Short Takes: 4.30.08

Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:

• CNN T-Shirts: Barbarian Group launched CNN Shirt, a fun and smart extension of the CNN Web site. Make your own shirt by selecting from the headlines on CNN, and your shirt will include the headline plus the date and time the headline was posted. I like the concept; it's a great way of attracting an atypical demographic to a news site, involving visitors in a unique way, and creating an additional revenue stream for CNN. Of course, I'd like the site a bit more if it worked properly. Twice this afternoon (and with two different browsers) I clicked "Add Shirt" for two fun headlines--"Terrorists: 'Why we want to kill you'" and "Teen too young for 'come hither' pose?"--and neither time would the site add the shirt to my shopping cart. Cool ideas and slick design are great, but they're not worth much if the execution falls short.
  
  
• P&G Lets Consumers Weigh In on Marketing: Ad Age features a fascinating article about how P&G is letting consumers "Act as media planners." Following Starbucks' efforts to involve consumers in ideation, P&G has created two toll-free numbers that consumers may use to weigh in on specific media buys. The first line permits consumers to share their feelings about P&G sponsoring "hip-hop programs on MTV and BET laced with profanity, liberal doses of the 'N word,' and scenes (that) degrade and objectify women." The second line asks callers to support or criticize the story line on "As the World Turns," from P&G Productions, which featured fairly passionate kisses between daytime TV's only gay couple. This program leverages Web 2.0 ideas of transparency and involvement, but uses a phone number. Shall we call it Phone 2.0?
  
  
• Minipreneurship Filmmaking: On the E:TB blog, you've seen several mentions of the way music artists are tapping into social networking to raise money for recording projects, but this is the first time I've seen that model applied to filmmaking. Artemis Eternal is a planned science fiction short that is involving film fans around the world in the financing and production of the movie. The interactive site tracks the lifecycle of the production, providing an idea of what's been accomplished and what is next. You may donate as little as $1, but $100 will get your name in the credits and on the site as a "wingman." The video below taps into the energy of social media and minipreneurship to describe the project.
  
  
  
  
  
• Tracking the Blogosphere: Last week, I shared some tools for tracking and graphing mentions on Twitter and Facebook. Here's another graphing tool, Trendpedia, which permits you to compare the mentions of various terms across the blogosphere. The chart at left shows a comparison of "Stan Getz," "Miles Davis," and "Hannah Montana." (Bloggers must be a jazzy bunch--until Miley posed for Annie Leibovitz, it's remarkable to note how closely Miles and Hanna tracked!) The site's interactive graphs permit users to click on the graph and see a listing of the mentions for a given date and search term.
  
  
  
• Beatboxing T-Shirts: Included in Creativity Weekly's Top Five this week was this quirky microsite: UT Loop. The site declares that "A T-shirt is more than a T-shirt. It's an expression of who you are." It then makes the point by allowing site visitors to make their own simple musical sequences by selecting from a worldwide mix of hipsters wearing T-shirts. The microsite is fun, features a clean design, makes excellent use of interactivity and video, is focused on the audience, and makes clever and subtle statements about the brand and its customers. Plus, UT doesn't miss the opportunity to leverage consumers' desire to share by providing a widget tool for including custom mixes on other sites. My simple loop is shown below for your enjoyment.
  

Microsites Done Right

Last month I read a rather ridiculous editorial by Sean X Cummings, Director of Marketing for Ask.com. On iMedia, he groused, "I do not even know where to start with my rant on microsites." But, somehow Sean found a place to start, and rant he did.

In his tirade about microsites, Sean sets up a straw man when he says, "the only reason you are probably creating one is that your main website sucks." In fact, there are several reasons to create a microsite, even if your main site is excellent. For example:

• To create an experience: The point of most brand or corporate sites is to provide information and to do so, the site requires structure--consistent page structure (so that consumers know what they're seeing) and intuitive site structure (so that visitors know how to get through the site.) But what if you wish to create an online experience that engages rather than informs? What if you want to convey emotion rather than data? A microsite featuring games, video, exploration, and interactivity can encourage the sort of emotional engagement not usually available within the confines of a larger and more structured informational site.
  
  
• To promote a new product: Introducing a new product via microsite can provide a way to give more information about and more focus to the product than is possible within the framework of an existing corporate or brand site. Think of this sort of microsite like a new product launch packet or glossy sell sheet that a company produces, even though it includes the same product in its catalog. In the same way, a microsite may complement and supplement the information on the brand or corporate Web site.
  
  
• To focus on a specific audience: Typical brand or corporate sites must cast as wide a net as possible, but if a brand has specific sub-audiences to which it wants to appeal, a microsite provides a way to fashion content and experiences more specifically.
  

Here are some examples of microsites that get it right. Of course, I cannot vouch for the ROI (another of Mr. Cumming's rants), but you can easily see how these microsites fit a specific need and do more than can be accomplished within a typical information-driven Web site.

RehabLV.com
This microsite, promoting Sunday evening parties at the Hard Rock Las Vegas, shot like lightning from man to man in our agency, helped by healthy doses of bikini-clad women and excellent use of Flash and video. The site got guys talking about a trip to Vegas, accomplishing the purpose of the microsite.

The Hard Rock could have (and in fact does) have information about poolside shows on its Web site. But as dynamic as their primary site is, it doesn't compare to the experience of RehabLV.com.

This microsite satisfies all three of the purposes noted above: It focuses on a specific audience (young men and women who like to party), it introduces a new product (or in this case reintroduces a regular Sunday night party), and it creates an engaging experience.

Why create an engaging exeprience? Because showing young men beautiful women and allowing them to hear hot music is a better way to engage their emotions than merely telling them about it. And because this sexy, high-energy site creates the sort of enthusiasm that encourages visitors to share the site with others. Even a good microsite needs promotion, but a great microsite will multiply that traffic and increase reach without additional spend.

WrapRageCure.com
Let's say you need to market a product that is essentially a pair of pliers. Of course, you launch a product Web site, but you find that doesn't exactly set the world on fire. What to do? Launch WrapRageCure.com.

This Addy-award-winning site turns the common frustration of opening annoying packaging into a funny microsite. The site focuses on faux case studies of people who lost their cool trying to get through packaging to the product they purchased.

This site creates an experience about a product that otherwise might not get noticed. Much like the famed "Will it Blend?" series of videos, this microsite is an engaging way to make a point and get attention about what otherwise might be an overlooked product. The case studies, representing a cross section of demographics, also successfully convey the product as fitting a need for everyone.

FunshipIsland.com
There is no product as inherently experiential as travel, but trying to convince travelers to overlook price and instead choose one travel destination over another has proven an enormous challenge. Sounds like an excellent use for a microsite!

Carnival Cruiselines supplemented their information-rich primary site with a fun and engaging rich media site called FunshipIsland.com. The site gives site visitors a first-person tour of a Carnval cruise ship. You can order a drink (with a parasol, of course), play craps (a simplified version), or check out the beach. (As you dip your toes in the ocean, you can enter your zip code to compare your temp with the average temp in the Caribbean today.)

Even though the primary Carnival site has more information than any person could possibly want, this microsite appeals to consumers' emotions. It invites exploration, just as one does on a real cruise ship. The microsite experience engages sight, sound, and the imagination, and in the process sells the idea of cruising more than all of the newspaper ads that will appear in this Sunday's travel sections across the country.

Mr. Cumming's rant isn't all wrong. I agree with the need to measure ROI of any site (or marketing effort), and I generally concur that a great microsite should stick around for more than just a couple weeks and months. Launching an engaging site and then pulling it down is old-school "campaign" thinking; in today's online and marketing environment, constant engagement should be valued over quick hits.

If you know of other great microsites, please share them!

Short Takes: 4.27.08

Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:

• SMS Content That Focuses on the Audience: MediaPost's Mobile Insider has some interesting observations about UO TXT, Urban Outfitters' SMS messaging program. UO is using text for more than just coupons and alerts; members get notices about bands, receive free ringtone downloads, and participate in text polls and slogan contests. This might sound like a lot of SMS messages to old fogeys like you and I (sorry, I am making an assumption about you, aren't I?), but to the target demographic, the "media mix" is working. It's an interesting way to utilize text but before considering if it is right for your brand, it's very important to remember that this program perfectly fits a specific demographic. Plus, one has to wonder if this sort of program will be as successful once hundreds of brands are peppering subscribers' phones with these sorts of text messages. UO TXT is getting lift today by being an early adopter and finding a unique way to use the medium.
  
  
• If You Don't Know What MMO Stands For, Start Here: Digital Trends has a video series called Players Only, where it covers the growing phenomenon of gaming. This week's video is about MMOs, Massively Multiplayer Online games, which merge aspects of gaming, the Internet, virtual worlds, and social media. Formerly the purview of geeks, MMOs are going mainstream and, in fact, are skewing more female than male. The video doesn't touch on what this means to marketers, but it's still an excellent primer if you're unfamiliar with MMOs and if you still think of gamers as teen males sitting in isolation at their PC or gaming systems.
  
  
• Olympic Sponsors Fight Back: This year's Olympics was already proving a challenge to sponsors due to Tibet issues. This challenge got even worse when activist groups focusing their attention outside of China began to try to embarrass sponsors into action. Last week, Mia Farrow’s activist group, Dream for Darfur, issued a report card that criticized most of the major Olympic sponsors. One cannot fault Dream for Darfur for caring, but what is the link between Olympic sponsorship and the tragedies in Darfur? This tactic could backfire and encourage companies to withdraw rather than engage in additional and necessary international activities. Furthermore, it might be that Dream for Darfur finds itself more on the defensive than do the sponsors. For example, Coca-Cola is fighting back: "For an organization that has not eased the suffering of a single individual on the ground in Darfur to criticize those who are helping thousands every day is more than ironic." Read more on the New York Times Web site.
  
  
• Starbucks Shakes Up Entertainment Unit: A month ago, we explored how Starbucks fumbled the ball with their music offerings. The program started very small, with shops offering CDs from unique and independent artists that fit well with Starbuck's brand, but as they sought to expand the program with less focused and more mainstream artists, their music program began to falter. This week, Starbucks showed to the door the executive who ran their music program since 2004. Starbucks reiterated its commitment to entertainment as part of their brand, but how these changes will affect the brand's music program remains unknown. The right music offerings will bolster consumers' perception of the coffee shop chain and will increase entertainment revenue, but continued hawking of the same music consumers can find elsewhere will dilute rather than help the brand.
  

Timeshifting American Idol Out of Relevance: Users in Control

The LA Times wants to rain on American Idol's parade. AI, currently in its seventh season, has remained firmly at the top of TV ratings. According to Nielsen, both weekly episodes of AI beat every other show on TV last week, drawing six million more viewers than the runner up, "Dancing with the Stars" and nearly eight million more than TV's top scripted show, "Desperate Housewives".

You'd think this would be a reason to celebrate for AI, but according to the LA Times there are dark and dangerous clouds forming over the ratings champ. "Could it be that the singing smash, which has entirely reshaped television over the past seven seasons, is finally proving mortal?," it asks. The basis for this question is that "Idol" has slipped 7% in average total viewers compared with last season, according to figures from Nielsen Media Research.

Every popular show eventually slips, and perhaps it is AI's time to advance into the equivalent of broadcast middle age, making room for younger, more relevant TV programs. The LA Times cites "show fatigue" and says, "Some fans are seeing the program as less essential than it was a year or two ago."

There is undoubtedly some truth to this, but I think there's a larger trend at work here. First of all, I believe Idol is retaining more of their viewers than the LA Times (or Neilsen's broadcast ratings) acknowledge. That 7% decrease in total viewers equates to around 2.2 million people, but what about those who "time-shift" the show? Nielsen is now tracking how many people consume a show not at the time it is broadcast, but at a later time by using their DVRs.

According to Nielsen, in the week ending April 8, 2007, 2.46 million people time-shifted "American Idol." That number had grown to over 4 million in the week ending April 6, 2008. So, the show lost 2.2 million live viewers and picked up 1.6 million time-shifted viewers. That's still a downward trend, of course, but nowhere near as bad as what the LA Times indicates.

The growth of time-shifting is far more than just an interesting trend of the DVR era. It should also be a wake-up call to TV executives and advertisers: Consumers are more in control of their media consumption than ever before, and if TV is to remain relevant (to both consumers and advertisers), it's going to need to change to reflect consumer wants and needs.

It's not that hard to glean consumers' mindset from the time-shifting data. Over 70% of the people who time-shifted AI watched it on the same day it was broadcast. Why? It isn't that this many people were too busy to watch it at 8 pm but found they had time at 9 pm. The reason is (obviously) that consumers are demanding and creating for themselves a better viewing experience.

AI has done little to change up its format over the years. Tweaks have been minor, such as shedding a cohost and permitting the contestants to play instruments. What hasn't changed is the format of the show. Each episode continues the tradition of bloating the running time with fluff. This week Tuesday night, the five remaining singers will give performances totaling less than 20 minutes during the hour-long show, and on Wednesday night, it will take AI 60 minutes to announce the departure of a single contestant. Those of us with DVRs will reduce those 120 minutes into less than 30 watchable and interesting minutes.

AI could become the first-ever case study of what happens to a #1 show that ignores the newfound power of consumers with DVRs. The producers would be well advised to recognize that a profound revolution in media consumption has occurred since the show debuted in 2002. Back then, virtually no one had DVRs. In December of 2005, DVR penetration in National People Meter sample homes was less than 1 percent. One year later, DVR penetration in NPM sample homes reached 11.4% and as of February 2008, this figure stands at 21.4%. It doesn't take a TV guru to know what will happen to time-shifting and ad viewing as this number exceeds 50% in four or five short years.

Without a profound change to AI, the producers could find themselves in a situation where both consumers and advertisers begin to defect in greater numbers. Consumers will grow weary of the enormous weekly time commitment and the unimportant content, and more will timeshift (or they'll simply tune out). Advertisers, recognizing that consumers are fast-forwarding past their ads along with AI's fluff, will begin to pay less for spots on the top-rated show. Thus, producers could get squeezed by both consumers and advertisers, a cycle that will of course cause the show to stumble its way toward cancellation.

There is an alternative, but it will require producers to recognize that the consumer is in charge and to introduce substantial changes to keep the audience engaged. I'm not sure AI's producers have the guts to do what it takes--after all, they thought that changing the stage set would be a big deal for viewers--but here are some ideas AI might consider to create the right experience for 2009 consumers:

• Shrink the running time. People will tune in live (and watch the ads) for a tight, entertaining, and exciting 30-minute show. I think it is interesting to note that just three 30-minute programs are in the list of top 20 shows that are timeshifted.
  
• Fill the show with content about the singers. Conversely, AI can keep the hour-long running time if they'd put the focus where it belongs--on the contestants. Simon's been grousing the show lacks singers with personality, but it's clear there are interesting people up on stage; AI's brusque "behind the scenes" introductions for the singers seem contrived and fail to give much insight about the real people for whom consumers vote.
  
• Be truthful. Among the reason viewers are departing from the show this year is that they're finding more accurate info about the singers from the Internet than they are from AI itself. AI's clumsy failure to admit right from the start that some of this year's contestants have a professional singing past undermined the trust (and insulted the intelligence) of the viewers.
• Get Interactive. Currently, AI uses the Internet for little more than promotion of the show. Permitting voting online would help to increase participation. (Some people fear online voting may be subject to manipulation, but it can't possibly be worse than their current system.) And in the era of growing transparency and user-generated content, why do we only get tightly controlled interviews with the contestants rather than letting them blog about their AI experiences, sharing the fun, the work, their hopes and their anxieties?

My prediction is that if AI doesn't announce a shake up in the format of the show, it will not be at the top of the Nielsen ratings by the end of the 2009 season. The show still has legs and could continue on the air for many years to come; after all, Survivor is still in the top 20 shows on TV in its 16th season. But the growth in DVR usage, timeshifting, and ad-skipping may also cause AI's decline to occur more steeply than for others top-rated shows in the past. The solutions are available to AI's producers, but it will take a recognition of a changed media landscape and some bold moves to keep the show on top.

Social Media Research Tool Day

Today must be Social Media Research Tool Day on the Internet, because I found two new tools to help you track trends and buzz in social media.

• Graphing Twitter: If you're a Twitter user or just care to know what people are chatting about on the microblog site, check out Twist from Flaptor. Simply enter terms separated by commas, and you can see a graph showing mentions in Twitter over time. For example, I checked out Obama, Hillary, and Idol, and found that following a Pennsylvania Primary spike, Idol as of today is getting more mentions than either presidential candidate.
  

• Graphing Facebook: Want to know what people are talking about on Facebook? Go to Facebook Lexicon. You must be signed into Facebook to access it, but once you do you can enter terms and chart the number of occurrences of words and phrases on "walls." I checked the same terms as above and found that poor Hillary is regularly out-mentioned by both Idol and Barack.
  

Short Takes: 4.23.08

Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:

• Your Outsourced Insight & Information Department: Tom Martin is mad as hell, and he's not going to take this any more. Okay, he may not exactly be having a Howard Beale moment, but he voices his frustration that small agencies and marketers cannot get the same access to Insight & Information as the larger players. Rather than complain, he's setting out to do something about it. Tom has created Insight & Information, a site at which he is soliciting registrants to fund an outsourced research department. For $135 and $189 a year, you can be one of 5,000 select members to receive a monthly report that will "cover what you should be paying attention to, what you can ignore and suggest what you should be on the look out for in the near future." It's a bold experiment, and I'll be interested to see how many marketing professionals sign up. You can read more about Tom's frustrations and ideas on his Ad Age blog.
  
  
• One "C" Is More Important Than The Others: Dave Friedman offers the "Six C's of Social Influence Marketing" on ChiefMarketer.com. His list is fine--Content, Customization, Community, Conversation, Commerce, and Commitment--but there is little substance to his brief post. I would've found a deeper discussion more insightful, and sometimes Dave disagrees with himself. In the course of a few sentences he says, "There is one factor around social influence marketing that can give marketers more immediate satisfaction: commerce." But then he says, and I agree, "The community has not come together to help companies sell products." He also gives short shrift to the most important "C" of all--commitment. Social media is not well suited to short-term campaigns but instead is ideal for building relationships over time. It is this factor that has many suggesting social media is not solely the purview of marketing but also of the customer service and PR functions.
  
  
• Does This Career Make Me Look Immoral? It will come as no surprise that I happen to passionately believe in the role of marketing in our world. Done right, it brings benefits to consumers, brands, employees, and shareholders. But every now and then I come across something that makes me feel a little uneasy about my profession. For example, while I believe marketing is appropriate for pharmaceuticals just like any other product, the marketing investment and tactics must be carefully considered so as to benefit and not harm the health of consumers. In recent months, I've seen a slew of news reports that raise some concerns about pharma marketing. For example, one study found that advertising may have more influence on prescriptions than science. Brandweek reports that the pharmaceutical industry spends nearly twice as much promoting itself as it does on researching new drugs. And another study claims some of Merck's academic reports about the arthritis drug Vioxx were written by company employees, and doctors were paid to put their names on the research. This sort of news is bound to shake consumers' confidence in the pharma industry in specific and the health industry in general, and it points to the need for better industry oversight and more established ethical practices.
  
  
• Starbucks Giving It Away: Starbucks sure has been making headlines recently. They closed their stores to retrain employees, launched a consumer idea and feedback site, and now they're giving away their product. The wisdom of this strategy is debated in an article on AdAge.com. Robert Passikoff, president of Brand Keys, says "I think it's desperation." But Larry Light, former chief marketing officer at McDonald's, defends Starbuck's strategy of offering multiple free trials, saying "The first time somebody tries something new in package goods, we call it trial. The second time is retrial, and the third time is a repeat purchase. So just getting someone to try something once and hoping they will repeat is not as effective." Whether or not you agree with the giveaway strategy, one thing is certain: Starbucks is working harder than ever to earn consumers' loyalty. Notes Passikoff, "There was a time that they didn't need to coupon."
  
  
• Miss Manners for Twitter: Some people have found Twitter addictive and indispensable. I still struggle to find substantial value with the service and have begun to cull my "follow" list of those people who simply share too much Twutter. For those who use Twitter, I highly recommend a visit to The Toad Stool, which offers a great list of tips for using Twitter. He addresses some of my pet peeves, such as when people broadcast a personal message directed at one person to their entire Twitter list. Other tips include, "Live posting from SXSW is one thing. Live posting from your dinner with your college buddies, quite another." And, "Tweeting that you’ve reached a new milestone in the number of people following you is always in poor taste." If you're new to Twitter, check out the list of "12 Ways to Improve Your Twitter."
  

Short Takes: 4.22.08

Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:

• Is UCG Dead? AdRants is always an interesting read. Most of the time I agree, but this time I don't. AdRants takes Red Bull to task for using a YouTube strategy that involves consumers uploading their own videos. Blogger Steve Hall declares User Generated Content (UCG) old and boring: "Memo to marketers: this idea is dead." He is incorrect; marketing tactics rarely die, but they can get boring when nothing new is brought to them. While tech early adopters may feel branded YouTube UCG campaigns are stale, they should remember how many consumers are still in the process of growing more comfortable with shooting and editing their own video. There's still room for these sorts of campaigns, provided the strategy is unique and creative, is focused on the right audience, and fits the brand. (Steve is right about one thing: "You STILL have to have broad-reaching awareness tactics like TV behind it if you're going to get anyone to participate.")
  
  
• Email Still Works: As if reinforce the point that tactics don't die merely because they've been around awhile, a new eMarketer report announces that email is alive and well. Half of US adult e-mail users surveyed said they had made an online purchase in the previous year as a result of permission-based marketing. In addition, e-mail was second only to customer reviews on Web sites for influencing online purchases. eMarketer's report also has words of caution to email marketers: "Consumers are increasingly willing to revoke permission that they have previously granted and that the bar for relevance remains high. About one-third of respondents... said they had stopped doing business with at least one company as a result of poor e-mail marketing practices." I don't know why any of us in the marketing field would need a reminder to stay relevant, but there you have it.
  
  
• Caress Puts Words in Spokesperson's Mouth: Brandweek features an article about Unilever's new campaign for the Caress brand, featuring Nicole Scherzinger of the Pussycat Dolls. She's created a "Brazilian inspired" cover of Duran Duran's hit "Rio," which the brand is making available for download on CaressBrazilian.com. Jon Cohen, co-president of agency Cornerstone, says "It's not just enough for brands, in today's crazy media landscape, to talk about the product. We had to leverage the music and talent to really bring this brand to life." I agree, but his thoughts don't square with the overly-scripted "interview" video on the site. Nicole says, "I teamed up with Caress Brazilian Exotic Oil Infusions Body Wash to encourage women all over the world to unleash the sensual spirit and charm of Brazil on their own skin. I am so excited to be here to remake my own Brazilian version of Duran Duran's Rio for the launch of the Caress Brazilian Exotic Oil Infusions Body Wash." No one talks like that and the singer looks uncomfortable trying to string all those brand terms together. This detracts from an otherwise strong brandertainment strategy.
  
  
  
  
• Tour Earth the Twitter Way: This is more of a time waster than it is a pertinent marketing link, but you still may enjoy a visit to TwittEarth. The site presents an image of the planet, and every few seconds it shares a random Tweet, geo-located on the globe. In addition to being voyeuristic fun, TwittEarth is also an excellent reminder of how quickly social media tools such as Twitter can go global.
  

Short Takes: 4.18.08

Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:

• A Billion Dollars in Internet Advertising is Wasted: The Internet is an exciting playground for marketers, but much of online display advertising is wasted. Banner ads have their place, but far too often they are used with too little thought, as if a marketing checklist says that X% of the budget has to go to online media, so it does. Extrapolating an Eyetools/Marketing Sherpa study, Steve Rubel of Micro Persuasions estimates that a billion dollars of online ad spend is wasted each year. The study finds that ads that appear "below the fold" are seen by only 25% of those who visit a page, and Rubel uses this data to estimate how much of the $5.1 billion that is annually invested in display advertising is totally invisible to Web surfers. The moral of this story is that creativity is needed to engage online consumers and care must be taken to evaluate media options, because not all banners are created equal.
  
  
• Advertising Beside User-Generated Content Doesn't Work Either: Today appears to be the day for sobering reports on online advertising. eMarketer has an article about the failure of user-generated content (UCG) to produce significant ad revenue. Even though the number of consumers of UCG will increase from 94 million in 2007 to 130 million in 2012, "Advertising revenues are expected to stay (modest) for some time." The article quotes Andrew Keen, author of Cult of the Amateur, who said, “Nobody wants to advertise next to crap.” There is an element of truth to this, but I think there are bigger issues than quality. The most popular UCG is edgy, sexy, violent, political, or otherwise inappropriate for many brands. Plus, UCG is about consumer-to-consumer sharing; advertising beside or in UCG is as welcome as a TV ad inserted into the middle of your vacation video. All of this isn't to say UCG advertising can't be successful; just that it takes the right brand and creative to rise above the challenges.
  
  
• Alternate Reality Games Draw Attention: iMedia has a lengthy article about Alternate Reality Games (ARGs), a new genre of advergaming that uses the Internet to create involving experiences that often span the virtual and real worlds. ARGs bridge the gap between entertainment and sponsorship by engaging "the audience with the right elements of immersive storytelling matched with the right delivery mechanisms that allow suspension of disbelief and active participation in the experience." If that sounds like geek speak, check out the case studies shared in the article: "Dead Man's Tale," an interactive experience designed to showcase both Windows Live Messenger features and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," drew more than four million consumers who spent an average of 35 minutes playing the experience. McDonald's is currently sponsoring an Olympic-themed online game called The Lost Ring, which has attracted 150,000 players. ARGs aren't for every brand, but for the right brand and audience, ARGs can create the kind of attention and engagement other marketing tactics cannot touch.

Short Takes: 4.17.08

Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:

• Internet Advertising Bureau Overstates the Case: Everyone knows that User Generated Content (UCG) and Social Media are incredibly powerful forces on the Internet today, but the IAB's report on UCG is so breathlessly overstated that it seems more like advertising than an objective assessment. Rarely will a 17-page report lose me from the very first sentence, but here's how it starts: "If you’re not on a social networking site, you’re not on the Internet." No hype there! Several sentences later, the report states, "Gone are the days when power rested in the hands of a few content creators and media distributors," a statement that will come as a great surprise to Yahoo, Time Warner, and Microsoft, three of the top online content providers, collectively accounting for traffic greater than the population of the U.S. in February 2008. The report isn't a bad primer, but anyone who has been tracking social media will find this report adds more heat than light.
  
  
• More Self Promotion Masquerading as Data: Yet another report was released recently that aggressively promotes a form of online advertising without telling the whole story. Podtrac, "the leading network of podcasts", reports that podcast advertising works. (Shocking! Who would've seen that coming?) The organization studied podcast listeners and found a 73% increase in likelihood to use or buy an advertised product, which is nothing to sneeze at. Problem is, the report only shares data on those who listen to podcasts, which is a remarkably small audience. According to a 17-month-old Pew Internet study, just 1% of Internet users report downloading podcasts on any given day. If your audience is comprised of podcast listeners, podcast advertising is worthwhile, but with a such a small user base and the huge number and dispersion of podcasts, podcasts are still a very niche ad medium.
  
  
• Engagement Metrics: Pick the One That Works: Here's a very good article on MediaPost about Engagement and why it's so difficult to measure. Peter Hershberg of Reprise Media makes several terrific points. He first discusses how Time Spent is not a terribly accurate measurement of Web engagement because, "Tabbed browsing and online multitasking means people can frequently spend hours on a site without actually looking at it." (I have four tabs open, and the measurement tools for all four sites think I'm glued to their site content right now.) He goes on to make a very important point: "We all need to realize that there won't just be one standard." We marketing folks love standards, but trying to create a standard to measure engagement across RSS feeds, Twitter Tweets, Facebook, online games, brand sites, video, and the thousands of other online activities in which consumers engage is counterproductive. If you're not with the metric you love, love the one you're with!
  
• Mr. Clean Turns His Attention Toward Cars: In what seems like a smart brand extension, P&G is getting Mr. Clean into the car wash business. Results at the first two car washes have been so strong that Procter & Gamble is looking for more locations just a year after the company's first car wash opened. Waiting areas have wireless Internet, flat-screen TVs and a coffee bar serving P&G's Millstone brand. The foundation for the strategy is rock solid--provide a great experience that fits the brand, build synergy with related brands, and furnish a service consumers will welcome. It will be interesting to see how wide P&G takes this program.

Copyright Pirates: Friend or Foe?

In the category of turning lemons into lemonade, Fast Company has an interesting article about "how the pirating of intellectual property can be a good thing." At first I expected the usual libertarian rant about how "information wants to be free," but Matt Mason shares some fascinating concepts. He asks, "Are pirates a threat to be battled or innovators to be emulated?"

He suggests that piracy is a market signal that consumers want something or that something isn't working. For example, "It concerns people within Microsoft that people weren't pirating Vista; they're continuing to pirate XP." Another example of brands using piracy is the way Nike, rather than suing a guy who was ripping off their shoe designs, instead watched the way the market reacted to the garish textures and colors he used (and later became an investor).

Still, despite Mason's best effort to frame piracy as some sort of free market force, to me there's no escaping that theft has ALWAYS been a market force; we've just never tried to excuse crime as an acceptable consumer response to individual wants and needs.

For example, Mason notes that "digital distribution is a much more efficient way to deliver music than CDs and that's why people switched to it." His contention was that the market was speaking and music labels weren't listening. He may be right about the labels, but he's wrong about the market.

People began downloading music not because it was more efficient but because it was free. In fact, people first started downloading ripped CDs back when dial-up modems required hours to obtain an entire CD--hardly a more "efficient" way of getting music. And interpreting P2P distribution of stolen music as a sign consumers want a different distribution model makes about as much sense as thirty years ago saying that people stealing LPs from record stores was a sign the market was demanding a different distribution mechanism. For some portion of the market, theft will always be in demand, but it doesn't make it an appropriate market force.

I believe there has to be a place for copyright protection. Even in the day and age of digital distribution, open source, and social networks, there are things that need to be owned in order to provide return to the originator who appropriately deserves and needs the reward of creating an in-demand product. Pharmaceuticals are one such example--take away copyright protection, and the firm cannot earn back the costs to develop, test, and market the product. (Don't get me wrong, I'm upset that the investment in marketing is outstripping R&D in the pharma industry, but that's an unrelated matter.)

I also think it's fine for Nike to be open minded about a pirate stealing their designs, but stealing a design is a different thing from stealing the actual product. A person who steals the design of a physical thing must have the means of production to produce it, providing a significant (but not insurmountable) hurdle. Moreover, the author of a shoe design can still compete on the quality of the physical product. But what's left for those who make movies and audio when the free download of a stolen version is identical to the paid and legal download? If musicians, movie makers, and authors cannot earn money through the sale of their product, what's left?

Any way you slice it, piracy is still theft. You can label it a "market signal" till the cows come home, but the pirates are taking someone else's ideas, investments, and content and selling it as if they're their own. You'll note pirates don't steal the mere idea of the things they pirate--it's not as though they like Arctic Monkey's melodies but believe they can produce better songs or believe Star Wars can be shot better in 2008 than in 1977. No, they simple steal the whole thing because they can't be bothered to come up with their own original ideas, investment, or content.

Some people think piracy may be a legitimate market force or that in a new "world is flat" era we need to get used to piracy, but I think there is reason to be concerned. Even more imporant than the rights of authors and owners, I grow concerned about what piracy (and our growing acceptance of piracy) might do to our economic model. There already has been an economic paradigm that removed rewards for concept authorship and ownership. It was called communism, and it didn't work.

Short Takes: 4.14.08

Here are some interesting XM and online marketing news items and links for your perusal:

• Experiential is Big at Promotion Marketing Association Conference: Brandweek has an article about the Promotion Marketing Assn.'s annual conference in Chicago, where "Experiential marketing was the flavor of the day." (I cringe when the idea of creating memorable brand-building experiences is called a "flavor of the day.") The article mentions McDonald's "The Lost Ring" program, an interactive story where players (1.5 million so far) look for clues to solve a riddle in an alternate reality game, and 7-Eleven, which made headlines by converting 12 stores into Kwik-E-Marts in partnership with The Simpsons Movie. Much focus is placed on measurement, but I couldn't agree more with Lisa Klauser, Unilever's vp-consumer and customer solutions, who notes that ROI metrics are important, but to forgo a shopper marketing campaign because there isn't yet a standard metric for in-store media could mean missing out on growth opportunities. Read the entire Brandweek article here.
  
  
• Agency Sends RFPs to Prospects: I think the RFP is becoming the bane of marketing, so I respect what ad agency Trumpet is trying to do by reframing RFP from "Request for Proposal" to "Request for Problem." The agency sent hundreds of "Golden RFPs" to CMOs, CEOs and marketing directors, encouraging them to fill out the a survey of 19 questions designed to root out key marketing problems. The agency has received 70 responses and has used them to call prospects to clarify the RFP answers and then provide possible solutions to the companies. Check out more on Trumpet's unique RFP twist on Media Creativity.
  
  
• Nike Goes Too Far: I've discussed on this blog how viral media usually includes an element of risk or edginess, but I have to say I think Nike crossed the not-so-thin line with their new YouTube video. Given the much-publicized case of a child injured attempting to leap over a moving car, it seems awfully unwise for Nike to be featuring a video of Kobe Bryant doing exactly the same thing. Yes, he says "Do not try this at home," but only after celebrating his successful stunt. Nike's managed to turn the tagline "Just Do It" into an almost spiritual call for self improvement; turning it into a call to risk one's life for a Jackass stunt seems to move the brand in the wrong direction.
  
  
  
  
• Sony Invites You To Foam City: Sony recently created a unique event that's been buzzed about online. It involved a huge wall of foam let loose in Miami. The event was part of the effort to create another in the series of artful Sony spots, and the video has just hit the Web. It's eye-catching, hard to ignore, and should stand out online and on TV.
  

I Have A Dream, and It Isn't a Black Search Engine

Mediaweek is reporting on a new search engine focused on African Americans. IAC and subsidiary Black Web Enterprises say that RushmoreDrive.com is the "first-ever search engine catering specifically to African American interests." The site works on a patented algorithm that determines which Web sites are most frequently visited by African Americans, then merges that data into a mainstream search crawl.

I am deeply conflicted about this new site. On the one hand, focusing on the needs of a group of people with similar surfing habits and information goals simply makes sense. But we're not talking about a content site here; we're talking about a search engine.

The key to success for search engines is to provide the most relevant results, and I suppose if RushmoreDrive provides results that are viewed as being more relevant to a portion of the Internet audience, more power to it. But when a user enters search terms such as "New York Giants," "Internet Marketing Job Openings," or "Beyonce," does the race of the searcher really matter? It's hard for me to imagine that the way we search and the results we expect are related to the color of our skin.

Maybe the problem I have with the concept has nothing to do with marketing and much to do with my world