REICH COMMUNICATIONS

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.   

 

Going to Pot

TV news this morning showed long lines of people in the rain as they waited for the first legal recreational marijuana shops to open in Massachusetts, the latest state to make recreational pot legal.  It's the first state east of the Mississippi that's gone legal, although several more are expected to follow in the coming years.

As a child of the '60s, I sometimes wonder why it's taken so long.  Back in the day, it seemed like the majority of young people smoked pot.  Many of us thought as our generation became adults and took the reigns of power in business and in politics, pot would eventually become legal.  We knew it wouldn't be overnight, but nearly 50 years?

In grad school, I wrote a paper on how the big tobacco companies would market pot once it became legal, and I recall some research that showed Big Tobacco already had taken copyrights on brand names like Acapulco Gold.  Back then, experts were saying pot would be legal in about ten years.

Two years ago, while in Seattle on business, I walked past a pot store.  Curious, I went inside, expecting to walk into a dark and smoky den.  Instead, it was brightly lit with beautiful displays and counter and after counter of cannabis products and related paraphernalia.  The saleswoman, nicely dressed, could tell I was overwhelmed and asked what kind of high I was looking for.

What kind of high?  Huh?

She explained there were products that would relax me, make me feel wide awake, give me the munchies and lots of other types of effects.  I bought a chocolate bar that was supposed to make me feel mellow.  I ate it and... nothing.

But that shopping experience was a far cry from the days when your retailer was a friend of a friend, and you never knew what to expect when you took a toke.

Adweek recently devoted an entire issue to what it called "Flower Power."  The cannabis industry is expected to grow to some $200 billion.  I'm not sure if R.J. Reynolds or whatever else remains of the big tobacco companies have any holdings in cannabis companies, but Constellation Brands, which has Corona and Modello among the beer brands it imports, recently offered $4 billion to buy Canopy Growth, a Canadian cannabis producer that is the world's largest, producing mainly medical marijuana at this point. Clearly, Constellation sees some real potential in the marketplace. 

I did some publicity about two years ago for a guy who wrote a book called Pot Luck that explained and extolled the benefits of medical marijuana.  It was a good read and did a good job explaining how herbal alternatives including cannabis often -- but not always -- offered relief or cures where traditional medicine didn't.

As someone who works in the traffic safety field, I am also seeing evidence of more crashes in states where pot has become legal.  Unlike when you're drunk, you can be high and still manage -- or think you're managing -- to drive safely.  But reaction time is slowed and if something happens quickly on the road, a high driver -- an impaired driver -- may have a problem.

So I think that, along with legalization, should come a public education campaign to make drivers aware of the dangers of driving while high.  We've done it for alcohol over he years, so why not help people understand the risks of driving while high.  It can help those who want to indulge do it safely, without putting everyone else on the road at risk.

 

 

Shorter is Better - For TV Ads

Shorter TV ads get more viewer attention than longer ones.  That's what research recently reported by Television News Daily says.

Ten-second ads get about ten percent more attention than 30-second spots, and 20 percent more than 60-second ads.

This doesn't seem like earth-shaking news.  To me, it sort of stands to reason.  A shorter ad is less of an intrusion. 

The challenge, though, for a shorter ad is you have less time to draw and hold the viewer's attention, and less time to get across a convincing marketing message.  Shorter ads might be used in combination with the more traditional 30s or 60s, which have the time to get across the marketing pitch, while the short 10-second spots can serve to keep the brand name out there and possibly remind viewers of the longer ads that have the full marketing info.

We've been seeing short ads -- some even less than 10 seconds -- on the internet for years as pre-roll for online content.  But for those online ads to be seen, marketers need to hook the viewer in the first few seconds so he or she will want to keep watching, rather than click on "Skip Ad."  That's where real creativity comes in... or not.

 

Ads We Like and Those We Hate

 

My wife is participating in a focus group and as a prep question she was asked to list some ads she likes and some she doesn't like. 

We talked about it and we both agreed we love the "Dog Tested" campaign Subaru is running, showing dogs in various situations.  I could watch those ads over and over and, in fact, I've stopped the fast-forward on our DVR so I could watch one of those ads for perhaps the 20th time.

The other question was: what ads do we hate?

Two insurance ads topped out list.  Aflac, for the annoying Aflac duck.  At least they don't use Gilbert Gotfried's grating voice any more, but the voice is still annoying. 

The other ads are the seemingly non-stop pitches from Geico.  Some are funny the first time and maybe even the second time.  But Geico, which is by far TV's biggest advertiser, has them running all the time and everywhere, it seems.  So we hate them because of overexposure.

Now to the key question... Would I buy a Subaru because of the ads, and would I not buy coverage from Geico or Aflac for the same reason?  Hard to say, since many other factors would be in play.  For a car, it would be things like price range, style and comfort, reputation.  For insurance, it would be price and reputation -- reputation not based on the ads but on word-of-mouth regarding how they respond when you have a claim.  But, all other things being equal, I would avoid a company whose ads I hate.  I've done it before with banks.

 

 

 

Swoosh

Most brands work hard to avoid controversy, which means they often come off as plain vanilla -- staying quietly in a safe space.

Nike, though, has plunged right into a red-hot polarizing issue, and I think they'll come out ahead long-term.

 

The iconic footwear/athleticwear company, which had maintained its endorsement relationship with controversial football star/pariah Colin Kaepernick, has gone a big step further -- featuring the embattled player in its new ad campaign that celebrates 30 years of the "Just Do It" ad slogan.  The new ad with a close-up of Kaepernick, has the headline "Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything."

The tweeter-in-chief could not, of course, sit quietly on the sidelines for this, and his divisive comments have brought even more attention to the new campaign.  Ad experts estimate Nike has so far received $43 million worth of publicity -- nearly half of it positive, about 20 percent neutral and a quarter negative. 

Among the brand's key demographic -- 18 to 34-year olds -- 56 percent felt on-field protests like what Kaepernick was fired for are appropriate.

Not surprisingly, social media is ablaze with calls to boycott Nike products.  But many online and in surveys are praising the company and say they will buy more Nike products to support its bravery and its standing on principles they agree with.

In the face of the presidential bluster on Twitter, the NFL issued a statement in support of Nike and Kaepernick.  "The NFL believes in dialogue, understanding and unity.  We embrace the role and responsibility of everyone involved with this game to promote meaningful, positive change in our communities.  The social justice issues that Colin and other professional athletes have raised deserve our attention and action," the statement said.

Calling attention to the troubling and complex issue of alleged police brutality, especially in minority communities, is a good thing.  It is not an act of disrespect to our flag, our national anthem or our military, as some would have us think as a way to confuse the issue. It is simply a quiet and peaceful way to call attention to a real issue that we as a society need to deal with.

 

 

 

Upfront Week

 

It’s probably TV’s biggest week, and it’s not even on the air.

Upfront Week, happening now here in New York, brings execs from ad agencies, media buying firms and advertisers together to hear from the networks (over-the-air and cable) about their planned fall schedules and their new and returning shows.  The Upfront presentations are giant dog & pony shows in high-profile spots like Radio City, Lincoln Center and Carnegie Hall, and the nets trot out their stars, putting their late-night hosts Jimmy Kimmel, Steven Colbert and Jimmy Fallon to work as emcees.

There’s big money at stake – upwards of $16 billion in advance commitments by advertisers to buy time in the nets’ primetime schedules next season.  Advertisers scramble over each other to buy positions in what they are betting will be the big hits next fall.   They’re afraid if they wait, they could get locked out of a hit show, or if they can buy spots in the fall, the prices will be quite a bit higher.  That’s been the traditional thinking that’s enabled the networks to keep raising prices for ad time, even as their audience continues to shrink.

Years ago when the late media buying guru Gene Dewitt was a client, I’d line up interviews for him with ad biz reporters at The N.Y. Times, USA Today, The L.A. Times, CNN and the ad trades, where he’d make his prognostications on which new shows would be hits and which would fail.  He also would decry the whole upfront process, claiming it pits advertisers against each other in a feeding frenzy that really only serves the networks -- pushing their ad prices higher.  For years, Gene used to predict the end of the upfront marketplace, encouraging advertisers to forego the hyped feeding frenzy and push back, demanding better programming, more audience data and an orderly structure for pricing and buying ad time.

And here we are, a dozen or more years later as the Upfront is again underway.

Stories in The Times (New York and Los Angeles) are reporting that this year’s Upfront could see only a small increase in sales – maybe 3% -- or even a decline of 2 or 3%.   

There are a number of factors converging to bring a change, not only in Upfront spending, but in ad spending on TV overall throughout the year.  One analyst quoted in the L.A. Times says it will go down by 2% this year.

What’s happening?

*  TV viewership is down.  Except for major sports and news events, TV doesn’t draw in the huge number of viewers that it used to.  The nation no longer tunes in, almost as a whole, to see Ed Sullivan on a Sunday night.  Primetime viewership over the past three years is down from 10% (FOX) to as much as 24% (ABC.)  Only NBC has seen an increase of 7%, thanks only to a bump last year fueled by its mega-hit “This is Us.”

*  We can watch what we want when we want.  And we can go to so many more places for news – 24/7 and even reflecting our own political biases, if we choose.  The amount of programming is mind-boggling.  Where we used to have perhaps 100 choices of scripted programs between the 3 or 4 major networks, we can now choose from more than 600 scripted programs on the networks, on cable and now on streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon, ready to play whenever we choose.

*  Add to the networks’ woes the fact that coveted younger viewers (the 18-49 demo) are watching less and less of anything on regular TV.  Many don’t even own a TV or they are not hooked to an antenna or cable.  They stream bits and pieces on their laptops, tables or phones... or their unconnected big-screen TVs.

So as the TV audience disappears and fragments, the networks hope to raise their ad prices yet again.  This year, the average $134,000 cost for 30 seconds on primetime was 6% higher than it was the previous season.  Even if it does go up again for next season, how many more years will advertisers keep paying higher prices for fewer eyeballs?

It’s not totally bleak for the networks.  The shows they produce bring in money for them when they are shown on other platforms.  And some shows that eventually go into syndication can be a golden goose for the producing network and/or the producing studio, often owned by the network or the network’s parent company.

And meanwhile, we’re in the midst of another Upfront Week.  With lavish over-the-top presentations and parties, it’s good for New York’s economy, if nothing else.

Ad revenues, circulation up at “failing” NYT

 

Despite what the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue says, The New York Times is not failing.

Both subscriptions and revenues are up for the first quarter of this year.  It’s up thanks, in part, to the guy in the White House.  People are looking for real news.

Overall revenue for the company went up by 3.8 percent for the first quarter.  The Times added 139,000 new digital-only subscribers, bringing it to a whopping 2.8 million online subscribers.  Those new subscribers, plus those buying the print editions, grew by 7.5 percent, accounting for about two-thirds of the company’s total revenue. 

Ironically, even as online readership grew, digital ad revenues fell by 6 percent.   Print ad revenue, which accounts for two-thirds of the company’s ad income, dropped by 1.8 percent – much better than print revenue drops at many other major papers.

The paper also derives revenue from special editorial products like online crossword and cooking apps.  It also just announced plans for a daily newscast in partnership with FX network, as a way to expand reach and applications of its news content to other platforms, which will hopefully bring added revenues.

So it looks like The New York Times is not failing.  But we already know that much of what comes out of the White House these days is incorrect.  Some might even call it “fake.”   

NBC to cut ads by 10%... sort of

 

NBC says it will cut the number of ads it runs in primetime by 10%,  ADWEEK reports that the change will begin at the start of the fall season. 

Clutter and long commercial breaks have long been a problem, for advertisers whose messages get lost in the clutter and for the networks, who lose viewers during long commercial breaks that can, at times, last three minutes or more.

So how will NBC run fewer ads without losing money?  One answer might be..charge more for each spot.  But that's not realistic. 

Instead, ADWEEK says NBC will unveil some new formats in which ads can run.  One or two of them sound vaguely familiar, just under different names.

One they're calling a "show within a show."  An example they give envisions a brief segment in "The Voice" where a previous winner is featured, showing what they've been doing since winning.  I've seen segments like that on the old weight-loss contest "The Biggest Loser."  I remember watching a segment back then, and once I realized it was a paid promotional segment I was annoyed, feeling I'd been conned into watching a commercial.  There was nothing to indicate it was a paid spot. 

Another ad platform will be a primetime bridge.  This would be a spot, of varying lengths but probably longer than the traditional :30, that will run between two programs.  It's like going back a couple of years to traditional commercial breaks between shows, except the bridge ad will be for only one advertiser.

Then there's the scripted commercial launch.  This format will move from a moment in the show to a commercial, but possibly in a seamless way so the viewer will think he's still watching the show.  A character on a show might, for example, sit down and take a cup of Maxwell House coffee, which will then lead into an ad for Maxwell House.  Sounds a little like "product placement."

This one sounds a little bizarre -- interactive picture-in-picture.  It's described as a split-screen format where part of the split screen will show a character from the program interacting with the product being advertised.  Hmmm.  We'll see.

Another is a social media concept where social comments from fans will be woven into ads that air during the show.  We've seen hints of that in past seasons of "The Voice."

And we've already seen some examples of super-short ads -- five seconds -- that run between segments of sports events.  In the Olympics, we saw instances when the narrator would say, "Coming up next, couples figure skating."  And there'd be a quick ad that is gone before you can reach for your remote or your DVR control.

The networks and advertisers are challenged with loss of viewership for ads, so it's understandable that they're trying new ways to keep us engaged or numb us into sitting through ads.  Let's see how these ideas work after we've seen them a few times, once we're on to the attempt to keep us watching the ads.

 

 

 

Using PR to Extend the Reach of Ads

 

It costs a lot to advertise.  Thirty seconds on a hit network show can be upwards of $100,000.  A spot on the Academy Awards broadcast is going for more than $2.5 million.  Spots on the Super Bowl cost upwards of $5 million.

And remember, those numbers are just for one spot -- 30 seconds that interrupt a program, when many viewers run to the kitchen or the bathroom.  And a key element of advertising is frequency -- ads have to be seen many times in order to have a real impact.

So some advertisers use PR -- publicity -- to extend the reach of their ads at relatively little cost.  Think of the super bowl of advertising venues -- the Super Bowl.  Many advertisers use PR to hype their ads before the big game, pushing for stories in the media and getting them seen and talked about via social media. 

Advertisers sometimes do something intentionally controversial in hopes of getting a bigger bang thanks to PR.  We saw an example just last week, in some outdoor ads in Boulder, Colorado for a local chain of sushi restaurants called Hapa Sushi.  According to ADWEEK, the chain ran a series of ads on kiosks and bus shelters downtown that used tweets by the president, unedited.  One ad shows a presidential tweet threatening the head of North Korea, followed by the words "Eat well before it all ends."  Another used a tweet that reads "The global warming we should be worried about is the global arming caused by NUCLEAR WEAPONS in the hands of crazy leaders!" 

Some Boulder officials missed the humor and asked the advertiser to edit the ads. Instead, the sushi chain agreed to take the ads down after only a few days.  But they garnered attention in the local newspaper, the Boulder Camera, local TV and other media around the state. 

Minimal ad expense -- bigger bang through publicity.

Years ago, one of my clients -- an ad agency -- was planning to run a huge billboard ad in the Times Square area, directly opposite a church.  The ad, for a maker of high-end toilets, showed people from behind standing at toilets, with their butts fully or partially exposed.

After the church voiced a complaint to the billboard company, the story got out to the media.  It ended up running in newspapers and on TV in New York and nationwide, with most of the stories showing the proposed ad, along with the name of the advertiser. 

A few weeks later, after the news died down, my client admitted that they had never actually planned to run the ad.  They had tipped off some folks at the church, which prompted the complaint to the billboard company.  And they gave the story to a friend in the media.  Once one outlet wrote about it, it exploded everywhere else.  

Afterwards, they asked me to do an ad equivalency evaluation for them, and the "free" exposure ,they got was worth several million of dollars.   And they never paid a dime for an actual ad, other than the very minor expense of having a mock ad created.

Clever?  Devious?  You decide.  It worked.  It caused some laughs, and no one got hurt.