Tag Archives: advertising

Media2010: Print, Web, blogs, ads, and The Wall

Posted on by

On Wednesday I attended the “Media 2010 Summit” presented by the Albany Times Union. It featured a panel discussion with three of the TU bloggers and Greg Dahlmann, co-founder of popular local blog All Over Albany.

It took a while to get to some meat in the discussion, and it felt like time ran out just as we arrived there. The Times Union runs about 155 blogs on its site. A handful of those are written by TU staffers; the rest by unpaid volunteers from the community. Topics range from food to politics to dogs to parenting to religion.

I was most interested in hearing about how the TU is (or plans to) turning their stable of blogs into a revenue source for the paper — and what its plans are for more tightly integrating the news content on their site with blogs and being able to package and sell ads against all of their content.

We didn’t quite get there.

Panelist Kristi Gustafson, who writes the fashion/lifestyle blog for the TU, talked about “feeding the print product” and how they’re constantly trying to use blog content to drive people to the print newspaper. She repackages some of her most popular blog posts and features from the week for the Sunday print edition of the Times Union. To me, this seems backwards, as people continue to consume more content online and less in print.

The topic of “The Wall” (the traditional partition between editorial and advertising) came up, and Steve Barnes, a senior writer at the TU and author of its popular food/restaurant blog, made one of the more interesting statements of the night:

The revenue aspect completely not my concern. I build a brand because I know it brings more readers to the TU. I have no idea what they charge for ads. I don’t want to know. We have a department for that. We have people who go out and sell ads.

Steve is an “old-school journalist” with a great respect for editorial and journalistic integrity (and I respect him for that). But his statement is a bit contradictory. He wants to use his blog to bring readers to the TU, but doesn’t want to take the full step to equate those readers with dollars and that what he writes impacts that. In the Web world, readers = traffic. Traffic = ad revenue. I don’t believe it’s as decoupled as Steve thinks.

Journalists in the future, like it or not, are going to need to understand media business models better. While I’m certainly not suggesting that advertisers should directly impact content (be it “traditional” news content or blogs), driving traffic is what drives revenue (and let’s not get into that other Wall, the pay wall).

Journalists and editors need to figure out how to make the content/traffic/revenue marriage work. It may mean that journalists DO need to think about the revenue side of the house when writing. The Huffington Post does real-time A/B testing of headlines in the first few minutes a story is live and then makes a decision on the most effective one.

I certainly don’t want to see all news content devolve into keyword-optimized nonsense, but we can’t pretend that media companies can exist without revenue to support them. Consumers have so far shown that they’re unwilling to pay for news online. Advertising is, and always have been, what funds the editorial side of the house. I don’t think that one side of the house can afford to ignore the other.

I’ve been noodling on this since the event on Wednesday. Let me know what you think in the comments.

While I was skiing: The 10-day media lowdown

Posted on by

I was on vacation last week and then had a quick family trip home, so I missed out on a whirlwind week of media news. Perhaps that’s why it’s been hard for me to get back into the swing of blogging this week: I feel as though everything has been discussed to death. I’ve also barely made a dent in my Google Reader (the “mark all as read” button is looking more tempting each day).

Here’s what the rest of the media-obsessed world was focused on while I was on the slopes, and what those conversations looked like to a relatively disengaged observer:

Super Bowl

More specifically, Super Bowl commercials. I still have only seen a handful of them. It seemed there was more news before the Super Bowl about who wasn’t advertising (Pepsi) and whether that was “risky” or not. From passively scanning my Twitter stream, the Google ad seemed to be a hit. The Tim Tebow ad generated controversy primarily for not being as controversial as many thought it would. I saw a lot of chatter about the lack of pants in a few ads (hmm…). Overall, it didn’t seem that people were too jazzed about the commercials this year, which this Huffington Post article seems to concur with.

Google Buzz

Goodness were people ever up in arms about Google Buzz! From a few brief checks of Twitter you’d think the Interwebs were under siege from Palo Alto. The main issues I saw people frustrated with were privacy issues, the lack of filtering/overabundance of information, and the muddling of GMail with other social outposts. So many people rained on the Google Buzz parade so heartily that by the time I got back home and had the option to check it out or “turn it on”, I didn’t even bother. I may revisit in a few weeks to see if I have any use for it (thought based on my comatose use of Google Wave so far, I’m not sure it’s the ticket for me).

The Olympics

Consensus: NBC totally sucks at covering them. NBC is refusing to broadcast events live in hopes of forcing people to watch taped segments during primetime to please advertisers. That leaves Twitter, blogs, and countless other Web sites to act as spoilers during the afternoon. Not only is the coverage bad, it’s late and it’s old news when it airs. ComputerWorld had one of the better pieces on why NBC is “against the Internet” in terms of Olympic coverage.  I’ve missed almost all the coverage so far.

I did see a lot of disgust and surprise from those I follow on Twitter that networks would (repeatedly) show graphic footage of the Georgian luge athlete’s fatal crash. I share the disgust, but not the surprise. Sensationalism rules TV news these days, and just as we saw graphic and tragic images from the Haiti earthquake, it was inevitable that news channels would broadcast this video. I don’t think they needed to do it as frequently or callously (apparently CBS showed the crash in slow motion), however. Other Olympic story lines I passively observed: Whales (but not fail whales?) were the highlight of the Opening Ceremonies. The weather in Vancouver is abysmal. Shaun White needs a haircut.

Kevin Smith and Southwest Airlines

I watched the initial Twitter outrage against Southwest Airlines for how they grievously wronged director/actor Kevin Smith, and then saw the negative sentiment gradually shift toward Smith himself as he continued to berate the airline after they had pretty openly addressed the issue and made apologies via their blog and other channels. Some, like Sonny Gill, even seemed to think that Smith was bullying or antagonizing Southwest.

It would have been very interesting to see how this would have played out differently had it been Delta (the airline that lost my luggage twice on my vacation and caused me to spend a less-than-glamorous evening in a Romulus, Mich. Best Western instead of a Utah ski house) or American or United. Those airlines certainly don’t have the customer loyalty or goodwill that Southwest has built up. I think much of the reason SWA will be able to weather this is that they’ve taken the time to build a positive reputation among customers who are perhaps going to be a little more forgiving of this incident. I liked Adam Kmiec’s dissection of the situation and Southwest’s response.

So, that’s what the Web world looked like to me over the last 10 days as I scanned Twitter and Facebook and blogs here and there to try and remain somewhat connected. What else did I miss?

The fallacy of targeting audiences on the Web

Posted on by

Memo to brands trying to reach teenage boys with raunchy campaigns: we can all see you.

Burger King’s Shower Girl is the latest in a series of misogynist social media campaigns targeted at hormonally-charged teenage boys, it seems. PepsiCo’s “Amp Up Before You Score” iPhone app this summer broke women into 24 stereotypes and gave guys tips on how to pick up each and tally their conquests. Remington’s “Face of Success” microsite and game  encouraged guys to try out pickup lines on virtual women (these fake women had Twitter profiles and followed back successful players).

Not surprisingly, these types of campaigns have drawn varying amounts of ire, from women and men alike, who feel that they’re inappropriate, don’t advance the product being hawked, and continue to promulgate objectification of women in Western culture (and that’s a post for an entirely different blog).

burger_king_shower_camThe typical “defense” often heard about campaigns like this is that they are intended only for a specific target audience. To me, that’s a fancy way of saying, “if this offends you, then you’re not our target audience, so please shut up and leave us alone.” Granted, PepsiCo did apologize for its iPhone app, but it’s hard to believe that they couldn’t have anticipated a backlash before ever launching it.

Nothing is truly targeted on the Web anymore. It’s too easy for people to share and pass along links to content, no matter where that content originates. That means campaigns that are edgy or risque are just as likely to find an easily-offended audience as they are to find their “target audience” online. Organizations can’t assume that only their target audience is going to see and interpret their campaign.

I’m not purporting that all marketing campaigns should be so sanitized and boring so as to make sure no one is offended. Often edgy campaigns are the most effective; they merit attention by being different. But there’s a difference between “edgy” and “in poor taste.”

There’s no “section” of the Interwebz reserved for 16-year-old boys (or any other demographic, for that matter). Your content should definitely speak to the interests and sensibilities (or lack thereof) of the core group you’re trying to reach, but let’s not forget that it can speak to just about everyone else online, too.

Locally targeted McDonald’s TV ads turning heads

Posted on by

New York City might only be 120 miles away from Albany, but lifestyle-wise it’s a lot further. Often we Upstaters are saddled with “regional” advertising campaigns directed toward New Yorkers (the city dwellers, not the state residents). I frequently see billboards or TV commercials referencing terms like “The Big Apple” and alluding to New York sports teams (of which many Albany residents are fans, to be fair).

Regional advertising is nothing new, but often campaigns chunk up the country into six or seven large segments and so the ads end up being somewhat general. Major metropolitan areas might get a specific campaign, but for those of us who live in small to medium-sized cities it’s rare to see national brands adapt their campaigns.

Apparently McDonald’s is changing that. I haven’t seen it yet, but according to one of my local Facebook pals there’s a TV spot floating around that’s very specific to the Albany area:

McDonalds Facebook Regional TV ad

From Jen’s comment, this ad is extremely specific to the Capital Region of New York State and only the 800,000 or so people who live here could make any sense of those references. (Yes, our interstate jumps from Exit 2 to Exit 4 and no one seems to know why Exit 3 is missing. And Koscuiszko is a Polish dude who fought in the Revolutionary War and a bridge is named after him.)

Does this represent a new direction for national brands? Based on the Facebook discussion above, it’s certainly getting people’s attention. On one hand, creating these hyperlocal “micro-campaigns” is a way to make consumers from smaller markets like Albany feel as though they’re getting some actual attention from a big brand (which doesn’t happen too often. You should see the group that’s been trying for years to get a Trader Joe’s in the area). It can make it seem like larger “corporate” brands are reaching out to local communities — though the major danger here is appearing disingenuous.

Alternatively, it can make it harder for these brands to unite customers around a shared experience or campaign. Think about the Super Bowl. So much of the discussion and interaction with those brands comes from everyone across the country talking about which ads they liked and didn’t like the next day. Or think of nationwide ad campaigns that have become cultural touchstones (like the Aflac Duck). That shared sense of connection to the brand would be lost if the ad was localized.

Have you seen a large national brand localizing its campaigns so specifically? Did it work or backfire? What do you think are the pros and cons of this type of strategy?

Update:

Watch the video here:

Here’s a link to a news story with some background on the agency that produced the spots and how they were shot.

Why small brands are kicking butt with Facebook ads

Posted on by

Most Facebook users have seen their fair share of irrelevant or inappropriately targeted ads show up in the sidebar (perhaps none as notorious as the man who saw his wife’s picture next to a Facebook dating ad). Most of the time I ignore the ads and don’t go through the trouble to “thumbs down” an ad and give a reason.

Lately, however, I’ve started to notice more and more genuinely good ads. They aren’t coming from huge brands with big budgets, either. Small organizations looking for an inexpensive way to precisely target audiences are turning to Facebook. Check out this ad that was served up to me earlier in the week:

FBad1

This ad worked for me because it was:

  1. Local: It somewhat startled me to see the town of East Greenbush mentioned in an ad. I thought, “Hey, I know where that is!”
  2. Relevant: I like going to plays and the theater. I had updated my Facebook status last week before heading in to a play at a different local theater, so Facebook knows it’s something I like to do. It wasn’t an ad for a local Monster Truck Derby.
  3. Quaint: Perhaps not the best term, but it was kind of refreshing to see an ad from a small, local organization versus big national brands. I had been getting sick of Facebook ads pushing summer blockbusters or TV shows or “Become a Fan of Megabrand X.”

I would likely never have heard about this production had it not been for the Facebook ad. I’d actually never heard of the organization (The Spotlight Players) putting on the play before until I saw this ad. It caused me to do a little searching and it turns out the organization, a small community theater group, doesn’t even have a Web site. Just about its entire online presence is via Facebook. They have a great fan page that includes several photo albums of previous productions and they use the wall to announce calls for auditions and post links to reviews. The page has 137 fans, which is pretty decent for a niche theater group that caters to a small suburban town.

I’m sure the Spotlight Players also take advantage of many traditional means of promoting shows (community calendar announcements in local newspapers, flyers, etc.) but since I don’t live in the specific community where they operate I’m unlikely to see those. Facebook ads are an easy and inexpensive way for them to expand their geographic reach and hopefully increase attendance at their productions.

Social media isn’t just for big companies and big brands with unlimited budgets. Nor is it only for organizations that have dedicated marketing staff or social media “expertise.” I doubt that The Spotlight Players have much of a budget at all and probably no dedicated marketing team or “social media experts” in their organization. Still, they’ve figured out an effective way to get the word out about who they are and what they do.

Last week I didn’t even know The Spotlight Players existed. Thanks to their Facebook efforts, I just may be going to see The Producers this weekend.