REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Common Ground

 

Lots of people watch the Super Bowl more for the commercials than for the game itself.  That might have been the case this year especially, with such a lopsided game.

That said, I didn’t watch any of the game or the commercials. But I did see one ad later online.  The two-minute Jeep ad, titled The Middle and narrated by and starring Bruce Springsteen, ran during the fourth quarter, when the score was already hopelessly lopsided.  I don’t know how many had already tuned out at that point, but those who stayed were treated to a beautiful ad that celebrated unity in America, focusing on the heartland.  The critics at Advertising Age gave it five stars – their highest rating, calling it “a work of art. One that, at some level, is meant to sell Jeeps. But a work of art nonetheless.”

The ad was groundbreaking just for being the first time Bruce Springsteen has done a commercial.  He certainly didn’t do it just for the money.

Despite the creative kudos, the ad seemed to cause some controversy on a few counts.  I took some time to read through the comments posted on the Jeep website.  Without doing a precise count, the general reaction seemed to be favorable,  But some of the negative response was pretty strong, falling along the same divisive political lines we’ve been hearing too much of for the past four years and, ironically, exactly what the ad was hoping to help us get past as a nation.

Some commenters objected to using Springsteen, since he’s been a vocal critic of the previous administration’s policies and rhetoric.

Others were upset with Jeep for talking about divisiveness and, specifically, for a reference to the “re-United States of America.”   I saw some comments that could have been lifted from the previous president’s tweets or from FOX News – rehashing phrases like fake news, the elite media, cancel culture, etc.

I find it ironic that these negative comments come from supporters of a president who never made even a slight attempt to bring the nation together, but instead constantly spewed hate toward those of us who didn’t support him.  This, while President Biden genuinely attempts to find common ground with those who didn’t vote for him -- the very common ground that the Jeep ad celebrates.

Maybe there’s simply no way to win with the extreme right.  I hope I’m wrong.

Click here to see the Jeep ad.  Listen for the words about common ground…

 

“It’s no secret…The middle has been a hard place to get to lately. Between red and blue. Between servant and citizen. Between our freedom and our fear.

Now, fear has never been the best of who we are. And as for freedom, it’s not the property of just the fortunate few; it belongs to us all. Whoever you are, wherever you’re from. It’s what connects us. And we need that connection. We need the middle. We just have to remember the very soil we stand on is common ground.”

.

What's in a Name?

 

Ad Age yesterday reported that WPP, the big ad agency holding company, is retiring the once-famous and highly-respected Grey Advertising name.

It’s one of the last of the big agencies that date back to the Mad Men days and before.  Grey, in fact, goes back 103 years.

Who remembers names that lined Madison Avenue and other midtown streets before mergers, buyouts and the exodus to points south (Midtown South, Tribeca, lower Broadway, Flatiron and the Photo District) and points west (Hudson Yards)? 

Benton & Bowles, Ogilvy & Mather, D’Arcy Masius MacManus, Dancer Fitzgerald Sample, Grey Advertising, Doyle Dane Bernbach, J Walter Thompson, Young & Rubicam, and out in Chicago, Leo Burnett.  They were the titans of the advertising world, not always thought of as creative powerhouses but their words and images and slogans for clients helped shape the way we thought and the way we bought.

Covering the Media... Again

 

While there are many great agencies throughout the country, New York remains the heart of the advertising and PR industries.  Unlike during the “Mad Men” era, they’re no longer huddled together on Madison Avenue, but they’re still here in New York.

Until Stuart Elliott retired from The New York Times a bit more than five years ago, the newspaper of record always gave significant coverage to the ad and media business and, to a lesser degree, public relations.  Stuart’s column was a must-read, as was Randall Rothenberg for a while before him and, for decades, Phil Dougherty. 

Until December 2014, The New York Times had a regular column devoted to the business of advertising and media since 1935.  Now, there’s an infrequent story about an agency or a campaign. 

It seems to me that The Times would want to step up its coverage of the ad business.  The ad column drew readers and sold papers…something that’s a challenge these days for newspapers.

Another popular column in The Times was the “Media Equation,” written occasionally by Jim Rutenberg.  The column became most popular under curmudgeon David Carr, who covered the media from 2002 until his death in 2015. 

The Times announced yesterday they’ve hired Ben Smith, the editor of BuzzFeed, to cover the media.   

I’m looking forward to reading him starting early in March.

Now, if The Times could only get back to serious coverage of the ad and PR business again.  Long overdue.

Using AI to write ad copy...good or bad?

 

Adweek reported this week about banking giant Chase using artificial intelligence to draft ad copy.

I had two initial thoughts when I saw the headline....

    Will it really work?

    Might it eliminate jobs?

The article talks about a three-year pilot Chase undertook with Persado, a Manhattan-based AI company. Persado's website says it unlocks the power of words by "applying mathematical certainty to words."

Very simply, the company uses algorithms to determine what words resonate with target consumers and/or increase the likelihood of a click to open a marketing email or a link.

It's an interesting concept, but I hope Chase and other marketers don't use it to write final copy unchecked. I can see it being helpful to show what words do a better job than others to attract attention or motivate consumer action.

The Adweek story cites an example of human vs. AI-created copy where the computer's copy performed better.

The human copy for the digital ad:. "Access cash from the equity in your home."

The computer-generated copy:. "It's true -- You can unlock cash from the equity in your home."

I like the second take, but I also wonder about the first take -- what direction the human copywriters were given and also, how sharp is the agency that let that dull copy go through to the client?

My second concern was about how many jobs might be replaced by the computer. When Adweek posed that question to Chase, they got a horrible PR non-answer..."Our relationship with Persado hasn't had an impact on our structure."

This response does not say anything about future job cuts due to the AI tool.

Time will tell, on both the copy and the job fronts.

Ads We Like - Kohler

 

I just came across this ad in the June issue of Wired and it caught my eye.

I love the clever simplicity, using subtle humor to get across the ad's message - Behold the Future.

The Upfronts: Paying More for Less

 

It’s a ritual of late spring…the upfront TV marketplace.

Every year, the networks (and in recent years, major ad-supported cable channels) present their fall programming to major advertisers and ad agencies here in New York.  They’re usually glitzy productions at major venues – this year at Radio City Music Hall, Lincoln Center, the Beacon Theater – with lots of star-power from the networks.

There’s a lot at stake.  It’s a chance for advertisers to buy ad time at better rates than if they waited until later in the year, when prices could be anywhere from 10 to 40 percent higher in what’s called the scatter market.

During the upfront period, the networks usually sell as much as 90 percent of their prime time ad availability. 

The numbers are big.  The major networks rake in around $9 billion as advertisers rush to grab up ad time.  When you add in the dozens of cable networks, from A+E to National Geographic Channel, the total take is close to $20 billion.  And it’s almost always a sellers’ market, since the ad buyers don’t want to get locked out.

For major advertisers, TV still offers something other media can’t – a big audience seeing ad messages pretty much at the same time, or in “real time” as the network ad salespeople say.  So even as the total TV audience continues to dip, ad rates appear to be going up again this year. 

Marketers are paying more for less, but FOMO (fear of missing out) still drives the upfront market.

What We Do: The Impact of PR

 

 

Publicity these days takes on many formats and utilizes the whole array of media, from traditional to social.

It used to be all about exposure in newspapers and broadcast, and even when online news and information sites began surfacing, many marketers put little or no value on an online placement.   Back then, it was “Get me in The Times,” then morphing to “Get me on Donahue” and “Get me on Oprah.”

Now it’s more like “Get me trending on Twitter.”

Marketers, especially those with big budgets, continue to put their dollars into advertising.  Buy ads and you know when and where they’ll appear, with a good idea of how many eyeballs (or ears) it will reach.    

But, as many of us in PR have been saying for years (decades, actually), it’s not only about having your message be seen, but more about having it be believed and then creating consumer action – buying the product or service.

A new survey, reported in this week’s ADWEEK, looks at what type of content influences consumers to try a new product or service.  The biggest single influencer, the report shows, is articles and blog posts.  A good chunk of that content is initiated by PR outreach.   More than 28 percent say articles and blogs are what causes them to try to product.

Social media is close behind, at 22.6 percent.

Other things that impact consumers are in-person events, at 15 percent, and celebrity and influencer endorsements, at 9 percent.

Online ads are at 17 percent, and print and other traditional advertising is cited by 3.8 percent of respondents.  Ironic, since the numbers spent by marketers are just about the opposite.  Hmmm.

And the winner is... ABC

 

Big events like the Super Bowl, the Grammy’s and the Oscars traditionally were must-watch TV, pulling in giant audiences for the nationwide live broadcasts.  But for the last several years, these events have not been a guarantee for a huge audience, which has been troubling for both the network carrying the event and for the advertisers spending in the millions per 30-second spot. 

The Academy Awards last Sunday proved to be a winner – not only for Green Book, Bohemian Rhapsody and Roma, but for ABC as well.

The ratings were up by 11.5 percent over last year’s Oscars telecast, drawing in 29.6 viewers.  And the event was profitable for ABC, which sold out all its available time in the telecast.  The network earned about $120 million during the program, with 30-second spots going for more than $2.8 million.

For comparison, the Grammy’s brought in about $95 million for CBS.  Approximately 30 million tuned in for the broadcast.  Super Bowl, which was the least-watched Super Bowl in ten years, still drew a super audience of 98.2 million – dwarfing the Grammy’s and Oscars combined.  Ad revenues for CBS were down five percent from a year ago, but still came to a hefty total of more than $385 million. The typical spot cost between $4.6 and $5.2 million.  

Pfft… a bundle, gone in 30 seconds.

Super Bowl = Super Ad Showcase

 

CBS says ads for Super Bowl LIII are more than 90 percent sold out, with just over two weeks to go.  And title sponsorships have been sold for each hour of pre-game and post-game shows.

Marketers are shelling out more than $5.2 million for a 30-second spot.

CBS expects the extravaganza in Atlanta to bring in $500 million, topping the $414 million that NBC earned for last year's Super Bowl.

Understandably, CBS will milk the event for all they can get.  Starting at 11:30 a.m. eastern, with seven hours of pre-game shows.  They'll be covering the game with 115 cameras, including four with live augmented reality graphics.  CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus says the broadcast "will look as innovative as any broadcast in history."

For many people, Super Bowl is as much about the ads as it's about the football.  Top advertisers this year are automotive, beer and beverage, movie studios and technology companies.  Returningf advertisers include Anheuser-Busch, Pepsi, Doritos, Avocados from Mexico (even with tariffs), and WeatherTech.

 

 

Who's Listening?

 

Americans spend nearly four hours a day listening to some form of audio, according to a study reported recently in The Wall Street Journal.

The bulk of audio time – 50 percent -- comes from traditional broadcast radio stations, both AM and FM.  Nearly tied as the second and third most popular sources are streaming (16 percent) and personally-owned music (14 percent), from CDs, downloaded music and even records. 

Following distantly is satellite radio – SiriusXM – at eight percent despite the fact that virtually every new car these days comes with a 3-month free trial.  SiriusXM is costly, so they probably lose many listeners once the free trial period expires.

And then there’s podcasts, today accounting for about four percent of listening.   But the relatively small portion of total listening time doesn’t give the full podcast picture.  About 26 percent of Americans listen to a podcast at least once a month – twice what it was only five years ago.  That’s about 73 million people ages 12 and up. 

What I find interesting is which podcast publishers today have the biggest audience.  Not the networks.  Not Spotify or Pandora.  NPR (National Public Radio) has the biggest podcast audience, with almost 19 million unique listeners every month.  iHeart Radio is second, with 14 million monthly listeners.  Two public radio programmers -  This American Life and PRX – have 9.9 and 7.2 million listeners.

The New York Times is at #6, with 7 million listeners for its daily news and analysis podcasts, followed by New York’s public radio station WNYC, with 6.6 million.

Podcasts often are supported, in part at least, by ads.  Podcast ad revenue this year is expected to hit $400 million, up from about $260 million last year.   Analysts expect it to exceed $600 million by 2020.

The big streamers Spotify and Pandora do carry podcasts, but they haven’t yet been a significant revenue stream for them.  Spotify carries about 150,000 podcasts and Pandora has a few hundred.  They say listening time for podcasts on their platforms represents less than one percent of their total listening time.

But that will likely change in the next few years, as the big streaming services see the potential and want a big piece of the anticipated growth in podcast ad revenues.  Their goal, says The Wall Street Journal, is to take more listeners – and more revenues – from broadcast radio.  The radio broadcasters don’t want to lose any share, but with total annual ad revenues of $14 billion, they’re hardly panicking.