Ban the e-word

Engagement.  I'm getting sick of seeing that word everywhere I look in the ad trades.

Advertisers don't just want to hit consumers with their messages; they want to "engage" them.  I've been guilty of throwing that word around too, as I've been talking to some of my clients about becoming active in social media.

The TV networks, though, are using the e-word to show advertisers their exciting, breakthrough ideas for holding viewers during those endless commercial pods.  How do they plan to keep viewers from hitting fast-forward on the DVR, or from making a three-minute trip to the kitchen or bathroom.  Or, heaven forbid, surfing over to another channel.

The networks' answer... Engagement.

So what are the nets' great ideas to engage us so we don't tune out the ads?  From what I'm reading in the trades, breakthrough is hardly the word I'd use.

For example, ABC's big idea, according to the March 26th Mediaweek (sorry, no link) is to move "seamlessly" from programming into the commercial pod by having, say, the characters from "According to Jim" in their living room watching TV as an ad comes on.  The camera zooms into a closeup of the TV screen until it fills the home viewer's screen.  That's engagement?  I'd say the average viewer, after seeing this happen a few times, will realize they're being set up for 3 minutes of ads, and what do you think they'll do?  Go to the bathroom, switch channels or maybe even read the newspaper for 2- 3 minutes.

Some agency people are praising NBC for its  creative plans to e-word the viewer.  The peacock network will  have on-air cues for viewers to go online, where ads and other engaging messages from advertisers will be seen on NBC's digital platforms.  I can see it now -- hundreds of thousands of people watching "Deal or No Deal" are going to dash to their computers to check online ads and rush back in time to see if Howie convinces some poor schnook to say "No deal."

Is this really the best that the minds at some of the nation's biggest media conglomorates can come up with to help their advertisers get their messages to be seen?

How about this one... We all know greed works.  Have giveaways thrown into the commercial pods at random times.  Be the 1,000th viewer to call a toll-free number with the answer to a question or clue given at random during an earlier commercial pod, and you win a new car, a cruise, free gas for a month.  The prizes would gladly be donated by advertisers in exchange for the extra on-air and online mentions.  And people would be glued to their TV even during the commercials for the chance to win something. In fact, they might take their bathroom breaks during the programs instead.

That's just one idea I came up with while writing this on my 25-minute train ride home from work.  Imagine what the highly-paid ad salespeople at the nets could come up with.  Better yet, let's see what we bloggers can dream up and I'll try to pass it along to some of my trade editor friends, in hopes they'll pass it on to the network brain trust.  That would be fun.

Are we all engaged now?  OK, open for comments. 

Comments

[mvellandi]

I agree the Engagement buzz-word is lame and is easily thrown around as a Utopian idea of consumer enthusiasm. Just marketing speak to get investors and managers excited in the bigger pitch at hand.

I think attention, consideration, and taking notice are better words/phrases since they convey realism.

To get viewers to actively doing something favorable in response to an ad...ha! fat chance. Why do we sit back and casually watch TV? To be entertained and relax. I think the only product that could stir my emotion to check out more information during a commercial break, would be an upcoming theatrical film. And the trailer better be damn good!

[Paul McEnany]

It's a little unfortunate that what they think will save them, may also kill them. As they try to seamlessly integrate deeper experiences, past the show itself, who is best set up to facilitate?

It's Tivo. Now, there's a Catch 22.

[Matt Dickman]

David -- your example of transitioning from program to ad as being engaging actually made me laugh out loud. I thought immediately to some 1950s TV program that did the same thing. Too bad NBC is 50 years too late.

The most engaging experiences I've had with TV (disclaimer: I work in interactive) have had real-time, online tie-ins. An example would be watching something like CSI. Allow users to log on and open a branded, rich CSI experience. Sync the web content with the TV, ask questions to users, have clues or more information on forensics and have users compete with points to keep them interested. Then, during commercials, have a) the commercial also playing online along with other rich media ads, b) hide clues in commercials or ask questions about the commercials to keep people watching, c) run this real-time to give people the incentive to watch "live".

Once the show is over you have other opportunities. Like Paul said, Tivo is the enemy of the modern TV commercial. I personally only watch TV that is recorded on Tivo and I skip every commercial. Tivo has experimented with adding ads or stopping ads from being skipped, but this would surely kill their business.

[David Reich]

Mario, maybe the ad agencies need to make their commercials more like movie trailers, but shorter.

Paul, TiVO and DVRs are the challenge and the nets are frantically trying to get us not to hit fast-forward.

Matt, the example I gave of ABC's "seamless" transition is not a joke. It was reported in Mediaweek. Seamless transitioning is as old as commercial TV, actually. As a kid, I remember Jack Benny and his announcer moving from repartee into a commercial, where Benny or his announcer would hold up the product and deliver the ad. We sat through the ads because back then, we had no remotes,TiVO and DVRs. Heck, we didn't even know what videotape was back then.

What you described in your comment might be along the lines of what NBC has in mind.

[Lewis Green]

David,

Nice post. Engagement remains a good word; it is the bastardization by certain businesses of its meaning that is criminal. Instead of using gimmicks to build relationships with customers, why don't businesses talk to their customers on a regular basis and find out what they are thinking?

[David Reich]

Actually, Lewis, you're right. Engagement isn't a bad word. What's bad is the way it's being thrown around everywhere in ways that don't make sense.

But let me ask you, if you were a TV exec, how might you get viewers to watch the ads? What customers want and what the networks can offer seem to be at odds. Viewers want free, quality programming, but without paying the traditional price of watching the ads. And with the new technologies, viewers can get the free programming for free.

So what does a network do, without changing thjeir entire business model and becoming a pay-per-view channel? Unfortunately, I think it still is about the ads.

[Lewis Green]

David,

I think if the ads were less about themselves (the product, the service, being entertaining, cute, sexy, etc.) and more about the viewers (who they are, what they feel, their fears, their dreams, etc.) the problem may solve itself.

[Jeanne Byington]

David, I've always been fascinated to see sports enthusiasts rush to read the newspaper account of the game they'd watched for hours the day before, listen to WFAN [NY sports radio] on- air personalities and callers dice and slice each play or hear long, heated conversations about same at a party.

With this in mind, were I a TV exec, I'd remove all adverts from the TV screen, and move them to the web where, after a compelling drama, game show, series update/finale or whatever, viewers who were truly "engaged" in the program would want to chat about the outcome/turn-of-events with each other. [How frustrating is it to get to the office to hear colleagues' reactions to something you watched only to learn nobody else had?] Advertisers would be reaching a younger crowd--perfect for them. The price would be seeing banners and flashing or adverts on line. The gains would be priceless. Think of the publicity for the first network to do this and the following its programs would get.

[Steve Woodruff]

Frankly, I'd also like to see the word "consumer" replaced, while we're at it! Such a demeaning term - as if we are all a pack of entities whose sole function is to "consume". Haven't yet found a good replacement, however, that incorporates more of a sense of intelligent decision-making...

[David Reich]

Steve, it's not as sexy sounding, but how about customers? We're all customers -- occasional customers, potential customers (target customers), loyal customers, former customers or non-targeted customers (ie., males 18 - 49 for tampons).