MarketingInsideOut.com

It’s a big time of year for advertising. Believe it or not, ad spending during March Madness dwarfs that of the SuperBowl and the World Series. According to TNS Media Intelligence, from 2000 to 2005, more than $2.2 billion was spent on network advertising for March Madness, compared to $834 million for the Super Bowl and $880 for the World Series.  The year’s Madness TV ad spending is expected to reach $500 million with a 30-second spot in the finals averaging $1.2 million.

CBS is paying an average of $562 million a year for its NCAA tournament media rights through 2014 which would be a tough payback with TV ad revenues alone, so in addition to the TV rights, CBS has all media rights to the tournament, including radio, cable, the Internet, and merchandising.

But CBS isn’t the only one trying to cash in.  You can buy condensed versions of the games via iTunes for $1.99 a game or a season pass for $19.99 that gets you access all 63 games. The NCAA will actually stream some of the games not broadcast and we can all pick up those streams free at http://www.ncaasports.com/mmod.

If you’re mobile, you can keep up to date on your PDA or your cell phone.  Cingular customers have their “All things NCAA MEdia Net”. Sprint customers can download video and analysis throughout the tournament.

You can’t escape it.  Tonight in a quick search for March Madness on Technorati there were over 37,000 results. People are chatting online about bball.  And at work.  And if the numbers hold true from last year some 26 million adults will likely participate in an office pool in hopes of cashing in.

It’s everywhere.  It’s madness.  And it’s just begun. 

Day 1–Cox Arena is evacuated when a strange odor is detected at a hot dog stand. Imagine that…a strange odor coming from a hot dog stand….

From:  Agent Will Cerf, U.S. Department of Internet Monitoring (USDIM)

To:  Hugh Duntz, Director

Subject: Activity Analysis

As the congressional conference committee prepares to finalize pension reform legislation, we anticipate a flurry of Internet activity from retiree cyberadvocacy groups via the Capwiz system that enables users to e-mail or fax members of Congress and Executive branch officials.  Capwiz  (http://capitoladvantage.com/capwiz/why_capwiz.html) has become an increasingly popular communications tool for associations and non-profits seeking to impact legislation and regulations affecting them.  The technology is designed to seamlessly integrate its communication forms with Web forms used by 85 percent of Congress and an increasing number of state legislators.

Especially active during recent weeks has been the National Retiree Legislative Network (http://www.nrln.org/) with its well organized grass roots group of volunteers representing every Congressional District in the country.  The Capwiz system provides the capability for the NRLN to instantaneously distribute a call to action via e-mail to thousands of its volunteers who are on the Internet and willing to respond to a legislative alert.  The association’s newsletter explains the process:  “NRLN will e-mail an alert to you explaining the importance of a piece of pending legislation and explaining what we want you to do.  You can then access an e-mail letter, personalize it and send it your representatives in Washington.”

The NRLN Grass Roots Network reflects the reality that most lawmakers only read and respond to messages from their own constituents.  “When hundreds or thousands of messages arrive in the Web form to a member of Congress from his/her constituents, they are bound to take notice,” reports the NRLN.  It appears that these associations are finding their voice after years of congressional policy decisions that have favored corporate and special interests.  So we should expect the current level of cyberadvocacy to increase substantially in the months ahead as the congressional elections heat up.

By the way, Mr. Duntz, we continue to monitor the tampering of Wikipedia entries for congressional members by their own staff members, as well as by sources unknown in the case of Reps. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Jim Marshall (D-Ga.).  I refer you to a recent article in The Hill that described how the Wikipedia entry for Rep. Marshall was altered by an op-ed writer now serving as the spokesman for the Republican candidate who is challenging the incumbent.  The changes were less than flattering, as were alterations to Rep. Terry’s entry that falsely accused him of domestic violence.  This activity will merit further monitoring as the election approaches.