What exactly does Jeff Bezos have up his sleeve with the purchase of The Washington Post? Time will tell, but the newspaper industry Bezos is entering is certainly in need of change. With continued downward trends, the newspaper business could use a little of the magic that has made Amazon #13 on the Fortune 500 list and Bezos the 19th wealthiest person in the world. (The $250 million that Bezos spent on The Post represents roughly one percent of the Amazon founder's personal net worth.)

Jeff Bezos isn't alone in buying a newspaper--fellow billionaire Warren Buffett has been on a newspaper buying spree himself, acquiring 28 daily newspapers in the past two years. Buffett's strategy has been to go local. In his words, "Wherever there is a pervasive sense of community, a paper that serves the special informational needs of that community will remain indispensable to a significant portion of its residents." So, although he expects "Berkshire’s cash earnings from its papers will almost certainly trend downward over time," Buffett also predicts, "these papers will meet or exceed our economic test for acquisitions."

For his part, Bezos hasn't said much about his strategy. In an inspirational letter to The Washington Post's employees, he noted the following about the need for change at The Post:

There will, of course, be change at The Post over the coming years. That’s essential and would have happened with or without new ownership. The Internet is transforming almost every element of the news business: shortening news cycles, eroding long-reliable revenue sources, and enabling new kinds of competition, some of which bear little or no news-gathering costs. There is no map, and charting a path ahead will not be easy. We will need to invent, which means we will need to experiment. Our touchstone will be readers, understanding what they care about – government, local leaders, restaurant openings, scout troops, businesses, charities, governors, sports – and working backwards from there. I’m excited and optimistic about the opportunity for invention.

What might Bezos do with The Post? He has implied he will be a hands-off owner, saying "I won’t be leading The Washington Post day-to-day. I am happily living in 'the other Washington." That strikes me as unlikely for a CEO know for his "hands-on" style. Perhaps there are hints in Bezos' Amazon past that suggest what is next for The Post:

• A better user experience: Bezos has often said that his key to success was not simply knowing technology but focusing on the user experience. With Kindle and The Post, he has an opportunity to reframe what it means to read, consume, share and participate in the news.
    
• A strong voice for the reader: Amazon was an early leader in giving consumers' the chance to rate products and each other, something we all take for granted today. There is no place where online news can more improve--and no better way to make news sites "sticky"--than to improve the commenting functionality. Today, most news sites are vast wastelands of trolls and partisan flamers; a new approach could draw more reasonable readers into the dialog and connect them more strongly both to the news and news provider.
    
• Not a news site; a news platform: Amazon is no longer simply a site that sells stuff; it is now a powerful cloud platform used by other companies. A recent Forrester survey found that Amazon Web services is the most common choice for enterprise cloud development among software developers, and Amazon recently announced that "other revenue"--which largely consists of Amazon Web Services--was up 59% from a year ago. How could Bezos spark not just innovation for The Post but create a platform that could be sold to (and help) other news organizations?
    
• Local classifieds make a return?  Almost two decades ago, eBay, Craigslist and (to a lesser extent) Amazon put newspapers out of the classifieds business. Newspaper classified ad revenue--once a vital source of revenue for newspapers--is down 75% in the past twelve years. Could Amazon bring peer-to-peer business back to news organizations? With the growth of the sharing economy, it seems a terrific time for the local newspaper to attempt to reassert itself in the neighbor-to-neighbor commerce business by bringing to market new, innovative P2P offerings. 

Bezos and Buffett are entering a troubled business. As noted in the infographic below, the newspaper industry has seen declines in everything from circulation to ad revenue to consumer trust. But there are brighter signs, as well, with circulation revenue stabilizing and online newspaper visitors, reach and time trending upwards (ever so slightly).

It will be interesting to see what newspapers do differently under the leadership of Bezos and Buffet. Both have a knack for making the right financial decisions, although they are also known for taking a longer view on ROI than is typical in business today. Don't expect any changes overnight, but watch for the newspaper industry to get more innovative and even more digital in the years to come.

...(Subtitled) Or at Least Marketing as We Know It!

[Please note this blog article was posted simultaneously with my new Forrester blog at http://blogs.forrester.com/marketing/
2009/12/2010-the-year-marketing-dies.html.]

It is that time of year when every blogger, reporter and analyst is publishing their 2010 Social Media and marketing predictions.  (It's a rather odd phenomenon--aren't we interested in what's happening in the next twelve months other than in December?)  Forrester's own Social Media prediction report will soon be released, but I'd like to make my own big prediction:  2010 will be the year marketing--as we know it--dies.  Let's explore the trends and what they mean to marketers.

Marketing's been under attack for some time, but in 2009 we witnessed the most profound evolution the marketing world has seen in fifty years or more.  The pace of change is not going to lessen in 2010.  Core elements that have driven marketing practices for decades--such as messaging strategy, mass media, PR, advertising, and others--will continue to change rapidly.

The latest news from the print world is unsurprising:  Average weekday circulation at 379 U.S. newspapers fell 10.6% during the six months ending in September--the steepest decline ever recorded by the Audit Bureau of Circulations.  And although a recent study found that consumer spending on subscription media increased 7% in the past year, that didn't mean subscriptions in the traditional sense--the number of households subscribing to magazines dropped two percentage points while subscriptions for home video and smartphone services were both up.

On the television front, households with DVRs tripled in just three years, more consumers are avoiding ads, and a majority feels there is "too much advertising."  One cannot help but feel sorry for networks and media companies worried about matching ad revenue to expenses, but their response is a bit hard to swallow. TiVo is showing ads to viewers as they are trying to skip other ads, and TNS Media Intelligence tells us that "marketing content represents 43 percent of a prime-time hour"--11:46 minutes per hour of in-show Brand Appearances (a 31% increase from a year ago) and 14:07 of network commercial messages.

Certainly, someone has to pay for Fringe, Glee, and The Office to be produced, but chasing down consumers and bludgeoning them with more advertising messages hardly feels like an effective strategy. (By the way, I selected those three shows for a reason: according to the latest Entertainment Weekly, almost one in five people viewing those programs is time shifting, and you can guess what that means for advertisers.)

The story on the Internet isn't much better.  Hulu is striving mightily to avoid being forced to go the way of TV and load their content with more ads.  Social Media sites like Facebook are so loaded with ads that a consumer spending ten minutes on the site might be exposed to as many as 90 easy-to-ignore ads.  To improve low attention and meager clickthrough rates, advertisers hope to enhance their targeting of consumers based on their online behavior, but the long-threatened intervention of the government may be at hand.  This year could finally be the year that the Feds change the way online advertising works; said  FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz recently, "We're at another watershed moment in privacy, and the time is right for the commission ... to take a broader look at privacy."

Marketers have, of course, taken note of the power of Social Media, but they continue to struggle with what to do and how to measure it.  In a recent study, 64% of CMOs said they plan to increase their social media budgets next year, but "at least half of respondents expressed uncertainty about ROI."  It strikes me as quite concerning that the top metrics being utilized--mentioned by more than 80% of the CMOs--aren't deep measures of influence or attitude but shallow measures of presence, such as number of fans and page views.

Meanwhile, it's possible (although not likely) that the Social Media landscape could change yet again if Facebook stumbles in 2010. (Don't think it could happen?  Remember that 13 months ago MySpace was drawing more visitors than Facebook;  today Facebook draws 150% more than MySpace.)  Facebook is facing potentially serious challenges.  Some are predicting that young people could soon stream off the site to avoid status updates from mom and dad; by one report, just 50% of the 15-24 crowd is checking Facebook regularly, compared to 55% last year.  More people are complaining (and suing) about being caught in scams from third-party developers on Facebook.  And faced with the growing privacy concerns of its users, how did Facebook react?  By implementing changes that many feel make it not just more difficult to protect their privacy, but actually remove privacy protections from some sorts of data.

Facebook seems unlikely to go the way of Friendster (if for no other reason than a serious competitor has yet to emerge), but even if Facebook finds itself being MySpaced in 2010, Social Media is here to stay.  The influence of the masses will only continue to grow as Social Media tools improve and more and older consumers climb the Social Technographics Ladder, moving from Inactives, Spectators, and Joiners to Collectors, Critics, and Creators.

Social Media has just begun to change the way marketing and business operates. The coming year will see advertising put under the microscope by a connected, savvy, and critical consumer (just ask Motrin and Unilever).  Consumers will use Social Media to exert more influence over marketing and business decisions (see Tropicana and EA).  The best practices for brands in Social Media will continue to evolve (and woe be to brands caught violating consumer trust, as demonstrated by recent missteps by individuals at Honda and Belkin).  And some multi-million-dollar marketing budgets will be challenged and undermined by simple consumer-generated videos (see the Domino's employee video--or better yet, don't!)

As we enter 2010, consumers have new partners that will help to expand the reach of Social Media dialog even further--the big three search sites.  Bing, Yahoo and Google recently made changes to the way their search engines index the real-time web, and status updates and tweets are rapidly finding their way into top search results.  This means that consumers searching for brands and campaigns are increasingly likely to see results that include blogged and tweeted criticisms as they are links to official brand sites.

The search engine changes mean that 2010 will be the year when brands can run but they cannot hide.  Gone are the days when marketers could carefully craft messaging and then broadcast that message in a few channels to huge portions of their audiences.  Oh, you can still spend money that way if you want to but in our transparent world, no marketing budget can possibly overcome the actual experience consumers have (and share with friends, followers and Google) with the product, service, or organization.  It no longer matters what you say;  in 2010, your brand will be more defined by what you do and who you are!

Of course, if marketing burns to the ground in 2010, a new and more powerful marketing will rise from the ashes.  The role of the new marketer:

• Won't be simply to focus on outbound messaging but to consult with sales, customer service, and human resources on how the brand must be communicated in every consumer interaction, every tweet, and every touchpoint,
• Won't be merely to imagine creative messages but to fashion programs that are seamless with the actual product and service experience,
• Won't be to plan bursts of communication on a yearlong calendar but to respond to and be part of the ever-changing dialog with consumers, 
• Won't be to count friends, page visits, eyeballs, readers, or viewers but to measure changes in consumer attitude and intent,
• Won't be merely to talk at consumers but to listen and engage one to one,
• Won't be to build campaigns but relationships,
• Won't be to create impressions but experiences, and
• Won't be buy media but to earn it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Yahoo adds another touch of Twitter to search (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Advertising: Groups Far Apart on Online Privacy Oversight (nytimes.com)
• Facebook's Loosening of Privacy Controls Spark a Backlash (wired.com)

FOX News led their "Click This" segment with a laugh and this assertion: "If you feel like you're missing out on this Twitter thing, don't worry, because 40% of the tweets are just pointless babble." Courtney Friel delivered the line in the sort of disparaging tone FOX usually reserves for Nancy Pelosi.
My gripe isn't only with FOX News; other news sources were quick to jump on the story. For example, V3 featured an article titled, "Twitter is no business tool, says research," which claimed the findings of a Twitter study, "pour(s) cold water on suggestions that Twitter can be used as an effective business tool and news source." That will come as a surprise to the millions of people effectively using Twitter as a news source or the thousands of businesses of all sizes that are already seeing benefits from using Twitter.

The latest Nielsen Global Online Consumer Survey has been released, and it serves as yet another reminder of just how little consumers trust what brands and marketers tell them. The report should provide Social Media practitioners with further support for increased spending on Social Media, since it is clear the way for brands to earn trust is to get consumers talking to each other.

Just 55 percent of consumers have any degree of trust (defined by Nielsen as respondents indicating they "completely" or "somewhat" trust information) in the emails they sign up for, radio ads, and billboards. A slightly higher percentage--around 60 percent--trust the information they receive from advertising in magazines, in newspapers, and on television. Despite Federal law, enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, that requires advertising be truthful and fair, barely half of consumers trust what brands say in their marketing communications.

Traditional media fared pretty poorly in the Nielsen report, and some forms of online marketing scored even worse--far less than 50% of consumers expressed any degree of trust in search engine ads, banner ads, and text ads on cell phones. But the news was much better for Public Relations, Digital Marketing, and Social Media Marketing, because those are the areas in which consumers have the greatest level of trust. The four highest media for trust were:

• Recommendations from people known: 90%
• Consumers opinions posted online: 70%
• Brand Web sites: 70%
• Editorial content (e.g., newspaper article): 69%

It comes as no surprise that consumers would trust the opinions of people they already know, but I think it is a little shocking to consider the trust placed in the opinions of others with whom they are unfamiliar. Think of it this way: Consumers more trust the unsubstantiated, unregulated, anonymous, and grammatically dubious ramblings of complete strangers than they do the expensive, carefully-vetted, beautifully-executed, government-regulated ads placed on TV, radio, and in print.

If you read Experience: The Blog regularly, you'll recognize a recurring theme is that marketers must stop focusing so much effort on broadcasting messages at consumers and put greater effort toward engaging consumers with marketing that is respectful, desired, authentic, personalized, conversational, and valued. The findings of this Nielsen report add to the evidence that the shift toward more social and influence-inducing marketing is vital.

If you are a marketer at an organization, here's a quick exercise: Check your budget for the amount being spent on media buys; now compare this to allocation for PR, your Web site, and Social Media (even assuming there is a Social Media line item). My guess would be few (if any) marketing budgets in 2009 assign greater investments to Social Media, media relations, and digital marketing--channels that earn the greatest level of consumer trust--than to buying media.

To be fair, trust is just one emotional component of advertising, and there are obviously tasks for which print and TV ads are better suited than Web sites, Social Media, and PR, such as broadcasting a tightly-defined message with a great deal of scale. Still, how valuable is broadcasting a message in a medium in which almost half of consumers feel no degree of trust? (We can now respond to John Wanamaker's famous complaint, "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." It's the half of all media lost to a lack of trust on the part of the target audience!)

There are signs that budgets are shifting toward Social Media. In March of this year, eMarketer reported on a study by the Aberdeen Group that found "63% of the companies in their survey (defined as best-in-class) planned to increase their social media marketing budgets this year." One in five companies expected to increase their Social Media spending by more than 25 percent, and another 16 percent were planning for an increase of 11 to 25 percent.

This is good news to be sure, but the big percentages may hide what is still extremely modest investment in Social Media. In the same month the Aberdeen Group report was published, Adweek described a Forrester Research study that found "75 percent of marketers have budgeted less than $100,000 for social media efforts over the next year." That great big 25 percent increase could bring Social Media Spending in many companies from $100,000 all the way up to $125,000 (roughly enough to add a Social Media intern)!

Brands certainly cannot give up mass media, but in an age where consumer perception of advertising messages is being filtered through layers of mistrust and marginalized by cynicism, the time has come to make a serious commitment establishing our brands in the ways consumers trust. Soon, being the loudest and broadest messenger in a medium consumers don't trust simply won't count as much as being the most authentic, available, and accessible brand in the media consumers do.

Newspapers are dead. PR is dead. So many people are ready to give last rites to the news gathering and reporting business that you'd think news itself was on its deathbed.

Of course, there has never been more demand for information and knowledge than there is today. Technology may threaten the revenue models and delivery methods of news, but it also is presenting new ways for journalists to promote themselves, connect to audiences, build networks, and gather information.

I had the opportunity to learn how Social Media is challenging and assisting journalists when I met with Tannette Johnson-Elie, a business columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Johnson-Elie, who has been with the Journal Sentinel for almost 20 years, is an active Twitter user. I was curious why she chose Twitter, the value she's finding in microblogging, and how Twitter and other Social Media tools are affecting the world of journalism.

As an observer of business, Johnson-Elie has been aware of Social Media for a couple years, but she didn't jump into Twitter until after writing a story about Social Media site, LinkedIn. The article became the most read story on JSOnline.com that day, and she realized, "We've tapped into an audience of people who are hungry to connect better." This led the journalist in her to begin to seek out more information about Social Media and to experience Twitter for herself. Since then, she has written popular articles about Facebook and Twitter.

As she ventured into Twitter, she thought, like many entrepreneurs, that the site may provide a great way to promote her column and JSOnline.com. And, like many of us, Johnson-Elie came to find that the greatest value of participating on Twitter is in gaining a network of peers and getting to know new people. As a journalist, Johnson-Elie is finding that she is relying less on her traditional network of contacts and more on Twitter--it's easier to send a Tweet to her 292 followers in order to gather information or find a new source than it is to pick up the phone and start working her call list.

Twitter is providing other unexpected benefits for Johnson-Elie. She is finding that Twitter is allowing her to explore interests beyond her day job. For example, she following a couple of beatboxers and music professionals on Twitter because her son has an interest in the music industry. Likewise, through her use of Twitter, she believes other are getting a "glimpse of who (she is) beyond her role as a journalist."

One thing that disappointed Johnson-Elie was an inability to track the clicks from the links she posted to Twitter. Like many others, she'd been using TinyURL.com to shorten and redirect links from Twitter. If you share this challenge with her, you may be interested in BudURL.com, a site that works in the same way as TinyUrl and Is.Gd, but also provides a means to track the number and source of clicks.

As of yet, Johnson-Elie is not finding that she's receiving a great deal of PR spam, which I found (pleasantly) surprising. She's being discriminating about who she follows, and so far has only blocked one person.

Johnson-Elie says she finds it acceptable when Twitter followers share interesting and relevant news about their company and products, but she's "not interested in companies promoting themselves and trying to sell products all the time." Johnson-Elie furnishes an example of one such Twitterer who crossed the line. This individual represented a restaurant chain, and every time Johnson-Elie shared anything on Twitter having to do with food or hunger, she received a response with a suggestion to try a different menu item; any time Johnson-Elie mentioned she was hungry or going to lunch, her Twitter follower responded with another spammy menu suggestion. This quickly turned annoying and hurt rather than helped her impression of the restaurant chain.

Johnson-Elie offers advice for Public Relations professionals looking to network with her and other journalists on Twitter: Connect with her first, demonstrate your interests and knowledge through your Tweets, build rapport, and she will then be more open to receiving news and information about your company or products. Johnson-Elie suggests that PR professionals watch for her tweets that ask for assistance, and if you have knowledge or information that may help, this is the best way to connect.

Johnson-Elie believes other journalists may find as much value as she has on Twitter. She's observed slow but steady adoption by her peers of Twitter and quite a bit of usage of other Social Media tools such as LinkedIn and Facebook. On Twitter, she is following a few journalists with other news organizations, including Rick Sanchez at CNN and Lynn Sweet with the Sun Times, but Johnson-Elie has thus far seen few reporters leveraging Twitter as much as she.

I wondered if she, as an employee of a major metropolitan newspaper, might foresee or predict a place for the printed news in the long term, but like many others Johnson-Elie recognizes the days of the physical newspaper are numbered. She sees Social Media not as a threat but as a means to help newspapers with the transition: "It is vital to capture and engage the audience; one way to do that is through Social Media, which can help us build our brand."

Like all of us, she believes it is unavoidable that journalists and news organizations continue to embrace social media, but she cautions we are venturing into unknown territory. "There are no rules," Johnson-Elie notes. We spoke about a recent well-publicized incident where a reporter live Twittered from the funeral of a three-year-old accident victim. Johnson-Elie notes that, as always, "you have to use your judgment. Do you really need to let the world know at that moment?"

I provided Johnson-Elie an opportunity to share her thoughts on blogs and "citizen journalists." I wasn't sure if a professional journalist would respect the efforts of amateur reporters, but just like the rest of us, she finds value in them--to a point. While Johnson-Elie "respect(s) people who blog" and "welcome(s) people being enterprising," she notes there's "a lot to be said for what trained professional journalists bring to the table." She points out that journalists offer strong research capabilities, large networks of sources, access to important sources, and knowledge of the beats to which they are assigned.

Johnson-Elie is concerned about the misinformation that can be disseminated from blogs and the impact this can have. She cited a recent incident with her husband, who is a banker. In the midst of the recent banking crisis, he read some concerning information about his employer on a blog. She suggested he seek out legitimate sources of information to confirm the report, and he came to learn the information was false. We all know this, of course, but Johnson-Elie reminds us, "Just because it's been posted doesn't make it fact."

In the end, it seemed that Johnson-Elie's experiences and insights as a journalist were quite similar to my own as a marketing professional--we both are finding the same sorts of value, challenges, and surprises as we engage in Social Media. Johnson-Elie also shares the same advice that I have often offered to newbies as they venture into Twitter and other Social Media: "Keep an open mind."

How have your experiences using Twitter or other Social Media sites different from your expectations? Your comments and insights would be appreciated.

Although Social Media is still in its infancy, we've already seen quite a few occurrences when brands have been challenged by the explosive dissemination of adverse information through Social Media channels. There are few if any examples of best practices for Social Media Crisis Management, and some brands have appeared to stumble by relying on traditional channels to combat negative content spreading via Social Media.

One of the more famous examples of how far bad news can travel is Comcast's sleeping technician; two years ago, Brian Finkelstein uploaded video he captured of a Comcast employee who had fallen asleep in Brian's home while waiting on hold for Comcast home office support. Since then, the video of this embarrassing incident has been viewed 1.3 million times on YouTube, has become an inseparable part of Comcast's history on Wikipedia, and will live forever in tens of thousands of links on Google.

Here's another example that highlights the incredible speed of Social Media: On August 13th, a video posted by MySpace's Mr. Unstable started spreading like wildfire; the video showed the (now former) Burger King employee taking a bath in the kitchen sink of the Xenia, OH restaurant. Within a few days, the video had been viewed around 750,000 times on Break.com and YouTube, and news appeared on all major online news outlets including MSNBC.com, CNN.com, FOXNEWS.com and the Drudge Report. The number of negative impressions generated by Mr. Unstable within a couple days was equal to many months of traffic to BurgerKing.com.

Companies have long understood the need and value of crisis management, but the interconnectedness of consumers and speed at which gossip and complaints can spread give Public Relations Crisis Management renewed importance. Burger King's actions in this situation provide a good case study to consider the best and most appropriate way to respond when a Social Media disaster demands action. In this case, Burger King responded through traditional channels, talking to reporters and sending an email to news outlets that said:

"Burger King Corp. was just notified of this incident and is cooperating fully with the health department. We have sanitized the sink and have disposed of all other kitchen tools and utensils that were used during the incident. We have also taken appropriate corrective action on the employees that were involved in the video. Additionally, the remaining staff at this restaurant is being retrained in health and sanitation procedures."

Was this a sufficient response? I think it's reasonable to suggest that Burger King might have delivered their positive response to a much wider audience had they explored Social Media and not just traditional media.

Consider that those disgusting videos continue to appear and be viewed on YouTube. Consumers who see the videos won't seek out news reports, and as a result will not learn that Burger King took assertive and prompt actions to discipline employees, retrain the staff, dispose of tainted utensils and sanitize the sink. With no company-created video response on YouTube, consumers in search of information about the incident get nothing but the stomach-turning video of Mr. Unstable.

What might Burger King have done to better inform consumers who are exposed to the negative information in Social Media and not the company's positive response in traditional media? Respond in kind! With adverse and threatening content spreading via video, the best and most lasting response would have been in video.

An assertive video response strategy would have been to acknowledge the specific incident and address what was done to rectify the problems. A Social Media Video News Release might have given consumers a tour of the sparkling clean Xenia kitchen, demonstrated how the sink was sanitized multiple times, and shown the utensils that were discarded. This approach would've permitted Burger King to address the specific concerns of customers in Xenia, and in doing so would've conveyed to consumers across the country the company's commitment to safe and healthy food preparation.

Brands often have concerns about addressing problems so directly out of fear any acknowledgment will only cause the adverse information to spread even further. In this case, a less straightforward video strategy might have been executed. Instead of directly addressing the Xenia situation, Burger King might have produced a video showing all of the steps that are taken at every restaurant to ensure cleanliness and compliance with health codes. They might have included brief interviews with actual employees or franchisees who conveyed how seriously they take their responsibility for maintaining sanitary kitchen conditions.

Of course, no one believes a positive, company-sponsored video will be viewed as many times as a scandalous video that embarrasses a national brand, but by responding to a video with a video, Burger King could have increased the possibility of reaching consumers where it really mattered. By launching an informative and favorable video on YouTube with the appropriate title and tags, people searching for "Burger King sink" or "Burger King Xenia" could have come across and viewed the company's own video.

If even a fraction of the people who watched Mr. Unstable's YouTube performance also saw Burger King's response, that could have had a more lasting and meaningful impression than an email to reporters; after all, traditional news outlets were far more interesting in playing up the salacious story to grab viewers' attention than they were in conveying Burger King's spin. In this news report from WDTN, the reporter calls Mr. Unstable's video "disturbing" and "shocking" and dedicates twice as much time to interviewing an appalled consumer as to sharing the company's response and actions.

In the age of Social Media, the best response when YouTube or the blogosphere is on fire is to fight fire with fire. Press releases and emails to TV and print outlets are still necessary, but they really don't permit the company to reach consumers where they are or to combat negative PR with the speed of Social Media.

We've already seen it many times, and it will happen many, many more times in the future. The sweep of the Internet combined with the power of Social Media is amplifying brand missteps and furnishing mass media-like reach to consumers. Situations that a couple years ago would have been small and contained today are making an impression upon thousands and even millions of customers, prospects, and investors.

Here's a recent example: A wine critic perpetrated a hoax upon Wine Spectator magazine. He created a Web site for a fake restaurant, then submitted the restaurant for the magazine's award of excellence. Despite the fact the wine list was "well-stocked with dogs" likened to "paint thinner and nail varnish," the imaginary restaurant won the award. The critic, Robin Goldstein, believes his prank proves that Wine Spectator is more interested in the award entrance fee than with maintaining minimum standards.

Goldstein posted his story to his Wine Economics blog and to the fake restaurant's blog. From there it was picked up by the Chicago Tribune and LA Times. The story has been carried further on beverage-related blogs such as Daily Blender and Scotch Talk. A Google search on the faux restaurant's name results in more than 70 news article hits from around the globe and almost 3,000 Web hits. In the last several days, dozens of Twitter users have Tweeted the news and links to thousands of followers. Wine Spectator's Wikipedia entry has already been updated with the incident, ensuring the magazine will be associated with the award embarrassment for years to come. The publicity has put Wine Spectator on the defensive; they posted a response, including accusations Goldstein isn't telling the entire story, within their online forum.

The interesting aspect of this is that Goldstein presented details of his hoax at a meeting of the American Association of Wine Economists, a group that I'm guessing doesn't even number in the thousands. Not so many years ago, Goldstein's story would've been an amusing tale passed among a small group of elite wine professionals, but today the story is being heard by hundreds of thousands. In less than two weeks and with a budget that I suspect is $0, Goldstein has reached an audience that is much greater than Wine Spectator's circulation of 350,000.

Remember the good old days when we used to be concerned that a consumer who experienced a bad customer service situation would tell 10 or 20 people? How does 1.3 million sound? The reach, power, and economy of Social Media can perhaps best be demonstrated by one of the most often repeated stories of Social Media embarrassment: the sleeping Comcast service tech. To date, the famous video shot by a disgruntled customer has been viewed almost 1.3 million times.

Just a decade ago, getting DVDs into the hands of 1.3M people would've required an investment of millions of dollars for replication, packaging, and postage (even assuming you already had a list of 1.3M addresses). But in 2007 , a "regular Joe" with no special marketing contacts or media acumen was able to get his video in front of that many people for a budget of absolutely nothing.

There was a time not long ago that brands and media partners controlled every means of mass communication; today, a guy who bathes in a Burger King sink has practically the same reach as the $3.5 billion fast food chain. Sure, Burger King has the power to blast messages across network television and reach every person who watches "Dancing With the Stars," but the advertising message doesn't hold interest, create buzz, or stick in the mind like one gross kid in a sink.

We can't be sure, but it seems likely that Wine Spectator, Burger King, and Comcast have collectively suffered financial losses that total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in reduced sales, damaged reputation, and PR crisis management. And all it took was three people clicking "Submit" buttons.

In the future, you will hear a lot about how Social Media shifts power away from brands and towards consumers. The Wine Spectator, Burger King, and Comcast examples plainly demonstrate what this means.

It must be a terrible time to be in the television business. Consumer media habits are shifting and it must seem every day brings news of a new competitor or new challenge. Here are some of those news items from just the past couple of days:

• Xbox Live to Premiere Original Comedic Shorts: Remember the good old days when TV networks had a virtual monopoly on daily consumer entertainment? Nowadays, everyone is a competitor, including gaming consoles: Microsoft’s Xbox Live is set to premiere seven original comedic shorts this fall which have been produced by several high-profile talents from the horror movie world. Microsoft hopes to turn one or more of them into a series or movie franchise. The shorts "will be ad supported in some fashion."
  
  
• Radio Getting "Visual": This news items almost seems like a continuation of the last one. Radio now wants a piece of television's action by becoming more visual. CBS Radio has announced the launch of a new video platform for its radio station Web sites. The new platform gives 140 radio stations "the ability to create personalized branded video players to feature station content, such as music videos, artist interviews, live concert performances, breaking news and original programming, and allows stations to syndicate content or embed clips to be shared via social networking."
  
  
• Dramatic Transformation of Marketing and Media: In an interview with Strategy + Business, Booz & Company Partner Christopher Vollmer shares his thoughts on the "dramatic transformation of marketing and media." He notes that "in just the last few years, there’s been explosive growth in the amount of time consumers spend online, " and he predicts that "as people become more accustomed to dealing with media that’s on demand and better aimed at their interests and behaviors, they’re going to find that they want to spend more time in targeted media environments."
  
  Vollmer predicts continued migration to entertainment or information platforms where consumers choose how they interact with programming and content, such as video games, video on demand, and online media.
  
  
• Will the Product Placement Gravy Train be Derailed?: With consumers increasingly skipping ads, broadcasters have grown their revenue stream by collecting cash from marketers in exchange for their products getting into scripts and the hands of characters. Never mind that consumers find product placement increasingly annoying and distracting, this form of marketing has seen explosive growth: Advertisers spent $2.9 billion in 2007 to place their products in TV shows and movies, up 33.7% from the year before, and prime-time product placements on broadcast networks rose 39 percent in the first three months of this year, from the comparable period in 2007.
  
  All this growth was liable to draw attention, and now the FCC is opening an investigation into the use of undisclosed paid product placements in broadcast TV shows. Seeking to alert consumers when they are seeing paid advertising, several proposals are being consider. Some are pretty minor, such as increasing the font used to disclose product placement during shows' credits, but some consumer groups are looking for far more, such as a crawl in the middle of shows to disclose when paid product placement is on screen.
  
  
• Daily Video Entertainment in 2013 Will Be Less Than 50% Traditional TV: According to the Multiplatform Video Report released by Solutions Research Group, television viewing is projected to remain stable between now and 2013 in terms of hours but will drop as a percentage of the time consumers spend with video entertainment. This is because consumers will continue to increase their usage of PC and mobile video while TV viewing will remain stagnant. TV's share of the total video entertainment pie is projected to shrink from 63.9% today to 47.1% by 2013.
  
  And even though the hours spent with TV will remain constant, the report predicts that "the ratio of 'linear' to 'time-shifted' programming will continue to change in favor of time-shifting," which means (not surprisingly) even more opportunities for consumers to zap ads on broadcast television.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of free network television in the years to come. With consumers ever more in control of their media consumption, traditional TV will continue to get squeezed in relation to other more targeted, measurable, and consumer-welcomed forms of marketing.

The constant news about Social Media and Word of Mouth (WOM) is impressive. It's voluminous. It's constant. And it's a little boring.

I'm a Social Media convert and I hate to sound jaded, but the barrage of news, case studies, and reports that indicate people listen to each other is getting mundane. Every day, it seems a new report or press release arrives in my RSS feed indicating WOM works; it's as regular as the sun coming up and Twitter going down.

In some respects, it's a bit funny and a little sad that some people need a report or case study to prove that something that's worked in the real world since the beginning of human existence--people listening and talking to each other--is also effective online. But apparently they do, so here is this week's batch of social media examples and studies for your consideration:

• Opinion Research tells us that consumer reviews play a big part in purchase decisions for online shoppers. Sixty one percent of respondents said they had checked online reviews, blogs and other online customer feedback before buying a new product or service, and of those who looked for reviews and other feedback, eighty-three percent said such evaluations had at least some influence on their purchases. eMarketer reports that online shoppers value product reviews from other consumers even more highly than professional reviews. How many reviews does it take to convince a shopper? Nearly one-half of US consumers surveyed who shopped online four or more times per year and spent at least $500 said they needed four to seven customer reviews before making a purchase decision.
  
  
• The Wall Street Journal reminds us that the best way to build Word of Mouth isn't to create a Facebook profile, to Tweet, or to blog--it's to offer products and service that get people talking. The WSJ shares a brief interview with Marka Hansen, president of Gap North America, who pulled the retailer's high-profile TV ads in order to focus first on getting things right in the stores. With sales lagging, the brand needed something to get people talking. Says Hansen, "You don't want to have everybody over to your house for dinner unless you are sure the food is going to taste good and the house is cleaned up. So we have been working hard to make sure we get the product piece right and let the word of mouth happen."
  
  
• Of course, another way to get people talking is to hit the right chord with consumers via advertising. Here's the story of a small Chicken Finger restaurant in Mobile, AL that lashed out at Boeing and ended up sparking enormous WOM, and it all began with a single billboard, if you can believe that. Mobile's future as a major manufacturer of large airplanes was put in jeopardy when Boing complained to the the Government Accountability Office about the bidding process. Boeing won their appeal, and the restaurant decided to express its feelings with a billboard reading, "We would like to offer Boeing a finger." The billboard was front page news in the local newspaper, was covered by all three network affiliates, and currently has 631 mentions on the internet. Giving people something to talk about is still--obviously--the best way to get them talking!
  

A MediaPost article leads with a sentence that is intended to catch readers' attention: A Magna Global report contains a "warning that the 'hyper acceleration' of some of the fastest growing emerging media platforms appears to be slowing." If that statement doesn't square with your perceptions or expectations, don't be alarmed. That assertion isn't completely wrong, but neither is it completely right.

At the rear of the Magna Global report is a chart that provides a much more accurate view of the continued strong growth in emerging media. The agency is forecasting a very healthy 31.1% rate of growth for emerging media in 2009.

While that figure is lower than 2008's 39.2% and 2007's 54.4%, this is a case of constant rapid growth causing the use of year-over-year percentages to paint an inaccurate picture. In 2008, these channels are expected to increase by $3.4 billion, and in 2009 by $3.86 billion. That's correct--the year that is "slowing" will actually see greater growth in terms of dollars.

The reason the 2009 forecast has greater dollar but smaller percentage growth is because many of the emerging media saw minuscule spending just two years ago, so modest spending growth produced enormous percentage growth in recent years. Of the seven media considered, just two accounted for over $1 billion of ad spend in 2006. The other five--Social Media, Gaming, Online Video, Mobile, and Advanced TV--together represented just over $750 million in 2006 but will command over $3 billion in 2009. This represents growth of 60% per year over this period.

It's interesting to see how the continued strong growth of ad spending in emerging media stacks up against traditional media. Magna Global issued a sister report that provides an estimate for 2008 growth in national, traditional ad media of just 5.0%. The report forecasts moderate growth for national TV, flat ad spending for radio and magazines, and a 7% decrease in newspaper spend.

The fact that marketing dollars will continue to shift into interactive and social media isn't surprising or all that interesting, actually. What is more interesting is how marketers will spend their dollars in emerging media. Those marketers who simply think of these new media as advertising channels will end up quite disappointed with the results.

Let's look at three of Magna Global's Emerging Media through the lens of the Experiential Marketing Continuum. This will help to define how these media can be misused to bother consumers in unwelcome, brand-controlled ways or can be used to create welcome, user-controlled interactions.

Social Media:

• Unwelcome: The same rules for online advertising apply on social sites as elsewhere--ads that take over a page or that pop-up are unwelcome by consumers.
  
• Welcome: Brand blogs or social media posts that are only focused on the company may engage select people with a specific interest in the brand but won't reach a wide audience.
  
• Desired: Brands that engage consumers in two-way dialog and that enhance their social media enjoyment with value-added widgets and games will draw consumers' attention and respect.

Online Video:

• Unwelcome: Interrupting consumer's video watching with frequent advertising in the same manner as TV won't work online. Even pre-roll ads often cause consumers to move on rather than view either the ad or the desired content.
• Welcome: Video content that is focused on the brand, just like brand-oriented blogs, will be viewed only by people who already have an interest but won't reach a wide audience.
  
• Desired: Sponsoring video content with brief ads will be more welcome to consumers than TV-like interruptions, but the biggest payoffs in the coming years may be from brands producing their own entertaining content. Producing something people want to watch (such as "Will It Blend?," the Nike viral videos, or BMW Films) can create significant attention and engagement.
  

Gaming:

• Unwelcome: Heavy-handed games that are too focused on the brand or are not playable will not yield the kind of results marketers desire. An example of this is the Yaris game, which produced more criticism than interest.
• Welcome: In-game advertising has received a lot of buzz, but the potential of this media is fairly limited. Early advertisers have benefited from first-mover advantage, but the more ads are crammed into consumers' games, the less they'll be receptive to the marketing messages.
• Sponsored Games: Fun and engaging games that are lightly branded or sponsored will be desired by consumers.
  

The Experiential Marketing Continuum is different for different consumer segments and different brands. While each situation may have it's unique aspects, one thing is certain about marketing's future: In a world where consumers are zapping TV ads, avoiding radio ads in favor of MP3 players, and blocking banner ads in their browsers, smart marketers will find methods to engage consumers in ways they will welcome, will want to spend their time, and will recommend to others.

MediaPost shares a study from Ipsos MediaCT that shouldn't surprise us. It demonstrates that the share of video consumed on TV is decreasing and on computers it is rising.

Considering that as recently as five years ago, the percentage of video viewed on either the television or the movie theater screen was probably 99%, the current stats are pretty striking. Among those who have streamed or downloaded video content, which is 52% of Americans age 12 and older, the share of video viewed online has grown from 11% to 19% in just one year.

And of course, the portion of video viewed on a computer monitor increases as age decreases--consumers age 12 to 17 view just 55% of their video on TV and 24% on a computer. While this isn't particularly unexpected, what I found surprising is how much online video is being consumed by older Americans. If you think those 55 and older are glued to their TVs and only use their PCs to check email, you'll be surprised to learn that among this cohort, almost one of every five hours of video viewing occurs on a computer.

This is just further evidence that marketers are going to need to shift more of their marketing dollars online. This will take some creativity and a willingness to experiment, since online video advertising is not yet standardized.

As discussed here last week, online video advertising is not likely to take the form of 30- and 60-second spots, an ad format that is being rejected by consumers on television and won't be any more welcome online. ABC.com and Hulu are experimenting with movies and TV shows that are interrupted just as frequently as on television, but with substantially fewer and shorter ads. If this ad approach catches on--and I think it will--this could mean that video advertising inventory (both TV and online combined) could shrink in the coming years.

This sounds like a problem for marketers, but there is a trade off--consumers seem to be accepting of ads they cannot skip provided those ads are kept brief. And unlike on TV, online video ads can entice consumers to click through to learn more, so the right ad can create immediate and deeper engagement than is possible on TV.

If you care to learn more about the percentage of video consumers view on TV and PCs (not to mention portable DVD players, cell phones, and DVD players) visit MediaPost's Research Brief.

The headline over on Brand Autopsy is certainly attention getting: "Advertising Age recommends NOT ADVERTISING." The article shares portions of an Ad Age editorial that said:

“JetBlue is missing the point with its recent ad push. What it needs is to get back to what made it a media and consumer darling: customer service and good internal and external communication.”

“… convincing more people to fly doesn't seem like a smart move for an airline that has trouble handling the passengers it already has. It won't fool new passengers, and it will only upset current passengers. JetBlue achieved its success by being unlike the other airlines. Its good name spread -- via word-of-mouth and smart marketing -- because great customer service gave it a compelling story to tell.”

“Priority No. 1 should be getting back to a place where consumers want to share good stories. Take the money being wasted on that campaign and plow it into customer service.”

While it seems Ad Age might be suggesting JetBlue suspend it's advertising, the editorial really speaks to two non-advertising needs: Providing a great experience for consumers and being transparent. These are the two foundations upon which Word of Mouth is created in the age of social media.

Advertising is and will always be critical, but it cannot overcome poor experiences. Advertising creates the promise, but if your brand cannot deliver on that promise, then you're setting yourself up for failure. Saying what you do and doing what you say is no longer a competitive difference but table stakes in the era of Facebook, Twitter, Epinions, Complaints.com, the Comcast Sucks and Taco Bell rats videos, and MyThreeCents, where people are complaining about JetBlue for everything from lost luggage to unannounced flight changes to unrefunded tickets.

Of course, as Abraham Lincoln almost said, "You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can't please all the people all the time." The goal isn't to prevent any and all complaints from reaching the Web, and trying to do so will cause attention and resources to be dedicated where they are not going to best use. All a brand can do is get its product and service right (not simply "right enough"), create a genuine brand using all the tools available to marketers, and engage consumers in the places where they're praising or complaining about the brand.

As far as I'm concerned, JetBlue's problem isn't with how or whether they are advertising, but with how they're using social media. JetBlue gets points for having a Twitter account, but they lose points for how they're using it. People are talking about JetBlue--both positively and negatively--but JetBlue isn't really engaging in the dialog. They're not thanking people for the compliments, nor are they apologizing for flight delays or addressing consumer complaints. Instead, as of today, the JetBlue Twitter account is more focused on the person maintaining the account than on consumers. You can read about the fabulous time "JetBlue" had in Vegas, or how s/he saw someone making out, or what state they're flying over--all of which provides zero value to consumers.

Walking the talk means more than just living up to your advertising promises. In 2008, it's also about being focused on customer needs wherever your customers are--even on Twitter! (Especially on Twitter!)

Think of the last time you went to the mall. How many advertising kiosks did you pass? And how many can you recall?

As I always mention, I'm sure this sort of advertising works on a subconscious level, but let's face it--wouldn't you really prefer your message be received knowingly? Rather than hoping some brand impression gets absorbed into the psyches of the indifferent consumers who stroll past, wouldn't it be better to have consumers stop, pay attention, and share it with others?

Here's a mall ad that accomplishes just that. Sun-Rype's out-of-home ad extends the brand's new television ad campaign, which features animation composed of grapes, oranges, and other fruit. As consumers walk past the mall kiosk, their image is captured and converted into a picture comprised of fruit. It's a brilliant way to get people to pay attention, and once they do, it's hard not to notice the brand. (That said, I can see folks not paying much attention to the product shot tucked into a corner of the ad; they might've made a bigger brand impression had the fruity image periodically "drained" into a bottle of Sun-Rype in the manner of the TV ad.)

This is a good time to revisit the Experiential Marketing Continuum, introduced in a post earlier this week. This ad works by using creativity and technology to move a specific execution up the Experiential Marketing Continuum compared to typical uses of the same medium. Out-of-home ads are something consumers might otherwise welcome (but ignore), but the Sun-Rype concept transcends expectations and turns its kiosk ad into something consumers desire--a value-added, branded experience.



Hats off to Tribal DDB for this creative "fruit mirror"!

I posted some facts and observations about Gen Y's changing media habits and increasing spending power, and in the post I said, "The marketing challenge of the next few years... will be how to engage consumers and provide real value." My friend Josh posted some great thoughts, including, "I'm not sure I agree that marketers should be trying to provide 'value.' That seems outside the scope of a marketer's mission. But perhaps I misinterpret 'value.'"

I think the idea of "value-added versus valueless marketing" is worth exploring in more depth because this is a vital mind shift for marketers and their enterprises. The gap between marketing that provides value consumers recognize and marketing that does not is what separates what is working and what is failing in both traditional and new media. It's the difference between experiential marketing and mere advertising, and understanding this gap is at the very core of what I believe will define success in the increasingly transparent, social, and consumer-controlled marketing landscape.

When using the term "value" in this context, I am speaking about the value consumers perceive to themselves. Marketing tactics can be defined on a continuum based on this perceived value.

On one end of the spectrum are tactics that consumers find so intrusive as to have negative perceived value. In fact, consumers' disdain of these marketing tactics is so great that people will change their media habits and even pay to avoid them; or worse yet, they turn to their elected officials to constrain marketers' options. Examples of this sort of unwelcome marketing include telemarketing (legally constrained), email spam (legally constrained) and mass media advertising such as television (avoided using DVRs) and radio (avoided using satellite radio, subscription services, and MP3 players.)

In the middle of this continuum are marketing channels that consumers welcome. These tactics do not elicit negative feelings, and consumers don't strive to avoid these forms of marketing. For example, unlike unsolicited email, most consumers don't mind the unsolicited admail they receive. Similarly, other than unrestrained billboard clutter, Out-of-Home advertising otherwise doesn't elicit negative feelings in consumers.

The other end of the continuum is where you'll find marketing that is not only welcome but actually desired. Consumers perceive these tactics as providing something of value, so these approaches earn consumer attention and are used, appreciated, and shared with others. Types of desired marketing include advergames, viral videos, fun or informative branded content, interactive and well-targeted microsites, product sampling, timely email and SMS alerts, life-enhancing tools, and personalized premiums. Specific examples abound, such as:

• LifeStyle Condom's "Makeout Booths": Free photo booths that dispense both photos and condoms to nightclub goers.
• Miller Lite physical motion football and baseball games: Developed by Fullhouse, these branded games are available to adults in select bars around the country.
• Travelocity's FareWatcher Plus: Delivers personalized email messages when air fares drop on the routes consumers wish to track.
• OfficeMax's ElfYourself: For two years, this site has provided a holiday e-card that consumers may customize with their own faces and send to family and friends.
• Huggie's Baby Network: Tools, forums, and games for expectant and new mothers.
• CNN's SMS News Alerts: Keeps consumers informed when they are on the go and aren't able to watch CNN or access CNN.com.
• Fox Sports and MSN's free Fantasy Football: Free leagues and tools for fantasy team owners.
  
• Viva Diva Cafe: Social networking site where members share and collect tips on party planning, household organization, and decorating.
  

The chart below illustrates the Experiential Marketing Continuum. Admittedly, there is no science behind this chart. You may place the various marketing tactics in different spots than I, but my guess is that your instincts about what consumers find valuable and not probably aren't substantially different than my own.

The Experiential Marketing Continuum isn't intended as a set of rules to guide marketers' media mix but instead is a conceptual point of departure to explore how consumer perception can and should impact a brand's marketing strategy. For example:

• No one channel is best. Even channels that tend toward the unwelcome side of the spectrum will remain very valuable components in the marketing mix because they excel at solving particular marketing challenges. Diversifying media has always been a best practice, as a very recent study shared on AdAge.com confirms.
  
  
• Consumers' perceived value of a tactic or channel is just one factor that affects the effectiveness of any particular campaign or effort in that channel. Using a value-added or desired tactic doesn't guarantee ROI; likewise, unwelcome or valueless tactics can provide positive ROI.
  
  
• We know that consumers are more in control of the marketing conversation than ever before. They will continue to screen ads in and shift attention out of less welcome channels, so marketers will need to shift strategies to meet consumer expectations and to match their evolving media consumption habits.
  

• Marshall McLuhan's old adage, "The Medium is the Message" is certainly no less true than it was in 1964. Brands that only talk to consumers and that rely on less welcome channels will risk being perceived as indifferent, traditional, unapproachable, and narcissistic (or, worse yet, out of touch and not pertinent).
  
  
• Marketers must be cognizant of how weary consumers are becoming of our advertising-saturated society. According to a 2004 Yankelovich Partners poll, 65% of Americans say they are "constantly bombarded with too much" advertising and 61% think the quantity of advertising and marketing they are exposed to "is out of control." The way to overcome this backlash is to focus on the sorts of channels and tactics that encourage acceptance within consumers.
  
  
• As my friend Josh noted in his comments to my last post, "As marketing and consumer communications become more about conversation and relationships, it's logical to expect smaller businesses to thrive, as they're fundamentally better equipped to deal with such a change." He's right; the days of relatively few brands commanding relatively few media channels are over. As marketing turns ever more conversational and marketers use the Internet to leverage the "long tail," smaller brands don't need mass media to thrive; they can succeed by using more experiential, one-to-one, and consumer-welcome tactics to reach profitable consumer segments .
  
  

• It is also important to note that while this chart distills each marketing practice into a single point on the continuum, any marketing tactic can be made more or less valuable and welcome to consumers. We'll explore this in more detail in a future post, since the application of value-based marketing concepts can positively impact any marketing tactic.

The most important (and I think interesting) implication of concentrating on value-based marketing is that this requires more than just a change to the marketing mix; it's a fundamental mind shift for marketers and their entire organizations.

If a brand creates its own online sitcom, is this marketing or entertainment? If a brand monitors Twitter for negative Tweets or complaints and then immediately responds, is this marketing or customer service? If a brand maintains a Facebook profile to raise awareness and have dialog with consumers, is this marketing or PR? Raising brand awareness or preference in a way that consumers welcome will require marketers to influence across organizational boundaries to a great extent.

In some respects, the shift to value-based marketing is an exciting return to the concept that marketing isn't a defined corporate function but is the essential business of business. The visionary Peter Drucker eloquently expressed the breadth and place of marketing over 50 years ago in his book, The Practice of Management:

“The business enterprise has two and only two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs.”

The more conversational, the more experiential, and the more value-driven marketing becomes, the bigger, broader, and more important the role of marketing will become.

It's no secret that consumers are spending less time with traditional media, and it's certainly no surprise that consumers--particularly younger ones--dedicate a good chunk of their lives interacting with digital media. But sometimes you see the cold, hard data confirming what everyone "knows," and it's startling.

The data I found expected yet still somehow surprising came from Forrester's report, "Building Gen Y’s Multichannel Media Profile." Is it flabbergasting to find that consumers ages 18 to 27 are spending less time with television and more time online? Of course not, but the speed and breadth at which the changes are continuing to occur are striking.

Consumer leisure activities tend to change very slowly over time, unless some important societal factor intervenes, such as during times of war. But there's been no seismic societal changes over the past four years--the Internet is no longer new, and the biggest digital changes we've seen since 2004 are the growth of broadband, a wider adoption of digital music, and increases in the capabilities of Internet-enabled cell phones. (Yes, I know we're in a time of war, but let's not not get started on how little attention this war gets or how little sacrifice it is demanding from the American public, okay?)

But with just minor changes in the online and media landscape, there's been a significant shift in the media consumption of Gen Yers in the past three years. Time spent using the Internet has risen 80% while time spent listening to the radio has fallen 26% and time watching TV is down 15%. Those are profound changes in just 36 months.

Of course, it's not difficult to understand why this is happening. The younger Gen Yers don't remember a time before the Internet existed and have grown up with email, the Web, chat rooms, e-commerce, and online games. And even for the oldest of the Gen Y generation, the Internet was a vital part of their high school and college experience.

Still, it's interesting to note that the digital media habits of this group are still evolving. They aren't simply taking consistent online habits with them as they age; they're continuing to adopt to a new lifestyle of "living online." Three years ago, they spent 60% more time watching TV than being online, and in 2007 this demographic dedicated 1.6 more hours to their Internet time than to television.

The marketing implications of this continued shift away from traditional media and toward digital media are significant, and made even more so by the fact Gen Y's income will skyrocket in the coming years. According to eMarketer, Gen Y's annual income will rise from $1.89 trillion to $3.48 trillion in the next ten years, growing to near Gen X's income ($4.2 trillion in 2017) and eclipsing Boomer's ($2.96 trillion).

What happens when a large group of consumers see swift increases in discretionary income and rapid changes in their media habits? Marketers' worlds change very, very quickly.

We already know that marketing budgets have been shifting away from print, TV, and radio towards online tactics, but it's apparent this shift is just getting started. With the ROI for display and search advertising already getting squeezed by increasing demand and cost (and consumer indifference), and with Social Media continuing to prove an advertising challenge, the ways in which marketers can invest their budgets in online media are going to continue to change and get ever more creative (and experiential).

The marketing challenge of the next few years won't primarily be one of how to allocate dollars to different online ad types (search versus display; banners versus skyscrapers; ad network A or B), but instead will be how to engage consumers and provide real value. It will become even less about campaigns and more about consistent relationship building. How a brand looks will be far less important than how it acts. What you say won't matter; who you are will.

These years will be heady times for marketers in organizations that are marketing centric and consumer focused where being transparent, agile, open to change, honest, confident, and willing to experiment and take risks is a way of life. For everyone else--companies that focus on campaigns and advertising and not consumer experiences; that believe they can be one thing but brand themselves another; that strive for control; and that lack respect for and trust in their consumer--the next five to ten years will be confusing and threatening.

Within a few years, Gen Y will be spending twice as much time online as they do with television. They'll be learning more about brands from each other than from your advertising. Will you be part of the conversation and creating the sorts of experiences that will get consumers saying positive things about your brand? Or will be more concerned about whether you get better clickthrough from a 468-x-60 or a 120-x-600 ad unit?