• Home
  • Who we are
    • John Durham
    • Chris Arens
    • Jim Nichols
  • What we do
  • Clients/Partners
  • Intelligence
  • Case Studies
    • Freewheel.tv
    • Del Monte Foods
    • Travel Ad Network
    • Additional Case Studies
  • Contact

Archives

All Posts Tagged Tag: ‘TV’

Home / Tag: TV

Industry Links for 05042012 0

LEADING COMPANIES

It’s not TV, it’s Zuck TV: Check out FB’s

LinkedIn for $119M           

Ouch: Groupon stock

Vibrant launches

 

STARTUPS

Mom power! Pinterest soc net            

Badoo hits !

at $500M valuation

raises $1.5M

 

BRANDS AND AGENCIES

Banking on a new agency: B of A

 

RESEARCH

Great Pew report on teens and video is

 

SLANDER AND SCUTTLE

because of resume lie – said he had a CS degree but he doesn’t. Resignation rumored

Posted on: 05-4-2012
Posted in: Oldest Living Digital Marketer

5 ways to ensure your marketing captivates every consumer “generation” 0

Most of us are familiar with the different profiles of Millennials, Gen Xers, and Boomers. It can be fun to interpret people’s behaviors in the context of what we know about generational research. But are we making proper use of these generational insights in our marketing?

 Whether your brand focuses primarily on customers that fall into a single generation or across groups, the insights that have been unearthed on these groups should be better reflected in our efforts. The ways in which we process information as individual marketers may be rather different from those of huge swaths of our target audiences.

This piece is an attempt to spawn thinking about whether our own marketing efforts have the communication “legs” necessary to achieve their full potential. Are we reflecting what we know in what we do? As a first step, I’d like to explore five aspects of our communications and outline the ways that we can ensure that our brands get maximum advantage.

1. Showing respect
No generation tolerates disrespect well, but I think it’s safe to say that Millennials and Gen Xers are more demanding when it comes to respect and the ways in which they interact with brands. If you’re a fan of “Mad Men,” you’ll know what I mean when I speak of the “punter mentality” — the sense that consumers deserve to be done in by emotional sells and aggressive claims. As the saying goes, “They believe what we tell them to.”
I think there is no better example of this mentality than Tab’s 1970s “Mindsticker” campaign:

 

I’m not suggesting for a moment that Boomer women wanted to worry about losing their husbands because of choosing the wrong beverage. But that sort of message was part of our formative marketing reality.
Millennials and Gen Xers who grew up in a wired environment are more demanding with regard to the ways in which brands reach and speak with them. For example, think about their reaction to the Motrin ad that poked fun at baby sling wearers.

 

The insult was hardly on the same scale as Mindsticker, but the firestorm of reaction was enormous, and driven wholly by Millennial and Gen X bloggers.

One demonstrates respect by reflecting realistic lifestyles, multiculturalism, and the sense that what matters is what the user thinks, not what the brand thinks. You reflect respect by…you know…showing it. Perhaps there is no better example than this Google ad:

What makes it noteworthy is the not-so-subtle shift to user as hero, with brand as enabler. The company could very easily have done some sort of “ole skool” “Google to the rescue” campaign. Instead, it reflected the sensibilities of younger demos while also creating a message that could resonate across age.


2. Ensuring credibility

The “Greatest Generation” — the one that went to war against Germany and Japan — is known for its respect of authority and belief in the words of institutions, and this includes brands. Boomers, a bit less so. So, many of the defining experiences of the Boomer generation are of trust violated.

All this cultivated some skepticism among 45-65 year olds. For Gen X and Millennials, those feelings of mistrust are even greater. Belief in the veracity of advertising is at its lowest ebb among these groups.
For brands to gain the trust of the younger group, relatable personal experiences of “people like me” are extremely valuable. Of course, testimonials have been a staple of the ad biz for decades — but the advent of social has made access to “unbiased” reviews more ubiquitous.

Brands can appeal especially to Millennials and Gen Xers, but also to Boomers, by defining powerful social media evangelism initiatives that magnify access to positive messages.

Platforms like Zuberance http://www.zuberance.com/ and ExpoTV http://www.expotv.com/ , which encourage people to create and post brand related messages, are two examples of how we can give voice to our fans without perpetrating the sort of heavy handed control that would undermine the credibility of the positive messages. These and other platforms do not prevent people from making negative statements but rather ensure that among the available comments and videos related to your brand, your fans get their say. 

Of course, it would be difficult to deliver a powerful marketing program solely through community messages. But recognizing the inherent skepticism prevalent among younger groups can help us craft better brand-created messages as well. We need to cut back on hyperbole, and instead deliver positive but wholly accurate brand messages. Exaggerated claims are quickly exposed in our world of two way communications, as consumer disappointment gets a far broader audience than it did before the Internet. By contrast, delivering what you promise, social responsibility, and respect for the needs of users go a long way.

3. Delivering consistency

The always-on nature of modern media has conditioned all of us, especially Millennials, to expect access to messages on demand. Think about how your attitude toward TV changed when you got access to Youtube, Netflix, or Hulu.
The fact is, the younger you are, the less likely you are to be satisfied to wait for appointment media. Concepts like NBC’s 1990 marketing effort “Must See Thursday” (Primetime) simply don’t have the same pull anymore.

This has implications on how you deliver your video messages. It means that online viewing is an increasingly important channel for consumers and that if you choose TV spots to the exclusion of other media you may find that huge swaths of the population are under delivered.

It also points to the need for social community participation, because younger consumers expect to be able to access brand communications on their time and in “their” places. When we set goals to have our web presences visited weekly or monthly, we miss the sea change that on-demand media have wrought.

All consumers — but especially Millennials — come to us on their time and their terms. We can increase that likelihood with more frequent communications, more relevant messages, and getting ourselves closer to where they choose to spend time online. Naturally, the ubiquity of social media has made brand presences in these environments more relevant to all generations. Boomers and Gen Xers are all over social media, and the preferences of Millennials have spread to these more mature groups.

4. Rethinking focus

Millennials are far more oriented to multitasking and simultaneous communications. Boomers are more one-task-at-a-time oriented. You probably see this in your daily interactions with people of other generations.

I, for example, am constantly amazed by the ability of the Millennials around me to keep track of multiple activities at once and juggle a variety of simultaneous communications streams. By contrast, if you asked them what they notice about me, they’d tell you about the ability to spend hours or days focusing on the intricacies of a single task, and perhaps the ability to remember a great deal of detail.

In a work environment, having a mix of these skills is a great thing.

The (at times) forgotten implication for marketers is that we need to alter the single path nature of communications. When you visit a website, for example, there is generally a dominant communication on the first page. From there the goal is often to move people through the navigation from left to right or top to bottom, in a prescribed path.

To appeal to younger consumers, we need to make more kinds of information available on pages, encourage people to find their own paths, and provide multiple means of interaction.

Nike offered a page clearly more optimized to Millennials than to someone of my generation.

The brand message is strong, but it’s ultimately provided through user participation and the constantly moving graphics. This offers users the opportunity to consume multiple messages simultaneously and to follow up on those they find interesting. For me, such a site is a bit of a nightmare – off-putting to say the least. But then, I am not a good prospect for the brand.

Contrast that approach with Cialis, a product targeted to those over 35:

 A site like this tells you the dominant message and then gives you an eminently linear path to follow.
For your brand, it is more likely that you need to appeal to multiple generations, so finding an appropriate balance is the most important task. But using these two extreme examples can help define the entire range of possible designs, from which you can narrow to the approach and balance that works best for you.

This may also have implications for banners and other small ad spaces.

Conventional wisdom tends to argue for simplicity and message brevity in such spaces. However, I think that direction may be becoming outdated. Perhaps the availability of more ways to interact with ad units will ultimately overwhelm the standard banner approach. Banner clickers tend to be older, so that argues for simplicity. But our desire to sell to younger generations may require a wholesale rethink of what an “ad” actually is.

5. Providing entertainment

Inherent in the fragmentation of media that has defined the lives of younger consumers is the idea that at any moment we all have millions of potential alternatives to the media and marketing experience that we are currently seeing.

As a Boomer I was “trained” to wait through pods of commercials, and to follow a linear communications path. As a result, my expectations with regard to how interesting brand communications need to be are lower than someone 20 years my junior. Shorter and more scannable copy, more interesting stories, briefer marketing messages –all are part of a shift in control from brand dominated to consumer dominated.

Millennials expect our messages to be more relevant to them, more engaging, and more immersive.

These are all examples of higher expectations. Where expectations may actually be lower among Millennials is with regard to production values. Over and over the younger consumer has demonstrated a preference for ideas and truthful credibility over budget busting production values. It doesn’t mean the end to multimillion dollar video production extravaganzas, but rather that what counts even more are message, story, and engagement.

 Ford’s successful campaign for the Focus featuring ”Doug the Puppet” offers a great example of how entertainment value helped heighten the appeal of a considered purchase.

 For the last couple Super Bowls, Doritos has proven that by asking consumers to make ads for the company. The best entries have decent production values but really shine when it comes to their storytelling.

 



Conclusions

This is by no means an exhaustive list to consider when examining your efforts with regard to generational insights. However, the need to do so becomes quickly apparent when we take the time to look at our own messaging in the context of the eyes and brains of our prospects.

One important final thought is the need to balance youth culture with mature wallets. Any brand’s long term survival depends upon attracting the next generation needs to ensure that its messages are delivered in a manner that is relevant to younger people.

But today’s demographic realities point even more strongly to the value of attracting Boomers and keeping them sold on your products.

Older generations have had more money than their younger counterparts for a long time. But signs point to this being even more true in the years ahead. Persistently high Millennial unemployment and underemployment may make it harder for today’s youngest adults to match or exceed the success of their older counterparts.

In such an environment, and in a world where life spans are growing, it makes sense to ensure that as we refine our marketing efforts toward youth we also remember the needs of their well-heeled elders.

 Thanks to iMediaConnection.com for publishing this first.

Posted on: 04-15-2012
Posted in: Oldest Living Digital Marketer

The “Futures” Of Ad Exchanges? (Mediapost 2.29.12) 0

What’s the future of the ad exchange model?  It’s clear that ad exchanges and DMP’s are the future of the media business as media has become more and more of a commodity and data has become a requirement to add value, but where are things headed?

Many people refer to the commodities exchanges as the future of the ad exchange model, but to do so requires there be a marketplace for the buy and hold of media assets.  At first I was skeptical of that version of the future because there are not too many media buying shops willing to take the liability of those media assets on their books, but then I realized that market already exists and thrives and its called the Upfront.  In the television Upfronts, marketers and agencies buy and hold the media until a later time of the year, in some cases they put them all to use and in some cases they put them back into the market as scatter, taking the financial hit in the form of a cancellation clause.  If marketers had the chance to buy, hold and resell that media at either a profit or at least a break-even, wouldn’t they consider that?

The “futures” market is a tenuous one, especially in a volatile stock market and one where economic indicators are so across the board chaotic, but the advertising marketplace continues to grow.  More money is flowing into TV advertising every year, and the Internet continues to expand regardless of the almost infinite supply of impressions.  OOH and print may not be growing, but they are still finite assets that retain value, and marketers still want to take advantage of them.  A futures marketplace could indeed be valuable if the marketers and agencies were set up to take advantage of it.

The agency category is the one I find the most interesting here, because it’s the model that has been most in flux over the last 10 years.  The Internet and digital, more than anything, pushed margin’s down on agency commissions and as a result the agencies have been innovating to find new revenue streams.  Creative continues to be uncommoditizable, and strategy continues to be only semi-monetizable, so the agencies have focused on media buying – specifically by creating trading desks and analytics groups.  The agencies are focusing on the data and they are driving the media landscape into a commodities market.  If you agree this is the case, then it makes sense that the agency category may shift to a buy and hold strategy for media.  Some agencies do it already and have done it for years by entering into upfront agreements with the portals and larger publishers.  If you have money in the bank, and you know you’re going to be buying media for your clients, why not try to buy it at the low and sell it at a profit, which is still probably a discount to your clients?

Of course there’s the argument that the large marketers and public companies might be the ones to take advantage of this model because ultimately they are the ones who buy the media, and are ultimately responsible for its use.  I can foresee a model where the marketers buy the media on the market, hold and pay their agencies to put it to good use, rather than paying them a commission for it.  There could even become a secondary market for marketers who want to trade and barter media for their benefit.  The opportunity is endless if you commit to the idea that media can be bought, held and sold on a futures platform rather than the way most agencies buy now, which is last minute and through manual insertion orders.

For this model to truly succeed, the media buying agencies need to mature.  Currently they are full of young, undeveloped, and in too many cases poorly trained, buyers.  These new buyers would be analysts and traders.  They would be evaluating trends and matching those market trends against the needs of the clients.  I don’t see these buyers being compensated to the same scale as Wall Street bankers, but I see them commanding stronger salaries than the current media buyers.  It’s a skill and one that could not be easily replaced by some smart person off the street.

What do you think?  Can a future’s model succeed in this business?  Would it have to be cross-platform, encompassing online and offline, or could a stand-alone online marketplace exist and survive?  Let me know what you think by posting a comment on the Spin Board!

Posted on: 03-4-2012
Posted in: treffiletti.com

Digital marketing’s 4 biggest disappointments 0

Oh boy, does the digital buzz machine ache for a metaphorical magic pill — some blockhead simple “cure” for many of the marketing challenges facing brands. When new things come along, the buzz about their potential effects on the marketing body sometimes gets blown out of proportion.
Our industry appears to have its own form of digital bipolar disorder. (“DBD” for the TV campaign every new disease needs — cue the contemporary sound track and vignettes of deliriously happy people raising their arms to the sky.) People in our industry looooove new things. And then, about six months later, we often despise those same things. In many cases, it’s not the platforms and technologies that are at fault — it is the collective DBD and the unrealistic expectations it creates and then dashes.
What’s caused this epidemic of DBD? It seems driven by a desire in some to “take care of” digital — deploy something simple and understandable to make this wonderfully, horribly dynamic environment more manageable. We want to bring structure to something that feels formless.
Just because the latest digital “thing” is transforming communications doesn’t mean it is a panacea for brand challenges. This article looks at four digital “things” that instantly captivated many, only to lose their luster just as quickly when it became evident that they were not magic pills. It also points to a short list of considerations to make the next time everyone is calling something “white hot.” I’ve deliberately picked four fundamentally sound concepts and platforms to demonstrate how it is misplaced marketer expectations that are the problem here — not the technologies themselves.

Daily deals

Everybody’s favorite whipping boyThe hype for daily deals was out of control. I remember reading a pundit’s blog in December 2010 that predicted that a majority(!) of marketing dollars would eventually be spent offering these 50 percent (or more) discounts on products and services.
What caused the super hype? I think two issues were at play here:
Digital loves “disruption.” We love things that bring down the venerable walls of Jericho. We love the idea of a new company shattering time-honored approaches. The notion fuels the collective sense that we are witnessing marketing solution history. But here’s the rub: A promotional tactic can’t live up to that sort of expectation.
Radical misunderstanding of marketer needs. Many in the tech culture don’t really get marketing. The goal of marketing is to charge full price for something — not almost give it away at 75 percent off. By contrast, a common model in tech is to give away services, thereby creating different revenue streams driven by scale. There’s nothing wrong with either way of thinking, but the second often doesn’t jibe well with marketer KPIs. Some marketing investment is focused on trial and demand generation — things that daily deals are good at encouraging. But more money is spent with the goal of driving margin through differentiation.
If I may ascend the soapbox for a second, let me state emphatically that most marketers are notlooking for 29 new ways to distribute coupons. We’d rather have a digital platform that enables us never to need coupons.
Daily deals are an absolutely valid tactic for a host of other purposes. But when the math of a program requires a 50 percent or greater discount — and then takes a big cut of the revenue that is collected — one cannot expect marketers to pour most of their resources in. Daily deals can be a really smart tactic — or a really dumb one.

Branded widgets

Portable corporate goodness 
In 2007, widgets were all the rage. Thousands of companies wanted either a desktop widget, a Facebook widget, or a MySpace widget.
The conventional wisdom was that these deep and portable brand experiences would incite such excitement in consumers that they’d want to carry our precious messages “wherever they live online.” Platform-specific widgets quickly gave way to platform agnostic units that appeared to further shed the shackles that had trapped our brands for lo these many years. Hooray! Plus, the good ones had incredible interactivity — in an era in which all banners could give us were 1-2-3 animations.
Six months later, if you mentioned a widget, you saw a cascade of faces doing what Joey Tribbiani called “smell the fart” acting.
What went wrong?
Once again, there was nothing wrong with the thing, per se. Widgets were and are useful little things when designed well. But there were a couple problems there:
Our expectations were whackadoodle. A client once asked me if $275,000 was enough to get 20 million installs of its widget.
Generally brands don’t make good content. Making so-so games or videos isn’t enough. Your beer’s virtual bottle cap spinner “game” (with foamy animation Easter eggs!) doesn’t make the consumer cut.
We forgot the marketing. Most brands spent the majority of their budget on the widget, and almost nothing on publicizing it. Kevin Costner in a cornfield.
Facebook changed how it handled widgets. It consigned them to the back burner.
Of course, actually useful widgets live on in tens of billions of installs, and lots of companies are making a good living by selling the data they collect. But a DBD-fueled brand panacea they were not.

Branded mobile apps

Opportunity calling? Apps can be astounding. Brand apps often aren’t. There are some great exceptions — not the least of which is P&G’s eminently useful “Sit or Squat.”
Or Volvo’s driving game. Or Kraft’s “Big Fork Little Fork.”
But apps are only going to be successful to the extent that they meet an actual need. A FedEx app that lets me see if my packages have been delivered? Nifty! A shopping app built around a store finder for universally distributed bathroom tissue? Not so much.
Another issue with the early branded apps was the development cost. Apps took significant time and resources to build. Further, in order to get massive scale, apps needed to be ported to several major platforms — iOS, Android, etc. That cost real money. And every successive generation of those same apps needed to be ported across platforms again. At least in those days, interoperability was a pipedream.
A number of startups are working to simplify the process with toolsets that let you develop once and deploy across all of the major platforms. Further, they enable the assembly of assets in minutes instead of weeks. These advancements won’t make your content better, but they will enable you to spend some marketing money on publicizing a good app.
What’s great about the app space is that there’s sort of a second generation of brand apps in development now — ones focused on meeting real needs. Because apps will likely be a major component in the delivery of digital content for years to come, it’s great to see that the brand community is trying again with better content and more realistic expectations. In this case, it appears that we fought our desire to discard the toddler with the tub water.

First-generation retargeting

An old classicRetargeting has been around for awhile, and it usually delivers highly cost-effective results, especially for direct marketers. For those not familiar, a really basic definition of retargeting is as follows: A third party in your employ cookies your site visitors who don’t convert and follows them around the web with targeted banners designed to drive revisit and response. The cost per metrics are usually amazing. Cool stuff.
But for most brands, the traffic to the website is relatively small when compared to the total potential audience for a product or service. Which means that the total amount of money and results one can expect from this sort of retargeting is rather limited. If only a relatively small percentage of the target visit your site, only that limited population can be retargeted.
The industry was abuzz with the miracle of retargeting for a time. Then it got a bad rap — not worth the bother because of the scale problem.
Over the past couple of years, “retargeting” has evolved into a broader bucket — the foundation for targeted marketing efforts that reach beyond your site visitors. There are several methodologies by which companies are helping to expand the scale of “retargeting-style” performance metrics:
Prospect targeting: This approach, pioneered by , uses your site visitors as the foundation to identify “behave-alikes” that share their media behaviors. The highly developed set of algorithms used by m6d start with your retargeting pool to identify and map large numbers of “behave-alikes.” It then enables you to target this big pool through exchange-based media. These aren’t “look-alikes” — they are “do-alikes.” The idea is that such “do-alikes” will exhibit similar brand propensities and drive great metrics at scale.
Search retargeting: Companies like  and  collect data on a consumer’s search queries related to a product or category. Since search is a great gauge of purchase intent, brands are getting great results across a much broader audience than site visitors
Look-alike targeting: This model leverages the information we can discern about your site visitors and finds others that reflect those same characteristics. Many media companies offer these services, and they are also available for DIY exchange-based buying through DSPs and trading desks.
Social sharing targeting: A different approach, identified most closely with , uses huge numbers of social sharing data points to develop profiles of likely intenders, and then expands the prospect pool by identifying other people with similar behaviors. It’s based upon the concept that social intent and the implicit graph offers the greatest potential audience for a brand’s marketing message.
Of course, there’s nothing at all wrong with classic retargeting. It’s just that most brands need to find ways to deliver greater scale. But the answer to the scale shortfall isn’t to poo-poo the concept; it is to build upon it. Brands can achieve scale with a combination of classic retargeting and other efforts that similarly attract high-likelihood-of-intent consumers. The tide is turning, and now retargeting is generally viewed sensibly positively.

The treatment for DBD

So how do we inoculate ourselves against DBD? Through sensible and rational thinking. I think there are five things to remember the next time we hear about the latest and greatest thing.
Start with a strategy
So many of the mistakes brands make into diving into new platforms could be avoided if we first ensured that they were consistent with your brand’s digital strategy.
Ask yourself whether its creators seem to “get” marketing
Not to put too fine a point on it, but many tech companies and startups simply don’t. Since our goal is to create value, we need to ensure that the tasks the tool seems to address do just that.
Approach new platforms and ideas with sensibility, not the herd mentality
We are in digital because we love new stuff. But let’s keep the breathlessness to a minimum.
Ensure that the expectations of a new thing reflect its potential versatility
Marketing and brand needs are highly complex. While it would be great if a few simple solutions could solve our problems, we need to test the hype before we buy in hook, line, and sinker.
Do the math — and test
The selection of a marketing tactic is a business decision best made with a cool head and open eyes. It needs to meet the same criteria as something long established.
Let’s keep the excitement level sensible and avoid DBD. Side effects of this approach are significant and include better decision making and higher ROI.

Posted on: 02-11-2012
Posted in: Oldest Living Digital Marketer

Do You Have Industry Déjà Vu? (Mediapost 1.18.12) 0

Do you have industry déjà vu?  I do!  Doesn’t it feel as though the primary issues of the day we face today are the same issues that we faced eight or ten years ago?  Is this a sign of the cyclical nature of the business or have we literally stalled?

Ten years ago, or somewhere thereabouts, we were dealing with the business based on click-through, we were dealing with the beginning of attribution models, and we were dealing with the development of brand advertising online.   We were faced with the questions of whether it’s best to be spending on content or via behavioral targeting.  We were dealing with our position as a media vehicle and how we fit into the overall marketing mix.  Over time one would think some of these questions have been addressed and that new questions would have risen to take their place, but it doesn’t feel as though it has!

In our defense, we’ve grown really fast and we’ve certainly accomplished a lot, but the business is still in need of some standards.  The business is still too complicated to command a leadership position in the marketplace, at least when it comes to a comparison against television and other media.  Its been stated time and time again, but its easier to spend $10MM on TV than it is to spend $2MM in digital.   And the fact is I wrote that exact same sentence last year, five years ago and ten years ago as well.  At some point we have to come to terms, make some decisions, and set the stage for growth and expansion.

If I can foresee a trend, it’s that the next year or two should be focused on the simplification of the models and the further commoditization of the business.  I personally don’t see commoditization as a bad thing.  I see it as a step towards maturity.  I see commodization as a way for brands to spend more money, for agencies to become more efficient with their time and for publishers to generate higher margins.  Of course the question remains, how do we do that?

The easiest way for this to happen is for everyone in the industry to come to a positive middle ground.  I spent the first 15 years of my career building digital ad agencies, and the last 4 helping publishers and start-ups, and in almost every situation I hear that, “what you have is close to what we need, but we need a little more”.  That “little more” is what keeps us from coming to resolution, and from my perspective that “little more” is not a necessity.  It is a hindrance more than anything.  Without that “little more” we could actually standardize and get a lot of things accomplished!

I was a culprit of this while on the agency side, so I admit to taking some of the blame.  Much of the time my job was to take something that a publisher had and “make it more tailored to our needs”.   Of course, “our needs” was attempting to generate differentiated positions between our agency and the competition, but looking back I think that differentiation should have been on the creativity of our brains rather than the minor differences in technology.  Every agency has a trading desk.  Every agency has a dynamic ad server.  Every agency has similar tools, but every agency has different people and those people are the defining element, whether it be in media or creative.  The people are what you can’t commoditize and their creativity is what will propel the business.

Knowing that people are the defining factor means the rest of the business can be standardized from a media perspective.  Industry groups like the IAB and others could probably help here by setting the stage for standards in reporting and the ever-discussed “digital dashboard”.  By helping brands and publishers come to a single agreement on what they should be looking at, how often, and where they should be looking at it, we could come to a standard on the media side of the business.  With that standard would come commoditization and that could help us become more efficient with our time!

Sometimes déjà vu is a nice feeling.  It provides comfort and it provides a sense of peace, but I don’t think that we as an industry are ready for comfort and peace.  We are a business that is driven by entrepreneurs and evangelists and we love to push things forward, so maybe we can find some new things to push forward if we can wrap up the loose ends that we’ve overlooked?

What do you think?

Posted on: 01-22-2012
Posted in: treffiletti.com

9 digital campaigns to learn from 0

Behold some of the best that digital marketers created in the last year. Some are integrated multi-execution efforts, others are simply powerful one-offs. But all of them signal the beginning of a new era of creativity that includes platform and format as part of the effort to move the needle.


Ford did a nice job “relevantizing” Ford Focus’s appeal to younger drivers with the “Doug” puppet campaign. In addition to videos like this, the presence in social media was funny, tight, and popular. Ford’s digital marketing manager, Scott Kelly, says he acts as a liaison of decency between Doug and the public, as well as letting us interject some vehicle features in a natural way. Results are good. Mashable reports 36,000 Facebook fans and some 1.7 million video views, strong conversions to sale, and a brand image that markedly improved among target buyers. Not bad for a puppet!
Google: The web is what you make of it
There are so many things to like about the new campaign for Chrome, which encompasses traditional, online, mobile, and social. This particular “viral” execution has so many things going for it. It is how you do celebrity in an era of consumer participation. The effort shows how Chrome empowers such amazing experiences that wouldn’t have been at all possible even a few years ago. And it puts Google squarely at the center of the best of what digital has to offer. Yeah, yeah, Google does TV now. But it’s Googly, and in the process, takes ownership of the things people love about our new media era.
McDonalds: Pong
The great thing about “I’m lovin’ it” is that it is a concept that can encompass so many fun things. That breadth is great for a brand that needs to be about a lot more than the best fries ever! This MickeyD’s campaign from Sweden featured an enormous billboard on which two passersby could play Pong. If you successfully played it for 30 seconds, you were sent a mobile coupon for free McDonald’s food. I admit that I have no transactional results to show you here to confirm its immediate business impact. But as a means of generating buzz and cementing the company’s fun and hip credentials with young people of all ages, this effort was “magnifik.” In my view, mega brands need to create special experiences like this to create lasting consumer impact in an era of media fragmentation and change.

Paramount’s Twitter sneak peek

It’s often tough to tie sales to social, but this interesting campaign for the Paramount theatrical release of “Super 8″ drove $1 million in theater tickets and strong buzz for a modest budget title. The program offered a combination of official announcements and what they call a “Promoted Trend” to flag pre-release showings. The effort contributed to opening weekend box office sales that were higher than expected.
Audi’s A8 Klout campaign

The luxury market is incredibly crowded these days, so I liked Audi’s use of influencers as a means of generating bottom up buzz. Just one of the tactics was the Klout perks offering to encourage people to test drive the car and discuss it with their networks. The effort generated loads of tweets and great reach for people-originated endorsements of the Audi standard of luxury.
BK’s Channel 111



When BK changed agencies, it signaled a philosophical shift from lifestyle messaging to product front-and-center. What better way to do that than placing it smack dab in the middle of DirectTV’s channel 111. By staring at the Whopper for long periods of time, you could earn coupons for free sandwiches. But if you looked away, you might miss a demand that you press a button on your remote. Miss an order, start over. What makes this such a great interactive digital campaign is how it put interactivity at the center of a TV focused campaign — a media rarely known for its participatory side. The buzz from this effort was awesome, and I would imagine that all that time staring created internal dissonance in many a cynical viewer. I call it Flamebroglio – I want to deny my personal susceptibility to advertising. But look at those perfect grill marks!



Barbie takes Ken back


Years ago, the world was stunned when Barbie dumped Ken for some Australian McConaughey clone named Blaine. I’m guessing it was an effort to make her a little more trendy in a world of loose Bratz. But things soured with the Aussie (I’m guessing too much beer was part of the problem.) In 2011, Barbie saw her error thanks to a massive publicity campaign asking America if she should take Ken back. My favorite piece was this little video showing Ken finding Barbie using the powerful algorithms of Match.com. But there were loads of components to this effort. Tens of millions of impressions, several million Facebook fans, lots of votes, and for the first time, millions became part of the brand and actually cared about America’s favorite anatomically incorrect doll. This sort of voting isn’t new, but the massive multi-dimensional nature of the digitally centered effort made it feel fresh.



Brand Harry Potter and Pottermore

The HP books created a literary sensation that the world arguably hasn’t seen since Twain and Dickens serialized their stories in newspapers. But J.K. Rowling told us that the saga is over. How do you keep the excitement and revenue coming from a completed franchise? Why with Pottermore, of course, a groundbreaking interactive environment in which fans of all ages can read new content and participate in the stories. And while they are there, buy unique electronic content and the first ebook editions. Will it work? I think so, but what really matters is that it offers a really remarkable new model for the book business that leverages the static stories in uniquely participatory ways. This, while continuing to sell stuff.

JC Penney personalized QR codes
I was really taken by this innovative use of QR codes as a means of delivering personal audio messages on holiday gifts purchased from JCP. Buy the item at Penney’s, get a personal QR code card, record your message, and make your gift recipient smile! What a brilliant way of making goods purchased at Penney’s — which are often precisely the same goods that you could purchase somewhere else — and make them uniquely valuable. What a great way to get people to shop Penney’s first, and buy the item where they first find it. QR codes are often used by consumers to find lower prices online. In this case, Penney’s has flipped the model on its head and in the process, driven incremental sales!

Posted on: 01-19-2012
Posted in: Oldest Living Digital Marketer

Superbowl Vs. Online: The Answer Is Frequency (Mediapost 1.9.12) 0

This is the time of year is when marketing pundits launch into the inevitable debate of whether it makes sense to advertise on the Superbowl or not.  It’s easily the single largest advertising event of the year, and there’s a football game too!  Coming a close second to that debate is whether the Internet or TV will become the dominant form of advertising.  Both these debates are ridiculous and the reason why is simple.  The answer to every question is “yes”.

When i say "yes", i say it to be purposefully vague, because the fact of the matter is that all of the above avenues work, and they work well when you build frequency.  In many cases it makes sense to advertise on the Superbowl, and in other cases it doesn't.  The same goes for advertising online, or TV in general.  For some brands and marketing objectives, they both can be effective or they can both be useless.  The debate is a silly one because there’s no right or wrong answer.  The decision to advertise on the Superbowl is a strategic decision, as is every other decision a company makes when lay out their marketing efforts.

To advertise on the Superbowl is easy, and in my perspective it can be viewed as a cop out, unless you back it up with other supportive marketing.  To advertise on the Superbowl as a one-shot, or as the only element of your campaign, is wasteful.  The Superbowl is the ultimate expression of marketing.  It is an event, and it is intended to be your crowning achievement for the year or a way to kick-off your campaign.  You can reach a significantly larger audience than anywhere else, you generate endless buzz as a result, but if you don't follow that buzz up with some element of continuity through the rest of the year then you're just doing yourself a disservice.  It can easily become a waste of money.  It's a "one and done" strategy that you hope will carry you through the remainder of the year (hint: it won't).

The debate over Internet vs. Television is similar because it’s a cop-out to think that one or the other will work for you as a stand-alone vehicle for your messaging.  You have to use them both and build frequency in the eyes of your consumer.  In tandem, the Internet and TV can be a significantly effective one-two punch, and you can generate reach, frequency, engagement and impact in the eyes of your target audience.  There is no silver bullet solution anymore, in much the same way that you can't expect to spend your entire budget on a Superbowl ad and expect to drive sales that year.  

Integrated marketing is the name of the game, and you have to do it all.  In sports you hear that "defense wins championships", and that’s true, but behind every great defense is an offense that is capable of scoring.  You may be able to stop the opposing team from scoring, but if you can't score then you can't win the game.  The same strategy applies to marketing.  You can't focus all your attention against a single tactic and hope it will work, because your audience doesn't operate that way.  They’re not one-dimensional, so your marketing can't be one-dimensional either.  You need to do your homework, look at the information that’s available to you, and come up with a plan of attack that will balance your messaging against the key metrics of reach, frequency and impact, to drive results.  Integrated marketing requires you to come up with a plan that includes multiple avenues to reach your target and do so repeatedly.  It requires you to have a back-up plan, and it requires that you build an image in the eyes of your target.  You can't do that in one sitting anymore.  The days of the Apple "1984" ad are long gone.   When that ad ran, the world was a simpler place and a one-time showing could generate impact.  These days, that is simply not the case.  Your audience is fragmented and there are far more choices for them – you need frequency.

So the simple answer is this; the Superbowl is an amazing advertising opportunity for the right brand, if they’re willing to back it up and support that spot with other components of a marketing plan.  It could be Internet, point of sale, even direct mail, but there has to be something to create additional frequency in the eyes of your target audience.  The Internet and Television are both important elements of the marketing mix, but you can’t hang your hat on just one single element in the media mix.  You have to spread it out.  

Posted on: 01-15-2012
Posted in: treffiletti.com

11 Digital Ideas From 2011 Worth a 2nd Look 0

There aren’t enough good digitally centered ideas. Here’s a
little collection of the best ideas we saw in 2011 – ideas that demonstrate how
great thinking and ideas come alive when married to the power of digital.
1.      JCPenney makes something the same…different.
When you sell many of the same goods available in other
stores, it can be hard to differentiate your offerings. Add to that the danger
of people comparison shopping with their cell phones, and you have a major need
in search of a solution. Here’s their great idea:
2.      L’Oreal demonstrates dramatic proof that
their makeup is a great cover up
Anybody can show a pretty model with flawless skin. But what
does that really prove? Here’s the way you proof makeup efficacy.
3.      Olla gives young men a good reason to wear ‘em
We all know, intellectually, what are the paternity consequences
of not using a condom. Here’s a way to bring that to life for young men who
sometimes don’t think with their heads.
4.      Macy’s screams Black Friday
It’s not easy to stand out amid the din of Black Friday ads.
While at its core a TV ad, this hilarious message featuring the Bieb got
millions of views online – and impact that far exceeded the size of the buy.
5.      T-Mobile stands out…in Christmas red!
The flash mobs that TMobile periodically uses to touch the
hearts of millions continued in 2011 with this Christmas message – this time
from a mall in Chicagoland. I want the soloist’s albums, dammit. Who is she?
6.      Nokia’s reconnects with advanced technology
Nokia’s hit some hard times in Mobile, especially in smart
phones. This amazing sound and light show, literally ON the London skyline,
helped the brand stand out and show off. And in the process, reach millions via
online video.
7.      Coke makes happiness strike in the Philippines
Watch, cry, and see why Coke’s the world’s brand.
8.      And delivers happiness to Brazil!
Can you imagine actually being there?
9.      Nike gets past the lockout
What a brilliant way to connect with fans even when your
endorsers are sidelined. What a great way to demonstrate your connection and
heart for a sport!

Posted on: 12-22-2011
Posted in: Oldest Living Digital Marketer

Hot links for 12/8/2011 0


Posted on: 12-10-2011
Posted in: Oldest Living Digital Marketer

You Want Viral? You Can’t Handle Viral! (Mediapost 11.30.11) 0

Virality.  This is the single most important, most over-utilized, and meaningless term in digital marketing today.  Virality applies to the concept of sharing content that happens spontaneously, through great planning or dumb luck.  Virality is what you all want, and its something that many of you will never get.

There are elements that you can manipulate to try and increase the opportunity for something viral to take place, but you can’t control it.   In the immortal words of Dan Patrick from his days at ESPN, “you can’t stop it, you can only hope to contain it”.

For virality to happen to need to have a couple key ingredients:

1. Strong, engaging, funny or immensely relevant content

Without truly engaging and relevant content, your message will go nowhere.  You need the kind of exclusive, first-mover advantage content that people will see, will immediately apply to themselves and their situations, and will share.

2. Share functionality, built in and noticeable

Think through the user interface and make sure your share buttons are prominent, easy to use, and tap into Facebook, Twitter and email.  Many people forget about email, but the majority of sharing still happens through email, so don’t overlook it.

3. A launching pad that stokes the fire for a large initial blast

You need a launching pad, and that can be an online campaign using Facebook, banners or in-game text ads.  It can also be a TV campaign, or even a print campaign.  You need something that can reach a large audience in an uncluttered environment, and all at the same time.

4. The launch needs to be a big, fast blitz, not a tempered, gradual release

As they say… go big or go home.  You need to make a quick splash and you need to do it now.  That is the only way to spark the attention of the fans, and get them to share your content. 

Funny Or Die is among the best at this, having figured out all of the above and making viral efforts almost better than anyone.  Jimmy Fallon and Justin Timberlake should be ushered into the Viral Hall of Fame for their recent efforts with the History of Rap.  These are the kinds of efforts that gain notoriety immediately, and then just keep on going.  They have taken viral to an art form, and one that we all desire to emulate.  Of course, relevant to one of my last articles, virality is impossible without great content.  To be blunt, crappy content will not be viral.  If you are a brand looking to create some viral buzz, or if you are an agency looking to pitch a “viral” campaign (if you are, you should rethink your strategy), then you need to be hyper critical of yourself.  You cannot drive viral without the content being high quality.  You better focus test that creative, you better have something really special.  If not, then you are not setting yourself up for success.

And one last bit of advice; don’t be afraid to spend money in lieu of virality.  You can drive reach in any number of ways, and viral is the most ideal, but reach is reach.  Sometimes the tipping point requires more mass reach than you thought.

Don’t you agree?

Posted on: 12-4-2011
Posted in: treffiletti.com
Page 1 of 512345»

Recent Posts

  • Industry News for 05082012
  • Industry Links for 05072012
  • Industry Links for 05092012
  • Simplifying the Display Landscape
  • Viral Vid: Alex and Liam do Wal*Mart
A member of the collective of companies
© 2010-2011 Catalyst SF All Rights Reserved. Website by