REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Going to the Dogs

 

Today is National Dog Day.

Perhaps appropriate as one of the "dog days of August," the unofficial holiday was started in 2004 by an animal advocate.  It's been picked up as a marketing opportunity by several companies that signed on as official sponsors.  One is a bit of a stretch, but Autotrader.com is using it to release their list of best cars for dogs.  Loew's Hotels is tying in with a "Yappy Hour" event tonight at their Loew's Regency in New York.  

Nextdoor, a social media network, used the occasion to release a list of the most popular dog names.  The top name this year is Bella, with other most popular names that include Max and Charlie --names of two dogs that I know.

For most of us who are dog owners or dog lovers, it's just another excuse for us to do something special for our pups -- an extra biscuit or toy, or an extra-long snuggle. 

I wish I could give a snuggle with my doggie pal Loki, who left us at the beginning of this year. He will always be my puppy-love.

 

       Loki and me ....

TV ads go Zap!

 

Anyone with a DVR knows the joy of skipping through the commercials when you watch TV shows you've recorded.  But it's a real challenge to marketers who want to use TV to get their message out quickly to the masses, and that challenge is getting even tougher.  Dish TV just announced that they have a new DVR that can totally eliminate ads from subscribers' TV viewing.

Unlike regular DVRs, the new Hopper, as it's called, will totally eliminate ads when you play a show back.  Most DVRs now let you fast-forward through ads, but you still see the images on the screen and ad impressions still do register, even if not fully.  But the Hopper actually skips ads altogether, unless you opt top see them.

The Dish TV announcement comes at a bad time for the networks, as they are about to unveil their Fall schedules to advertisers during the annual Upfront ritual.  That's the dance between the nets and advertisers, where the networks try to shake down advertisers and their agencies for ever-increasing ad rates, even in the face of declining audiences.  And at the risk of missing out on the next big hit, the advertisers usually give in and pay the higher ad rates.

The household penetration of DVRs is significant and will continue to grow, which means it will get harder for the nets to deliver the eyeballs their advertisers are paying for.  The Hopper adds another challenging wrinkle.

The networks are responding by offering ad packages that include product placement, enabling subtle and not-so-subtle ad messages to be embedded in the program content.  Shows like "30 Rock" openly poke fun at the product placement concept, but they've cleverly made it into an added revenue stream for the network.  And it may seem to fit into some of the reality shows like  "The Biggest Loser" or "The Apprentice," although people aren't stupid (well... maybe they are) enough to totally accept placement endorsements as genuine.  But product placement simply can't fit everywhere, and it often has limitations on how deeply it can go into hardcore product sell. And there's got to be a limit as to how much product placement viewers will tolerate. 

So what's an advertiser to do?  Maybe create ads that are more fun or compelling to watch so we don't zap them or get up to hit the bathroom or refrigerator.  It can be done -- look at the hoopla surrounding the ads themselves at SuperBowl.   Ads that tell a story or get viewers involved have also worked, like the BMW ads that were mini-stories by hot directors, which debuted online some in 2001.  Or the ads for Folgers (or was it Maxwell House?) that showed a budding relationship or flirtation between two neighbors.

If something about TV commercials doesn't change, they will continue to be skipped, zapped and ignored in growing numbers.  And the more than $16 billion in ad revenues that the four major networks alone get each year may start to dwindle, especially as content providers for digital media like our iPads and smartphones are just itching to get a bigger piece of the ad pie.

Or perhaps nothing will change.  Didn't we have similar discussions way back when that ancient piece of technology -- the VCR -- took hold and viewers suddenly had the power to control what and when we watched TV? 

Stay tuned ...

 

 

Update May 14, 2012:

Was it Newton or Einstein who said: For every action, there's an opposite and equal reaction?  This from today's Adweek...

"Comcast is seeking a patent for new technology that will force subscribers who fast-forward through DVR-recorded shows to view advertising anyway, according to FierceCable, an online publication for cable network execs.

The cable operator is doing the exact opposite of what Dish announced last week. Dish's new Ad Hop technology allows viewers to totally skip ads during DVR playback of prime-time broadcast programming—an idea that, for obvious reasons, is unlikely to please advertisers.

Comcast subscribers who hit fast-forward on their remotes would receive an alternate ad displayed in the center of their TV screens, which could be partially transparent, FierceCable reported, citing a U.S. patent application for the technology. The patent application also reportedly details a strategy for targeting alternative ads to skip-happy subscribers based on demographics and viewing habits.

Some have pointed out that Dish's Ad Hop feature is limited in that it only allows viewers to skip ads during prime-time programming from four large networks—ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox.

However, with the average cost for a 30-second spot climbing again—now at $111,500, according to TVB—the ad industry still will have to figure out how to count Dish's 14 million subscribers during CPM negotiations during the upfront.

MSNBC noted that DVR company TiVo tried something similar to Ad Hop in 1999, letting viewers skip ads, but pulled the plug on the plan after networks expressed outrage."

 

 

Product Un-placement

Marketers spend millions to have their products used or logos displayed on TV and in films.  I remember when all a PR person had to do was supply product for a production and you'd get screen time.  But those days are long gone, as producers realize the huge extra revenues that can be generated by product placement.

But here's an example of product placement that a company does not want.

Abercrombie & Fitch has asked the producers of "Jersey Shore" to have the low-life characters on the show stop wearing their clothing.  In fact, according to a story in MediaLife, Abercrombie is actually willing to pay to have the characters stop wearing their products.

Product placement is usually about having a product or brand associated with the entertainment vehicle and/or getting lots of eyeballs.  But here's an example of a show that glorifies boorish behavior.

Good for Abercrombie that they have the sense to recognize the difference between big audience numbers and the environment where their products are being showcased.

 

Product Placement: The Brits got it right

TV watchers in the UK will start seeing something new beginning next Monday -- product placement.

Here in the U.S., product placement became the new wild west of TV advertising, especially as reality shows have become so popular.  Some product placement is obvious, like the Coca-Cola cups on the desk in front of the American Idol judges.  Some is more subtle -- or maybe the word should be "sneaky."  Segments on shows like "Apprentice" and "The Biggest Loser" fit in smoothly with the show's content, but they are ads cleverly disguised as part of the show.  That may be good for the advertisers, but it's not fair and, in fact, dishonest with the viewers. 

I've written about this before.  It's a pet peeve of mine.

So I like what the British TV regulators are doing.  Product placement is being allowed, which means added revenues for the broadcasters.  But the new rules require a symbol on the screen that indicates that what you're watching is, in fact, a paid message.

Commerce is good.  But so is honesty.  The FCC should take a page from our friends across the Atlantic. 

 

   

A Perfect Match

Sponsorship of events is a giant business because it can be a great way to generate exposure for a brand that, if properly done, generates sales and develops customer loyalty.

I saw it work firsthand some 30 years ago, when I helped develop an event sponsorship for client L'eggs pantyhose. Those were the days of women coming into their own in sports and fitness, when it had become acceptable – or even fashionable – for women to sweat. We organized a nationwide series of women-only road races – the L'eggs 10K Series. The program cost about $250,000, but it generated several million in publicity and cemented the loyalty of countless active women.

That sponsorship tie made sense.

I've seen so many other sponsorships that make little or no sense. If you have to think about why a company or brand is sponsoring an event or program, then it probably isn't a good fit.

But I read today in The Wall Street Journal online about a new sponsorship that made so much sense I had to laugh out loud. As we approach the Fourth of July, we also draw closer to the annual rite of gluttony – the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest at Coney Island. It garners news headlines far beyond the metro New York area; it's become a national – or perhaps international – news story.

Every year, when we see the news coverage of guys stuffing themselves with hot dog after hot dog, we gag at the thought of eating so much. Our stomachs ache just watching someone like Joey Chestnut down 68 hot dogs (with buns) in 10 minutes.  Ugh!

So what better brand to become the sponsor of this annual pageant of piggery than Pepto Bismol? Actually, according to the Journal story, the brand will be sponsoring the Nathan's contest, which is part of a national series of eating competitions under the banner of Major League Eating.

Over-stuffing yourself with Nathan's hot dogs and Pepto Bismol – what a perfect match.

(burp)

Excuse me.

Living with product placement

Are we (and our DVRs) to blame for the rise in product placement on television?

That's a question Brian Steinberg explores in his Advertising Age story reporting from the ANA's annual TV and Video Forum.

Product placement has been a fact of TV life since the early days, when it was discretely placed in some daytime programming and no-so discretely placed in game shows.  Think of "The Price is Right" and "Wheel of Fortune," where products offered as prizes are described in detail, using copy written by the company providing the product being given away and often paying for it to be there.  

Product placement within the content of programming began to escalate over the past ten years, popping up primarily in sports and reality programs.  Those shows offered advertisers a way to push their products through the ad clutter, where a spot could easily get lost within a 3-minute commercial pod containing six or more ads plus network promos.  When most of us think of "American Idol," we probably envision the judges sitting with large Coca-Cola cups in front of them. 

But product placement has been creeping into what had traditionally been an ad-free zone -- the content of scripted dramas and comedies.  I'm not saying there never was product placement in those shows, but it was rare and in situations where a particular product might logically fit -- whether or not it had been "placed."  Some 20 years ago when I was handling p.r. for Jaguar Cars, we provided cars from the press fleet for scenes where a luxury car was needed.  We didn't pay for the exposure.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that today Jaguar has to pay for those cameo appearances.

Brian Steinberg writes about the intrusiveness of some of today's product placements, where a product is pushed into situations where it really doesn't fit with the flow of the show.  He cites examples like "Chuck" on NBC, where characters end up reciting the slogan for Subway's $5 foot-long sandwich, or the cast of the CW's "90210" praising Dr Pepper.

It's not just about the money, although product placement can add handsomely to the coffers of the networks and the program's production company.  But it's really about advertisers finding a way to hit viewers with their messages.  It's a way to beat clutter and a way to beat DVRs and on-demand, where it's easy and tempting for us to fly through the commercials.

We, the viewers, have helped create the problem that product placement is trying to resolve for advertisers.

The solution is not without risk to the networks.  If they allow the placements to become too blatant and intrusive, will viewers get annoyed and flip to another channel?  Or will they just DVR through the placement at top speed?

Or, will viewers simply tolerate hour-long programs that contain 20 - 30 minutes of ads and ads-disguised as program content. 

It seems like a risky move for the networks to permit so much product placement.  Viewers can all too easily hit the remote or the DVR to watch non-network programs such as the growing number of shows on premium and basic cable that are far superior to most of what the networks are now offering, even without the product placement.

Multi-tasking creates media clutter for kids

PR is one way marketers can break through

Television and music still rule when it comes to how young people engage with media.  While computer usage has increased substantially for kids over the past ten years, it still ranks third in how much time teens spend with media.

A study released a few weeks ago by the Kaiser Family Foundation and reported online in a Center for Media Research Brief shows that kids ages 8 - 18 manage to cram 10-3/4 hours of media use into 7-1/2 hours every day.  Multi-tasking with different media platforms, such as online chats or video gaming while texting or listening to music on the radio or iPod, accounts for the extra 3 hours.  It also, as I'll explain later, creates some opportunities for public relations to fill a gap.

TV continues to be the leading media use by kids, at an average of 4-1/2 hours daily last year, up from 3-3/4 hours ten years ago.   Music online, via radio or stored on iPods and other mp3 players and smartphones, remains at #2 with 2-1/2 hours a day -- up 3/4 of an hour from 1999.

Kids' computer use jumped to #3, at 1-1/2 hours a day.  Ten years ago it was fourth, behind print, at 27 minutes a day.  (And much of those 27 minutes ten years ago was probably spent just trying to sign-in online using dial-up.)

Games, at 1-1/4 hours, ranked #4 last year. 

The survey shows how young people today are multi-tasking with media, which begs the question  of how much attention do they really give to what they're doing?  My guess is the tasks that demand closer attention, like active games, cause diminished attention to the other things being multi-tasked.  That means that "traditional" forms of advertising like spots on radio and TV or banners and even pop-ups online are being missed, ignored or glossed over.

This makes a case for marketing messages that are a legitimate part of the content that's being consumed. Public relations and well-done product placement, as well as appropriate and logical sponsorships might, in my opinion, stand a better chance of breaking through the media clutter that young people are being bombarded with.

For marketers and public relations pros, it's both a challenge and an opportunity.

 

Taming the Wild West

Sometime this summer, according to trade press reports, there's a good chance the Federal Trade Commission will extend its rules concerning use of testimonials and endorsements in advertising.  The change will have a direct impact on the blogosphere, which so far has been totally unregulated.

Blogger friend Scott Monty, manager of global digital communications at Ford, likens this space to the lawlessness of the old West.  In the Ragan public relations newsletter, he says, "Since blogging is relatively new and because there's no editorial insight, it can seem like the Wild West, absent any guiding principles."

Since there's been no oversight, some companies look to pay or otherwise compensate bloggers to write positively about their products.  In parts of the blogosphere, especially in the so-called mommy blogs, the combination of greed on the part of some bloggers and exploitation by marketers has gotten out of hand, to the point the FTC has been taking a closer look.

Stephanie Azzarone, who does p.r. for the toy industry, writes in MediaPost about how some of the mommy bloggers have become spoiled by all the freebies.  "What was once a $20 freebie toy," she writes, "is now an appliance, an automobile on loan, an all-expenses paid trip to Disney World. Some will turn up their noses at anything less.  Others will only comment on companies if paid to do so."

I remember a major uproar online about two years ago, when Nikon offered expensive cameras to a hundred or so "influential" bloggers.  Some who wrote about the camera and displayed photos they'd taken were open about the relationship with Nikon.  Others weren't, and got soundly criticized.  Much of the criticism seemed to come from within the marketing part of the blogosphere, where many talk passionately about authenticity and ethics.

For most bloggers, the new FTC guidelines shouldn't make much of a difference, although if you do include endorsements or reviews on your blog, it'll be your responsibility to be aware of the rules.  For most of us, it will simply mean continuing to be honest and open, disclosing when we've accepted a freebie or a sample that we're writing about.

For marketers who reach out to bloggers, it will be mandatory that they know the rules.  Honesty and disclosure are crucial from this end too.  You'll get best results if you allow bloggers to remain authentic and use their own words rather than pushing for them to be blatant shills for you.

Keep an eye on what bloggers are saying about your product and if you see something that's false or an overstatement, talk to that blogger and try to have it corrected.

Above all, avoid being sneaky in your dealings with bloggers.  Chances are you'll be found out and both you and the offending blogger will be called out in an embarrassing way.

As with life in general, honesty, clarity and integrity are the best guidelines.

It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out as today's Wild West starts to get tamed.

Blogs and Advertising... Do they mix?

Not long after I began blogging nearly two years ago, some heated discussion erupted around the marketing blogosphere about bloggers "selling out" by accepting ads and/or freebies.  Some of my fellow bloggers were adamant -- even hostile -- about taking ads and freebies. 

I had no problem with taking ads or freebies as long as those ads and freebies didn't overtly impact the blog content.  If a freebie like a book for review was offered and accepted, I wrote at the time, readers should be advised of that fact if and when the blogger posted about the book or product.

At the time, a camera company was trying to create buzz about its costly new camera by loaning the $1,000 cameras to some bloggers with the expectation they'd write about it.  Many did, in fact, post pictures they took and wrote generally positive things about the camera.  A few bloggers, including one who was quite prominent, turned their blogs into blatant commercials for the cameras, much to the dismay of many.

At the time, I said it's certainly the right of a blogger to take ads or freebies as a way of monetizing their blog.  But they do so as the risk of jeopardizing their credibility in the eyes of readers.

Long after that controversy blew over, I still think it's true.  If we are careless in mixing content and income from ads, we may turn off readers who will view our blogs as irrelevant or mere marketing shills
.
Many blogs are, in fact, marketing vehicles.  Speaking personally, my blog began as a just-for-fun thing, partly to quiet my friend CK, who was bugging me mercilessly to become a blogger.  It's still a lot of fun, but I've come to see it as more than an outlet for self-expression, but as a way of marketing myself and my public relations business.  I don't promote my firm blatantly, but hopefully my insights and my writing may bring a call or an email with some work.  (It has happened a few times already.)

But marketers are recognizing the power of social media and, in particular, blogs. It would be hard for them to ignore that fact that blog readership has gone up 300 percent since 2004, according to a BuzzLogic study. The just-released Technorati "State of the Blogosphere" says 52% of blogs now carry ads, earning an average of $6,000 per year.

For some marketers, though, it's not about numbers, but about credibility of the content and the "engagement" of readers. A blogger may not be a celebrity and may not garner hundreds of thousands of page views a month, but readers of his or her blog trust the blogger and may follow his or her advice or recommendations.  That type of exposure may more likely be garnered by public relations outreach rather than by straightforward advertising.

Blogs are becoming legitimate media outlets.  It's not unusual for blogs to show up, often prominently, when a Google search is done.  A report from Forrester Research shows that a third of U.S. adults have either posted blog content or have commented on blogs.  Blogs have become an accepted part of the overall online experience. The BuzzLogic study found that 52 percent of blog readers say blog content plays a role in making a purchase decision.  Half say they trust blogs more than social networking  sites for influencing purchase decisions.

I don't venture too often beyond the marketing part of the blogosphere, but from what I read in places like MediaLife, blogs that cover entertainment, travel and fashion have become influential with readers and ads and reviews on those sites can convert to a sale online.

At the same time, more bloggers are learning how to monetize their space, hopefully without compromising the quality and credibility of their content.

I'm still being cautious about accepting ads.  I've been approached several times, but I'm not quite ready to sell my space.  That doesn't mean I'll never do it for a product or service I'm comfortable with and if I feel the ad doesn't make my blog look cluttered or junky like an online bazaar, like some I see.  And if I'm approached by a p.r. person, I may write about a product or service -- if I feel it's of legitimate interest to my readers and not because I've been given a freebie.

For me, the main concern about accepting ads or freebies will always be about maintaining credibility with my readers.  If I can do that, monetizing my site won't be a sellout.

  

Writers makes sense on Product Placement

Variety reports that the Writers Guild of America-West is urging  the FCC "to require on-screen, real-time disclosure on TV programming where product integration occurs, in order to make viewers aware of the range of products they are overtly--and more often covertly--being sold."

I think this makes a lot of sense...in fact, I had proposed it in this space back in December.

The WGA-West president wrote to the FCC, describing product integration as "the embedding of commercial products within the storyline of a program, so as to subliminally advertise to viewers. The hope is that consumers, not expecting to find a commercial within their program, will fail to realize they are actually being advertised to. This practice exploits the emotional connection viewers have with shows and their characters in order to sell a product."

He also said, "When writers are told we must incorporate a commercial product into the storylines we have written, we cease to be creators. Instead, we run the risk of alienating an audience that expects compelling television, not commercials."

Variety quoted an unnamed TV industry source who says the end credits on network shows carry the disclosure info, and product placement has not been an issue for viewers.

"There's no huge hue and cry we get from audiences about this," the source said.

So... let's hue and cry before TV will become one continuous commercial.

.