Content

Although still the number one show on network TV, American Idol has seen a steady rating decline this year to it’s lowest totals in five years.  Many theories have been offered  - lackluster contestants, people growing tired of the format, a general post-strike decline in viewership to name a few.   I would suggest another reason why the show has generated almost no buzz this year and people are tuning out.

In the past AI has been a masterful example of combining content and sponsorship.  In this age of permission based marketing, they came up with a formula that was compelling to fans while providing companies like Coke, AT&T and Ford a great marketing vehicle.  Once this show became a huge hit – the producers and FOX amped up the tie ins and revenue opportunities.  They produce records, concerts tours and TV shows.  The voter results show was expanded from 30 minutes to an hour to sell more commercials.  And, they added more promotional deals with iTunes and with “guest mentors” who had new albums to hawk.  Slowly but surely, the marketing and advertising overwhelmed the content portion of the show and this year was the tipping point.  For example, the addition of an AT&T sponsored segment where “random” fans call in to ask questions is nothing but filler and painful to watch.  You almost expect Ryan Seacrest to come out one night wearing a sandwich board with an ad for Maaco Auto Body shops.

I am a fan of the show, but felt like I just spent two hours a week watching an infomercial.  The desire for promotion really hurt the perception of this year’s contestants by forcing them to sing songs by artists who are not relevant to today’s audience.  Two weeks of Beatles songs were a bore – for today’s kids, it does not mean that much, and for those of us over 35, we have heard them a million times.  Then they moved on to Dolly Parton, Mariah Carey and Neil Diamond –who shockingly, all had new albums and tours to promote.  Can anyone name me three Dolly songs? Mariah has more #1 hits than anyone – but are any of them remotely memorable.  However, the highest rated show on the unintentional comedy scale was “show tunes” week with Andrew Lloyd Webber. 

You get the feeling it all about driving sales and playing it safe for the sponsors.  It is just a little coincidental that contestants who are different (i.e. possibly gay) or edgy (tattooed) find themselves gone early and the bland survive.  The success of the incredibly boring and cloying David Archuleta (known as the “Gasper” on Idol fan site Vote for the Worst.com) is symbolic of that trend.  He may be the single least entertaining person on television.

For the show to be successful past next year, the producers really need to examine the balance between content and marketing.  While we often profess that content based permission marketing is the wave of the future, AI is a cautionary tale of what happens when the mix gets out of balance.  I know we are all in business to make a buck, but guys, take it down a notch or you will kill the golden goose.

Share This

According to a recent Junta42/BtoB Magazine study, almost 30% of businesses marketing budgets are allocated to their own content. That means, instead of creating an advertisement that runs along side traditional media, businesses are developing and executing their own content, essentially being their own media.

Can I hear an Amen?

Look, there will always be interruption-style marketing, or what a recent BusinessWeek calls “attention-deficit” advertising. According to the article, “Marketers, only too aware that consumers are ignoring traditional ads, have adopted the ‘more is more’ approach and have begun advertising everywhere – in taxis, fitness clubs, and hospital waiting rooms.”
This will never stop. Some people will self-choose to become walking billboards and, outside of corporate design standards, some locales will look like Times Square on steroids. As long as there is product to sell, this will never stop.

But there is another way, a “higher road” per say, which business marketers are starting to get. 30% of a marketing budget is a huge number. Businesses are beginning to understand that the creation of valuable, relevant and compelling content may, ultimately, be the best way to drive long-term revenues and profits.

Let’s get this straight: Businesses don’t create their own educational content to be nice, they do it to make money.  The creation of content marketing within an organization may be one of those few areas where doing the “right” thing for your customers actually makes you more money (Toyota Prius and Waterfree urinals come to mind).

Why Now?

Even though the art of content marketing and custom publishing has been going on since the dawn of time (but formally recognized when John Deere launched their customer newsletter to farmers, The Furrow, in 1896), some media-types overlook why content marketing is beginning to skyrocket.

It all has to do with consumer control. Because of technological advances, today’s consumer (your customer) can control everything they engage in. In the past, consumers were “forced” to watch television commercials. TiVo proved this wasn’t a necessity. In the past, access to content was relegated to the elite few who had subscriptions to media sources. Google has democratized content to such a degree that literally anyone can find everything from anywhere in the world.

Today’s buyers engage with advertising when they choose to. The marketer has lost any and all control they might have had in the past. Without control, what’s a marketer to do?
From this perspective, the solution is easy: As a business, if my customers are going to ignore my ads, I must deliver them valuable content so they pay attention to me. This is the reason why 30% is just a starting point. In less than five years, it may be 50%…possibly more.

Exciting Times

If half or more of marketing budgets are dedicated to custom content, one thing is inevitable: the quality of content will continue to increase. Corporate content, in order to get the attention of customers, must be as good as or better than any content you’d find in mainstream or trade media.

Hard to fathom? Not really. We are still fighting for our customer’s attention, but instead of annoying them with a million unwanted messages a day, we’ll be strategically targeting an important piece of content, at the appropriate time, that makes the customer more intelligent, or makes their lives easier in some way.
In order to accomplish this task, businesses will reach out to the best journalists and publishers from around the world, from local to global, to help them deliver a valuable message to their customers. There may never be a better time to be a writer than right now. Forget being the chief editor of the Wall Street Journal, go to Microsoft, Cisco or P&G.
Exciting time indeed. Prepare the way.

Joe Pulizzi is founder and chief content officer for Junta42. Junta42’s Match product is a free resource for marketing professionals to help them find pre-qualified content marketing assistance. Read more of Joe at http://blog.junta42.com/.

Share This

Crocheted doll hats off to American Girl Doll (AGD) for some of the most effective marketing I have ever seen. Bringing new meaning to managing supply and demand, they have targeted the heart and soul of the most competitive purchasing segment in the US: the pre-teen girl. In a fashion that I admire and embrace, AGD has surrounded their target audience (and their target’s CFOs—the moms) with a true 360 degree marketing approach. They embrace print, events, email, destination marketing and a new twist, hair styling. Simply put, American Girl Doll has created a private media channel to talk directly to their customers and prospects. They truly own their media channel rather than renting traditional ad space.

To see this media channel in action take a trip, curious marketers! AGD calls it “Shop, Play, Visit, Watch”. There are so many ways to interact with this brand and all roads lead to profit. The dolls represent historical figures or exact look-a-likes of your little princesses. They represent different nationalities, races and abilities. They are designed to be aspirational as well as inspirational. Dolls and the endless supply of outfits, furniture, pets, accessories and equipment can be purchased online or at one of the specialty American Girl Doll stores in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas and Atlanta. The clothes fit the dolls and they have matching outfits and pj’s for the big girls too! But don’t just shop at the stores! Stay and have lunch with your little look-alikes. Get your hair done, and the doll’s hair, too. Just make sure to keep the credit card in hand.

They have created a custom magazine to talk directly with their customers. For $23 the American Girl Doll magazine will entertain while building loyalty and preference, six times a year. The content is written with the target in plain sight, including: party planning; crafts; activities; even girl-to-girl advice for those 8-12 years old. The custom media component is complimented by “more magazine fun online” including compelling puzzles, quizzes and games from “the magazine on FUN”. Whether filling Felicity’s Wagon, visiting Kaya’s Mountain Escape, or helping Molly grow a garden, the online activities are designed to be educational and wholesome. Given the challenges of monitoring children’s online usage, moms generally welcome sites and activities that embrace these qualities. Our little American Girls can spend their most valuable pre-teen resource, their time, devoted to this brand. The smart ones even figure out how to get their mom’s most valuable resource, cash, committed as well. My Mom-sense is that $23 seems a reasonable subscription offer for hours of fun and reading for this integrated print/web product.

The entertainment continues with DVDs and feature-length films in theaters, generally inspired by the many books written about these 15 inch tall beauties. Trailers of the movies can be previewed at http://www.americangirl.com/ .

As a mom, I am taken back to my own youth, when Barbie and her friends were the hub of my universe. Nurse Barbie, Wedding Barbie, Beach Barbie, Doctor Barbie… ah the options were endless. My friends and I worked our parents with a finesse that would impress a diplomat for a new doll or ensemble. Maybe it was just that our parents knew that a new outfit, complete with teeny weenie high heels could keep us busy for hours of healthy imaginative playtime. As wonderful as Barbie and her buddies were, they were limited to dolls and accessories, and their promotional opportunities were limited to running ads on TV and in magazines. My daughter’s choices seem to have so much more depth and dynamics and AGD can own their media channel. Because they use media and technology to surround their customer, AGD has built a much deeper relationship than I could ever have had with Barbie.

As a marketer, I marvel at what this Barbie in the “post advertising age” strategy has accomplished. Their success is unquestionable and the future looks bright. My next question to my clients: can you shop, play, visit, watch and live your brand? If you can’t yet, is it a possibility? What are the components that can be added to your existing strategy that will compliment the existing plan? And what can we all learn from a doll about private media channels?

Share This

There have already been a million reviews of the creative, and that is not our goal, but rather to take a Private Media/Custom Media look at the efforts.

One of the big themes was Web tie-ins and promotions. Google/You Tube  offered a special package which was a smart option. When you are spending $3 million for 30 seconds of rented TV time, it is a no brainier to buy a package from the premier search engine and video sharing site. My Space and other sites also promoted how you could recap the commercials online after the game. Many (but not enough) of the commercials invited you to a special Web site with mixed results. This was the whole focus of the Go Daddy campaign where they teased you to go on line for a lame Junior High joke about Danica Patrick and a beaver. Embarrassing all around, and did nothing to persuade people to use their domain buying service.

The other theme was the overall level of violence, anger, mayhem and gross outs. Puking babies, hearts jumping out of a chest, people sucked into a jet engine, face mauling badgers, and Justin Timberlake being beaten senseless. I haven’t even gotten to the politically incorrect and just plain offensive – making fun of foreigners, unattractive women and creepy clowns. I am a pretty insensitive guy, and even I was offended at some of this stuff.

Mayhem has been a theme for a couple of years now. I can only guess that this is what happens when big agencies try to make news rather than practice good marketing. They are trying to outdo each other and be outrageous to break through the clutter. This is classic example of agencies talking AT customers rather building a relationship and imparting information that could be used to make a buying decision. The whole Super Bowl ad culture has forgotten the purpose of advertising and marketing is to actually sell products and services.

What struck me the most about these ads is how all those marketing dollars could have been used more effectively. Here are just some rough ideas on how to better spend $3,000,000 using content based private custom media solutions.

1. Mining your customer and prospect database to create a quarterly magazine or newsletter with customized content to build a relationship of trust with your customers.
2. A frequent buyer’s affinity program aimed at your best customers to get them to spend more money and convert them to life long customers.
3. A series of interactive webcasts where you can give customers and prospects great information while creating a two-way dialog.
4. A custom Web site packed with content and an online video series with a viral component to build excitement about your brand and turn customers into brand evangelists.
5. A series of face-to-face events to get yourself closer to your customers. There is no substitute to getting your prospects to actually touch, feel and try your product. This works for both consumer and business offerings. If you want someone to try a new version of Pepsi then get it into people’s hands in a fun atmosphere. That will convert a lot more customers than a commercial that rips off a 1990’s Saturday Night Live skit

Two Ads I Really Liked

I thought the ad for the Audi R8 did the best job showing you the product in action and creating excitement for a new car. First they get you hooked with a parody of the Godfather. They even used an actor, Alex Rocco, from the original film. (He played Jewish gangster Moe Green, the bullet in the eye guy from the scene where Michael settles all family business). After getting the viewer sucked in they tease the car in action, which was impressive to say the least. The only reaction you can have is “Wow, I have to know more about that.”

The other ad I really liked was the Coke parade ad. While Pepsi tries to be cool and trendy, Coke takes a timeless, classic approach with cartoon characters. It was creative, fun and multi generational, using Charlie Brown, Stewie from Family Guy and Underdog. Just putting those three together was inspired. The best part was in the end poor old Charlie Brown gets the bottle of coke. It was a feel good, affinity building moment that stood out in a sea of mean-spirited commercials.

I am also compelled to mention that my media flavored NY vs. Boston Super Bowl game prediction was right on the money. The lesson – When Hubris comes up against Karma, always take Karma and the points.
 

Share This

In a year packed with mostly forgettable ads, there’s one company people are still berating, for the second year in a row, for airing the Super Bowl’s worst ads.

We expected it – and CEO Vin Gupta promised it. Last year, the salesgenie.com ads “positively impacted” business to such an extent that Gupta followed the same tact this year. He even conceptualized the commercials and wrote the dialogue himself.

It’s not the bad accents, uninspired “storyline,” or even the crappy animation. It’s that the company came off looking cheap and low quality. And if the commercials made you curious enough to visit salesgenie.com, you’re in for a sorry surprise. Their Web site only enhances the low brow corporate image displayed in the television ads.

Moreover, isn’t it ironic that a company that specializes in sales leads – targeted selling to a qualified audience – would be so untargeted in their own sales campaign? Sure, they might have reached a million salespeople through their Super Bowl ads, but how many people who don’t give a damn about anything sales-related, saw those ads? Nearly 100 million – the waste was incredible. And for the $6 million spent on animated panda bears and evil bosses, they could have created a content-based, targeted private channel in which they actually create a relationship with their real prospects. How did a sales lead company, a company that sells to salespeople, miss that?

Share This

I love football and I am a huge Pats fan. I have also worked in advertising and marketing for 20 years. So as you can imagine this year’s game was for me a BIG disappointment! It wasn’t just because my beloved team crashed and burned on what was to be their coronation in the Hall of Perfection. It was because these were some of the worst Super Bowl ads ever. My viewpoints about to be expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. They are observations of a focus group of one: a Super-fan/Super-mom.

Reality TV culture has infiltrated our commercials. Kina Grannis won the Doritos-Idol contest and while I was prepared to hate it in the same way that I hate reality TV, I was pleasantly surprised. She has a beautiful voice. The tune was catchy. I didn’t have to cover my children’s eyes as it played or mute the language. I am glad Doritos is giving an unknown a chance but I am not sure it would make me buy high sodium, high fat snack foods for me or my family.

Careerbuilder.com, which seems harmless enough of a company, was a loser for me. Bloody hearts jumping out of shirts; sweet little fireflies being consumed by spiders, now this is the stuff that bad dreams are made of! The Super Bowl is a family event and we watch it with our kids. Did we not learn a lesson when Janet’s wardrobe malfunctioned? Like all good parents, when your kid is turned off you tend to follow suit in solidarity. The only thing this ad accomplished was make me happy that I like my job.

Salesgenie.com should be taken out back and have bamboo shoots stuck under their fingernails. My kids were questioning if that was mocking an entire community. (Remember, schools teach cultural sensitivity these days!) Ling Lings Bamboo Furniture, Ramesh and his Widgets and I Dream of Genie were not only bordering on political incorrectness, they were just dumb. Come on, do we really think Ramesh is going to save his job and provide for his seven kids because of 100 Sales Genie leads? The ads were insulting at best and patronizing in the least.

On the other hand, I loved the Tide-to-Go Interview. My Talking Stain was funny, memorable and like the stains on my kids’ clothes, it gets my attention. I went to mytalkingstain.com (completely inspired by Office Max and the Dancing Elves of holiday fame) and couldn’t wait to upload my kid’s photos. Children love to see themselves on-screen, e-mail their likenesses to their grandparents and all the while I am interacting with a brand. I already buy Tide, but this reinforces my relationship with them. Today Tide made me laugh in addition reminding me of their key product attribute—they clean clothes. That little value add, a smile during a crazy day, can go a along way for a mom.

I am grateful that I didn’t have to explain erectile dysfunction or Viagra to my kids. But in general, I was underwhelmed with the quality of the ads and messages. I was uninspired by companies who waste millions of dollars and opportunities to communicate a real message on silly cartoon characters that tell me nothing about the benefits of their products. I am disappointed that my team wasn’t super and that the ads for the most part were super-boring.

Share This

I am not usually a fan of broad-based, brand advertising because they usually try too hard to be clever or sexy without selling the product or the benefits to the buyer. However, I love the recent Bud Light ads with the “Dude” guy. If you have not seen them, check out this YouTube link and this one which has football theme - and Fox’s Joe Buck.

In some ways this breaks all the rules of classic advertising. They do not give any features or benefits of the product, or even try. They barely even show Bud Light. Not exactly Ogilvy on Advertising. However, the product they are advertising is not all that good – in fact it is a poor excuse for beer. Bland taste, too much carbonation, and I don’t think it is possible for a grown man to get a buzz off of low cal version of the classic Bud. Trying to sell the quality of product would not have credibility since no one really thinks Bud Light is a great tasting beer.

So why does the ad work? On one level, it is well done and funny. It taps into the non-verbal relationships most men have with each other. There is no need for talk, when a well placed situational “dude” will do the trick. The camera work and the melancholy piano are perfect creating a unique environment. The casting is excellent – he is the classic everyman in his late twenties or early thirties. Everyone knows a guy like him from work, school, or the local bar. He sits in a cube, wears inexpensive clothes and lives with a roommate in a low rent apartment. He is just a regular guy looking to have some fun with his circle of friends.

It works because they create affinity with the brand. I have a more positive image of Bud Light because I get a kick out of the commercial. In my head, I know the beer has not changed, but they have created an emotional connection.

Affinity and likeability are critical when creating and promoting a brand. At King Fish we profess that affinity leads to trust, which in turn leads to a customer taking an action. In a Private Media solution we use original content in a preferred environment to create that affinity, trust and action. In this case, Bud Light created that relationship by using content that speaks to men on a non-verbal, emotional level rather than trying to tell them the beer was superior tasting. A smart strategy when selling something that is basically a commodity.

Will this commercial lead people to buy more Bud Light? Even more, will it get people talking about Bud Light, creating a groundswell of awareness and brand equity? I bet it will, and I can’t wait to see what they do with the Dude guy next.

Share This

Barack Obama has won the South Carolina primary by a big margin and trounced Hillary Clinton among voters under 30. The battle between Obama and Hillary has been positioned as a battle of race and gender, but I think there is something else at play. The real showdown between Obama and Hillary Clinton is generational. Hillary is the classic boomer, 60 years old, highlighting her 35 years of experience. Obama is of the next generation – only 46, and looking forward. Newsweek recently wrote a cover story declaring that this election will be all about 1968 and reliving those old battles. I could not disagree more. This contest symbolizes the generational change and will have major implications for media and marketing strategy.

Generational conflict has been much discussed over the years. I would consider the classic boomer generation as 1946-1959. They are now between 62 and 49, and their earliest influences are from the 60’s and early 70s. Generation X (1960-1975) is now between 48 and 33 strongly influenced by the 70 and 80’s. Let’s put generation Y at 1976 and 1998. These are 90’s internet generation. The millennials are 1998-present.

For the past 20 years the boomers have dominated and the Xers have been the kids and up and comers. Now the boomers are heading into their 60s and retirement. There is a major shift as the Xers move into leadership positions in government, business and academia. This is instructive because each generation’s early experience forms the way they view the world and interact with media.

Like Barack Obama, I am a Xer and just turned 44, which coincidently is the median age of current voters. That means 50% of the people voting in 2008 are younger than 44. Do you think they care about 1968? Let me be so bold to speak for my generation: we are so done with the 60’s. Thanks for all the protests, but we are worn out hearing about Woodstock, sit-ins, burning draft cards, ERA marches, the Beatles, Haight Ashbury, and free love. Enough already, it is time for change (maybe Obama is on to something). Reliving these tired battles has given us 16 years of gridlock and partisanship with our two boomer Presidents – Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and their counterparts in Congress. Future historians will likely look back at boomer-rule and see missed opportunities and failed leadership.

Here is a brief review of the early years of my generation’s memories: The end of the Vietnam War which we essentially lost, Watergate and Nixon’s resignation, a 12 year bear market, skyrocketing crime rates, double digit inflation and mortgage rates, and two Presidents (Ford and Carter) who were more famous for being made fun of than their accomplishments. Oh, and when we got to college – AIDS. That sure put a damper on free love. If it was not for bad news we wouldn’t have had any news at all.

This timeline of bad times led up to the turning point election of 1980 which brought us Ronald Reagan. He was the first President I voted for and campaigned for in 1984. He was enormously popular among young people in the 80s – today’s thirty and forty-somethings. It is easy to forget the job he did restoring confidence and strength in America. While the boomers continue to cling to the memories of JFK and RFK, we will always have Reagan. Our collective image is of Reagan staring down the Soviets, cutting taxes, joking after being shot, and comforting the county after the Challenger accident. He was a strong leader who projected honesty and optimism.

Barack Obama is a very skilled politician and as the first Xer to run for president, he is modeling himself more on Reagan than he may let on. His campaign brand symbol is an O that looks like a rising sun over a field – Morning in America. He also cleverly mentioned how Reagan was a transforming figure while dissing Bill Clinton at the same time. His target audiences for those comments are those 60% or so of voters under 50. The last few years have been tough; you could almost make an analogy to the late 70’s. The time is right to restore confidence, bring hope and change. Sounds like an Obama campaign speech - and one from Ronald Reagan in 1980.

I will counter Newsweek’s argument. Forget the 60’s, they are heading to the cut out bin of history. Whoever captures the mantel of Ronald Reagan will be our next President. This week on Meet the Press, John McCain sounded like a latter day Reagan, preaching a strong foreign policy and mentioning Reagan’s name several times. He reminds me of him with his genial manor and self depreciating humor. After winning in Florida last night, he is the front runner, and may be endorsed by former Reagan justice department official Rudy Giuliani at the Reagan Library.

We are down to the final four – will it be a turning point election with the Reagan-like change of Obama and McCain or more of the same with either Mrs. Bill Clinton or George Bush’s Harvard Business School classmate, Mitt Romney? If I am right about branding and generational shift, it will be Morning in America again. If I am wrong, wait til 2012.

Generation X may not take control of the White House in 2008, but, Xer’s are now settling into control of major corporations and of course of both mainstream and new media. And right behind them will be the even more tech savvy, online centric generations. Youth culture defines American culture – we are looking at a group of people who have declining loyalty to the mainstream media world and refer to print as dead tree media. These are not people who will respond to old fashioned traditional advertising and branding messages. How are you going to get by their texting, IPODS and TiVOs? The next generation just may be known as the Private Media generation.

Share This

As someone who has spent the past 20 years moving back and forth between NY and Boston I look at this game with an eye toward the fierce rivalry between the two cities. The personalities and cultures between the two areas are very different for places so physically close. It really is Athens (Boston) vs. Sparta (New York).

The usual psychic balance between the two cites is out of whack. NY usually has the upper hand, but now it is all Boston. Between the Red Sox, Patriots, and Celtics, it has been no contest; even Mitt Romney has put a beat-down on Rudy Giuliani. It is a bleak time in the Apple with the Mets collapse, the Knicks a laughingstock, and the Yankees embroiled in the steroid scandal. Wall Street has taken a beating and rumor has it that annual bonuses have dipped below seven figures. Gucci belts are tightening and the Hamptons real estate market is suffering. The horror of it all.

Bostonians are enjoying their time on top, and they should. The usual New England reserve and passive-aggressiveness has given way to front running, gloating and self praise. Those fine qualities are usually the province of New Yorkers, not the descendents of Cotton Mather and the Puritans. For the past year, I have had the pleasure of watching the Boston media glorify the Red Sox and Patriots in ways you can’t comprehend. Sports lead the newscasts more often than not. The first 20 minutes of Sunday night’s Channel 7 News was devoted to video of the Patriots boarding buses in Massachusetts, and deplaning in Arizona—gripping journalism. It is just a matter of time before major roads and landmarks are renamed after the holy trinity of Jonathan Papelbon, Tom Brady and David Ortiz.

To follow up on the Athens vs. Sparta theme, hubris has set in. The Boston fans are treating the Super Bowl as a formality on the way to crowning the Patriots as the greatest team of all time. This attitude set in around October when they were running up the score on opponents and the rest as been a coronation. Could Tom Brady’s injury be a symbolic Achilles heel? His ankle has received more media scrutiny than any body part since Janet Jackson’s exposed breast.

Just a feeling that this hubris will may come back to haunt New England. New Yorkers are ready for some Karmic payback and what would be better than ruining the perfect season? There is something cosmic about facing Eli Manning, whose brother Peyton ended the Patriots season last year in the AFC championship game

I have seen every Patriots game this year, and I think they are wearing down from the pressure and grind of the season. Their offense has had trouble with aggressive, blitzing defenses which the Giants feature and the Giants’ offense put up 35 points on the Pats defense a few weeks ago. The Giants are on a mission, have nothing to lose and know they can play with them. The Patriots, who are the far better team, go into the game knowing that if they lose, they will go down in history as failures to some extent. That’s not fair, but the unfortunate truth in today’s all or nothing media culture.

I’ll take a lot of grief for this prediction, but I have a premonition about the ongoing Greek tragedy between New York and Boston.

Sparta 27 - Athens 21

Share This

There are some interesting marketing lessons to be learned from this week’s Republican New Hampshire primary. It is ironic that the Harvard MBA and businessman, Mitt Romney, may be conducting the worst political branding and advertising campaign seen in some time. He has all the advantages – especially money – and lost to Sen. McCain by five points. Comparing the marketing strategies of these two candidates illustrates a few fundamental marketing and media truths.

What is a Brand? Brand is a promise of what the consumer gets when they purchase your product or service (or vote). The brand proposition is the foundation for any product, service or candidate. The McCain brand is clear and consistent - he is the war hero turned Senator who is both a maverick and straight shooter. He tells it like it is, and fights for what he believes in - even at political costs. McCain has taken positions on Iraq, campaign financing, immigration and taxes that often puts him at odds with mainstream Republicans. And he does not care. His primary goal is to do what he thinks is the right for the American people. He has no trouble telling voters what they may not want to hear, and does not pander to interest groups. McCain’s brand scores high on measures of likeability, authenticity, compassion, honesty and foreign policy experience.  Like him or not, you know what he stands for and what you are going to get.

Contrast that to the Romney brand. Is he the moderate Republican (pro choice, pro gay rights, pro gun control) who ran and won the Governorship in Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states, in 2002? Or, is he the hard right conservative who is now running for President in 2008? Like the businessperson he was, he changes his sales pitch based on the prospect he is trying to sell. Because he has changed many of his positions and seems to pander to the right, he loses in the authenticity category, which does not help him in the honesty department either. There have been a few examples of when he got caught stretching the truth about his past (he exaggerated his hunting background, and there was a sketchy claim about his father marching with Martin Luther King).

The bottom line is no one really knows who he is, and what they could expect from a President Romney. What is the brand promise? I get the sense he is running as someone who he not, but rather as a conglomeration of focus group-tested themes.  My hunch: he is not as hard line as he comes across, but feels he must project that image to win the Republican nomination.

Here is some free and unsolicited marketing advice to Mitt Romney to repair his brand: toss the consultants and ad agencies and just tell the American people what you really believe and how you will make their lives better and safer if you are President. Keep the message clear and consistent.

Additionally, try and show some empathy and compassion. Nobody likes a good-looking rich guy who demonizes immigrants while they are mowing his lawn. By all accounts you’re a nice person and good dad. Let people see that side of you, and make some jokes at your own expense – loosen up.

You are running to be President of the United States - all of them. Don’t worry about the approval of the religious right, Fox News, Rush, Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity. Americans are anxious to move past the 16 years of red state/blue state bickering we have had. Be the guy/brand that can bridge the gap and get people talking to each other. Time to take a hard look at your brand, the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire have and opted elsewhere. The clock is ticking; you only have 30 days left if you want to be President.

Share This

My 9 year old daughter is really coming of age. She is eagerly paying attention to the events that take place around her each day. Much to my chagrin, the television has become a new source of information for her. Last week while watching the morning news, a segment was done on Hillary Clinton and highlighted a key turning point in her life. Evidently when Hillary was young she wrote a letter to NASA asking what exactly she should do to prepare herself to become an astronaut. Their response was to “become a man, there are no female astronauts”. This was clearly a pivotal moment in her life and she swore she would not let having the wrong plumbing get in her way. Ever.

Upon hearing of this great injustice, my daughter decides to pummel me with questions:

 “How do you get to be the President? Why is it such a big deal for a girl to be President? Why hasn’t there been a girl President? Are you going to vote for her because she is a girl? Are you going to vote for her at all? (And totally unrelated but due to the follow up story on the news) Why is Britney Spears in the hospital and how did her little sister get a baby in her belly?”

This was all before coffee!

I realized at that moment that the reception to marketing messages begins at home. Marketing especially to women, is wrapped in so many more communications that just magazine ads and TV commercials. It smacked me in the head that my daughters, my friends, my mom, every female out there is being bombarded by news and politics and that even in the best of objective journalism, there is always the “spin”.

For the record, I addressed my daughters concerns in order:

1. We elect a president by voting, it’s called an election and the one with the most votes wins.
2. It’s a big deal for a girl to be President because there hasn’t been one yet and I have no good explanation why there hasn’t been one yet!
3. I am going to vote for the best candidate not because of their gender but because they are the most qualified and I haven’t made up my mind yet.
4. Britney clearly doesn’t have a Mom as wonderful as you do and if she did, neither of the girls would be where they are now! (My own personal marketing effort with a target market of 3: two girls, one boy).

Hillary is a brand. So is Britney. We don’t even have to use their last names. They are catapulted into our lives on TV, in tabloid headlines and on entertainment Web sites. We watch every move they make, their stumbles and triumphs replayed for us over and over. If you miss it on the news, catch it on YouTube. It is symbolic of our times that two such different women share opening headline status on the Today Show.

Hillary has thrown herself into the boys’ club house. She is showing us what the potential leader of the free world looks like in lipstick and heels. She needs to be careful that her skirt isn’t too short or her blouse too low.  She mustn’t be too sensitive or she’ll be accused of playing the “girl” card. She has to find the perfect balance between diplomat and bitch, “first lady” and “first lady President”. She wants to be seen as capable and tough and yet wins market share when she is moved to tears in a public forum.  Positioning her is one of the most delicate marketing challenges ever seen in politics.

Britney is a brand too. Here is what women learn from her message: This is what you don’t want to become; this is what you don’t want your daughters to become; this is what happens when it all goes wrong. Her life, a bizarre combination of soap opera and reality-series, illustrates for us what happens when the fairy tale goes awry. Sweet child turned child-star: makes it big in a success story that could only happen in America, and then implodes with the same super-sized fanfare she received during her well documented rise to fame.

Two American Dream stories as told by the media on all fronts: two women who have left their own unique mark on this moment in history. The woman who would be President and the Pop Princess who would fall from grace. Watching the contrast between these two brands illustrates how complex is it to raise kids, especially girls in this age of media saturation.

I hope my daughters turn out more like Hillary than Britney, but mostly I am hoping that they will build their own American Girl Story and they will turn out to be just really good women.

Share This

We often talk about Private Media in terms of for-profit corporations directly talking to customers and prospects by owning their media channel rather than renting time and space from large media companies. One of the many benefits of the private media approach is that the owner of the media channel gets to control the message – both the content and distribution.

We now see a rapidly growing movement where individuals are also creating private media channels – pretty easy with today’s Web 2.0 technologies. Between social networking sites and video sharing, anyone can create a private media channel with minimal effort.  All of the Presidential candidates are well down this road, and almost every rock star, actor and athlete worth their salt has their own Web site, myspace page, and has posted videos on YouTube for an interactive dialog with fans. While the primary motivation is promotion, it can also be used to communicate directly with fans, enabling the personality to control the message and environment while getting their message out there as fast as possible. One of the key rules of crisis management is getting the word out quickly and framing the conversation.

How many times on TV have we seen someone yell at their lackeys in anger, saying: “the press will have a field day”. (By the way, a field day is an opportunity for unrestrained activity, not a day of sports competition at school – thanks Encarta.) In the past, celebrities and companies were dependent on their PR machines pitching and spinning stories to the press and having no input as the press edits and positions the story. Once a negative story gets into the 24/7 news cycle it is well out of your hands, and indeed a field day ensues.

We are now seeing famous people taking their message directly to the people. When Rosie O’Donnell was battling ABC and Barbra Walters over her job on the View, she posted video blogs on her site for her fans and the media to pick up and replay. Rosie’s private media channel told her side of the story quicker than the Disney/ABC PR team could tell theirs. Baseball’s Roger Clemens did the same thing when responding to reports he used steroids. After a few days of silence he posted a video on his site and on YouTube to deny the allegations. He will appear on 60 Minutes this weekend, but he has already gotten his message directly to the public bypassing the 60 Minutes film editing room.

The newest private media channel took me by surprise – The British Royal Family has premiered their own royal channel on YouTube. This is where they posted the Queen’s annual Christmas message and other clips and archive footage. When one of the oldest and most traditional intuitions in the world embraces private media, it is clearly an idea whose time has come.

Consumers of media and information need to watch these videos with an attitude of buyer beware. This is an unfiltered message, which does not have the benefit of a journalistic screen – no fact checking or follow up questions.  On the other hand, there also no agenda or bias from the journalist or media company. This is especially attractive to polarizing and controversial figures such as Queen Elizabeth II and Roger Clemens. It bears watching how this trend will develop – as we can assume that more and more notable people and companies create their own private media channels.

How will the traditional media companies adapt? Will consumers put as much faith in messages directly from the sources, rather than through journalists? My guess is that we will come to expect the direct message from our actors, singers, athletes, politicians and corporations. It will be incumbent on corporations and others using private media to keep the content benefit-oriented and information rich when speaking to their customers and prospects rather than a sales pitch. With the right content, a private media channel can be more powerful than any ad or PR effort will ever be.
 

Share This

It’s only December 20th, and we have already had a near record amount of snow in Salem, MA for this month. And technically, it’s still fall. How cool is that? The roof in our 100+ year old converted mill building has been leaking steadily for the past three days, while the work crews have been racing to fix the problem before our forecasted rain this weekend. I have no doubt they’ll make it right.

The streets from Boston up to the North Shore are a bit tough to navigate; sidewalks are narrowed by the trenches dug for pedestrians by shopkeepers hoping to attract last minute shoppers. That incredibly gray concoction of ice, snow, cinders and sand fills the street edges, so we leap from street to sidewalk, hoping to nail a sure-footed landing. And before long, the mess will melt, and we’ll forget the minor hassles of the winter.

With just a few weeks until the presidential primaries get under way, the candidates are looking to score final points for voters. The home stretch is in sight, and now that they’ve exhausted selling points on Iraq, oil, healthcare, the mortgage crisis and the economy, we’re moving into profile pieces on candidates often aimed at their faults or past missteps – the epitome of who-cares content.  The candidates are also wrapping up their apologies to one another for negative debate comments and attack ads.   And, we see the mainstream media is playing their game of building up candidates to knock them down later.

Will people vote based on new information dredged up on personal religious beliefs, positions on infidelity, unflattering pictures and rumors of health problems – I really doubt it. But thankfully, the months of cheap shots, negative campaigning and accusations of flip-flopping will shortly give way to a 2-person race that hopefully will sharpen the two candidates’ messaging and start positioning us once again as a world leader. Our new President is faced with the responsibility of repairing our image with other countries, and he or she had better plan to make this job one. I have confidence that they will.

From New England streets to the voices of our candidates across the country, listen for it and you’ll be amazed: people are upbeat, and they’re generally positive. There is an overwhelming sensation of hope and an effort of goodwill that I haven’t observed for some time. Can the Christmas and holiday season have that great an impact on people? It can. And it is working.  Life can be tough, and every person out there has their own personal challenges. Most of them can be overcome, but some will not. That’s what we’re dealt, and so it goes. But as we head into a new year the county is eager for a positive change and a new attitude. Take a look and see for yourself.
 

Share This

This recent Boston Globe article does a nice job out outlining how media companies and advertisers are dealing with the DVR phenomenon.  Currently, 20% of US household have one, and that is projected to rise to 35% by the end of 2011 –representing 40 million households. Of course, the issue is the fast forwarding and skipping of commercials.  Once you own a DVR, your days of being a slave to the TV schedule and watching endless commercials are over. 

The fact that 40 million affluent household will be skipping commercials is not good news to the ad supported networks and cable channels.  Nor is it great news for ad agencies that create and run commercials for their clients over expensive “rented” media channels provided by the networks.

The article points out several fixes and solutions the networks are trying to force people to watch commercials by running fixed logo, making some programs so you can’t fast forward them; and coming up with commercials within the actual program.  I will predict right now that all of these will all fail because of one basic fact – the consumer is now in control of their media choices; and they do not want their TV watching interrupted by commercials that have no relevance to them.

Try this small personal experiment and it will bring it to life for you – watch two hours of network TV shows that you usually watch and are basically aimed at your demographic.  Take note of the commercials and keep count of how many are:

1. Of completely no interest to you and something you would never buy for any reason.
2. Of such poor marketing quality, you don’t even know what they are selling or what the benefits of the product being advertised are.
3. Advertising a product category you do buy, but it is brand you would never switch to because you are satisfied with your brand or you don’t like the brand advertised.
4. Advertising a product you already buy or plan to buy.

I will wager that 90%+ of the commercials that you see in that two hour block will fit into one of those four categories.  Think of the wasted dollars spent reaching you and others who are skipping the commercials or don’t care about them.  This type of advertising is a vestige of the past when broad based media – TV, radio, magazines and newspapers were the only option.  You could do some audience targeting via MRI, Arbitron and Nielson, but it is more art then science, and the waste is incredible.  Also, this type of advertising has little or no accountability.  You really have no idea how and if it works.

The big media companies and ad agencies have a vested interested in keeping this system going even though it is not an efficient use of the client’s marketing dollars.  Granted, there is ego involved here on the client side – marketers and their CEOs like to see their ads running on famous shows where their family and friends can see them.  It’s like those corporate branding ads that run during the Sunday morning news shows.  Please write to me if you can name a greater waste of marketing dollars. 

We are heading to an inflection point in the advertising/marketing business where companies are going to eventually put a stop to spending their money in this manner.  They will turn to custom and private media solutions to generate new leads and create a meaningful dialog with customers.  The technological change over the past 10-15 years (Web, wireless, DVRs, iPods) has changed the game for the delivery of media and marketing messages.  Broad-based advertising has its time and place, but some of that money being spent to create glitzy commercials could be redeployed to market to the company’s database.  Companies who master their customer and prospect database can own their media channel rather than rent it; and create specialized private media communication and content for their best customers and prospects.  Owning your media channel will provide a tangible ROI for the bottom line rather than a commercial that rents network time and where the clear likelihood is for a skipped, ignored and expensive message.

Share This

In this Monday’s New York Times, David Carr writes about print magazines and how they fit into his overall media consumption.  Read the article—he makes the case that there is less and less time for print and publications like The Week will thrive in the web era with its style of short articles and quick hits of the week’s news.  He may be right for some people, but I don’t agree.

To me, the strength of print is the long article and thoughtful analysis. I can get quick AP type headlines and news on the Web all day long. In fact, I do—I monitor the major news outlets on myyahoo.com feed all day long. In addition, I make time for the Boston Globe and the New York Times print editions to get behind the news stories and personalities. I also make time for Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, The New Yorker, Portfolio, Inc. and Boston Magazine. What I get from each of these is long form, in-depth journalism that I would not tend to read online. That may change someday, but for me and probably others my age, nothing can duplicate the environment and affinity you get with your favorite magazine. What I love about magazines is discovering and learning about something I had no idea I would be interested in; or a unique take on an old topic.

For example, this New Yorker story about Rupert Murdoch buying the Wall Street Journal by long time journalist and media analyst Ken Auletta; or well known tech writer Steve Levy writing in Newsweek about Amazon.com and the future of the ebook.

That being said, the magazine industry faces enormous challenges as a marketing vehicle as we move into the Private Media era. Of the magazines I read each week—I could recall only one ad through unaided assistance—the back cover of the New Yorker had an ad for the Mercedes C series, a car I really want to buy in the spring. It is ironic; the only ad I remember is a product I was already sold on.

The case for print advertising is a tough one to make. It is neither actionable nor measurable to the advertiser, and it is the classic example of “interruption” based advertising. The ads are only relevant to a small amount of people who have an interest or ability to buy that particular product. Each week my reading is interrupted with dozens of very expensive ads for pickup trucks, minivans, video games, outdoor camping equipment, energy drinks, credit cards, after dinner liquor and pharmaceuticals that I will never, ever buy. The amount of marketing dollars wasted reaching prospects in the manner is mind-boggling. And by the way, is this the way to have a dialog with your current customers?

Print publishers face a huge challenge—how to stay relevant and profitable at the same time. Most smart publishers are far down the road to becoming multi-platform media brands with strong online, video, events and lead generating offerings. They need to get to a point where the print product is no longer the center of the universe. This evolution will only accelerate over time as most consumers under 35 are online focused and will not have the attachment to print that us middle-aged people do.

However, a stumbling block to the future is that these media companies are stocked with people who have spent their entire careers in print and still see the Web as an ancillary product. And, because print still drives profits, most media company compensation plans are skewed towards selling print ads. I love this quote from Felix Dennis, owner of The Week, and founder of Maxim magazine.

“The American magazine industry has been massively overstaffed for years and years. It is one of the most inefficient businesses in the history of the world. And you know what? The chickens are coming home to roost,” Mr. Dennis said. “They can sit around the campfire listening to the scary noises out in the dark, wondering where it all went, but what I would suggest is that they take some of the chickens, skin ’em, and stick ’em on the campfire and start eating.”

This sentiment will resonate with anyone who spent significant time working for a traditional old line publishing company. Their staffing and business models are still heavily weighted to print, especially in management and sales. Print sales reps still make huge salaries compared to people selling online media and event sponsorships—does that still make sense? Grab a copy of any consumer or trade publication and take a hard look at the masthead and you will be amazed at the layers of management (thick with VPs, EVPs, SVPs and Extra Special Super Terrific VPs) and the people with titles (anything with “Strategic” in it) that look like what they are—old timers and buddies hanging around at big salaries. Add this overhead to rising costs for paper, production, circulation and postage and you have some significant costs that must be covered by print advertising’s declining margins.

I share Mr. Dennis’s opinion—it’s time to blow up the internal structures of these companies and realign assets and people to reflect the new reality of the multi platform, Private Media world. It’s time to bite the bullet and come to the realization the long term future is not a print dominant world. They need slash costs and hire and reward the people who are driving online, video and event products—not the risk-adverse print veterans who are waiting for the “good old days to come back”. Time and progress only move forward, get on the bus or be run over by it.

Share This

The moms market is one of the most lucrative targets for marketers – some estimates have it pegged at well over $1 trillion, and keep in mind that moms have influence over more than 80% of a household’s purchasing power.

While it seems like it would be easy, Mom Hunting isn’t always as simple as it appears. They are right out there in the open, but the competition for their attention and time is fierce. They are not just filtering information for themselves, but for their families, their homes, their schools and committees. How do you capture the attention of this valuable gatekeeper?

Traditional business to business marketing has a few key strategies that have worked well: Targeted events, trade magazines, trade shows, email newsletters, online videos, and web casts. All of these can help persuade potential clients to see the wisdom of selecting a certain product or vendor. These techniques can also work for mom with one critical caveat: the content and format has to absolutely be developed with the mom in mind.

Example: If you are having an event for moms, you have to plan the event with the perfect balance of information and resources - you must factor in the babysitters! Holding an event for moms in the daytime without offering a strategy for the kids would be a clear statement of your lack of understanding of the challenges that these moms face. In a recent Working Mothers Conference, produced by King Fish, the event was not only extremely well attended, but even the moms who did not take advantage of the babysitting service appreciated the offer and said so in their post event comments.

For ducklings, a multi-platform mom-marketing effort for Albertsons/Shaws  supermarkets, the content at each turn supported their tag line: “a little help along the way”. For the magazine element of the program the editorial was developed with the busy mom in mind.

Recipes had a handy shopping list that included minimal ingredients that could be prepared quickly and enjoyed by all palates. The editorial content acknowledged the fact that most moms are short on time and prefers not to cook different meals for finicky eaters. This approach appealed to the readers and kept them coming back to the magazine.

Balancing this type of editorial with actionable information that speaks to the busy mom’s day to day existence was also part of the content plan. By the way, it’s not always about the kids and the spouse, how about something for a little mom time. Quick beauty secrets that were whipped up with grocery store products were always a hit!

Also, keep in mind the power of the mom’s networks, and how much time they spend communicating with each other. Recently I received a video of Anita Renfrew, (viewed over 10 million times on YouTube) the mom who sings the “everything a Mom says in a day” to the tune of the 1812 Overture, in less than 3 minutes. (Over 25 moms sent me this link knowing I would enjoy it.) With this song she captured the hearts and minds of countless moms. Every one of us who, while wiping the laughing tears from our eyes said, “I wish I wrote that!”. We say it the same way we wish we had developed the “Baby Einstein” series of educational tapes for kids. As though we know we COULD have done that, because it is so simple and so obviously true. If a marketer can develop a viral campaign that includes this level of entertainment with the right content for moms, they will have a success. That will be a brand that spreads faster than a germ in a pre-school class!

Hunting this big game sounds easy on the surface, but take a tip from your mom who likely said to you as a kid, “it’s the little things that make a difference”. It is the little gestures wrapped around the well conceived content that will lure the mom and keep her coming back. More importantly, you will start to build a dialog of trust and affinity with a new or existing customer.

Share This

There is a remarkable group run out of the University of Massachusetts’ McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies named Give Us Your Poor. Leading this group is a driven and truly committed guy named John McGah (left) - and if you don’t know that name, chances are you will soon.

John has led this program for several years, and aims to not just raise awareness of the homeless, but lobbies Washington to implement legislation that will begin to eradicate it within the decade. And he’s not alone.

Through nothing more than a powerful determination, John has gathered powerful business executives, politicians and now includes musical artists contributing to a new CD to bring their voices to today’s present realities of homelessness. And these are not B-list names.

The recently released CD features work by Springsteen, Seeger, Bon Jovi, Bonnie Raitt, Keb’ Mo, Mario Frangoulis and Mighty Sam McClain. It’s even made ABC’s nightly newscast on Friday, November 9th when Natalie Merchant was named person of the week for her work with Give Us Your Poor and was profiled during a recording session.

John has harnessed the power of media to raise awareness and funds to drive the next chapter of Give Us Your Poor. Among the biggest names and voices recording today, artists have contributed their original work and energy to this cause, and it’s coming to Boston Friday November 16th at the newly renovated Strand Theatre. If you’re from the Boston area, this will be an amazing night; come learn more about the organization and hear some incredible music from Natalie Merchant, Mighty Sam McClain, Mario Frangoulis & Buffalo Tom (for ticket info, click on this link ).

Note:  King Fish provides considerable pro bono work for the Give Us Your Poor organization, as they do for other 501c(3) non profit groups as part of its corporate mission and employee contribution program.

Share This

Can a journalist build strong content brands on the Internet, pretty much all by himself? GigaOmniMedia founder Om Malik thinks he can. Malik’s 18-month-old, low-to-the-ground blog network still isn’t profitable, but it’s close. And that’s because he’s doing a lot of things right.
 

The former Business 2.0 reporter staffs it sparsely and hires freelancers to work for peanuts.

Malik keeps overhead low by outsourcing his ad sales to Federated Media, which takes between 30 and 40 percent commission on ad sales.

Om invests nothing in his umbrella brand, GigaOmniMedia, focusing instead on his sub-brands and the individuals who staff them. GigaOm, a leading voice on mobile and wireless technology, is Malik’s strongest. His NewTeeVee brand, is also a hit: next week more than 300 paying attendees will attend NewTeeVee Live, a face-to-face event in San Francisco. NewTeeVee’s web traffic is skyrocketing thanks to smart reporting and analysis from Liz Gannes, the daughter of a former Fortune reporter and widely respected in her own right.
 

I got a kick out of Malik sparring with CNET CEO Neil Ashe last week at Rafat Ali’s Future of Business Media conference in New York. Ashe referred to Malik’s offerings as “fast food,” low on editorial nutrition. Malik responded by saying “fast food is not necessarily junk food,” retorting that the world doesn’t need big, faceless meta-brands anymore. Instead, readers want highly targeted content environments led by personalities who post often and inspire audience contributions, driving page views and word of mouth.

Malik cited the example of Rafe Needleman, chief blogger on CNET’s Webware site. Claims Malik: Needleman has more clout in the marketplace than CNET itself. Om overstates his case. But he’s right that, in this age of blogs, community and social people, “bottom-up” branding works a lot better than top down.  The takeaway: every brand is a content brand, and content brands need a human face. It can be a collective face, or an individual’s. Consumers want to be spoken with, not spoken to, by voices they trust.

[Disclaimer: CNET Networks is a paid subscriber to Sam Whitmore’s Media Survey, as is King Fish Media.]

Share This

The news has broken and Don Imus a.k.a the I Man will be returning to the airwaves on WABC NY for the same company that syndicates Sean Hannity.  So, we can only assume that syndication is around the corner.  Just six months after his career was left for dead by the conventional wisdom pundits, he is coming back; and ready to settle a few scores.

To be up front – I am a long time listener and fan of Don Imus.  I started listening to his show as kid in my Dad’s car in the early 70’s.  I listened to his show almost every morning from 1993 (when syndicated in Boston) through his dismissal in April, and I watched the MSNBC simulcast as well.  I loved the mix of somewhat juvenile edgy humor and high minded political and literary discourse.  I enjoyed the way he would shift from a nasty/funny song parody to a serious political conversation or review of a new book.  Also, you saw a side of people like Pat Buchannan, Tim Russert and Jeff Greenfield you didn’t get from them during their “real jobs”.  The show became a staple in my daily routine and often the way I got my news.

Clearly, Imus crossed the line with his comment about the young ladies at Rutgers.  The rich, famous and powerful are fair game, but 20 yr old hard working college students are not.  I wish he didn’t say it, but it shouldn’t wipe out all the good he has tried to do for people over the years, and the business success he brought CBS, NBC and his many sponsors.  He deserved a slap and suspension, but not to be fired.

It is well documented how Imus came under fire in a barrage of hypocrisy, political correctness, corporate wimpiness, and general media piling on that seems to be the fashion of the day.  How Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson got to be the arbiters of what is right in America is maddening and best left alone.  However, it was not shocking that these two publicity hounds went after Imus like raw meat while giving rappers and hip hop culture a free ride for using the same words.

What I found most disappointing and dispiriting was the way the sponsors, NBC’s Jeff Zucker and CBS’s Les Moonves caved like a cardboard suitcases within days of the story catching fire.  These two big traditional media companies knew what they were getting into with Imus.  In fact, his CBS Radio contract called for him to be “edgy and provocative”.  Regular guests who went on his show to hawk their books bailed on him in the sanctimonious hand wringing that followed.   I was so angry, I haven’t watched MSNBC since this happened, and have switched my allegiance from NBC News to ABC.   I was not alone - read the comments to this blog post and check out this site to buy Save Imus t-shirts.

I also knew he would be back – I figured by early 2008 at the latest.  A couple of reason why it was a no-brainer that he would be back in the saddle in today’s media world.

1. He has a loyal following representing a built-in audience waiting to come back and listen; and more importantly patronize any sponsors who come back.  There are always going to be struggling radio stations that will take a chance at capturing this revenue.

2. His core audience of middle age white people was probably not all that outraged at his comments.  Not to say they condone what he said, but it was no worse than the usual equal opportunity beat downs on the show.  While what he said was bad, they are just words, he didn’t kill anyone.

3. He has a track record with sponsors – isn’t that what radio is all about – selling stuff.  The man knows how to move product.

4. Companies like NBC and CBS don’t control the media world anymore – they have become like any large conservative public corporation – pumping out safe stuff for the masses.  They don’t want Imus or Howard Stern working for them anymore – too risky for next quarter’s earning report for Wall Street.  That is why we get multiple versions of CSI and Law and Order and pap like the new Bionic Woman and Kid Nation.  There has been zero buzz about the new TV season.  Have the major networks ever been less relevant in the lives of Americans?

The lesson, boys and girls (an Imus phrase) is that it’s ALWAYS about the money.  Sponsors fled when Sharpton and Jackson threatened boycott which in turn made CBS and NBC abandon someone who had been loyal and successful for them.

The dust has settled and the attention deficit disorder media are on to other things, the coast is clear for Imus to return because there is money on the table to be made from sponsors desiring his affluent audience.

As we say in New York – money talks and bullshit walks.  See ya’ later Al, Jesse, Jeff and Leslie – the I Man rides again.

Share This

There was a report out of Gartner late last month that estimated between 46 percent and 83 percent of Internet browsers/visitors/whatever-you-want-to-call them now engage with “consumer-generated content” at least once per month.

Gartner’s definition of this content includes blogs, podcasts and wikis as well as all manner of rating systems, recommendations and user reviews.

Not surprisingly, teenagers were more likely to engage with these sorts of media. Moreover, the percentage of U.S. adults who engage in this type of content at least once a week was lower than their counterparts in either France or the United Kingdom. Gartner suggests that this may be due to the novelty factor abroad.

Separate, but similar, research from In-Stat earlier this year likewise points to an impending explosion of worldwide revenue from what it calls “user-generated content,” most notably videos you’d find on YouTube. Last year, it figures $80 million in revenue was attributable to this stuff. By 2011, however, it predicts sales of around $1.6 billion.

For creative types like myself, the sorts of people that the business side increasingly consider as just so much overhead, these numbers are both scary and scintillating.

I don’t know of any journalist, no matter whether their work takes the form of a lengthy feature article, a video dispatch, an opinion column or a review, who doesn’t love hearing from someone who is reading or watching what they have to say.

I’ve had people walk up to me in airports to take issue with something I wrote, which is a little scary from a privacy standpoint. But from a professional level, it’s a thrill. “Hey,” I think, “THEY READ ME. They care.” Because, after all, most journalists get into the profession in order to touch people, in order to share information. In the world of print, our words mostly went into this void. Lots of guesswork went on. Focus groups were conducted.

Online, of course, everything has changed. I receive daily statistics for the green technology blog (“GreenTech Pastures”) I write on ZDNet. In an instant, I can see how many people are reading about certain topics; which strike a chord and which fall flat. The rating and comment system, meanwhile, tells me if I’m doing my job thoroughly enough. Often, I will think of an entirely new subject to write about as a result of a post. Or, I’ll kick myself to do a little more research if I’m missed an angle.

In my past life as the editor of channel news publication CRN, I made more contacts as a result of my editorial columns and video Webcasts than any other activity during my close to 18 years of covering the high-tech distribution channel. Because I had opened myself up in some way, readers felt like they could approach me.

Which brings me back to the real point of this column and the question that publishers love to ask themselves when staring at spreadsheets that detail declining print advertising sales: Is this shift toward user-generated content a long-term phenomenon? Can the voice of our users/readers/visitors replace editorial resources? Can this movement be “monetized” in some way?

The answer to all of these questions, in my opinion, is a qualified “Yes.” But before you go firing all your writers and content creation folks, here are some simple realities.

As Gartner notes, many folks (especially adults) participating in the user-generated media movement aren’t actually creating what we’ve come to accept as “content.” That is, a story, or a video dispatch or a photographic montage. It’s important to remember that “content” in the user-generated media movement can be many things. It can be ratings on stories, feedback dialogues about a product or services, or about the most popular searches on a Web site. The fact is, though, people come to sites for a reason. And SOMEONE needs to be giving them that reason. We currently call those someones “editors” but they’re increasingly taking on the role of community “moderators”—monitoring feedback, analyzing trends and creating more reasons for the dialogue to continue.

Then there’s the whole matter of time. I don’t know about you, but keeping up with my Facebook profile and my LinkedIn Network contacts is very time-consuming. I visit both horribly infrequently, mainly because I have a real-life husband and a real-life hobby (a cappella singing) that takes up plenty of my non-work time. I haven’t even dreamed of setting up a MySpace page yet and my blogs (yes, plural) are challenging to update on a regular basis. Personally, I believe there is bound to be an adjustment.

Full disclosure. I LOVE magazines. I love touching them, looking through them, curling up with them on the couch. That will never change. But I also find the ongoing transition exhilarating. I feel like what I write is a better reflection of the community I’m interacting with; that, in turn, generates more feedback.

I believe that what most people look for in their media experience—an honest voice. And honesty, I believe, is what user-generated content is all about.

Share This

Nike and others have discovered that they can increase customer retention and affinity by communicating directly with customers rather than through traditional “interruption” based media. Companies that use Private Media and permission based marketing techniques are seeing positive results; and are shifting their advertising budgets away from big media companies to direct interactions with customers and prospects. This Private Media strategy has been at the foundation of King Fish’s approach since its founding, and continues to be successful for our clients.

I thought this fact and quote from the story was very powerful:

Last year, Nike spent just 33 percent of its $678 million United States advertising budget on ads with television networks and other traditional media companies. That’s down from 55 percent 10 years ago, according to the trade publication Advertising Age.

“We’re not in the business of keeping the media companies alive,” Said Trevor Edwards, Nike’s corporate vice president for global brand and category management.  Mr. Edwards says he tells this to many many media executives. “We’re in the business of connecting with consumers.”

Read this story from a New York Times article illustrating how Nike and other leading marketers are using Private Media and bypassing traditional media channels.

This is just the beginning of what will be a long term shift in strategy.  Thanks to advances in wireless technology and the maturation of social networking web tools, we will see more and more companies speaking directly to consumers without the filter and expense of media companies.  This does not mean that traditional media companies will disappear by any means.  However there will be a shake out and only ones with the best relationship with their readers/viewers will survive.

Share This

I confess that for me, presidential political races are right up there with American League pennant races. After 175 games or so this season with the Sox ultimately victorious over the Rockies, I can switch gears to the race for out next President.

In 1999, I worked on the John McCain campaign for the Republican nomination in Massachusetts. It was wildly interesting to be a small part of the election process, and one of my top experiences was meeting and speaking with the Senator for several minutes as he prepared to give a speech in rural New Hampshire to about 100 local citizens.

Fast forward to 2007 and an election where campaigns are increasingly fought through video and other electronic means. Some videos are professionally produced by the campaign staff and worthy of Cannes consideration and others are clips from cable TV that rely on humor to help us remember what ought to matter in a candidate - service to our country and strength of character.

 The great thing about video is that there is always another side to the candidate they hope you don’t see, but