« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »

Consumer Generated Media Asset for McDonalds

Logo_macdonald What ever happened to the old catchy McDonald Jingles???  You know the ones I am talking about:

"Big Mac, Fillet of Fish, Quarter Pounder, French Fries, Icy Coke, Thick Shake......yada yada yada". 

Today, most of the TV commercials for the Golden Arches fall pathetically short of anything with real urban flare, humor, and/or word of mouth worthiness.  However, all is not lost.  McDonald marketing executives and their supporting agencies should take a serious look at this "lil" nugget (pardon the pun) found on YouTube.  The below video is an excellent example of brand endorsing consumer-generated media and open-source marketing.  If I where in their shoes, I would be posting this on McDonald websites, streaming it within ad banners, and placing it within their broadcast media rotation. 

Jeremi Karnell-President, One to One Interactive

Why No iTunes Live?

Just going quickly through the upcoming Boston concerts listed on TicketMaster, but was disappointed to discover that all four bands I'd like to see live in the next two months are already sold out. Was also disappointed to see that Nickelback can actually sell out venues.

Kinda makes me wonder why iTunes hasn't already formed a partnership with Ticketmaster to let users opt-in to an alert program which gives iTunes listeners a head's up every time they log in and tickets to bands in their downloaded history have gone on sale. Seems like it would be highly on-brand for Apple and generate faster ticket sales for TM. Electronic downloads are wonderful, but why not enhance the offering with a few real shows?

CNET Should Practice What They Preach

Today CNET ran an article titled "Blue-chip ads, red-light content".  The reporter, Elinor Mills, went to rather great lengths to call out the fact that AT&T, Apple, and Comcast had online advertising that showed up next to mature content on iFILM.  Her specific example was focused on footage contained within iFILM's "Girls, Girls, Girls" playlist and Fortune 500 advertisement that was running within that part of thier site.

To be fully transparent, One to One Interactive buys online media for Comcast Corporate.  We were the ones that included iFILMs in the media plan currently in question.  In the event that a media partner may have mature content, such as iFILM, One to One Interactive secures contractual assurances that our client advertisements will not run next to said content.   I would assume that those agencies representing AT&T and Apple have the same measures in place. 

When this particular issue came up, our media planners quickly called iFILM, who took full responsibility, and quickly began to remove our client's ads in those section.  iFILM also provided an official statement from Roger Jackson, vice president of content and programming, for One to One to share with our client:

"IFILM is implementing a software-based fix this week to resolve the problem so even search results pages will not have any mature content in them that matches with an advertiser.

We are assuming it's a one-off bug and we are frankly astonished that the public has found a screen shot (of ads next to mature video clips) because we've spent thousands of hours as a company over several years coming up with systematic solutions to issues like this that keeps both our advertisers and our users happy."

This is the same quote they provided to CNET.  Regardless, CNET still decided to run with editorial that made it sound like major advertisers were blithely running their ads juxtaposed online video content of "arguably dubious taste".  She went on to report that this is the risk advertisers run as media sites capitalize on "user generated content--from blogs to podcasts to homemade video clips" and as ad buyers participate in networks in which they target a specific demographic.

Elinor---WAKE UP!! There is no story here (unless you are writing for The National Enquirer).  iFILM screwed up and they admitted it.  Regardless, you seemed hell bent to find a scandal.  Or maybe....(this is an even more interesting conspiracy theory)....CNET is hell bent on creating biased news that attacks its competition (iFILM vs. TV.com). 

Next time, you may want to spend time with your own employers sites before you start attacking others.  Below are a couple of examples of Fortune 500 advertisers running on CNET properties that have thier ads next to content of "arguably dubious taste" (click on pics to enlarge):

  • Search results for the query "Sex" on CNET's Download.com: CNET Cnet_sex1_4 Sponsor UPS Display ad appears above sponsor links for an adult escort review website, a legalize marijuana poll, and a list of mature/adult screen savers.
  • Search results for the query "Suck" on CNET's Cnet_suck1_1 Download.com: CNET Sponsor AMD display ad appears above sponsor links for DICK (on ebay.com), software to keep porn private, and link to a site with free chatrooms and webcams.
  • Search results for the query "Sex" on CNET's TV.com: CNET Sponsor Tv_sex1_1 Verizon Display ad appears above sponsor links for the adult escort review website and a legalize marijuana poll that we found back on Download.com.
  • GAMESPOT "Shooting the S*** with 50 Cent" 50cent_gamespot_1 Sponsorship: Lest we forget that CNET's GameSpot and MP3 sought out our client to partner with them on thier exclusive with 50 Cent for BulletProof (his game) and his new music video for Outta Control Remix last July.  The opportunity was turned down as the promotional graphic of 50 Cent holding a gun to another thugs head was deemed content of "arguably dubious taste".

MobileWOOD

Mmssequewebl IdeaMill reports that Aryan Kaganof shot a new (feature length) film, SMS Sugar Man, with eight Sony Ericsson W900i mobile phones. The film is about Sugar Man, a pimp with principles, and has been transferred to 35mm for release to theaters.

Jeremi Karnell-President, One to One Interactive

Web 2.0: Engaging the Long Tail (Event Notes)

Mitx1a_1  On March 14th, Massachusetts Innovation & Technology Exchange (MITX) and One to One Interactive hosted the first (sold-out) of four events in the new MITX Digital Marketing Track titled, “Web 2.0: Engaging the Long Tail.”  The panel focused on the next generation of on-line services generally referred to as Web 2.0 (e.g., Social Networks, Blogs, Podcasts, Tags, Wikis, Social Bookmarks, etc.) , how companies and consumers are adopting these new technologies, what is the real business impact, and what are the implications to future marketing and communications efforts.

The panel was moderated by Henry Jenkins, Director of MIT’s Comparative Media Studies Program and included participation by:

Henry kicked the panel off by providing definitions of “Web 2.0” and “The Long Tail”. 

He then asked the panelists to introduce themselves and to share some initial brief thoughts about Web 2.0 and its impact.

Jack Barrette kicked things off by stating “Web 2.0 is a broad category, encompassing dozens of user engagements from photosharing to machinima to blogs. At base, they are all: Online content created, circulated, shared and used by consumers; often informed by relevant experience; typically archived for access by others”. 

Adam Cutler shared the following initial thoughts:  In our (IBM) opinion, people as computing power is the single most important aspect to what Web 2.0 really is at its essence.   In other words, when you have many individuals and/or groups working on solving many little problems 24/7, innovations come on a daily basis. As these incremental innovations are adopted, mutated and re-released into the wild there are regular quantum leaps forward every two to six months when the smaller pieces are loosely joined in a novel way. One just has to look to Google Maps, Ajax (as a concept) or Flickr to see evidence of this.  The net of this is that there isn’t a corporation, entity or individual that has enough money or offshoring capability to compete with that kind of horsepower. From a business perspective, the first companies to recognize and embrace this will vault so far ahead of their competition, the rest of the field will have no choice but to follow.

Jim Nail finished the set of introductions by stating “The important thing about Web 2.0 is the change in consumer behavior toward 1) creating more content and 2) engaging with each other 3) mashing up mainstream media content with their own or other consumer-generated content, with little regard for the source. The reason it is happening now is new technologies that are enablers, but we shouldn’t get hung up on the technologies, because they will change; I’ve heard the argument that MySpace, Gather.com, etc are already subsuming/replacing blogs as the center of gravity. No doubt something else will come along in a few years. But the change in consumer behavior from passive recipient of whatever the Mass Media/Marketing Industrial Complex dishes out is an inexorable change.”

One of the first questions Henry posed to the panel was:

“What happens to brands in the era of Web 2.0 and the Long Tail?”

Mitx1_1 Jim Nail responded by stating brands will evolve and the most important dimension of a brand will be how they relate to their consumers. “Think of it this way: Originally, the key dimension of a brand was a differentiating feature: Ivory soap being 99.44% pure. Then it became a differentiating benefit: Winston tastes good like a cigarette should. Then it was image: Just do it! In the future it will be brands that listen and respond to their consumers’/communities’ feedback.”

Adam Cutler initially disagreed with Nail’s statement by asserting that "brands will die" in favor of user experience.  This kicked off a lengthy (probably too lengthy) debate.  I fell in Nail’s camp regarding the notion that the successful brands in the future will be those that listen and take part in a one-to-one dialogue with their prospects and customers.  I went on to assert that social computing will begin to even the playing field in regards to marketing.  Brands will no longer be able to hide behind large advertising campaigns as a proxy to mask sub-standard product or services.  Furthermore, small entrepreneurial start-ups who leverage communities of interest from the very beginning and create a superior product/service will benefit with quicker innovation, more rapid product/service adoption, and less capital expense to drive awareness as it leverages word-of-mouth communications (Skype is a good example of this).   In the end, I agree with what Adam acknowledged - that as people are able to track down a broader range of information and tap the community's collective wisdom about products, they will be less reliant on the traditional notion of brand (reputation and/or aura) and more interested in the experience.  In this view, we all were of one mind that the activity of branding is on the cusp of a major shift.  A quote from Jack Barrette’s nicely wrapped up this section of the discussion: “Join the conversation or get talked about.”

Jenkins went on to ask:

“Which companies (other than the ones represented on this panel) seem to "get" Web 2.0? What do you see as the best practices which are emerging from these companies?”

Mitx5_1 The panel collectively highlighted the following companies as early adopters of social computing (reprinted from audience member Stephanie Rogers’ blog, CultureJunkie):

  • Intuit 's Product Manager blogs. Companies are still considered experts on their products, and who better to address product development news, issues, questions and concerns than the developers themselves.

  • Lego's consumer innovation council, where active members of online Lego enthusiast networks were tapped for special product brainstorming and development conversations.

  • Maytag's Man Caves. There's a burgeoning population of men outfitting their basements and garages with all the trappings of manhood - plasma screen tvs, high end audio systems, pool tables, and wet bars - and blogging about it! A popular item in the caves is a Maytag soda fountain filled with beer. So Maytag provides high res images and sneak peaks of new models for these fans to post on their own sites and help spread the word.

Regarding emerging best practices, I used a recent client example at One to One Interactive where we focused on strategic research to help prioritize Web 2.0 initiatives.  This included:

  1. Using firms like Cymfony or Nielsen Buzz Metrics to identify who is speaking about your product or service online.

    1. Includes identifying which blogs, podcasts, online discussion boards, online communities, and portals that are sought out by consumers to reach your product/service

  2. Identifying and flagging key issues within those online conversations

  3. Prioritizing and executing key word-of-mouth programs to take part in the conversation.  These may include:

    1. Word of Mouth Evangelism Programs to make it easier for brand evangelists to tell their friends about your product/service.

    2. Online Community Development

    3. Advocacy/Outreach programs such as Blogger Relation Days.

    4. Word-Of-Mouth Paid Search Program to help promote corporate blogging efforts and to promote related communities, blogs, podcasts, etc.

    5. Co-creation and Information sharing program.  Letting customers behind the curtain and give them first access to information/content.  Allow them to provide feedback on product/service innovation and marketing strategies.

Mitx2_1 Following this question the Panel was opened to the audience for Q & A.  Notable queries included:

  • How does the fact that a majority of individuals are not participating in developing blogs, participating in social networks, or posting to online discussion groups impact a corporation’s social computing strategy?

    • The panelists all agreed that this observation was important to note.  Frankly, there are only so many Mavens and Connectors in the general population.  This really calls into consideration the need to conduct the necessary research to identify the real population of active participants to engage in online dialogues.  It also underlies the importance of understanding how average/non-participating consumers find and trust the information they are reading from citizen publishers or via word-of-mouth.

  • Who is responsible for setting a Web 2.0 agenda within an enterprise?  Are there any examples of how information derived from social computing efforts is captured, distributed, and taken into serious consideration so that real change may occur?

    • None of the panelists were able to point to any single method.  It varies drastically by industry and by the tactics used to garner feedback or promote dialogue.  I stated that this question fundamentally needs to be answered by the CMO.  They are in the best position to determine what strategies to deploy and to effect corporate policy in regards to distribution and use of the intelligence provided by such efforts.

All in all, I feel the panel was an undeniable success.  MITX and One to One Interactive did an excellent job identifying a timely topic and attracting some of the industries top minds to engage in thoughtful and intelligent debate.  Stay tuned for the second panel in this series that will focus on IPTV, Broadband Entertainment, and the future of Television.

Jeremi Karnell-President, One to One Interactive

Yahoo! News Goes Local

Ma_nws_1 Advertisers take note.. Yahoo! has launched a Beta version of their Local News application.  No word of pricing yet, but it will certainly help to more effectively target Yahoo!'s enormous subscriber base.  Also, if you are a local news provider, you will be able to submit your site to Yahoo! for review, and they may include you in their local feeds. Here is a link to the latest local Boston news. Not too shabby. 

Gorillaz Invade Virtual World

Gorillaz  Aleks Krotoski, via the Gurdian Game Blog, posted today that the band Gorillaz is "appearing (via custom avatars) in the US version of the teeny-friendly, mega virtual world hit Habbo Hotel today to give residents both a personal appearance and a live performance".

I love seeing this trend of brands (entertainment or other) extending into virtual worlds to interact with mass sets of connected audiences. 

Jeremi Karnell-President, One to One Interactive

Digital Nations: Canada and UK

Belogo1  Yesterday, I had the privilege to attend another event held at the British Consulate-General in Boston.  The last time I was at the Consulate was last November when I had enjoyed meeting a delegation of creative and media professionals from Ireland on a North American mission titled:  "Invest Northern Ireland". 

Sponsored by the British Consulate-General, Canadian Consulate-General, and the Massachusetts Innovation & Technology Exchange (MITX), the session's title was "Innovation in a Flattening World".  Keynotes were given by Len Brody, Canadian venture capitalist and entrepreneur, and Scott Campbell, Digital and Media Industry Advisor, UK Trade and Investment.  Both discussed  new horizons of technology development and innovation in Canada and the United Kingdom.  Those two individuals then participated in a panel where they were joined by Paul Gasparro (Co-Founder of MapleWorks), Chris Hare (VP Sourcing, Sony Ericsson), and Michael Martineau (Director  of the Branham Group).  The panel discussed the evolution of Digital Media and the rapid rise of its application for mobility in areas such as mobile marketing, animation and electronic gaming, eHealth, digital TV and digital video/film production. 

By far the only aspect of this event that I found interesting was Brody's presentation.  He made convincing arguments that Canada is a growing force to be considered for media, entertainment, and technology ventures. 

Jeremi Karnell-President, One to One Interactive

Bloggers Impact on SEO

Last July, I had posed a question to some industry peers via AdRant's SoFlow community and via my other blog, KarnellKnowledge, regarding how the rise of consumer generated media would impact enterprise natural and paid search efforts. 

This week, One to One Interactive had the opportunity to explore this issue first hand via a new business opportunity with a media company that produces and distributes a weekly TV show, monthly magazines, monthly book club, and subscription based web sites.  The pitch focused on highlighting my firm's natural and paid search services. 

To begin, we provided some initial research and analysis associated with the prospect's current web site.  One of the data points we looked at in the SEO analysis is Link Popularity.  This metric is important, as major search engines use it in their ranking algorithims.  In essence, the more sites that link to your site, the more of an authority you are, and consequently should be higher in natural search results than others with less authority.

In this particular analysis, we categorized the types of sites that were linking to the media company site.  The two categories established were Blogs vs. Other (media, news, affiliates, partners, etc).  Detailed results are below:

Lp_2

Link_blogvs_1

Cat_1

As the data show, 72% of the sites listed within the first three results pages of Google, Yahoo! and MSN Search as linking to this particular prospect's site were Blogs.  In addition to the above analysis, we utilized Intelliseek's Blogpulse tool to identify how many times the prospect's brand was mentioned in the last two months within the blogsphere. The results came back as zero.

In this situation, developing a blog strategy was critical to helping this media company's SEO efforts.  Some of our recommendations included:

  • Develop an official blog/RSS feed and become part of the online conversation stream
  • Develop a Blogger Relation's Program
    • Blogger Days at the TV Studio
    • Free Magazine & Web Site Subscriptions to Tier 1 Bloggers.   Allow for free content syndication in return for ongoing trackback links.
  • Re-distribute the Television content via a video podcast

The above illustration is just one example in how consumer generated media is impacting traditional digital marketing strategies.  If you are currently considering a SEO program, make sure that this view point is taken into consideration.

Jeremi Karnell-President, One to One Interactive

One Subscription To Rule Them All

And so the great networks will fall.

Right now, the real power the television industry is held not by the viewers, not by the producers, not by the actors or writers or creators, but by the networks. Due to the difficulty and cost of distributing television content, network executives have the first, last, and total say in whether a show will be greenlit, whether a pilot will get made, whether the first episodes will be aired, whether the show will get picked up for a full season, and then whether there will be additional seasons in the years to come.

As not all shows are able to immediately perfectly target mainstream viewers in the way that a Yes, Dear or American Idol so easily does, television history is littered with the discarded carcasses of amazing, funny, wonderful shows which were simply never given a chance to grow or even breathe. See Firefly, Wonderfalls, Freaks & Geeks, My So-Called Life, Carnivale, Arrested Development, the list goes on and on. All critically acclaimed shows with thousands of adoring viewers, but all cancelled by the networks for not being financially sustainable.

Yes_dear_cast_main



Only you can stop this dreck.

The problem, of course, is the distribution. Right now the model is very simple. A network exec is either sent a pilot -- or is sent a script treatment and then funds a pilot -- most are rejected, a few survive, even a fewer get approved for a second season, and they move on with "what works", always giving preferential treatment to the shows that attract the most viewers in the target demographic base.

Even on HBO -- a network I adore for their always-quality programming -- all too often they can't sustain a great show because someone determines that that production money is better spent paying David Chase an extra ten million for a fourth season of The Sopranos so we can get an episode like that Columbus Day wreck. Ok, I lie, I'm actually peeing my pants in excitement about Sunday's Season 6 premiere, but that's getting off track.

Fortunately, easily-available DVRs are beginning to make the process of selecting and watching a great show far easier. Where before I couldn't keep up with a show like Lost or The Shield -- as not being there promptly at 10pm on Wednesday night would mean I'd have no idea what's happening for the rest of the season -- now I can make sure I don't miss a moment. And at the same time I never have to sit down when there's nothing on, and flick through channels for twenty minutes before finally settling on watching an episode of The Simpsons I've already seen a hundred times, probably that one wear Homer wears a Muumuu. Instead I always have something new I *want* to see, just sitting there patiently waiting for me to find time to watch it.

As great as DVR is, however, it doesn't fix the core problem -- the networks still require me to watch 42-minute-long programs available once a week (or as is the case with Lost, once every 6-8 weeks), and they still have the final say in what lives or dies. All the DVRs in the world wouldn't have kept Mal and his crew on Serenity alive for the next few years. DVRs only bring a freedom of timing, not of programming, of true choice.

What's changed now, however, is fundamental. Jon Borthwick just sent me this, check it out. iTunes -- which has been offering downloads of new episodes of Battlestar Galactica, Lost, and old SNL for months now at $1.99 apiece -- is offering a month of a The Daily Show and The Colbert Report combo, but via what is essentially a series subscription.

But beyond the sound of intellectual, liberal, twenty-something commuters the country over rejoicing, why is this change to a subscription model important?

For one, iTunes' pay-per-episode/song model has had to go for awhile. The ability to download episodes of my favorite shows on any PC, the day the show airs has always been fantastic -- I never have to miss a thing. I'd appreciate it if they got the resolution quality up there, but hey, I understand they have concerns about download speeds -- why not let me worry about that though?

But no, the problem with the per-ep model is that it introduces too much anxiety. Do I *really* need to see the next episode of The Office that badly? What if it's a subpar episode, will I feel ripped off? My God, there's 23 episodes of Lost in a season, I'm only going to watch them once, is it really worth $46 to see what I could see for free on my DVR? Once you introduce a cost per episode, people start doing these calculations, and all too often the equations don't balance out. And so for most it remains a novelty.

But now things have changed. We can watch shows via a subscription, and suddenly the options become limitless. Hey, iTunes, I'm paying $9.99 a month for The Daily Show, and you know its viewers also love Lost, why not offer me a DS-Lost combo for $14.99 a month? You're coming out with a freaky new sci-fi show that's supposed to make me forget the naptime that was Invasion -- and you know I'm watching Battlestar Galactica -- why not upsell me with a nice little discount? With a subscription model, you get into what cable companies have known for ages: people love bundles, and from the supply side they're damn easy to create, provide, and measure.

More importantly, nowhere in any of this is there a need for a network. There may be a need for video venture firms to review script concepts and invest in funding a new show, but iTunes can offer the first episode of new shows for free, and based on how many people sign up out of those who see the first ep or two, Apple can decide whether it's a dog -- or the next 24.

Size constraints are also gone. Dick Wolf, you want this season of Law & Order to be 15 one-hour-long episodes peppered with eight little five-minute sidestories and one big three-hour finale? Do it. The nets won't be there to stop you. Once a show is up on the service and free of the networks, the *only* real constraint will be whether or not people maintain their subscription. Crap won't fly, Yes, Dear won't get underserving views just because of its time slot, and finally Americans will be able to be a little discriminating in their preferences.

One to One Interactive

  • Logo_6_1

Contact Us

E-Mail Digest



  • Powered by FeedBlitz

OTO del.icio.us Links