Liquid Awesomeness

Coming soon to almost every screen—cable, gaming consoles and broadband sites like Hulu, USANetwork.com and NBC.com—near you: “CTRL” (“Control”), a ten-episode Web-based series brought to you by Nestea.

The series, based on Robert Kirbyson’s Sundance short film “CTRL Z,” features an office worker who gains special powers, Popeye-like, with the help of Nestea’s “liquid awesomeness.” (The original film didn’t feature Nestea.)

There’s also MSN’s 50-episode “The Guy’s Manual,” which has the tagline: “That Takes Grape-Nuts.” It’s all about how to get the tough things in life done: “Breaking Up With a Co-Worker,” “Going Bald Like a Man,” and “Building a Playhouse the Morning of Your Kid’s Birthday Party.”

And then there’s Mtn Dew’s extremely successful sponsorship of video games, action sports and indie music that has allowed it to retain 80% market share while cutting its measured spending by more than 50%. (Read more about this marketing approach here).

In case you didn’t know it, you’re living in the Age of Branded Entertainment.

According to Event Marketing Institute and TBA Global, more than two-thirds of marketers report that they are trying to reach consumers through some form of branded entertainment. Let’s hope those marketers have taken a walk through the Branded Entertainment graveyard, wherein lie Honeyshed, Bud.TV and The Coke Show. Lessons we should all draw from these ambitious but ultimately unsuccessful ventures include: great marketers aren’t necessarily great entertainment strategists; people actually want to be entertained (and not just marketed to) when they choose to watch entertainment; few brands are in and of themselves entertaining. A more sensible approach—and the one taken in all three of the examples mentioned above—is to sponsor original content and not create it from the ground up. And beware of product placement that’s too obvious; today’s audiences are pretty aware of this practice and, as a quick look at the blogosphere will reveal, they find it annoying and condescending unless it’s done right.

Read more at MediaPost

Brand Advertising: Rebounding?

In an interesting article out of Ad Age –“Brand Advertising Poised to Rebound?”– A number of senior marketers at the ANA’s “Brand Building in Tough Times and Beyond” conference opine that brand advertising is about to resume at healthy levels following a long season of budget reductions. Everyone has an opinion on whether this is the precise moment when the uptick will happen, but there are larger issues at play here. What has this period of adjustment and slowdown meant for the industry at large? Here are some of my thoughts on the subject.

• Some marketers currently spending ad dollars on cost-cutting promotions will lose market share to companies who have increased brand advertising during the economic downturn.

Certain well-established brands can take a hiatus from branded advertising and invest instead in promotion, especially where in-store/retail is competing strongly for facings. It really depends on whether the category is price sensitive or not. For price-sensitive categories–like shampoo, for instance– branding is far less important than in coffees where brand loyalty is a key factor. However, very high-end fashion products like Dior and Hermes, etc., will win only if their branding remains strong during challenging times.

• Brand building itself is evolving.

Communication with today’s consumer demands insights what the consumer expects, wants, and needs. Right now, alternative advertising solutions–such as product placement in video games, branded entertainment solutions, and other brand partnerships–are becoming some of the most appropriate consumer engagement media. When brand building resumes, it’s going to have to look different than it did when it slowed down. The times have already changed.

• The recession has encouraged some consumers in some categories to find the lowest priced brands. They may never return to the brands to which they were previously loyal.

There are two reasons for this. One, store brands have increased in popularity recently—and not just because of the recession. It is also because they’ve actually done a good job of branding and have evolved into fully viable brands in their own right, offering quality, predictability, etc. Consumers don’t see themselves a trading down, but trading smart. And second, history has shown that, when brands lose substantial share during recessions, they often have a very difficult time “buying back” that share when the economic environment improves. It simply costs too much. That’s why the prevailing wisdom is to try to hold on to your share of market in tough times.

New economies thriving in recession

The recession might be affecting the greenback, but the green economy is thriving. Observers point out that, worldwide, the green economy is creating jobs at a healthy pace. For example sources say that jobs in Britain’s “renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainability and corporate social responsibility sectors” were up 58% over the last 12 months. In Canada, the employment rate in the environmental sector is growing more than twice as fast as the overall Canadian work force. President Obama has made it clear that an important part of his economic stimulus package will focus on retooling American manufacturing (including auto) to conform to and advance responsible ecological practices. We’re hearing similar news out of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.  All over the world, many existing occupations are being “upgraded” to meet the requirements of a new emphasis on “green” society, but the green economy is also creating completely new career and consumer categories.

In fact, the worldwide economy is changing in a number of ways, some having to do with the recession and others not so much. At Active, we’re of course aware of the mainstreaming of corporate trade. Other changes include the rise of what some have called “the creator economy”: defined by interactivity, the creator economy’s “central economic actor is someone who both produces and consumes in the same act.” Think Google, YouTube, and Facebook. Think of marketing that is rooted not in mass media but in an individual’s social graph—the intimate network of friends, acquaintances, coworkers and followers that define our place in the connected world.

The common thread? A sense of connection, and the importance of exchange. A sense that we need to explore new avenues of commerce. A sense that the personal is now, in fact, not only the political but the economic as well.

Trouble in Toyland?

On the surface, it seems like a no-brainer. Number 2 toymaker Hasbro has just paid $300 million for a 50% stake in a new partnership with Discovery Kids Network in the United States. Together, the two will introduce their kiddy viewers to a new roster of programming based on Hasbro brands like Transformers and GI Joe.

Heralded as a “bold move” by some analysts, and welcomed by some media planners as almost certain to bring down the cost of doing business, the new arrangement is nonetheless being met with less than delight on certain fronts. The kind of fronts that moms pay attention to.

Robert Weissman, for example, managing director of Commercial Alert, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group, claims that “children cannot distinguish between ads and programming,” and that the overall intent of such new brand-specific shows as promised by the Hasbro/Discovery Kids team is not entertainment but simply merchandising.

This of course puts advertisers and media buyers in a difficult situation. Do you associate your products and services with a network that’s drawing the ire (rightly or wrongly) of children’s media advocacy groups? Or is this a great opportunity to surprise and delight parents (and children) with stand-out marketing programs that counter their worst suspicions? Will your support mean the birth of a great new show that families can get behind?

The jury’s out, and will be until the network gets itself up and running within the next 18-20 months or so. Until then, read up on the issue here.

Hispanic Market Seriously Underserved

Media Post recently drew our attention to a very important study involving the US Hispanic market and the lack of ad spend being directed to toward this demographic. In effect, advertisers are failing miserably to reach this important and growing demographic effectively.

The study by the Association of Hispanic Advertising Agencies reveals the following (all data is for 2007):

• One-quarter of the US under-five population is Hispanic—but toy companies spent only 1.1% of their ad budgets in the Hispanic market.
• Hispanics spend more time online than other demographics, but Apple has supported iTunes Latino with a mere 1% of its advertising budget.
• Hispanics are early adopters of technology and consumer electronics, yet category heavyweights spent miniscule amounts of their overall ad budgets on Spanish advertising: Microsoft: .4%, Dell .1%, Bose .2%.

Can it be that advertisers are ignorant of the fact that the Hispanic population is projected to soar to 438 million by 2050? That Hispanic purchasing power is expected to hit $992 billion in 2009? That one in five American teenagers is of Hispanic descent?

Time to wake up and, in the words of the AHAA, “fish where the fish are.” The Hispanic market is clearly underserved by most advertisers who stand to gain the most from exposure there. For more info on the situation, including recent research and factoids, check out the AHAA site.

Out of Home Meets Out of Gas

As reported by MediaWeek, advertisers are successfully reaching people at the pumps with an innovative mobile initiative. Outcast (formerly Fuelcast/Bhutan) recently announced that its mobile platform has distributed more than 25 million SMS coupons in nine markets since its launch in March 2008. Outcast’s user-activated mobile platform lets advertisers and retailers (such as Carl’s Jr, Redbox and Universal Pictures) communicate with highly targeted consumers, who can respond to text messages or enter their mobile number online to download content and coupons or register for sweepstakes. The company claims that the average redemption rate has exceeded 25 percent—and its pump-handle-activated programming can provide the measurability to back up this figure.

Although at first glance purchasers of fuel might not seem to be the most motivated group of consumers we’ve ever seen—thanks to the recent rise in gas prices and the general gloominess of the economic situation—Outcast’s success at the pumps demonstrates that novelty, convenience and targeting can combine to deliver very healthy results. What they’ve done is grab the attention of people who are out and about, have a full tank of gas, and are likely engaging in a retail expedition at the precise moment in which Outcast reaches them. It’s really one of the most intelligent examples of digital out of home marketing we’ve seen in a while.

Outcast’s digital network operates at gas stations in New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Miami, Chicago, Washington D.C., Minneapolis, and Philadelphia.

What we’re reading: “The Numerati” by Stephen Baker

Publishers Weekly Review calls it a “captivating exploration of digital nosiness,” but Stephen Baker’s “The Numerati”  is more likely to conjure images of Big Brother than of an annoying neighbor. There are many excellent reviews of this book out there already, including in the New York Times,  and on CNET. What I’m interested in today is this: as marketers and people who benefit most directly from the work of data miners–or entrepreneurial mathematicians,” as Baker calls them–what lessons can we take from this deeply interesting and timely book?

First: people are increasingly aware that they’re being tracked online and, increasingly, in the material world (via RFID-enhanced tags, customer loyalty cards, and mobile devices). And many of them don’t like it. Advertisers and marketers should be careful not to be (or appear) predatory or possessed of knowledge that, however reasonably gained, gives potential customers or employees an uneasy feeling. You saw “Minority Report,” right? It really was cool when the billboards personally greeted Tom Cruise—but it was also creepy. Most of us are perfectly fine with The Gap not knowing where we are, even if it means missing out on a really great sale on T-shirts.

Second: the “numerati” who profile us can be wrong, and in fact are wrong all the time. You know the feeling: you update Facebook on your weekend trip from Denver to Atlantic City just once, and for the next month you’re being served up ads for gamblers anonymous, massage parlors and Trump’s latest casino. You look at one, just one, Batman DVD for your child’s birthday, and Amazon wants to sell you nothing but animated superhero shows until you take action to make them stop. Use your bookstore client card across town and receive email offers from restaurants 35 miles from your house. Best way to annoy your customers? Barrage them with useless information that results from data analysis gone horribly wrong. 

Third (and this is an important one): we must combat the idea that data mining and analysis are necessarily evil invasions of privacy that serve no greater good. As Baker points out in his chapter entitled “Patient,” for example, networked devices offer hope of vastly improved and personalized healthcare, particularly for the elderly who, monitored for changes in gait, heart rate, weight, breathing might be able to live independently in their homes longer and more confidently. There are plenty of important, useful and desirable ways in which people’s digital behaviors can be examined, predicted and extrapolated to improve human life—not just the life of marketers. Be upfront about what you intend to do with any information you collect, and be specific about what you will not do. It’s not just a matter of conforming to Privacy Acts, it’s about forming a trusted bond with your customer—one that the responsible use of data analysis can actually strengthen. Says Baker:

“If you think about the way our grandparents lived, they probably lived in a community where people knew them and knew what they were like and could give them something closer to customized service than what we get in a supermarket. So being known isn’t necessarily a bad thing.”

Charging for ad-free content: Not such a bad idea after all

There has always been an unwritten rule about the Internet: people won’t pay for Web-based content, because they’re accustomed to getting everything they need online free of cost. But all that might be changing (if in fact it was ever true); nearly half (49%) of the 14,000 consumers that Accenture polled in Jan-Feb 2009 have indicated that they would be willing to pay for ad-free digital programming..

If you’re a content producer, don’t rush off to add a check-out to your site just yet: pay-as-you-play pricing isn’t the way to go. As reported in AdWeek, the Accenture survey found that by-subscription payment for unlimited programming is the preferred payment model. And while there’s a growing willingness to consume digital content across all platforms, be warned that, if your target audience is over 40, the chances are good that they won’t want to use mobile devices to do so.

What does all this mean for advertisers? Perhaps the end of the ubiquitous banner ad and a movement toward more refined ad models and sponsorships. A two-tiered content model in which premium content is reserved for paying customers, with ads of a generic nature shown to the non-paying segment of the online audience and premium ad experiences-such as ultramercials-reserved for subscribers. More thoroughly integrated partnerships between content producers and the advertisers who sponsor them. It also means that more and more content formerly reserved for broadcast television will be coming soon to a smaller screen near you-desktops, mobile devices and other emerging platforms. In short, it means the continued shift in advertising toward the experiential-immersive advertising that may not be immediately trackable in terms of CTRs but whose influence may be more gradually realized in terms of audience behavior, attitudes, and associations.

Trackability and ROI on the Web

eMarketer reports that, by 2013, the Web will receive more than 15% of total ad spend. In 2009, the figure is expected to hit nearly 10%.

“Marketers are spending more on Internet ads, while spending less on advertising in other media, such as newspapers, radio and magazines,” reads the report. That shift is being driven primarily by most brands’ intensifying need to track and justify every ad dollar in the current climate-which the Web’s inherent trackability offers.”

As to the Web’s “inherent trackability,” it remains to be seen how-or if-marketers can track or quantify growing Web realities like social capital, trend influencers, viral marketing and other forces of the social net. Razorfish recently patented what they call the “Generational Tag,” which promises to “identify how far removed (generation) cookies are from the original source of the social media, and identify key influencers… of users of social media.” It seems that at this point the generational tag, which uses cookies and unique identifiers and not personal information, will work with applications and widgets only. Read about this important work at Feed, Razorfish’s Digital Design blog.

Social media marketing: right for your brand?

Where does-or should-your brand fit in the expanding world of social media? Do you need a Facebook page? Twitter? A blog? At the Active International 2009 Retail Summit held in NYC in March, Mike Linton (former CMO of eBay and Best Buy) looked at how marketers can use social media to influence consumer purchase decisions online and in the retail environment-and raised a cautionary flag about wasting time, effort and resources using such services improperly or unnecessarily. As Linton said, “there’s no bad media-but maybe there’s bad media for you.”

Because, while it’s possible to parlay online community into retail sales, it’s not as easy as some would have you believe. (Facebook itself suffered badly when the Burger King Whopper Sacrifice campaign-which was great for Burger King-caused 200,000 friends to be dropped from people’s Facebook lists!)  Here are a few things that we take into consideration when recommending social media strategies to our clients. 

1. Consider the context: people using Facebook to connect with their friends aren’t online to make purchases. Here, highly targeted micro-marketing may prove to be the most successful ad model; in other words, GM won’t sell cars on Facebook, but Anita’s Poodle Grooming Emporium of Wichita could see its business increase ten-fold. Further, barging into people’s personal conversations with their friends-in other words, using the wrong opportunities to market your product-can damage your brand reputation.
2. Twitter definitely has business value-but the ability to send marketing tweets into cyberspace isn’t what’s most important. Twitter lets you listen to your customers and offers you the ability to respond to their comments and concerns almost instantly. Much the same goes for blogs.
3. You can’t control what people say online. There are those who will tell you that simply having people talk about you constitutes a marketing win, but that’s highly debatable. Be prepared to respond positively and genuinely to your customers’ problems, concerns-or, perhaps more importantly-to their praise. This cultivation of community takes time and effort-if you’re not prepared to invest either, then perhaps you should direct your media spend elsewhere.
4. Metrics have changed. Page views and click-throughs won’t capture the success of your social media initiatives. Are you prepared to take the long-term view, measuring your success according to how your brand perception is improving?  

We want to be clear: social media marketing can be a highly effective way to engage with your customer base. However, it has to be conducted properly, on the right channels, and with appropriate strategic foundations.