A well known German philosopher was Arthur Schopenhauer. He lived from 1788-1860. Reading him is difficult as I found some of his theories loopy or impossible to penetrate. He was also deep into pessimism which flies in the face of my natural upbeat sense of life. Today, he is probably best known for contributions to psychology and even the arts rather than for his philosophical ramblings.
I can best describe my feelings toward him by stealing William F. Buckley's description of someone else--he was "a huge collection of valuable stones, irregularly set, perhaps; eccentrically cut, yes; but giving out shafts of brilliant light."
The most brilliant quotation from Schopenhauer in my mind is as follows:
"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is vehemently denied.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident"
Does the above remind you of something?
Nothing so succinctly sums up what is happening in the communications business today as Schopenhauer's quotation. The majority of people whom I speak with and correspond with regularly are still largely in denial about what is very definitely taking place.
Not long ago, I spoke to a TV station sales team about the impact that Local People Meters (LPM) would have in their market when they came on stream in the intermediate future. The group was attentive, the questions were really good, and I felt a real sense of accomplishment. As I closed, the sales manager stood up and said (I paraphrase) : "We appreciate Don's insights on the future impact of LPM. But, remember, we are a unique station and while others in the market will be affected, our news will be stronger than ever and we will continue to be #1 across the board." This brought some smiles, a few claps, and visible relief especially among some of the younger sales people. The general manager, who sat in, thanked me and then asked if he could drive me to the airport. I was flattered and immediately said yes.
Once we were alone in the car, the G.M. exploded. "Bob is a terrific sales guy but he thinks it is 1980. I brought you in to wake the team up and you did a fine job. But, he refuses to leave his carefully guarded sandbox and accept the inevitable."
We all know lots of people like Bob (not his real name). They find it impossible to admit what is going on. I fully realize that it necessary to sell your product with enthusiasm and act as if nothing else can compare to it. But, increasingly, self delusion seems to be gaining ground in the communications community.
The simple truth is that the advertising model and advertising agency model is broken. And, our Humpty Dumpty world will not be pieced together again after this terrible economic climate clears. Yes, money continues to pour into national network television. Why? People do not know where else to put it. But, that cannot last much longer unless if can be proven to pay for itself. The consumer is moving toward total control and they are never, repeat never going back to passive viewing or invasive entry of conventional advertising. The smart players are forming all kinds of alliances and are trying to find new ways to reach people and to be compensated fairly for it. Many will succeed and survive and prosper. Many others, sadly, will not.
The worst thing one can do is to draw the wagons in a circle at a time such as this. I fully realize that it is human nature. But, this time it really is different. I repeat what I said in the first post for Media Realism back in early January. The only people who seem to recognize and accept what is going on are the 58-62 year olds, mostly well heeled, who will speak candidly about the changes and not fear them. Yes, their economic security insulates them from fear. But, generally, in most dynamic change, it is the old folks who wish to maintain the status quo. That is not at all the case these days.
My advice if you are young is simply stay current and keep an open mind. I have learned in life that when a door closes, several others open. It is normal to be uncomfortable with rapid change, but do not let it paralyze you. Work in your sandbox, and sell your product or service with gusto. But do not ever for a second think that the clock will roll back five or more years. It is not going to happen.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Jennifer Aniston is 40!
Those of you who know me or have become frequent readers of Media Realism might be more than a little surprised by my People Magazine style title for today's post. Well, today's topic is demographics and the working title for this post was initially "Demographics are Destiny." When not even my panel members responded in their usual 90% mode, I knew I might lose a thousand readers or more before they even began the article.
So bear with me for a couple of minutes. The lovely Ms. Aniston is germane to our topic today.
The issue at hand is that the Western world plus Japan is getting older; in some cases, significantly older and quite rapidly. The average age of the Germans, Japanese, and Italians is well into the '40's. Late in 2009, the British, French and Canadians will join them. In fact, the median age of Western Europeans is rising two days per week according to UN estimates. Today, in Western Europe, there are 3.8 people working for every pensioner. In 20 years, it will 2.4 workers who will support every greybeard.
The US remains relatively young at 36.4 largely due to the consistent influx of young immigrants from Mexico.
Okay, just a few more statistics. Birthrates are plummeting. According to population experts you need 2.1 children per family to sustain ZPG (Zero Population Growth). In the West, even ZPG is becoming a memory. Italy, Greece, and Spain are at about 1.3, Germany 1.4, and Scandanavia 1.7 to 1.85 depending on country. Taiwan is down to 1.13 and Hong Kong 1.0.
Does this matter to marketers? It should. Investment analyst Harry Dent who uses demographics to track investment trends put it this way: " Declining population is disastrous for a country, as innovation declines well before economic trends--and you just can't have an economy where most people are in a nursing home! Yet aging trends are difficult to reverse, as an aging population tends to be more adverse to change and is increasingly less able to have children."
Right now, the U.S. is right on the bubble with a birthrate of 2.1. This is due to our culture which in recent decades supports working women. Also, the high immigration of persons from Mexico and South America includes people who tend to have far higher birthrates on average than of couples born in the U.S.
So, for the short term, our population will grow modestly. But looking ahead a bit, things could get difficult in many ways.
We need to keep an eye on this aging trend for marketing, societal, even political reasons. The place that I will monitor closely in the years to come is Italy. Many of us know or grew up around large boisterous Italian families that added much laughter and love to our lives. Well, in Italy, they are no more. The average Italian male marries in his 30's and has one child. Social theorists say they stop at one because they marry late, want a better life economically, and Italian men (like Americans) tend not to help out much around the house. As a result,the women do not want other kids. In contast, in Norway where 75% of the women work, men help out a great deal and they have the highest birthrates in Europe!
Also, some 31% of Italy's budget goes to their form of Social Security. As fewer people contribute to the old age pool, something has to give. Either benefits will get cut or taxes will soar. We will likely face that same issue around 2016-2018 given our current spending deficits when some hard choices will be made regardless of which party is in power. Taxes for the affluent will almost surely rise. It is a demographic certainty. Long term, it may be a good thing to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent but the debate will be loud and ugly.
Harry Dent, the demographically driven financial analyst defends his service by saying the "we can forecast the general direction and magnitude of major economic moves by tracking highly predictable demographic and consumer spending habits."
So, where does that leave all of us in advertising and marketing or media sales?
We see a couple of trends emerging. Despite the inevitable aging of the US population and other Western nations, media changes will continue to accelerate. I cannot tell you how many friends and acquaintances in their 50's and 60's brag to me that they rarely see or hear commercials now that they have a DVR or satellite radio. And, we over 45 types tend to be the ones with the serious money that many marketers want to reach. (Sorry, kids)
As baby boomers (born 1946-64) retire in big numbers, they will likely put even more stress on securities and real estate markets as they cash in savings to live on in their golden years.
This would appear to set the stage for a trend that we have mentioned recently in Media Realism. Established brands will do very well relative to MOST upstarts. It will be very hard to reach these oldsters with their wads of cash as their children will have taught them how to control their media environment quite well and avoid most commercial interruptions.
Line extensions of the firmly entrenched will likely be the big hits in food, cleaning products, and over the counter medicines. Luxury items may suffer given increased tax rates and I would not want to own a McMansion 7-10 years from now. Even when real estate bounces back, they could be white elephants given the demographic tidal wave headed our way.
Perhaps someone can make a breakthrough with social media among the mature that could provide new ways of reaching them and introducing them to a vast array of new products. Right now, however, that looks like a very tricky problem for even the most resourceful new media innovators.
So, be nice to young adults. Going forward, they will be paying for part of your retirement and a large part of your health care. If you are a nice old man or woman maybe they will not resent their higher taxes as much as you might think.
By the way, Jennifer Aniston is not the only hot babe to turn 40 this year. She is joined by such luminaries as Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jennifer Lopez, and Renee Zellwegger.
Forty really is the new 30!
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
So bear with me for a couple of minutes. The lovely Ms. Aniston is germane to our topic today.
The issue at hand is that the Western world plus Japan is getting older; in some cases, significantly older and quite rapidly. The average age of the Germans, Japanese, and Italians is well into the '40's. Late in 2009, the British, French and Canadians will join them. In fact, the median age of Western Europeans is rising two days per week according to UN estimates. Today, in Western Europe, there are 3.8 people working for every pensioner. In 20 years, it will 2.4 workers who will support every greybeard.
The US remains relatively young at 36.4 largely due to the consistent influx of young immigrants from Mexico.
Okay, just a few more statistics. Birthrates are plummeting. According to population experts you need 2.1 children per family to sustain ZPG (Zero Population Growth). In the West, even ZPG is becoming a memory. Italy, Greece, and Spain are at about 1.3, Germany 1.4, and Scandanavia 1.7 to 1.85 depending on country. Taiwan is down to 1.13 and Hong Kong 1.0.
Does this matter to marketers? It should. Investment analyst Harry Dent who uses demographics to track investment trends put it this way: " Declining population is disastrous for a country, as innovation declines well before economic trends--and you just can't have an economy where most people are in a nursing home! Yet aging trends are difficult to reverse, as an aging population tends to be more adverse to change and is increasingly less able to have children."
Right now, the U.S. is right on the bubble with a birthrate of 2.1. This is due to our culture which in recent decades supports working women. Also, the high immigration of persons from Mexico and South America includes people who tend to have far higher birthrates on average than of couples born in the U.S.
So, for the short term, our population will grow modestly. But looking ahead a bit, things could get difficult in many ways.
We need to keep an eye on this aging trend for marketing, societal, even political reasons. The place that I will monitor closely in the years to come is Italy. Many of us know or grew up around large boisterous Italian families that added much laughter and love to our lives. Well, in Italy, they are no more. The average Italian male marries in his 30's and has one child. Social theorists say they stop at one because they marry late, want a better life economically, and Italian men (like Americans) tend not to help out much around the house. As a result,the women do not want other kids. In contast, in Norway where 75% of the women work, men help out a great deal and they have the highest birthrates in Europe!
Also, some 31% of Italy's budget goes to their form of Social Security. As fewer people contribute to the old age pool, something has to give. Either benefits will get cut or taxes will soar. We will likely face that same issue around 2016-2018 given our current spending deficits when some hard choices will be made regardless of which party is in power. Taxes for the affluent will almost surely rise. It is a demographic certainty. Long term, it may be a good thing to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent but the debate will be loud and ugly.
Harry Dent, the demographically driven financial analyst defends his service by saying the "we can forecast the general direction and magnitude of major economic moves by tracking highly predictable demographic and consumer spending habits."
So, where does that leave all of us in advertising and marketing or media sales?
We see a couple of trends emerging. Despite the inevitable aging of the US population and other Western nations, media changes will continue to accelerate. I cannot tell you how many friends and acquaintances in their 50's and 60's brag to me that they rarely see or hear commercials now that they have a DVR or satellite radio. And, we over 45 types tend to be the ones with the serious money that many marketers want to reach. (Sorry, kids)
As baby boomers (born 1946-64) retire in big numbers, they will likely put even more stress on securities and real estate markets as they cash in savings to live on in their golden years.
This would appear to set the stage for a trend that we have mentioned recently in Media Realism. Established brands will do very well relative to MOST upstarts. It will be very hard to reach these oldsters with their wads of cash as their children will have taught them how to control their media environment quite well and avoid most commercial interruptions.
Line extensions of the firmly entrenched will likely be the big hits in food, cleaning products, and over the counter medicines. Luxury items may suffer given increased tax rates and I would not want to own a McMansion 7-10 years from now. Even when real estate bounces back, they could be white elephants given the demographic tidal wave headed our way.
Perhaps someone can make a breakthrough with social media among the mature that could provide new ways of reaching them and introducing them to a vast array of new products. Right now, however, that looks like a very tricky problem for even the most resourceful new media innovators.
So, be nice to young adults. Going forward, they will be paying for part of your retirement and a large part of your health care. If you are a nice old man or woman maybe they will not resent their higher taxes as much as you might think.
By the way, Jennifer Aniston is not the only hot babe to turn 40 this year. She is joined by such luminaries as Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jennifer Lopez, and Renee Zellwegger.
Forty really is the new 30!
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Friday, April 17, 2009
God is on whose side?
There is an interesting story from European history that may or may not be true. In the 18th century, Frederick the Great had 25,000 of his elite Prussian troops lined up and ready to do battle. Just before the festivities were about to begin, a gilded carriage pulled up. Out of the carriage came the local archbishop. Frederick approached him and said "Excellency, what are you doing here." The cleric responded "Emperor, I am here to bless the troops. Surely, you want God on your side."
In a blend of amusement and disgust Frederick responded "Go home, excellency. God is on the side of the big batallions."
Did this happen? It does not matter. But I feel there is a lesson here that applies to both 2009 media and marketing. These are tough and turbulent times for brands, ad agencies, and broadcasters. Who will come out on top whenever the smoke clears?
Think about the last year. There were then only a handful of AAA credited rated US companies. One was AIG, now in shambles, an embarrassment that is being bailed by US taxpayers. GE, the last of the original companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and arguably the best run conglomerate in the world according to many, saw its stock dive from 40 to 6 and its AAA rating is now a memory also. These were among the biggest batallions of them all and yet they suffered.
Things are tough and will continue to be for a while. Are there players who can hunker down and use the shakeout to build market share? A story from the Great Depression may be instructive. At the bottom of the depression in 1933, the leading cereal maker in the US was C.W. Post (later General Foods). A competitor of his was a Michigan company owned largely by one W.K. Kellogg. He was approached, as the story goes, by his ad agency about the upcoming year's budget. Kellogg doubled his network radio budget for the following year and kept the pressure on all through the rest of the depression and World War II. By the end of the war, Kellogg was the #1 player in the world, a position that it still holds.
Can brands do the same thing today? It is certainly possible but it takes guts and deep pockets.
Legacy thinking is dangerous. Here is a real life example that happened a few weeks ago. An old acquaintance was stumped regarding a media recommendation and asked me to take a look at the situation. He was completely open and gave me sales by DMA for his client's brand as well as Brand Development (BDI) and Category Development (CDI) indices.
After digging through the data for a while, I spotted something. The Category Development Index (CDI) was high in many but not all markets where the brand was weak. Coincidentally, many of these same Designated Market Areas (DMA) were Nielsen markets where TV pricing was really soft as a result of the recession.
I mentioned this to my friend who began a series of other analyses that took into account factors beyond simple media costs. He was pleased and recommended a special spot TV and local cable effort in several DMA's that simply would not have been affordable a year ago.
A strange thing happened. His president wanted to know why he was increasing the transaction count on the business during a profit squeeze. The client wanted to know if his fee would go up. Neither seemed to care about good marketing or trying to squeeze some extra cases of sales in markets that had traditionally been less than optimal. So, the plan stays exactly as it was last year and sales are down modestly.
Would my suggestion that my friend took, ran with, tested and expanded have made a huge difference? We will never know. What is frightening is that his CEO and his client had no concern for solid marketing or taking into account the current market environment. They, like most today, are nervous and very defensive.
We have said previously in this space that the emerging media world will be good to the firmly entrenched companies (the big battalions if you will). They have awareness, great distribution, strong market share, loyal users, and we would hope marketing savvy.
Also, there should be fewer new products being introduced by smaller companies. Where can someone with an idea, no matter how good, get venture capital money in this environment? It will be really hard. Look for more line extensions among the big players who can trade off the strength of their existing brands.
Those with strong balance sheets can almost buy share in the current environment if they stay the course and keep the advertising pressure on. Are there any W.K. Kellogg's out there in the 21st century? Which marketers will make a defiant bet against pessimism and come out of this malaise much stronger? Time will tell.
An interesting spin is that late in life Voltaire, the French political philosopher refined Frederick the Great's statement. He said "God is NOT on the side of the big batallions but on the side of those who shoot best."
It seems Voltaire may be triggering a future post on how a flanker or guerrilla marketer can survive in the years to come. :)
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
In a blend of amusement and disgust Frederick responded "Go home, excellency. God is on the side of the big batallions."
Did this happen? It does not matter. But I feel there is a lesson here that applies to both 2009 media and marketing. These are tough and turbulent times for brands, ad agencies, and broadcasters. Who will come out on top whenever the smoke clears?
Think about the last year. There were then only a handful of AAA credited rated US companies. One was AIG, now in shambles, an embarrassment that is being bailed by US taxpayers. GE, the last of the original companies in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and arguably the best run conglomerate in the world according to many, saw its stock dive from 40 to 6 and its AAA rating is now a memory also. These were among the biggest batallions of them all and yet they suffered.
Things are tough and will continue to be for a while. Are there players who can hunker down and use the shakeout to build market share? A story from the Great Depression may be instructive. At the bottom of the depression in 1933, the leading cereal maker in the US was C.W. Post (later General Foods). A competitor of his was a Michigan company owned largely by one W.K. Kellogg. He was approached, as the story goes, by his ad agency about the upcoming year's budget. Kellogg doubled his network radio budget for the following year and kept the pressure on all through the rest of the depression and World War II. By the end of the war, Kellogg was the #1 player in the world, a position that it still holds.
Can brands do the same thing today? It is certainly possible but it takes guts and deep pockets.
Legacy thinking is dangerous. Here is a real life example that happened a few weeks ago. An old acquaintance was stumped regarding a media recommendation and asked me to take a look at the situation. He was completely open and gave me sales by DMA for his client's brand as well as Brand Development (BDI) and Category Development (CDI) indices.
After digging through the data for a while, I spotted something. The Category Development Index (CDI) was high in many but not all markets where the brand was weak. Coincidentally, many of these same Designated Market Areas (DMA) were Nielsen markets where TV pricing was really soft as a result of the recession.
I mentioned this to my friend who began a series of other analyses that took into account factors beyond simple media costs. He was pleased and recommended a special spot TV and local cable effort in several DMA's that simply would not have been affordable a year ago.
A strange thing happened. His president wanted to know why he was increasing the transaction count on the business during a profit squeeze. The client wanted to know if his fee would go up. Neither seemed to care about good marketing or trying to squeeze some extra cases of sales in markets that had traditionally been less than optimal. So, the plan stays exactly as it was last year and sales are down modestly.
Would my suggestion that my friend took, ran with, tested and expanded have made a huge difference? We will never know. What is frightening is that his CEO and his client had no concern for solid marketing or taking into account the current market environment. They, like most today, are nervous and very defensive.
We have said previously in this space that the emerging media world will be good to the firmly entrenched companies (the big battalions if you will). They have awareness, great distribution, strong market share, loyal users, and we would hope marketing savvy.
Also, there should be fewer new products being introduced by smaller companies. Where can someone with an idea, no matter how good, get venture capital money in this environment? It will be really hard. Look for more line extensions among the big players who can trade off the strength of their existing brands.
Those with strong balance sheets can almost buy share in the current environment if they stay the course and keep the advertising pressure on. Are there any W.K. Kellogg's out there in the 21st century? Which marketers will make a defiant bet against pessimism and come out of this malaise much stronger? Time will tell.
An interesting spin is that late in life Voltaire, the French political philosopher refined Frederick the Great's statement. He said "God is NOT on the side of the big batallions but on the side of those who shoot best."
It seems Voltaire may be triggering a future post on how a flanker or guerrilla marketer can survive in the years to come. :)
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Local Cable's Glowing Twilight
"All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come."--Victor Hugo
It seems hard to believe but nearly 20 years ago I used the above quotation from my favorite novelist to finish an article that I wrote urging advertisers and their agencies to embrace local cable.
Today, for vastly different reasons, I once again give an endorsement of the medium. Stay with me for a minute or two as my reasoning may not be mainstream.
Upfront, the annual statistic that everyone should look at tells the tale. The most recent Nielsen data says that over the last year, the basic cable share of primetime viewing is 58.6%. Unless you are a media primitive, local market buys (with no national cable overlay) have to have local cable as an integral part of the media mix.
Qualitatively, the story only gets better as time passes. With more channels open for local commerical insertion, local cable can give you a selectivity of interest and demographic that broadcast cannot hope to match. Promotions are another area whether local cable has a leg up over broadcasters. The local inter-connects (clusters of contiguous counties or cable systems) can tap into promotions developed by the cable networks. A local cable promotion on ESPN featuring a giveaway to a major sports venue is something that local broadcasters cannot begin to match in production quality and usually in value of the promotional trip. The extra weight you can get via "taggables" which are usually 10 second mentions after a cable network's promotional spot are something that are virtually extinct in broadcast TV.
The recession has also made local cable more attractive than ever. Local cable's roots, prior to inter-conncects was in selling zones which were all cable households in a township or a county or a zip code cluster. Politicians with sophisticated media teams have used them to great effect running different issue copy in different zones. George W. Bush's victories in pivotal Ohio in 2000 and 2004 were sometimes credited to his media maven Karl Rove using local cable to maximum effect. In a weak economy such as today, a multi-unit retailer can used zoned advertising to prop up weak stores or even support the rare new location these days.
And, with local cable there are bonus spots. Called autofill by most MSO's (Multi-system operators) and Time Bank by Comcast, these no charge units can really help advertisers who are struggling in today's moribund economy. The amount of free time that you will receive will vary widely by region of the country, the whim of the cable sales chief, the skill of your negotiators, and the insertion equipment that the system has. But, it is an opportunity to really pile on the points against key prospects that the occasional no charge unit on broadcast cannot hope to replicate. This situation will not last forever but, as we write, the local television economy has not bottomed out in many markets.
Incredibly, there are still local and regional advertisers out there who have yet to use local cable. I met with someone last month who told me that she "might try local cable soon." I am not easily shocked at my age but this one really amazed me.
Why do people not use it? A cable sales director told me that people sometimes tell her that "it is too complicated." I suppose if you bought a wild patchwork quilt of zoned buys or lived in one of those rare markets without a good interconnect, there could be some truth to that. But, what of your client's needs?
An argument that I have heard is that local cable should be avoided as you do not get your message into satellite homes in the local DMA. This is absolutely true but misses a bigger issue. Let us say that a market has only 50% cable penetration. If you do not use local cable and, let us say 60% of that DMA's viewing is to basic cable in primetime you are missing a lot of reach potential. How much? Well 60% of the 50% local penetration means that, at any point in time, possibly up to 30% of the market has no chance of seeing your commercial during primetime. Yes, you do not reach everyone as viewers of cable channels in satellites homes will not get the local cable message. But, the opportunity loss of not reaching those viewing in cable homes is immense.
Others say that local cable numbers are too small. Duh! Ever take a look at broadcast numbers these days in a local people meter (LPM) market? A carefully selected package of cable channels bought locally can deliver very well when blended with broadcast stations. Broadcast stations alone cannot deliver the market on their own at satisfactory levels in almost all cases in 2009.
In this space, in recent months, I have been very candid about how advertiser supported TV of all kinds faces huge challenges ahead. But local cable will have some interesting new offerings in the months to come that will increase their useful life somewhat and bring in new users.
Make sure that you give local cable a fair shake in your current plans. Now may be the best time ever to use it aggressively. Dive headfirst through this window of opportunity. As DVR, TiVo, and Hulu et al grow, the window will surely narrow and then someday shut.
If your would like to contact Don Cole directly, you can e-mail him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Lament of the Salespeople
If you work in media sales these days, you need to be something of an optimist. Long gone are the days when the business literally came to you without a great deal of effort. Recently, a few people have written to me regarding their frustration when calling on media buyers or planners. Given that easily more than half of the Media Realism readers are likely to be in sales, I thought it would be interesting to devote a post to the topic.
One fellow whom I know pretty well put it this way--"These days I have a hard time facing another 28 year old broadcast buyer or a 29 year old media planner." Clearly, my old pal has issues. But his complaint has some substance to it. The coin, however, definitely has two sides to it.
For the last two generations, the relationship between those in media sales and negotiators in media departments has been fairly cordial. Generally buyer and seller were able to come to an agreement that they both could live with. There were occasional incidences of buyers who became too close to sellers and situations where sellers did not meet the spirit of agreements. But, if both sides had even reasonable levels of good will, things were almost always worked out to some level of satisfaction.
Why am I getting such noise from the selling community these days? Well, think about it for a moment. We have mentioned in past posts how none of us mature types can ever recall a time when there was more nervousness out there. Everyone is afraid that they may lose their jobs--salespeople are given quotas in many instances that are absurd in today's climate. Agency media people are given more work as cutbacks are hitting virtually every shop. Everyone is starved for time and virtually no one is thinking long term.
What is going on? Here are a few suggestions.
We are not just in a downturn. The industry is going through a structural change that is PERMANENT. Salespeople may not like that people no longer do annual or quarterly deals. It is not the media staff's fault. Clients are holding back the funds until the last minute. They do not want long term deals as they worry about cash flow or are looking over their own shoulders. So, if someone calls far closer to air date than in the past, there is no malice. They were not given authority to proceed until the last minute. And, when we come out of this economic mess, the media mix will be different than it is today.
Many companies have not cut fat; they have cut bone as well. So, there are more situations where a young, low salaried person has been asked to step up in responsibility and job commitment when a more senior and better paid person has been "whacked." Many are eager but insecure about their new roles.
Some sales people refuse to shift gears. Here is a story I took part in a few weeks ago. Someone invited me to visit their agency. It was not a long trip from home and I knew a few of the players at the shop so I was glad to go and talk over the current environment. I was not trying to get a consulting gig; I was just there to say hi and have lunch.
In the middle of my visit, which was interrupted by constant breaks due to mini-crises, my host asked if I could sit in on a sales pitch from a media rep. I had not met with this organization in maybe two years, so I said certainly. My host had scheduled 20 minutes for him and his team and told me that he might have to duck out a bit early.
The rep came in, shook hands all around and announced that he would need at least an hour. There were audible groans around the conference room table. Ten minutes later, the rep was still on slide #2 of the power-point even after he was told sharply twice that his time was short. Twenty minutes later, only an unpaid intern and me, an unpaid guest, were still in the room and he kept talking. When he was done, I had a candid talk with him. He listened but countered that yes he had agreed to only 20 minutes but what he had to say was important and the agency team needed to hear it. He was not concerned about other demands on their time or how he fit into their clients needs. A world class jerk.
Here are some guidelines for sales people in 2009:
1) Be BRIEF! If someone has all the time in the world, something is wrong. The company is likely to have a big cutback soon as billing must be way off. If someone tells you that you have a limited time span, stick to it. All of us in the sales game like to talk, but these days being concise can pay unusually rich dividends.
2) Send something in advance that covers you company or service in depth. Some won't read it but many will and that means in a brief session you can get your main points across and answer any quesions that people have.
3) Be respectful and helpful to the under 30 crowd. Many are frightened but many also have significant talent. You can mentor them a bit because their manager may not have the time these days.
For agency media people, allow me to suggest the following:
1) The sales guy who seems high pressure is now often in the fight of his life. He may have a high mortgage or big college tuitions to pay. And, he has New York beating on his boss for more money when it is not to be had right now. So, you can see the pressure being put on him in many instances. Be human to him or her. You are not the only one under pressure.
2) Try to see people. Stay a bit late if you have to but make sure you see people on the outside every few days. Reps are an excellent source of information and the experienced ones who have lived through a few cycles are often quite wise. You can learn a lot by LISTENING. Don't have time or unwilling to make time? Maybe you should leave the business. It will only get harder and you do not have the right stuff to run the marathon of a advertising career if you refuse to work some nights and weekends.
3) Work to be a good will ambassador. You not only help your own career you make your shop look good. If you are seen as fair minded and accessible, your reputation will grow even in tough times.
One of my panel members, a sales pro, who is a friend but also someone whom I value and respect, wrote the following to me regarding this issue:
"I actually find the new blood exciting and even very necessary to the new digital age, as these are the ones who best understand the technologies we are all introducing. At the same time, the old guard still pines longingly for the days of mere spots and dots. Here's hoping that they retain their enthusiasm and optimism when we return to normalcy, creating leaders for tomorrow."
Isn't that a wonderful sentiment? If you are in sales make it yours and make some new friends. They can help you as we move into our brave new world of media.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may e-mail him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
One fellow whom I know pretty well put it this way--"These days I have a hard time facing another 28 year old broadcast buyer or a 29 year old media planner." Clearly, my old pal has issues. But his complaint has some substance to it. The coin, however, definitely has two sides to it.
For the last two generations, the relationship between those in media sales and negotiators in media departments has been fairly cordial. Generally buyer and seller were able to come to an agreement that they both could live with. There were occasional incidences of buyers who became too close to sellers and situations where sellers did not meet the spirit of agreements. But, if both sides had even reasonable levels of good will, things were almost always worked out to some level of satisfaction.
Why am I getting such noise from the selling community these days? Well, think about it for a moment. We have mentioned in past posts how none of us mature types can ever recall a time when there was more nervousness out there. Everyone is afraid that they may lose their jobs--salespeople are given quotas in many instances that are absurd in today's climate. Agency media people are given more work as cutbacks are hitting virtually every shop. Everyone is starved for time and virtually no one is thinking long term.
What is going on? Here are a few suggestions.
We are not just in a downturn. The industry is going through a structural change that is PERMANENT. Salespeople may not like that people no longer do annual or quarterly deals. It is not the media staff's fault. Clients are holding back the funds until the last minute. They do not want long term deals as they worry about cash flow or are looking over their own shoulders. So, if someone calls far closer to air date than in the past, there is no malice. They were not given authority to proceed until the last minute. And, when we come out of this economic mess, the media mix will be different than it is today.
Many companies have not cut fat; they have cut bone as well. So, there are more situations where a young, low salaried person has been asked to step up in responsibility and job commitment when a more senior and better paid person has been "whacked." Many are eager but insecure about their new roles.
Some sales people refuse to shift gears. Here is a story I took part in a few weeks ago. Someone invited me to visit their agency. It was not a long trip from home and I knew a few of the players at the shop so I was glad to go and talk over the current environment. I was not trying to get a consulting gig; I was just there to say hi and have lunch.
In the middle of my visit, which was interrupted by constant breaks due to mini-crises, my host asked if I could sit in on a sales pitch from a media rep. I had not met with this organization in maybe two years, so I said certainly. My host had scheduled 20 minutes for him and his team and told me that he might have to duck out a bit early.
The rep came in, shook hands all around and announced that he would need at least an hour. There were audible groans around the conference room table. Ten minutes later, the rep was still on slide #2 of the power-point even after he was told sharply twice that his time was short. Twenty minutes later, only an unpaid intern and me, an unpaid guest, were still in the room and he kept talking. When he was done, I had a candid talk with him. He listened but countered that yes he had agreed to only 20 minutes but what he had to say was important and the agency team needed to hear it. He was not concerned about other demands on their time or how he fit into their clients needs. A world class jerk.
Here are some guidelines for sales people in 2009:
1) Be BRIEF! If someone has all the time in the world, something is wrong. The company is likely to have a big cutback soon as billing must be way off. If someone tells you that you have a limited time span, stick to it. All of us in the sales game like to talk, but these days being concise can pay unusually rich dividends.
2) Send something in advance that covers you company or service in depth. Some won't read it but many will and that means in a brief session you can get your main points across and answer any quesions that people have.
3) Be respectful and helpful to the under 30 crowd. Many are frightened but many also have significant talent. You can mentor them a bit because their manager may not have the time these days.
For agency media people, allow me to suggest the following:
1) The sales guy who seems high pressure is now often in the fight of his life. He may have a high mortgage or big college tuitions to pay. And, he has New York beating on his boss for more money when it is not to be had right now. So, you can see the pressure being put on him in many instances. Be human to him or her. You are not the only one under pressure.
2) Try to see people. Stay a bit late if you have to but make sure you see people on the outside every few days. Reps are an excellent source of information and the experienced ones who have lived through a few cycles are often quite wise. You can learn a lot by LISTENING. Don't have time or unwilling to make time? Maybe you should leave the business. It will only get harder and you do not have the right stuff to run the marathon of a advertising career if you refuse to work some nights and weekends.
3) Work to be a good will ambassador. You not only help your own career you make your shop look good. If you are seen as fair minded and accessible, your reputation will grow even in tough times.
One of my panel members, a sales pro, who is a friend but also someone whom I value and respect, wrote the following to me regarding this issue:
"I actually find the new blood exciting and even very necessary to the new digital age, as these are the ones who best understand the technologies we are all introducing. At the same time, the old guard still pines longingly for the days of mere spots and dots. Here's hoping that they retain their enthusiasm and optimism when we return to normalcy, creating leaders for tomorrow."
Isn't that a wonderful sentiment? If you are in sales make it yours and make some new friends. They can help you as we move into our brave new world of media.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may e-mail him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Dumbest Generation? A few others
Several people have e-mailed me regarding what I have been reading lately. Today, we begin a feature that I will update from time to time. It will be reviews of varying lengths of books that I have come across that might be germane to our readers interests.
Here are our first entries:
1) THE DUMBEST GENERATION by Mark Bauerlein (Penquin, 2008). This is written by a professor of English at Emory University in Atlanta. It is an angry book making many of the same claims that Allan Bloom made in 1987 in THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND. This book is far more passionate than "closing' and candidly more fun to read. Bloom himself wrote of it saying "an urgent and pragmatic book on the very dark topic of the virtual end of reading among the young."
There are some wonderul anecdotes in the book. Bauerlein states that college students today are "six times more likely to be able to name the last American Idol winner than Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Most don't know who their governor, US Senators or Congressman are." When he mentioned this at a symposium a student yelled out "American Idol is more important."
He also tells a very interesting personal story. Back in 1977, he returned from UCLA for the Christmas holidays to his home in Maryland. He caught up with his high school buddies and played lots of basketball. With lots of time on his hands he watched some TV. At that time there were four stations plus PBS in the Washington, DC area. PBS was screening classic films every afternoon and with a choice of soap operas or the Gong Show, he began viewing the films. Over a few weeks, he saw La Strada, Rules of the Game, and The 400 Blows among others. When he returned to LA, he always checked out what was playing at the local art houses, as they were then known. This hit me like a freight train. As a teenager my sister introduced me to PBS and sometimes a lofty film. In college my roommate and I, along with a couple of other friends, took over the campus film society and began doing more serious entries instead of recent commercial films. We eased into it with some Bogart films but then moved on to an Orson Welles retrospective and finally a Fellini festival. In many ways, it changed my life.
Bauerlein's point regarding TV was that " If I had 100+ screen options to choose from as they have today, watching PBS would never have happened". It is an intriguing idea. In the late 1940's, many commentators thought that TV was going to be the greatest educational tool ever. Ohers said the same thing about the Internet 50 years later, although for the first several years, it appears that only pornographers made any real money. So, have we in the media unknowingly hurt the education of the young?
He also makes the statement that nine of the top ten sites visited by students are for social networking. That seems a bit hard to believe but I have never seen the research to back it up. Professor Bauerlein also is pessimistic as he says he cannot find intellectual pockets out there where groups of students are faithful to academic rigor.
As mentioned in previous posts, I speak on a lot of campuses and will really ramp up my speaking in the weeks to come. I would say the quality of students that I see has actually improved in recent years. Some cynics tell me that is due to the weakening economy and people stay afterwards to try to get job interviews or references. I must say, however, that the questions asked are far more insightful than in the past.
And, here is the ultimate irony. What school's students have impressed me the most? Emory University, home of Mark Bauerlein.
I do not argue that too many people are in college these days. And, all of us need to read more. This was brought chillingly clear to me watching the 2008 elections. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska was a great speaker, attractive, obviously intelligent, and vivacious. But, she had a frightening deficiency in core knowledge of basic facts that all citizens should know let alone a vice presidential candidate. After the election, conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, who obviously liked her, said she "needs to go back to Alaska and read for several years." Retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor has started a Web site called Ourcourts.org to teach children some basis civics that they obviously are not getting at home or at school.
But Professor Bauerlein ought to follow me around into a few classes. Maybe he would see that the upcoming generation has some real stars in the making!
2) THE BIG RICH (The Rise and Fall of the Greatest Texas Oil Fortunes) by Bryan Burrough (Penquin, 2009)
I picked up this book for light reading but was immediately hooked. It had many themes--the "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves" odyssey that hit many oil patch families over three generations, the funding that the political right received from Texas Oil at crucial times, and how the survivors learned to diversify to survive and prosper.
Let me end with a simple personal note. In 1997, I moved to Dallas, Texas. At noon one day, I had a media lunch scheduled at a posh watering hole. At the next table, a couple of old impeccably dressed fellows were on their second bottle of Chivas Regal which sat open at the table. In walked a big stereotype--big smile, big belly, tan suit, business Stetson and bolo tie. He joined my neighbors and they talked for a couple of hours as I tried to do a bit of business. The big fellow left first and a limo (thankfully) was picking up the two well lubricated lunch buddies. While waiting for the valet to bring my Subaru up, one fellow said to the other. "Our Fort Worth friend has done well. He has three units." The other nodded in agreement. Months later I discovered that a unit was Texas talk for a hundred million dollars.
3) HOT, FLAT, and CROWDED By Thomas Friedman (Farrah, Strauss, and Giroux, 2008)
I love reading everything Friedman writes from his New York Times columns to THE LEXUS AND THE OLIVE TREE, LONGITUDES AND LATITUDES and THE WORLD IS FLAT. This book had the same energy and fire of the previous three but struck me as unrealistic. He spent most of the book discussing the need for renewable energy sources with a tone of just do it. I was surprised at how naive he seemed. It takes a lot of steel that we do not have to build 350,000 windmills or millions of new solar panels. And the cost of harnessing renewables will likely rise and sharply. Also, some significant energy needs to be used to get us to energy self-suffiency. Nevertheless, he is always worth reading. Separately, he is a passionate free trade advocate which is interesting to see given his other beliefs. I became a free trader at age 20 after reading Bastiat.
4) TAKE THIS JOB AND SHIP IT By Senator Byron L. Dorgan (Thomas Dunne, 2006)
The North Dakota Democrat never impresses me when I see him on CNBC or C-Span. I read the book only to test my free trade position. He surprised me with an emotional appeal discussing America before globalization and how small town America thrived prior to NAFTA. I have newfound respect for him as he cares about everyday Americans but I firmly believe that free trade opens far more doors than it closes.
5) TWILIGHT IN THE DESERT By Matthew R. Simmons (Wiley, 2005)
The author is a Houston based investment banker who specializes in oil related activity. This is an alarmist but brilliantly researched book. His main point is that the easy oil has been taken out of Saudi Arabia and right now they are maintaining heavy production only by injecting vast quantities of water into the wells to get sufficient yield. By 2013, he states they cannot keep the game going and we need to develop alternative sources NOW. The book is intensely difficult to read and a bit labored at times but his point is very well made. Even today with oil at roughly 1/3 of its high a year ago, he stubbornly maintains that, when the global economy snaps back, we will have the mother of all oil crunches.
For a contary opinion, try THE BOTTOMLESS WELL By Peter Huber and Mark Mills (Basic Books, 2005)
The thesis here is that "technology will trump geology" and we will continue to have all the oil we need as recovery of existing discoveries will only get better.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Here are our first entries:
1) THE DUMBEST GENERATION by Mark Bauerlein (Penquin, 2008). This is written by a professor of English at Emory University in Atlanta. It is an angry book making many of the same claims that Allan Bloom made in 1987 in THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND. This book is far more passionate than "closing' and candidly more fun to read. Bloom himself wrote of it saying "an urgent and pragmatic book on the very dark topic of the virtual end of reading among the young."
There are some wonderul anecdotes in the book. Bauerlein states that college students today are "six times more likely to be able to name the last American Idol winner than Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Most don't know who their governor, US Senators or Congressman are." When he mentioned this at a symposium a student yelled out "American Idol is more important."
He also tells a very interesting personal story. Back in 1977, he returned from UCLA for the Christmas holidays to his home in Maryland. He caught up with his high school buddies and played lots of basketball. With lots of time on his hands he watched some TV. At that time there were four stations plus PBS in the Washington, DC area. PBS was screening classic films every afternoon and with a choice of soap operas or the Gong Show, he began viewing the films. Over a few weeks, he saw La Strada, Rules of the Game, and The 400 Blows among others. When he returned to LA, he always checked out what was playing at the local art houses, as they were then known. This hit me like a freight train. As a teenager my sister introduced me to PBS and sometimes a lofty film. In college my roommate and I, along with a couple of other friends, took over the campus film society and began doing more serious entries instead of recent commercial films. We eased into it with some Bogart films but then moved on to an Orson Welles retrospective and finally a Fellini festival. In many ways, it changed my life.
Bauerlein's point regarding TV was that " If I had 100+ screen options to choose from as they have today, watching PBS would never have happened". It is an intriguing idea. In the late 1940's, many commentators thought that TV was going to be the greatest educational tool ever. Ohers said the same thing about the Internet 50 years later, although for the first several years, it appears that only pornographers made any real money. So, have we in the media unknowingly hurt the education of the young?
He also makes the statement that nine of the top ten sites visited by students are for social networking. That seems a bit hard to believe but I have never seen the research to back it up. Professor Bauerlein also is pessimistic as he says he cannot find intellectual pockets out there where groups of students are faithful to academic rigor.
As mentioned in previous posts, I speak on a lot of campuses and will really ramp up my speaking in the weeks to come. I would say the quality of students that I see has actually improved in recent years. Some cynics tell me that is due to the weakening economy and people stay afterwards to try to get job interviews or references. I must say, however, that the questions asked are far more insightful than in the past.
And, here is the ultimate irony. What school's students have impressed me the most? Emory University, home of Mark Bauerlein.
I do not argue that too many people are in college these days. And, all of us need to read more. This was brought chillingly clear to me watching the 2008 elections. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska was a great speaker, attractive, obviously intelligent, and vivacious. But, she had a frightening deficiency in core knowledge of basic facts that all citizens should know let alone a vice presidential candidate. After the election, conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, who obviously liked her, said she "needs to go back to Alaska and read for several years." Retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor has started a Web site called Ourcourts.org to teach children some basis civics that they obviously are not getting at home or at school.
But Professor Bauerlein ought to follow me around into a few classes. Maybe he would see that the upcoming generation has some real stars in the making!
2) THE BIG RICH (The Rise and Fall of the Greatest Texas Oil Fortunes) by Bryan Burrough (Penquin, 2009)
I picked up this book for light reading but was immediately hooked. It had many themes--the "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves" odyssey that hit many oil patch families over three generations, the funding that the political right received from Texas Oil at crucial times, and how the survivors learned to diversify to survive and prosper.
Let me end with a simple personal note. In 1997, I moved to Dallas, Texas. At noon one day, I had a media lunch scheduled at a posh watering hole. At the next table, a couple of old impeccably dressed fellows were on their second bottle of Chivas Regal which sat open at the table. In walked a big stereotype--big smile, big belly, tan suit, business Stetson and bolo tie. He joined my neighbors and they talked for a couple of hours as I tried to do a bit of business. The big fellow left first and a limo (thankfully) was picking up the two well lubricated lunch buddies. While waiting for the valet to bring my Subaru up, one fellow said to the other. "Our Fort Worth friend has done well. He has three units." The other nodded in agreement. Months later I discovered that a unit was Texas talk for a hundred million dollars.
3) HOT, FLAT, and CROWDED By Thomas Friedman (Farrah, Strauss, and Giroux, 2008)
I love reading everything Friedman writes from his New York Times columns to THE LEXUS AND THE OLIVE TREE, LONGITUDES AND LATITUDES and THE WORLD IS FLAT. This book had the same energy and fire of the previous three but struck me as unrealistic. He spent most of the book discussing the need for renewable energy sources with a tone of just do it. I was surprised at how naive he seemed. It takes a lot of steel that we do not have to build 350,000 windmills or millions of new solar panels. And the cost of harnessing renewables will likely rise and sharply. Also, some significant energy needs to be used to get us to energy self-suffiency. Nevertheless, he is always worth reading. Separately, he is a passionate free trade advocate which is interesting to see given his other beliefs. I became a free trader at age 20 after reading Bastiat.
4) TAKE THIS JOB AND SHIP IT By Senator Byron L. Dorgan (Thomas Dunne, 2006)
The North Dakota Democrat never impresses me when I see him on CNBC or C-Span. I read the book only to test my free trade position. He surprised me with an emotional appeal discussing America before globalization and how small town America thrived prior to NAFTA. I have newfound respect for him as he cares about everyday Americans but I firmly believe that free trade opens far more doors than it closes.
5) TWILIGHT IN THE DESERT By Matthew R. Simmons (Wiley, 2005)
The author is a Houston based investment banker who specializes in oil related activity. This is an alarmist but brilliantly researched book. His main point is that the easy oil has been taken out of Saudi Arabia and right now they are maintaining heavy production only by injecting vast quantities of water into the wells to get sufficient yield. By 2013, he states they cannot keep the game going and we need to develop alternative sources NOW. The book is intensely difficult to read and a bit labored at times but his point is very well made. Even today with oil at roughly 1/3 of its high a year ago, he stubbornly maintains that, when the global economy snaps back, we will have the mother of all oil crunches.
For a contary opinion, try THE BOTTOMLESS WELL By Peter Huber and Mark Mills (Basic Books, 2005)
The thesis here is that "technology will trump geology" and we will continue to have all the oil we need as recovery of existing discoveries will only get better.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Case for Streaming Video
In California, a trim ebullient 66 year old attorney spends an hour each day in his office watching Twilight Zone episodes from the early 1960's on Hulu.com (I wonder to whom he is billing that hour!). Three thousand miles away, in the mid-Atlantic, an erudite and lovely lady of a certain age never misses The Daily Show on Hulu.com or Grey's Anatomy on ABC.com. Her husband, a 59 year old crusty curmudgeon, is a private investor struggling through a winter of discontent. The old grouch rarely turns on his TV but he watches 30 Rock on his laptop thanks to Hulu.com and monitors his sinking finances via CNBC.com daily. What on earth is going on? Streaming video has changed their habits forever.
What is streaming video? Simply put, it is video that is watched in the digital space. It may be the latest episode of a mainstream TV series, a home made film on You Tube, a news or sport clip from CNN or ESPN, or a vintage movie that you watch for free on an illegal site based in China. Or, it could be Video on Demand that you pay for via your Comcast or Time Warner subscription. As it catches on, it will change our way of using media in general and in launching and supporting brands.
Almost exactly a year ago today, NBC Universal and News Corp. (Fox) announced an unusual joint venture with a strange Chinese name. They dubbed their new service Hulu.com and it grew steadily from day one. Hulu featured hundreds of episodes of old TV shows from decades ago as well recent episodes and clips from current shows on NBC, Fox, and a number of cable channels. They also had a motley mix of feature films. The service was free to consumers but ad supported. Viewers only saw roughly 1/4 of the advertising that a live viewer on TV would see. The model seemed just about right--viewers would put up with a bit of advertising when the service was free. Advertisers like it as you cannot zip or zap commercials as you can with a remote in your hand or a DVR. And, you watch what you want exactly when you want. Hulu distributes content to its own site but also syndicates it to many others. They have received a lot more attention in recent weeks after launching an ad campaign in Super Bowl XLIII featuring Alec Baldwin.
Time magazine, in its year end issue, rated Hulu.com the 4th best website of 2008. The editors sent shudders to the big MSO's when they said "when cable eventually dies, websites like Hulu will be responsible". They go on to describe the service as a corporate knockoff of YouTube that "has untethered TV from that box in your living room".
Why on earth would NBC Universal and Fox create Hulu.com? Doesn't it merely hasten the decline of their networks? Yes, to a certain degree it does. To me, both companies are being realistic. People are abandoning broadcast and now cable to watch video online. So, by creating Hulu, they have created an advertising supported service that still reaches many viewers to their key programs. And it catches some light viewers, and very importantly, some exceptionally light viewers. Today, Hulu.com outdelivers ABC.com and other leading players in the field. As of August, they sell local availabilities across any DMA in the U.S. They are pricey locally just as the CPM is higher for spot TV vs. network. However, you must see the commercials to get to content so real world delivery of the message may be nearly as efficient as TV. CBS has announced that it will soon release a Hulu clone with some of their programming. If you haven't tried Hulu, do so soon. It does not save as much time as a DVR does but it is close and is a very good experience.
But streaming video expands far beyond Hulu. This morning I was dying to see highlights of the epic Syracuse-UConn basketball game that went to six overtimes. I scrambled to ESPN.com and patiently watched a 15 second commercial prior to seeing the clip. Magazines, even highbrow books, offer it on their sites and when buying ad networks, bring the topic up with your sales rep. You will be surprised where your spot will be shown. And, the odds are good that you will introduce a substantial number of blue chip viewers who have either been underexposed to your commercial via broadcast/cable or not seen it at all. In an era when reach & frequency projections are suspect, authentic fresh reach, although small at present, is highly desirable.
Finally, some research, admittedly fragmentary, makes a case for making streaming video a part of your marketing mix. When advertisers have used streaming video and TV, they find that key brand metrics and message communication work just as well via streaming video as with conventional methods of delivery. And, again, streaming has the added plus of finding some of those hard to reach light TV viewers like many of us in the business.
Is video the future of digital advertising? I would say that it has to be. For years, critics blasted television content. It was considered "a vast wasteland." Yet viewing levels continued to inch up year after year. David Moore, CEO of 24/7 Real Media put it well last year when describing streaming video--"No other advertising vehicle combines the sight, sound and motion of television ads with the interactivity, targeting, and measurability of the Internet."
Face it! Americans, particularly younger Americans do not read enough. But they watch video anywhere, including their cell phone. Recent studies have shown that teenagers now go to YouTube in many cases before Wikipedia when they are researching a topic. The thought process is that maybe a video in some form is available on the subject.
Last month, America celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. Libraries highlighted dozens of Lincoln biographies on their shelves. C-Span and the History Channel gave him great coverage and commentators quoted him at length. Well, I dug up a quotation from Honest Abe that could be an exellent fit with today's situation regarding streaming video. Lincoln said "the best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."
So, take a tip from our 16th president. You do not have to plunge into streaming video tomorrow. But, start to get ready. Maybe test several low cost venues later this year and certainly next. Once consumers of all ages get into it, there will be no turning back. Get to know this powerful new media force well before it becomes mainstream.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
What is streaming video? Simply put, it is video that is watched in the digital space. It may be the latest episode of a mainstream TV series, a home made film on You Tube, a news or sport clip from CNN or ESPN, or a vintage movie that you watch for free on an illegal site based in China. Or, it could be Video on Demand that you pay for via your Comcast or Time Warner subscription. As it catches on, it will change our way of using media in general and in launching and supporting brands.
Almost exactly a year ago today, NBC Universal and News Corp. (Fox) announced an unusual joint venture with a strange Chinese name. They dubbed their new service Hulu.com and it grew steadily from day one. Hulu featured hundreds of episodes of old TV shows from decades ago as well recent episodes and clips from current shows on NBC, Fox, and a number of cable channels. They also had a motley mix of feature films. The service was free to consumers but ad supported. Viewers only saw roughly 1/4 of the advertising that a live viewer on TV would see. The model seemed just about right--viewers would put up with a bit of advertising when the service was free. Advertisers like it as you cannot zip or zap commercials as you can with a remote in your hand or a DVR. And, you watch what you want exactly when you want. Hulu distributes content to its own site but also syndicates it to many others. They have received a lot more attention in recent weeks after launching an ad campaign in Super Bowl XLIII featuring Alec Baldwin.
Time magazine, in its year end issue, rated Hulu.com the 4th best website of 2008. The editors sent shudders to the big MSO's when they said "when cable eventually dies, websites like Hulu will be responsible". They go on to describe the service as a corporate knockoff of YouTube that "has untethered TV from that box in your living room".
Why on earth would NBC Universal and Fox create Hulu.com? Doesn't it merely hasten the decline of their networks? Yes, to a certain degree it does. To me, both companies are being realistic. People are abandoning broadcast and now cable to watch video online. So, by creating Hulu, they have created an advertising supported service that still reaches many viewers to their key programs. And it catches some light viewers, and very importantly, some exceptionally light viewers. Today, Hulu.com outdelivers ABC.com and other leading players in the field. As of August, they sell local availabilities across any DMA in the U.S. They are pricey locally just as the CPM is higher for spot TV vs. network. However, you must see the commercials to get to content so real world delivery of the message may be nearly as efficient as TV. CBS has announced that it will soon release a Hulu clone with some of their programming. If you haven't tried Hulu, do so soon. It does not save as much time as a DVR does but it is close and is a very good experience.
But streaming video expands far beyond Hulu. This morning I was dying to see highlights of the epic Syracuse-UConn basketball game that went to six overtimes. I scrambled to ESPN.com and patiently watched a 15 second commercial prior to seeing the clip. Magazines, even highbrow books, offer it on their sites and when buying ad networks, bring the topic up with your sales rep. You will be surprised where your spot will be shown. And, the odds are good that you will introduce a substantial number of blue chip viewers who have either been underexposed to your commercial via broadcast/cable or not seen it at all. In an era when reach & frequency projections are suspect, authentic fresh reach, although small at present, is highly desirable.
Finally, some research, admittedly fragmentary, makes a case for making streaming video a part of your marketing mix. When advertisers have used streaming video and TV, they find that key brand metrics and message communication work just as well via streaming video as with conventional methods of delivery. And, again, streaming has the added plus of finding some of those hard to reach light TV viewers like many of us in the business.
Is video the future of digital advertising? I would say that it has to be. For years, critics blasted television content. It was considered "a vast wasteland." Yet viewing levels continued to inch up year after year. David Moore, CEO of 24/7 Real Media put it well last year when describing streaming video--"No other advertising vehicle combines the sight, sound and motion of television ads with the interactivity, targeting, and measurability of the Internet."
Face it! Americans, particularly younger Americans do not read enough. But they watch video anywhere, including their cell phone. Recent studies have shown that teenagers now go to YouTube in many cases before Wikipedia when they are researching a topic. The thought process is that maybe a video in some form is available on the subject.
Last month, America celebrated the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. Libraries highlighted dozens of Lincoln biographies on their shelves. C-Span and the History Channel gave him great coverage and commentators quoted him at length. Well, I dug up a quotation from Honest Abe that could be an exellent fit with today's situation regarding streaming video. Lincoln said "the best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."
So, take a tip from our 16th president. You do not have to plunge into streaming video tomorrow. But, start to get ready. Maybe test several low cost venues later this year and certainly next. Once consumers of all ages get into it, there will be no turning back. Get to know this powerful new media force well before it becomes mainstream.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you can reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
