (analogy to Moneyball in baseball).
4) Don’t Discount the Importance of Research - sources of consumer information undercount young audiences; if you can’t count the audience, marketing dollars won’t flow to the medium.