Star Trek does an awesome job rewarding their fanboys, by turning a run of mill screening of Wrath of Khan in Austin, TX into a World Premiere of the New Star Trek movie.
Its yet another example of JJ Abrams and Damon Lindeloff walking the talk with the fans who drive the early buzz around the excitement of their projects. It's not only good for the new Star Trek movie, but its putting money in the bank (or "earned media") for the next project. Its on brand. Its beautiful marketing strategy.
Call me greedy but I would've tried to hold up more of a megaphone to this moment. Multiple cameras, fan interviews, encouraged a hashtag on Twitter, promoted a Qik.com live stream. Cut it into a pre-roll commercial and served it to a targeted group of movie goer's and Star Trek searches.
Do you think the further promotion of this authentic moment takes away from it? Or if you could directly expose a couple million people to it (instead tens of thousands), does the benefit of that echo outweigh what you lose in authenticity?
Showing posts with label Marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marketing. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
David Cross Has Something to Say TV Marketers
Although its cute to watch David Cross dressed as woman drop the "F Bomb", his analysis is flawed. You fired the same guys that blew it on Arrested Development, they wouldn't have been there to turn a talent show, into the biggest ratings powerhouse of the decade.
Point is, some entertainment is for broadcast TV, some isn't and producer's guild awards are not the litmus test for that. Marketing is one piece that sits along side programming, scheduling, star power, luck, quality, audience and timing. Making a hit is a tricky stew and they don't come around all that often.
I'll buy into actors calling out marketers for failed shows right after I hear them thanking us on stage when they accept them. David Cross should stick to playing pretend in his bra.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Are Banner Ads Dead?
Mike Shields wrote an article about the end of display ads. I was happy to provide a quote and serve my role as the grumpy internet curmudgeon."Greg March, digital group director at Wieden+Kennedy, put it more bluntly. “Internet ads are small and out of the way,” he said. “Advertisers want to deliver impact, and I don’t think the impact for these ads is always that strong.”
Darren Herman, a peer of mine, running digital media for Media Kitchen wrote an post saying Digital Display Ads Aren't Going Anywhere?
Darren makes salient points about how engagement mapping will make banner ads more measurable, that integration with other mediums can enhance the value, and that there are business models and client careers invested in building off of these tiny little banners.
I totally agree with him.
Your probably thinking, "Greg, you are a fence sitting, waffling, vacillating, weak-kneed codfish hemming and hawing your way through your career trying to be everything to everyone." At least that's what you'd be thinking if you had a thesaurus handy.
Truth is he is right. The problem is that he's only addressing a portion of a robust communications plan. There is an aspect of a strong communication plan that relies on engagement, and a portion that relies on impact and disruption. Why can't the digital landscape house both? 200 million Americans are going to eat ketchup this month, how many of them are going to play (even the coolest) ketchup game or engage AT ALL with ketchup marketing. 1%? 2%?
That said, I don't think banners are "dead", I think they should continue serving their role of being low cost, navigational media that survives on targeting the perfect people at the perfect moment. Perhaps leads to immersive experiences that drive Word Of Mouth.
But as much as engagement is useful (and probably underutilized) the money in disruption is currently much larger. Whether its entertaining the masses to generate a feeling about your brand, or getting the word out about a sale, or owning a moment of popular culture, advertising often needs to get in peoples faces.
In order for digital marketers to have the strategic conversations with their clients about how much to allocate towards disruption and how much to allocate towards engagement, they need to accept that the disruptive piece has value.
When all the digital ad sellers and digital ad buyers ignore that, we reduce ourselves to a niche and get left out of the big picture discussions.
Darren makes salient points about how engagement mapping will make banner ads more measurable, that integration with other mediums can enhance the value, and that there are business models and client careers invested in building off of these tiny little banners.
I totally agree with him.
Your probably thinking, "Greg, you are a fence sitting, waffling, vacillating, weak-kneed codfish hemming and hawing your way through your career trying to be everything to everyone." At least that's what you'd be thinking if you had a thesaurus handy.
Truth is he is right. The problem is that he's only addressing a portion of a robust communications plan. There is an aspect of a strong communication plan that relies on engagement, and a portion that relies on impact and disruption. Why can't the digital landscape house both? 200 million Americans are going to eat ketchup this month, how many of them are going to play (even the coolest) ketchup game or engage AT ALL with ketchup marketing. 1%? 2%?
That said, I don't think banners are "dead", I think they should continue serving their role of being low cost, navigational media that survives on targeting the perfect people at the perfect moment. Perhaps leads to immersive experiences that drive Word Of Mouth.
But as much as engagement is useful (and probably underutilized) the money in disruption is currently much larger. Whether its entertaining the masses to generate a feeling about your brand, or getting the word out about a sale, or owning a moment of popular culture, advertising often needs to get in peoples faces.
In order for digital marketers to have the strategic conversations with their clients about how much to allocate towards disruption and how much to allocate towards engagement, they need to accept that the disruptive piece has value.
When all the digital ad sellers and digital ad buyers ignore that, we reduce ourselves to a niche and get left out of the big picture discussions.
Monday, October 6, 2008
This Is How I Cheat
I met Tom Cuniff at the MIXX conference a couple weeks ago. A colleague of mine asked me to maintain continuous tweets about the conference. I could not oblige, when I try and do that I don't end up following what people are saying.
Through Twitter Search I saw that Tom, (who I didn't know at the time) was keeping up posts aggressively, so I pointed my collegue to Tom. After speaking to him at the break and following his blog, it became apparent that it was worth my while to pay attention to what he says so that I can copy it and feign brilliance.
I've been trying to imitate really smart people and taking credit my whole career and no one seems to care. So I'm taking it a step further. For those that I work with, I WILL BE TAKING CREDIT FOR TOM'S EXPERTISE OFTEN. Feel free to beat me to it.
Check his blog out today and on the first page you'll:
Through Twitter Search I saw that Tom, (who I didn't know at the time) was keeping up posts aggressively, so I pointed my collegue to Tom. After speaking to him at the break and following his blog, it became apparent that it was worth my while to pay attention to what he says so that I can copy it and feign brilliance.
I've been trying to imitate really smart people and taking credit my whole career and no one seems to care. So I'm taking it a step further. For those that I work with, I WILL BE TAKING CREDIT FOR TOM'S EXPERTISE OFTEN. Feel free to beat me to it.
Check his blog out today and on the first page you'll:
- Learn what marketers can learn from this election and social media's role in it
- Read about a fantastic Kraft social media case study
- See new innovation by the New York Times that justifies "tradional media" role in the digital landscape
- Laugh at a hysterical video encouraging kids to vote or not to vote (with lefty celeb's almost holding back their gushy Obamalove)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Your Ads Don't Always Need to Make Good Sense
There is a long acadamic style post I found through El Gaffney's Delicious page. While it wasn't my typical light and breezy biz blog reading, I suffered through it and came out richer. Maybe.
I'll try and sum it up as best I can here, if its interesting I suggest you check it out yourself and endure the same 20 minutes of pain that I did.
People's decisions are often truly made by their subconscious while they credit rational conscious reasons. An experiment in Ann Arbor, MI (go blue!) laid 4 of exact the same products and asked people which they like better. Most people picked one, and provided detailed rationale reasons. They were obviously nonsense (same product) but the patterns that emerged were driven by tactics playing to their subconscious (such as how the identical products are laid out on the table).
So if people's choices aren't always rational why are most advertisements focused on delivering rational sales points? And how does this tie to digital advertising?
Rational ideas "fits very well into rational organizations where order, analysis and control are always assumed to be the best ways of getting things done". Its hard to sell through (and stake your reputation on) ad ideas that are more emotional than rational. If it goes wrong you are a very easy target for blame. Blame holds back promotions and loses ad accounts.
Expecting an ad to "sell your product" is probably giving it more credit to advertising than its worth. Advertising should make products sellable. There's a difference. Friends recommendations, trusted editorial, specifications, details, salespeople, what you serve a customer after he searches for your product on Google, those things sell product, . I think most of your ads should create enough curiousity and positive feelings to setup those communications.
I think people's natural muting of advertising in their lives are due to many ads over-reaching their natural capabilities. Advertising needs to entertain and be enjoyable in its own right. Who wants to watch a sales pitch, but I can watch this all day.
New technologies can make advertising more than entertaining but functional and useful. As a Nascar fan, this was very helpful.
Now I don't think ALL advertisements need to cater to our subconscious. As I've always advocated, some ads plant seeds (subconscious) some harvest crops (very rationale, very conscious). A good marketer uses both.
I'll try and sum it up as best I can here, if its interesting I suggest you check it out yourself and endure the same 20 minutes of pain that I did.
People's decisions are often truly made by their subconscious while they credit rational conscious reasons. An experiment in Ann Arbor, MI (go blue!) laid 4 of exact the same products and asked people which they like better. Most people picked one, and provided detailed rationale reasons. They were obviously nonsense (same product) but the patterns that emerged were driven by tactics playing to their subconscious (such as how the identical products are laid out on the table).
So if people's choices aren't always rational why are most advertisements focused on delivering rational sales points? And how does this tie to digital advertising?
Rational ideas "fits very well into rational organizations where order, analysis and control are always assumed to be the best ways of getting things done". Its hard to sell through (and stake your reputation on) ad ideas that are more emotional than rational. If it goes wrong you are a very easy target for blame. Blame holds back promotions and loses ad accounts.
Expecting an ad to "sell your product" is probably giving it more credit to advertising than its worth. Advertising should make products sellable. There's a difference. Friends recommendations, trusted editorial, specifications, details, salespeople, what you serve a customer after he searches for your product on Google, those things sell product, . I think most of your ads should create enough curiousity and positive feelings to setup those communications.
I think people's natural muting of advertising in their lives are due to many ads over-reaching their natural capabilities. Advertising needs to entertain and be enjoyable in its own right. Who wants to watch a sales pitch, but I can watch this all day.
New technologies can make advertising more than entertaining but functional and useful. As a Nascar fan, this was very helpful.
Now I don't think ALL advertisements need to cater to our subconscious. As I've always advocated, some ads plant seeds (subconscious) some harvest crops (very rationale, very conscious). A good marketer uses both.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
What makes Facebook tick
Love how Josh Beil gets to the guts of Facebook's value. Its Newsfeed + Scale. I see the openness as one way to create valuable applications but not the only one (and potentially noisy to customers). Apple doesn't need it.
If you can build an engine for passive communcations between people like Newsfeed and have a level of ubiquity you can change lives. Tivo, cellphones, major retailers, airlines, hotel chains, governments, car makers can all be players. Facebook is a gateway drug.
If you can build an engine for passive communcations between people like Newsfeed and have a level of ubiquity you can change lives. Tivo, cellphones, major retailers, airlines, hotel chains, governments, car makers can all be players. Facebook is a gateway drug.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Does the shell matter?
I was recently asked if running an ad before a Martha Stewart clip on Martha Stewart.com has any more value than running an ad before that same clip on YouTube?
Its an easy answer for the buyer in me, but for the marketer its not as clear.
As a buyer, since syndicated content is a new way for content creators to increase their supply of ad space, I would pay less. Supply and demand, you create more supply through syndication, I pay less, simple. I'm sure the sellers would accept that, but what if they didn't?
As a marketer is there really less value? I don't know. Some people argue that it doesn't matter what content is next to ad, much less the subtle difference of what website hosts it. All that matters to them is who the individual is that see's the ad. What's their age, what are they in the market to buy, are they the right target. The context in which the ad is viewed means little, and they sacrifice that to get more exposure per dollar. If its cheaper to advertise to me during a Battlestar Gallactica rerun, why pay more to advertise to me during the Grey's Anatomy finale?
I think there are times to follow that logic and times not to. Your state of mind changes depending on what content your consuming, and seed planting is art that requires harmony of message, target, context, and timing. There is alot to that special sauce.
But I'm hard pressed to think there more's marketing value to the shell that holds the same content. YouTube or Martha Stewart, NBC.com vs Hulu.
What are your thoughts?
Its an easy answer for the buyer in me, but for the marketer its not as clear.
As a buyer, since syndicated content is a new way for content creators to increase their supply of ad space, I would pay less. Supply and demand, you create more supply through syndication, I pay less, simple. I'm sure the sellers would accept that, but what if they didn't?
As a marketer is there really less value? I don't know. Some people argue that it doesn't matter what content is next to ad, much less the subtle difference of what website hosts it. All that matters to them is who the individual is that see's the ad. What's their age, what are they in the market to buy, are they the right target. The context in which the ad is viewed means little, and they sacrifice that to get more exposure per dollar. If its cheaper to advertise to me during a Battlestar Gallactica rerun, why pay more to advertise to me during the Grey's Anatomy finale?
I think there are times to follow that logic and times not to. Your state of mind changes depending on what content your consuming, and seed planting is art that requires harmony of message, target, context, and timing. There is alot to that special sauce.
But I'm hard pressed to think there more's marketing value to the shell that holds the same content. YouTube or Martha Stewart, NBC.com vs Hulu.
What are your thoughts?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
And the meek shall inherit awareness
A great line in otherwise shill filled keynote today by David Carlick (Doubleclick founder/ investor). I could be mad, but he gave me this line to think about (and probably copy and take credit for) so job well done.
He was talking about how much harder it is to truly engage someone than buy a GRP at them. I interpret “harder” as expensive, time consuming and personally risky.
I think as a marketer you need to be honest about this. Each marketer needs to answer the question, “Do I want to impact tons of people a little bit (awareness), or a smaller number of perfect people a lot (engagement)”. If both, what’s more important? How do I spread my scarse resources (i.e. time, money) against these goals? This is going to vary from business to business.
But regardless of business once you make that choice I think there are some consistent best practices about how you allocate funds within the awareness and engagement filters.
Awareness = lots of media, lower investment in creative/ strategy/ and campaign stewardship.
Engagement = Creative/ Strategy/ Stewardship gets a lot more money and the media budget should shrink.
If you stick to an awareness based business model and try to generate engagement you’ll fail quickly. But if you stick with model you know and never fund engagement in a manner and scale that is logical you’ll fail slower.
And the meek shall inherit awareness and weaker brands.
He was talking about how much harder it is to truly engage someone than buy a GRP at them. I interpret “harder” as expensive, time consuming and personally risky.
I think as a marketer you need to be honest about this. Each marketer needs to answer the question, “Do I want to impact tons of people a little bit (awareness), or a smaller number of perfect people a lot (engagement)”. If both, what’s more important? How do I spread my scarse resources (i.e. time, money) against these goals? This is going to vary from business to business.
But regardless of business once you make that choice I think there are some consistent best practices about how you allocate funds within the awareness and engagement filters.
Awareness = lots of media, lower investment in creative/ strategy/ and campaign stewardship.
Engagement = Creative/ Strategy/ Stewardship gets a lot more money and the media budget should shrink.
If you stick to an awareness based business model and try to generate engagement you’ll fail quickly. But if you stick with model you know and never fund engagement in a manner and scale that is logical you’ll fail slower.
And the meek shall inherit awareness and weaker brands.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Planting Seeds and Harvesting Crops
A smart guy once told me that advertisers are either planting seeds or harvesting crops. What he meant was advertisers were either generating demand for a product or they were taking existing demand and turning that into money.
When Bob Iger said, "I'm not worried about Google cannabilizing our advertising." I thought of this statement.
Google (all search really) is a fantastic tool for taking existing demand and turning it into money. Disney uses it to take existing demand of its content, harvest the demand into visitors, and sell other advertisers the opportunity to plant seeds. Advertising around (and yes even interrupting) content is a one (of many) tactics used to plant seeds.
Now is interruption the best tactic to do this? No. There are deeper ways to plant seeds w/ people through engagement and CRM. However, the ability to scale the reach of your seed planting is limited compared to interrupting great content. Interruption can go wide but not deep, engagement can go deep but not wide. An advertiser needs all of this. And impactful creative has to be everywhere.
This doesn't mean it will always be the biggest piece of the pie, or detract from the value of generating engagement but if we think interruption is going away completely we are kidding ourselves.
Disney's Iger: No AOL Bid
When Bob Iger said, "I'm not worried about Google cannabilizing our advertising." I thought of this statement.
Google (all search really) is a fantastic tool for taking existing demand and turning it into money. Disney uses it to take existing demand of its content, harvest the demand into visitors, and sell other advertisers the opportunity to plant seeds. Advertising around (and yes even interrupting) content is a one (of many) tactics used to plant seeds.
Now is interruption the best tactic to do this? No. There are deeper ways to plant seeds w/ people through engagement and CRM. However, the ability to scale the reach of your seed planting is limited compared to interrupting great content. Interruption can go wide but not deep, engagement can go deep but not wide. An advertiser needs all of this. And impactful creative has to be everywhere.
This doesn't mean it will always be the biggest piece of the pie, or detract from the value of generating engagement but if we think interruption is going away completely we are kidding ourselves.
Disney's Iger: No AOL Bid
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
