Happy 233rd

[Posted by David Card]

follow me at davidcard

This year’s patriotic plug. Since I haven’t read anything appropriate recently, it’s an oldie but goodie. Even if Abe was no Virginian.

Happy Fourth. Throw another burger on the grill for me.

Media Meltdown Theme Song

[Posted by David Card]

follow me at davidcard

Good fun. Credit where it's due: found the link on Gawker/Valleywag here.

P&G saves babies and learns first hand about Social Media

I'm in Geneva at Procter & Gamble's European Digital Night.  We're raising money for UNICEF using all the digital and social media, friends, families and connections possible.  A fantastic way to understand the power of digital...in real time and in real life. 

Hence this post.  Competition is fierce and my team really wants to win.  It's all for a bit of fun and great cause:  Tetanus vaccinations.  Every 3 minutes, a newborn dies from tetanus, a sad fact that's completely avoidable.  Each of the four teams is trying to raise £25K in three hours to save tens of thousands of children. 

Apparently the donation site is a bit jammed - too many donations.  But don't let that stop you.  Support digital, support UNICEF.  Please donate!

www.justgiving.com/pampersnewbaby

Thanks and I'll let you know how it all turns out.

Who Will Do Multi-Media Media?

[Posted by David Card]

follow me at davidcard

I was pretty skeptical about Google's efforts to sell radio ads, back in the day. Here is the Wall Street Journal's story of its trials and tribulations. Does anyone else find it problematic that the big players in online ads -- Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and what's left of AOL -- are each pure-plays, with no traditional media business? (I'm not giving credit to Time Warner for synergy any more.) If all media is multi-media, and someone has to deliver cross-media audiences for integrated marketing, where does this leave them? Betting on mobile?

Media Meltdown: The Death of Networks?

[Posted by David Card]

follow me at davidcard

After my panel on The Future of Media at last week's Marketing Forum (coverage from colleague Jeremiah Owyang here, and more from David Berkowitz here), my ultimate boss, Forrester CEO George Colony came up and said, "Good work, but you missed the most important thing. There won't be any TV networks in the future." Eh, I beg to differ. So file this response under "career-limiting moves, number XXXIII."

Here's what a TV network does:

• Fund a portfolio of shows
• Program and cross-promote them
• Sell the shows' audiences to advertisers

For distribution, cable nets collect fees from carriers (or pay them if they're start-ups), while the broadcasters still own  some local stations, and pay other affiliates to carry their shows. In an increasingly on-demand, multimedia, Omnivideo world, the first three bullets remain critical -- and best handled by a company that looks a lot like a TV network. It's distribution that gets disrupted.

I don't buy that every man is his own programmer or that all viewing will be consumer-paid. I don't see enough scalar economies for smallish studios on their own. Hits will still matter, and they'll carry most portfolios, just as always. Hulu and YouTube feel like hybrids between carriers and networks, and their strengths right now are in distribution, with some cross-promotion thrown in. Apple's a retailer, at least for the moment.

In a conversation with MTV Networks creative exec Kenny Miller, he said that in the brave new world, networks would have to re-invent "lead-in," which today is their primary linear promotion tactic. Miller figures 21st Century lead-in comprises search, social elements, and recommendations. I think he's on to something.

Some relevant Forrester reports for clients behind the paywall:

Omnivideo
The Internet TV Value Chain
Preparing for the Online TV Backlash
Modern Media Mix Planning

Media Meltdown: Online CPMs to Zero?

[Posted by David Card]

follow me at davidcard

Last week at the Marketing Forum, Forrester COO Charles Rutstein challenged a couple of us media & marketing analysts to answer the question, What happens when online CPMs get so close to zero that they make ad-supported businesses unsustainable? He drew scary charts on a napkin.

It's true that online media has been nearly overwhelmed by an onslaught of inventory -- there's something like 80% more online ad space, a lot of it from social media, than there was a couple years ago. CPM-CPC "arbitrage" is being squeezed. (It's harder for a branded online media company to sell impression-based inventory to a network who targets it and resells it on a click-through basis.) Prices are being forced down across the board.

This is not all good news for marketers. If brand-name media companies can't make it online, it'll be pretty tough to do brand-oriented marketing, and difficult to construct integrated cross-media campaigns. Targeted remnant inventory can't do everything.

But for all the macroeconomic forces of "infinite inventory," some ad space -- and some audiences -- are worth way more than others. Cut clutter, experiment with new formats, and know your audience really, really well, is the easy advice for online publishers. Build out a marketing platform that's flexible in terms of targeting and in incorporating data from many sources. Encourage comparison. Add other sites' inventory to your own. Pit your salesforce against multiple ad networks to see who can best monetize some sections of your site (but hold back the best stuff.) Engage marketers and agencies deeply (even while you're trying to steal some agency functions.)

How can online publishers work with marketers to create win-win solutions? Let me know your thoughts.

Meanwhile, here are some relevant Forrester reports available to clients:

Six Ways Publishers Can Boost CPMs
Advertiser Hot Buttons
What Agencies Want from Online Media

What Does the Media Meltdown Mean for Marketers?

[Posted by David Card]

follow me at davidcard

The Advertising Age headline reads “Future May Be Brighter, but It’s Apocalypse Now.”

 

CBS, the number one TV network, saw its ad revenues decline 13% in 2008, and that was before the recession really took hold. CBS’s radio business was down 12%. The former home of “must-see TV,” NBC had two shows in the top 20 for the week of March 30, and they were both ER. Unfortunately they were the series finale and a retrospective. NBC will be replacing its 10PM line-up with a Jay Leno strip because it’s cheaper than producing dramas and sitcoms.

 

It’s one thing when the Rocky Mountain News stops printing. But the venerable New York Times might have trouble making its debt payments, and is threatening to shut down the Boston Globe if its unions don’t cave. Meanwhile, Oxbridge Communications’ Mediafinder says that 335 magazines launched in North America in 2008. But 525 folded.

 

The most recent Forrester advertising forecast is the Jupiter model from December (we're updating it as I type). We were projecting negative five-year growth for US “off-line” -- i.e., not online or digital -- advertising as a whole. The total spending on print and radio will be down double digits in 2013 versus 2008. TV will be down double digits this year, but will eventually start to grow again, probably in 2011.

 

Clearly, ad-based media companies are scrambling.

 

But what does this mean for marketers?

 

• Hits still matter. Sure, media’s fragmenting, but the Super Bowl and Amercan Idol still pack ‘em in. They’re not cheap to produce, or to buy. Joint sponsorships, crafted early in programming development, will gain traction.

 

• All media is multi-media. Audiences are demanding their content on whatever screen they want. Some media brands have good multichannel stories (ESPN, CNN, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, the Wall Street Journal). But online is dominated by pure-plays like Google and Yahoo, who don’t have cross-media capability.

 

• Integration might get harder. So if you want to do cross-media integrated campaigns, you’ll have to pick your partners well. Otherwise it’s up to media buying agencies that generally lack creative thinking about engagement, or online ad networks powered by robots. That’s fine for direct marketing, but how do you do engaging branding?

 

• Social is the biggest thing in media. And no one really knows how to do it yet. How can media companies harness their fans’ creativity, use them for promotion, for distribution? There are early examples of fun “meta media” -- media about media, like Television without Pity, TV.com, Rotten Tomatoes, and, yes, reviews on Amazon and Netflix.

 

• Dis-intermediation seems unlikely. Agency “studios” have pretty much flopped. Creating great content is an art and a science, and I remain skeptical that popular entertainment and information media can be created in-house. And even then, it still needs a distribution channel. The current media industry value chain may have some loose links, but it doesn’t feel like it’s ready to be replaced completely.

 

• Branded entertainment is a must. Which brings us back to deep partnerships and co-sponsored content. In order to create win-win-win content  -- good for marketers, good for programmers, good for audiences -- it feels like marketers and media companies have to get together sooner in the process. Not every network can be HGTV or the Food Channel, where product promotion and placement is a natural. It’s going to take more than getting Jack Bauer to use a Sprint phone and a Cisco router.

 

I’d like to hear what you think. Stay tuned: I’m working on a series of reports on how marketers should handle the media meltdown. And check out my “Future of Media” panel at Forrester’s Marketing Forum in Orlando this week.

See you in Orlando: Forrester's Upcoming Marketing Forum, April 23-24, 2009

[Posted by Jeremiah K. Owyang]

The Forrester team is gearing up for yet another great Marketing Forum, this time, in Orlando, Florida. We've carefully selected speakers to take on the hard topics of the recession, ROI, and taking risks.

We've got a strong line of speakers that include Marty St. George, SVP of Marketing for JetBlue, Greg Clayman, EVP of Digital Distribution for MTV Networks, and Annis Lyles, VP of Media and Interactive for Coca-Cola North America. Including presentations based on latest research from Shar VanBoskirk and Peter Burris.

The venue is located at the Disney's Yacht & Beach Club Resorts in Orlando, and if you can take your family, you can not just get educated and network, but enjoy some Florida sun.

To sweeten the deal even further, Forrester has cut $300 from the event price and is offering a free night at the hotel.

The night before the official event, we'll be assembling some of the local social media practitioners at a Tweetup on the night of the 22nd, where you can come and learn, network, and meet with online influencers.

Lessons from Loads of Hope

As regular readers of Forrester's blogs already know my colleagues Sucharita Mulpuru, Shar VanBoskirk and I (Lisa Bradner) were part of last week's Digital Hack Night at Procter and Gamble. (If you missed the story can read about the event in detail at Ad Age here ). In four hours digital experts and P&G employees were divided into teams and challenged to sell as many Tide shirts as possible using their social networks and digital skills. Proceeds of the Tide shirts benefit Tide's Loads of Hope charity. The objective of the event was to give a hands-on experience for traditional brand marketers at P&G the impact of social media. While debate about the event has raged online we thought it worthwhile to step back and take a look at the longer term lessons we observed from this event. These lessons aren't P&G specific-they're food for thought for every marketer trying to get smart in social media. So, what did we observe? For starters:

• Cause matters. Each attendee at the event was asked to tap their personal network to ask friends, colleagues and family to purchase on behalf of charity. That we were all so comfortable doing so speaks to the trust we had in the integrity of the P&G team and the value we saw in their charitable cause. Most of us, I think, would have hesitated to ask those same people in our networks to go out and buy something not related to charitable giving.

What it means for marketers: Marketers looking to access people's personal social networks must think long and hard about what they're asking those networks to do and whether the influencers have social currency they can provide ( a great cause, a great deal, or insider knowledge). Without that your effort is likely to feel like shilling and get very little pick up.

• Personal networks trump paid placements. Over and over again we saw that the highest responses and conversion percentages came from people's personal networks not from online ads. Exceedingly well connected bloggers like David Armano and Jory DesJardin tapped a deep well of good will and social currency to move Tide's message forward. What it means for marketers: cultivating deep relationships with key influencers will reap greater rewards than spray and pray. Don't simply put out a message hoping it will get pick up: identify the key players in your market place and the value your product or service brings to their readers.. Think about what you can bring to those connected people-advance access to new products, engaging them in a customer advisory capacity, etc. Can't identify your value-add? You're probably not going to get very far.
• Social media is a full time commitment. Across the teams those who were able to generate the greatest number of sales were full time bloggers (or at least full time social media gurus). Even among the so called digerati those of us for whom social isn't our sole focus were left in the dust by those who do it for a living. What it means for marketers: don't think you're going to make an impact asking your current digital marketing manager to add Twittering and blogging to their current job description. Figure out what your role should be in the social media space and staff with people knowledgeable and connected who thrive on contributing to and participating in that space. Social media isn't something you turn on and off for a campaign; it's something you live and breathe every day.
• Suspicion runs rampant. No sooner had the project begun than the comments started coming back: who is this for, whom does it benefit, why should I give, how do I know this is legitimate? Fortunately Tide had provided teams with information, images and a website with full program details. Even so, most people needed a lot of proof points before they would embrace talking about the program. What it means for marketers: Anyone who thinks corporate America is welcome at the social party hasn't been paying a lot of attention. Corporate messages and their bearers are viewed with suspicion and in some cases, derision. Overcoming it takes patience, information and most importantly truly good intentions at the root of your efforts.
• You can't please all the people all the time. No matter what some people seem to believe that most corporate efforts spring from bad intent. Some people were angered there were no plus sized t shirts, some were outraged that P&G was involved at all wondering why they didn't just send their money to a charity. Most of these concerns were mitigated with a healthy discussion and an honest mea culpa when appropriate (the T shirt size issue was, admittedly, an oversight but certainly not a slight) but some of them spring from the conflict that comes from companies who need to sell goods and services entering a space that has been largely non-commercial. What it means for marketers. Take time to plan for worst case scenarios: how could your intentions be misconstrued and how and when do you respond? Accept that you will never be welcomed by all but with a good faith effort, honesty, transparency and a long term commitment you can at least get a chance to tell your side of the story.

_________________________________________

Who Really Is Watching the Watchmen?

[Posted by David Card]

follow me at davidcard

Nielsen buzz monitor Pete Blackshaw's column in AdAge suggests the future of marketing is marketing to marketers. He uses Twitter as the prime example. I'm skeptical. A lot of Blackshaw's argument rests on the online social talking-to-each-other and linking dynamic that results in boosted organic search rankings. He calls colleague Jeremiah Owyang a de facto media channel with "buzz reach that would make most media planners salivate." But he also notes that "we end up interpreting the very buzz we created or fueled ourselves." Amen.

I worry that too much of this buzz is from critics, rather than audiences. Even if it's from fans, it's often from the fanatical, not the mainstream. I was talking to Fox Broadcasting's head of research the other day, and she warned against this kind of thing. Take multiple inputs, she advises, and watch the real ratings. There's conflicting evidence about whether critical response has anything to do with popularity. See Slate have it both ways.

Colleague Josh Bernoff calls Twitter a five-tool player for social marketing objectives. Forrester report on how to use Twitter properly.