Entries in media (7)

Tuesday
20Jan2009

Change Has Come

DateTuesday, January 20, 2009 at 5:41PM

It was only fitting that the most digitally-savvy President in U.S. history would be seen taking the oath of office through a blend of traditional and digital media. He's bringing a welcome political and philosophical change, but he's also changing the way that politicians utilize digital media to communicate with constituents. Just take a look at the squeaky-clean, newly-launched WhiteHouse.gov, complete with blog, weekly video address and email updates.

I watched the inauguration on Current TV, featuring their live feed of tweets streaming along with the ceremony, and online at CNN Live with Facebook. I did this simultaneously, which was a bit overstimulating, but I wanted to try out both experiences. The social aspect of both brought an enhanced viewing experience, for different reasons.

Current TV

current-inaug

Current was displaying tweets in (almost) real-time to coincide with the event. Their broadcast felt a lot like VH1's Pop Up Video, and I mean that in the best way possible. Tweets provided commentary and factual nuggets that added a lot of value for the viewer. And the stream of ecstatic tweets from people from all over the world, including @wonderasiwander tweeting from Kenya with the tribe of Obama's father, added to the bigness of the event. I was proud to watch it, and intrigued by what people were saying.

CNN Live with Facebook inaug-obama

C.C. Chapman called it early on -- this was a game changer. As he mentioned, CNN, Facebook and Cisco created a better experience than watching on TV, thanks to a very smooth feed that experienced remarkably few hiccups despite the huge amount of traffic it was receiving. And, unlike Current's experience, it was uber-social. Every status was posted, comments could be made on every status, and most importantly, Facebook flexed it's muscle as a micro-blogging platform. Everyone still has more friends on Facebook than twitter, and they are more comfortable conversing there.

For the experience that I liked better, I would have to go with CNN and Facebook -- it was more social and all my friends were already there. But I enjoyed watching the Current broadcast as well, and it will be interesting to see if other stations try something for a major event like the Oscars or Super Bowl.

This is an exciting time, both politically and in the realm of new media. It is fitting that these two happened to converge on the same day.

Authoradam stewart | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged , , , , , in , , , ,
Monday
01Dec2008

If you must advertise on TV...

DateMonday, December 1, 2008 at 3:57PM

After a weekend spent watching more TV than I usually do -- bad weather and laziness contributed to this -- I reached a boiling point. The final straw was viewing a free on-demand movie and being subjected to the same three TNT show promos every 20 minutes. Same three, same order every time. They realize that viewers can fast forward through these, right?

This morning, AdAge published this "news": Repeat Ad Nauseum: TV Spots Risk Driving Consumers Away. Obviously, this isn't news, but I thought it was pretty interesting timing. Maybe everyone else is reaching a similar boiling point at the same time? Or maybe a lot of advertisers still don't understand that TV and media consumption has changed significantly, and will continue to change.

When I think about what I recall from the video/tv ads I saw this weekend, there are three that immediately come to mind for me. It only took one viewing of each for me to recall them, and two of the three I saw online, not on television. The first was Wii Music, which I shared on this blog yesterday. The other two are for Adidas Originals and Bruce Lee's playing ping pong for Nokia.

So what does it mean that I recalled ads that I saw once, while I won't remember the other ads until I see them again? Keep in mind, many of these are common sense.

  • The TV spot isn't dead. Just the really bad ones. I know, I know. The ads above were practically made for me (males 25-35 target), but that doesn't make them any less compelling.
  • Targeting still matters. I know we're in a fragmented media market, but at least try to buy media in appropriate spots.
  • If you must run ads during shows or movies that are made available on demand, there is an even bigger opportunity to target specifically and run more captivating ads. Mad Men does a great job of this. These ads often come as a surprise to a viewer who is expecting to settle in for a commercial-free movie, so they are quick to get annoyed. Their finger never leaves the "forward" button on the remote.
  • Shows airing online should not have the exact same commercials as they did when they ran on television. The audience watching has changed, and so should the ads
  • Even good spots get old when people are forced to watch them every fifteen minutes. It's possible to actually lose customers by doing this.
  • All ads should exist online, be embeddable and allow comments.
  • And probably the most important one: Make spots that people want to watch, not that they have to. All ads are more compelling when people come to you.

Thoughts?

Authoradam stewart | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged , , , , in , ,
Thursday
20Nov2008

Media Convergence and the New TV

DateThursday, November 20, 2008 at 3:51PM

Remember the battle of the next generation of DVDs: HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray? It was only mid-February when Blu-Ray was declared the standard, and since then, it hasn't really mattered.

Three things caught my eye in the last week.

  • Netflix Begins Streaming Movies to the Xbox 360 (Techcrunch)
  • Domino's Let's TiVo Users Order Pizza Via TV (MediaPost)
  • Is YouTube the Next Google? (ReadWriteWeb)

These three things aren't closely related..but they will be. We already have the Netflix TV top box (and streaming at the site), Apple TV, Hulu, an explosion of social networks for gamers, "time shifters" and on and on. There are countless reports telling us what we already know -- millennials spend more time online, and less time in front of the TV. And the reason is because most aspects of TV aren't on-demand and interactive the same way the web is.

As all of these technologies continue to converge redefine the meaning of "television", we'll wonder why we ever cared about the stable of next generation of DVDs sitting we'd have sitting in our living rooms.

Authoradam stewart | Comment1 Comment |
tagged , , , , in , , ,
Sunday
24Feb2008

The Sound of Color from the Gap

DateSunday, February 24, 2008 at 5:54PM

Earlier this month, the Gap launched The Sound of Color. For the effort, they invited up-and-coming musicians Dntel, Swizz Beatz, Raveonettes, the Blakes and Marié Digby to write songs inspired by colors of the spectrum, and then gave those songs to five directors to create music videos. The music and videos are available for viewing and download at the Sound of Color site. The site also includes interviews with the band and "making of" videos for each song. The campaign will run for a month and include ads on music websites. After 30 days, the artists will retain the rights to the songs for future use.

The result is five excellent songs and videos that I will be adding to my iPod. The Sound of Color is a fresh and modern approach from a brand that has recently been ailing in both areas. By empowering artists to create their own vision, then allowing them ownership, Gap is increasing its creative and urban appeal in a way that its recent marketing has not.

However, it seems like Gap missed the opportunity to add a social media element to an already appealing project. Free downloads is a great way to spread the word on this, but I was surprised not to see a MySpace presence, Last.fm partnership or Pandora channel. As AdRants points out, Gap's in-store display, although a great translation of the idea, looks lonely without an event around it. Music lovers want to talk about music, but it takes more than banner ads to get them talking.

Gap Goes Viral for Coordinated Campaign (billboard.com)

Authoradam stewart | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged , , , , , in , , , ,
Thursday
07Feb2008

The $2.7 million question

DateThursday, February 7, 2008 at 4:16PM

Before the Super Bowl, Joseph Jaffe captured some thoughts on why advertisers flock to this event, the effects of a changing media landscape and if it makes sense for advertisers to continue to shell out $2.7 million for their spot. The excellent post is here. I have pulled out some highlights below.

  • The Super Bowl is one of the few mass reach opportunities remaining on television. Smart advertisers like Anheuser-Busch are making an effort to tie in their ads with mobile promotions.
  • Advertisers now rely on YouTube (which wasn't even around 2 years ago) to confirm a Super Bowl Hail Mary, validating that Super Bowl advertising is all about the P.R.
  • Unless you're in the top 5, you've pretty much flushed your money down the toilet.
  • With half the audience divided between males and females, there's almost always 50% wastage built into the value proposition
  • Most people aren't watching the game by themselves. They are at a loud party or a bar, making audio essentially a non-factor. Throw in alcohol and the likelihood of recall drops even further.
I can't help but wonder where the research is that proves the Super Bowl actually drives product i.e. sales...The last case study that existed was the dot com example, where companies ploughed up to 50% of their budgets into 1 or 2 Super Bowl commercials and to thank them for their efforts, they went out of business.

Most brands advertising during the Super Bowl aren't saying anything new -- they are saying what they always have, just louder and to a bigger audience. To assure they get their money's worth, it is imperative for the spots to reach beyond the Super Bowl, creating buzz that not only draws people to view their ads on YouTube, but also to their website, MySpace pages, mobile sites and to any other place that consumers can interact with their brand. Reprise Media's Search Marketing Scorecard rated Cars.com, T-Mobile and Tide among the winners, with the best integration of commercials with search and social media, resulting in a spike in search.

But was this really the best use of $3 million dollars? If your focus is maintaining an already established and successful brand, it could be. But if your goal as a growing brand is to build an online presence and community that will embrace your product, Mack at the Viral Garden has a suggestion of how to better utilize your $3 million budget.

So what is the answer for your brand?

Authoradam stewart | CommentPost a Comment |
tagged , , , in , ,
Page 1 2 Next 5 Entries ยป