MarketingInsideOut.com

While applauding NASA’s new policy allowing its scientists to talk freely to the news media without a public affairs officer present, part of me wonders “What God hath wrought!”  With NASA scientists free to talk to reporters about their work and express personal interpretations of their research, will the world finally learn the truth about the 1947 Roswell UFO incident, or Area 51 in Nevada?  Will we finally discover that Jimmy Hoffa was abducted by aliens?  And will the X Files be reopened?

Will all this newfound freedom actually result in better communication?  Scientists and engineers are notorious for speaking technical “jargonese” that has little or no semblance to normal speech.  Ask most scientists what time is it and they’ll tell you how to build a watch, after first explaining the concept of quantum theory.  Without a media professional on hand to make sense of all the techno-babble and keep the interview focused, the average reporter may feel like they’ve entered the Twilight Zone?

Media trainers understand the importance of keeping answers simple, which means no technical jargon or “insider” terminology.  Media trainers drill their clients on proper technique when answering questions:  Conclusion first, context second, facts and data third, and background last, if at all.  This technique is especially challenging to scientists and engineers who tend to answer questions chronologically, beginning with the Big Bang and ending with yesterday’s lunch menu.

In its new communications policy, NASA urges its employees to include public affairs officers at media interviews “to attest to the content of the interview, support the interview, and provide post-interview follow-up with the media as necessary”. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin seemed to sum it up best when he advised, “If you’re not a media professional, then going into an interview without a media professional is courting trouble.”

Technically speaking, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

There’s no arguing that the online screening of the NCAA March Madness games was the most successful demonstration to date of TV on the web.  No it wasn’t perfect.  And many didn’t get in. Unlike TV where the broadcasting cost isn’t affected by how many actually watch the game, in practical terms bandwidth is not infinite for an online stream. CBS created an estimated audience and planned accordingly.  They underestimated. They had to cap the number of simultaneous streams and the advertisers knew as well.  But I doubt anyone had an inkling as to just how successful the project would be in terms of viewer demand.

When I watched the stream I personally found the games to be less cluttered with ads than on TV.  There were only three commercials shown per break and there were some skyscrapers and banners on screen during the stream.  Overall, I found the experience to be a good one as I said in this post.  And it was free (unlike last year when it was by subscription only).  Made free only because of  advertisers.

While the 10 million viewers who tuned into the TV broadcasts of the first four rounds dwarfed the online version’s 4 million visitors, according to reports  the advertisers were very satisfied.  Demand for video advertising is clearly expected to increase for next year.

A survey released today from the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and Forrester Research found that 78% of advertisers feel that over the last two years television advertising has lost effectiveness, and as a direct result they are exploring emerging technologies to help bolster their television advertising spend.  According to the report, national advertisers are seeking alternatives and the ANA predicts that 80% of advertisers will spend more of their advertising budget on Web advertising.

It could very well be that online video advertising will end up being the beneficiary of some of those shifting dollars.  The fact is that even when you take the success of the March Madness stream out of the picture, online video viewing has become a routine practice for many Internet users.

According to a study conducted by Frank N. Magid Associates in February:

• 24% of Internet users access online video at least once a week
• 46% watch online video at least once a month
• 27% of online video viewers watch an online newscast at least once a week
• 26% watch a funny video
• 66% reported having watched online video ads
• 44% of those taking action based on the ads they saw

Video ad watchers generally prefer short ads. However, 39% said they would watch ads that last longer than 30 seconds.

I’m not one of those people that believe TV advertising is dead or even on its deathbead. But I do believe that as marketers we have to constantly and agressively be seeking new strategies, methods and solutions.  Doing merely the same old, same old IS a dead end.

This, Part I report and tips from MarketingSherpa worth a read:

On July 4th 1996, Hotmail founders Jack Smith and Sabeer Bhatia launched what’s widely credited to be the first on-purpose Internet viral marketing campaign. Back then there was no online video, no easy peer-to-peer file sharing, no sophisticated games, and practically no HTML email.

Instead, this groundbreaking campaign was a just a simple line of text stuck at the end of every single email sent that offered recipients their own free account.

Within 18 months the service had 8.7 million users, and Smith and Bhatia sold out for an estimated $400 million to MSN.

Now, tens of thousands of campaigns later, viral’s settled into what you could call a rut. Despite the fact that every campaign’s success depends on being so creative, so utterly forwardable, that consumers can’t help but spread the news, most campaigns are cookie cutter.

You know the drill. The amusing video download, the interactive ecard, the engaging game, the forward-to-a-friend sweeps entry, etc. It’s all getting a bit too boring for both marketers and consumers alike.

Can viral be saved?

I wonder if this (from the Washinton Post)…

When decisions involve a lot of complex factors, thinking deeply about them can produce worse outcomes than decisions made simply after “sleeping on it,” according to research published last week in Science.

Explains this  (in my previous post)…

“That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet,” unless the rose is part of a wrist corsage made from “duct tape.”  It’s almost that time of year again when couples across the country will head to their high school proms “ducted” out in formal wear bearing the Duck Tape label.  Since 2001, nearly 2,000 couples have “promenaded” in attire made from duct tape.

In the world of guerilla PR, duct tape is “the stuff dreams are made of.”  The annual “Stuck at Prom” scholarship contest is just one of many headline grabbing ideas involving novel uses of duct tape.  Every Father’s Day weekend, a lucky dad is crowned “Duct Tape Dad of the Year” during the “Duct Tape Festival” hosted in the “Duct Tape Capital” of the world (Avon, Ohio).  You may want to visit the virtual “Duck Tape Hall of Fame,” or accessorize your wardrobe with items such as wallets, purses, hats, ties and sneakers – all constructed from duct tape.

News accounts have credited duct tape with everything from curing warts to helping save the astronauts in Apollo 13.  The sticky stuff made front page news in 2003 when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security urged Americans to prepare for a chemical or biological attack by stocking up on duct tape (a feat indeed worthy of The Professional Flack Hall of Fame). And when the product was snubbed by Forbes.com in its list of the  “20 Most Important Tools of All Times,” the public outcry resulted in a follow-up article headlined: “The Other Greatest Tool Ever.” 

Even Bozell got into the act when it featured duct tape in a popular poster touting public libraries as the place to find “Everything You Wanted To Know. And More.” 

But then there are those who would simply argue, “If duct tape isn’t the answer, then you must be asking the wrong question!”

90% of the time when I’m online I’m multi-tasking.  Sometimes I’m also watching TV.  Sometimes I’m listening to music or a podcast.  Sometimes I’ve got the radio on.  For me, that’s been typical for years. So I wasn’t the least bit surprised to read the following in Susan Whiting’s (President/CEO of Nielsen) keynote address at a recent client meeting  — 30% of all media time is spent with more than one media. And four out of five TV viewers are interacting with other forms of media while they watch TV.  

But…the pace of media transformation is most certainly quickening. 

Many people, including Whiting believe that 2006 could very well be the tipping point in the transformation of media – forcing a serious “rethink” of just about every aspect of the media and marketing business.

The fact is, the boundaries of both time and space are being systematically demolished, enabling consumers to increasingly access and share information whenever, wherever and, however they want.

“I want it WHEN I want it”
Time-shifting — the recording of a program for viewing at a different time isn’t new. Since the 1984 Sony Betamax decision by the Supreme Court we’ve been able to record a program to play it later. 

Of course, TiVo, DirecTV and other US cable or satellite subscription services offer DVR set top boxes.  Not only do 80% of households subscribe to multi-channel program sources like cable or satellite TV; but telecos including Verizon and SBC are spending billions on fiber networks to deliver Video-on-Demand and high-definition programs.

What is interesting is how quickly time-shifting is evolving as it moves beyond the TV. Consumer electronics companies like Sony, and computer giants like Microsoft and Apple, either already do or plan to provide hardware and software to let viewers access TV programs and other media through single, integrated systems.

Apple made a huge splash in 2005, when it cut deals with ABC and NBC to sell some of their shows through iTunes.  Since their debuts on iTunes in October, ABC’s “Lost” and “Desperate Housewives” are up in ratings versus the same period last year.  Executives credit iTunes with helping to drive up overall ratings. Further, the networks are evolving to provide content opportunities as well, as is evident at CBS, ABC and even NBC with the pilot episode of “Conviction,” which the network made available for free on iTunes before it even aired. 

And because of the increasing penetration of broadband, internet pioneers are producing and distributing video/audio content more broadly.  Case in point is the video stream of the March Madness I wrote about in this post.  

As the price of the technology dropped and the ease of use increased, podcasting gained momentum and is growing rapidly as an advertising vehicle.   Syndication (RSS/ATOM) consumption is doubling every month.

But even as companies try to adjust to the disruptions of time-shifting, they’re starting to do battle on a second front…well beyond the walls of our homes.

“I want it WHERE I want it”
A cadre of mobile devices allows users to take their media wherever they go — creating place-shifting.

TiVo recently announced plans to make content available via mobile phones. TiVo owners will also be able to use their PCs to drop recorded shows into iPods and Sony PlayStation Portables.

MVNOs are coming out of the woodwork to offer mobile services well beyond the basics.

And think about this…ten million families already have mobile video capabilities in their cars – nearly double last year’s number — a number that’s expected to more than triple by 2010. The big three automakers already offer integrated media options. The 2006 Buick Terrazza comes with a 40-gig hard drive, capable of playing music, movies and videogames, simultaneously. GMC is marketing its Explorer conversion van as a “rolling living room,” complete with a 26-inch high-definition flat screen monitor.

Sling Media and Orb are duking it out in a market for a cutting-edge technology which lets users watch programming televised in one location from just about anywhere else. With Slingbox you just attach it to both a TV set-top box and a broadband network, and watch programs stored on your DVR from just about anywhere — another room or another country.

By time-shifting and place-shifting media usage it means the shifting (and potentially deletion) of the advertising that is attached to it. This has huge implications for marketers.  But it also represents enormous opportunity if you can get out of the 30-second box.  For example, broadcast networks such as ABC are selling some of their most popular shows on Apple’s iTunes for $1.99.  But a recent Frank N. Magid survey found that 72% of consumers would be willing to watch an ad if the sponsor picked up the cost of the show.  The stream of the March Madness games not televised was made possible by advertising revenue.  Yes I sat through an Old Spice commercial and a Dell commercial as I watched the stream.

As the audiences continue to splinter and power continues to shift to the viewer it will take the ultimate in creative, innovative thinking to find new effective ways to reach the anything/anytime/anywhere consumer.  A task that is both daunting and exhilarating.

This from AdAge today: 

MBA’S MAY BE A MARKETING LIABILITY — New Study Finds Those With Degrees Underperform.

Marketing executives from 18 underperforming companies — which had sales grow 7% less than their categories on average in the two years ended August 2005 — were twice as likely to have been recruited out of M.B.A. programs than marketing executives from out-performing companies, which averaged growth 6.2% faster than their categories over the two years. Of executives from underperforming companies, 90% had M.B.A.s vs. 55% at outperforming companies.

Hummm…

Love it or hate it…it’s a very well known brand.  Everyday low prices.  Smiley faces that fly through the store rolling back prices.  If you want to buy it cheap…go to Wal-mart.  For better or worse, their brand has been crystal clear and consistent.

But to try and boost sales and achieve growth like that of Target (5.6% same-store increase vs. 3.4% for Wal-mart) they’re trying to get the 86% of Americans they say shop there at least once per year to spend more time and money. So on Wednesday Wal-mart will open a new kind of Supercenter in Plano. TX — one that has nice bathrooms  (a welcome change if you’ve ever been in a restroom at one their stores) and sells sushi, brie and cabernet.  And to entice shoppers further, you’ll be able to grab a cappuccino and lounge in a comfy chair to surf the net on the store’s Wi-Fi.   The new store design is a test to see what works.

What I can’t get to work in my head is how they believe their well-entrenched brand can extend to embody this new concept and not work against what they are trying to test.  Seems to me like they are trying to “hip” it up and be like Target, but in my mind there is nothing hip, stylish or chic about Wal-mart’s brand.  It’s about down-to-earth bulk and bargains.  Somehow bulk, bargain sushi makes me a bit squeamish.

This from Business Week:

Nike (NKE ) and Google (GOOG ), hoping to take social networking to a new realm, have quietly launched the first invitation-only Web site for soccer-mad fans around the world. Joga.com went live late last week and will soon be running in 140 countries and 14 languages.

The two companies have been working on the site for the past eight months and are expected to publicly unveil it this week, BusinessWeek has learned. Nike is supplying the content, and Google is the technical partner.

Joga.com is the latest example of how Nike is marketing to its core consumers: young, digital saavy males.

Looks like the March Madness On Demand (MMOD) free stream that I mentioned yesterday is a big hit.  As of 5:30 p.m. Thursday, MMOD had already delivered a total of 1.2 million video streams in  about four-and-a-half hours of play.

And by the end of play on Thursday, CBS SportsLine reported a total of 2 million streams according to this report in The Mercury News. The most at any one moment was 268,000 simultaneous streams, significantly more than last summer’s record-setting Live 8 global concert in which aol.com attracted 175,000 simultaneous video streams.

I signed on 3 times today – twice from work on a T1 and at home on DSL, and I’ve been able to get in within a couple minutes despite some warnings about being in a long line for video when I logged on.  

Admittedly, it’s not hiccup free.  Sometimes the audio drops out and the picture in full-screen mode on a decent quality Dell LCD monitor was a little dark at times, a little blurry here and there, certainly not as good as watching on TV but entirely watchable. 

After about 15 minutes the stream stops momentarily asking if you are still there.  You have to click to stay connected.  A smart move used to make sure all available streams are active rather than playing to an empty office/room.  It helps to move the waiting line along for those registered in the holding tank.

During commercial breaks the video stream fed me a series of Web commercials including spots from Nike, Dell and Major League Baseball. 

One feature that cracked me up is the “Boss Button” where you can click and it turns your video screen into a spreadsheet for a 2005 Budget.  You just click again and the stream is back. 

Although I don’t claim to be a diehard basketball fan, I’m excited by the success CBSsportsline.com has had so far.  It’s just what was needed to entice lots of people (some 268,000 at a time) to check out internet video again to find that it’s come a long way — it’s not the frustrating crap it used to be — which will help increase the demand and acceptance of online video programming overall.