LIVErtising 2015 1 Bring the love Back - Slideshare
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•777 vues
LIVErtising 2015 #1 - Presentation to support my Advertising Master course in marketing communication at IHECS, Brussels. It focuses on networked communication
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (6)
Similaire à LIVErtising 2015 1 Bring the love Back - Slideshare
Similaire à LIVErtising 2015 1 Bring the love Back - Slideshare (20)
Plus de Jean Pierre Ranschaert
Plus de Jean Pierre Ranschaert (19)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
LIVErtising 2015 1 Bring the love Back - Slideshare
- 1. Issues in Marketing Communication #1
- 3. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015 What does the consumer feel? talking dialogue listening genuine 3
- 4. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015 What does the advertiser answer? billboard coupons print campaign 28 to 34, modest disposable income 4
- 5. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-20155 14% of people trust ads 78%of people trust recommendations
- 9. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015 Issues in Marketing Communication #1 Bring the love back 9 LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015
- 10. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015 From COMMUNICATION to CONVERSATION 10 LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015
- 16. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015 Bring the love back 16 LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015
- 18. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015 The Good 18
- 19. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015 The Bad 19
- 20. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015 “It’s OK to be ghetto” 20
- 21. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015 The Ugly 21
- 28. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015 What can we learn from this? $12 $2.4M 28
- 41. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-201541 AmplifyInteractBuild Launch your page Respond to fans Get shares, RTs, … Build a fan base Publish to fans Listen to fans
- 46. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015 What can we learn from this? the lines have blurred the info imbalance has gone people are creative are the brand 46
- 48. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-201549 “I work for an awesome company that makes news videos. I have put my life into this job, but my boss says quantity, speed and views are what is most important. Marina Shifrin
- 52. LIVErtising.NET IHECS 2014-2015 What can we learn from this? h t t p : / / b i t . l y / 0 0 53
- 57. 58
Notes de l'éditeur
- Intro: do you like stories – do you like watching films – OK, let’s watch then
- Bring the Love Back It's the Conversation Economy, Stupid As consumer markets fragment, marketers and designers must understand how platforms evolve and influence human behavior by David Armano Once upon a time, we were consumers. We consumed things. We took in the messages that were communicated to us. We didn't really get to talk back. If we had a good or bad experience with a product or service—we told a friend. Maybe that friend told a friend. Maybe, just like the shampoo commercial from advertising's golden age, "They'll tell two friends, and they'll tell two friends, and so on, and so on…." Marketers are finding themselves in an increasingly frantic race to get people talking about their brands. The desire to produce something "viral" is nearly ubiquitous in the marketing world. But it's unclear who exactly "consumers" are these days. We don't even know what that word means any more. Can consumers be producers? Yes. Can they be users? Yes. Can they be active participants, members of niche communities, or even critics capable of effectively mobilizing others? Yes, yes, and yes. Therein lies the problem. A consumer can be any number of things—sometimes all at once. And that fact is driving marketers, businesspeople, and brand managers nuts. So what do we do? I propose we become conversation architects. The Medium Is the Message This is not about creating a snazzy new job title—we've got enough of those. This is a shift in mindset, in how we think about connecting with "consumers," for lack of a better word. Here's how I break this down: Marketing has traditionally been about messages. If your messages were really good, they became a form of storytelling (think Marlboro Man or Apple's (AAPL) 1984 ad). Enter the Web. Already, online technologies have evolved from simple, brochure-like representations of our businesses to rich, interactive experiences that mimic or simulate how we interact with brands in the real world. Think Nike (NKE) iD, which allowed site users to create and customize their own running shoes—and broadcast the designs in Times Square. But great experiences aren't enough. It's entirely possible to design and develop a rich, immersive, experiential Web site, only to have light traffic and little return on investment. Bud.TV, for example, is falling short of its goal of 2 million to 3 million monthly visits. Many fault the registration process. In spite of a slick interface and highly produced video, Anheuser-Busch (BUD) doesn't seem to be reaping what was sown. Why? Creating Affinity It's the conversation economy, stupid. One of the engines that is driving "2.0" growth is the fact that communities are forming around popular social platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, Ning, Twitter—the list goes on and on. These platforms facilitate conversation. Conversation leads to relationships and relationships lead to affinity. Brand affinity, as companies such as Harley-Davidson (HOG) have proven, often drives communities to form around them. This is why anyone who plays a role in branding needs to become a conversation architect. Marketers, businesses, and designers must have an intimate understanding of how these platforms are evolving and influencing human behavior. There has to be an in-depth understanding of why some us of love to incorporate these services in our digital lives. Case in point: I hardly watch TV, and when I do it's pre-recorded through TiVo (TIVO). In addition to maintaining my blog and keeping up with the demands of life, family, and career, I've been spending time on the much-hyped Twitter service. But why is Twitter so hyped? Why all the fuss? I believe it's because Twitter has evolved from a simple service that initially allowed users to express mundane thoughts into a robust "conversation ecosystem." Conversation Ecosystem Twitter allows users to send and receive abbreviated communications or "digital shorthand" from a computer or mobile device. These are called "Tweets." The open-source nature of the application has spawned countless "mash-ups" where Twitter technology merges seamlessly with other open-source technologies such as Google (GOOG) Maps. Widgets and desktop applications such as Twitteroo and Twitterific take you outside of the browser and act as a sort of social instant messenger, sending and receiving rapid bursts of text and links. Twitter can send and receive feeds. I now receive my news headlines from the service, getting up to speed from media sources such as CNN and The New York Times. That's why I call Twitter a conversation ecosystem—it supports multiple touch points of content and dialogue. Think about the implications here. Just as YouTube changed how we watch and share videos, some emerging media applications are changing how we interact with each other and with brands. Does this sound like marketing? Well, it is. It's how we market to each other. Yes, that's right—we market to each other. We always have, in fact, but now we're doing it in a more digitally connected way. When we find our friends on any social network (pick one) we swap stories about products and services we like or dislike. We share knowledge and expertise. We define a new kind of currency fueled by conversation and founded in meaningful relationships. Don't Communicate—Facilitate Conversation architects move marketing beyond the idea of one-way messaging. Traditional marketing efforts were founded on this tried-and-true format and are still prevalent within the industry. Consider the example of a typical creative brief template, which usually says something like, "What are we trying to communicate?" Can you see the old-world residue in the word "communicate"? It lacks the dimensions of experiencing something and having an ongoing two-way dialogue. "What are we trying to communicate?" implies a one-way conversation. Maybe we should ask ourselves: "How can we facilitate?" Even media outlets such as USA Today have recently revamped their sites to support reader feedback in the form of comments. Users can also upload photos to the site (though I'm not sure why this is useful). As I write this, journalist and influential blogger Jeff Jarvis, who once flamed Dell in the famed "Dell Hell," now blogs about his positive interactions with Dell (DELL) representatives as they engage him and invite him to their digs in Texas. Jarvis says this of Dell's practices: "This isn't just crowdsourcing. This is crowdmanaging." Dell has overhauled its culture since Dell Hell. It currently has several sites that support user-generated content and give its customers and community a voice. Information Interchange I've personally witnessed Dell's change of heart in the form of an unsolicited comment on my blog from a Dell employee in regard to a post I had written about my experience talking at Loyola University. I had asked the graduate students there whether they had heard of Dell Hell (approximately 90% of them had not). But that didn't stop Dell from hearing what I said. With the use of Technorati, Dell can easily search for phrases such as Dell Hell and decide whether they want to engage consumers. Since my blog has high traffic it would have been a missed opportunity if they hadn't. So, not only did the Dell representative take the time to read my content and refer to it, he addressed how Dell is changing. And even here you can see the power of conversation, as I'm calling out the positive interaction I had with Dell—even though it occurred on my blog. But is engaging people on their own blogs marketing? If you think of marketing as facilitation as opposed to communication, it is. My background is in design, and I like to think that at the core, design is about facilitation. We designers should stop talking and start designing conversations. We should convert from marketers and information architects to conversation architects. Information is a one-way street, conversation isn't. The same goes for businesspeople—the new consumer class that can be anything and everything at once is looking for meaningful dialogue. Some brands and businesses are going out of their way to provide this. Some are going through the motions. And some are doing business as usual. Which camp do you fall in? David Armano has over 14 years experience in the creative field and has worked with clients including Allstate, HP, Grainger, Con Agra Foods and Bally Total Fitness. He spends the majority of his time working in interactive marketing and digital experience design. An active thought leader in the industry, David blogs at Logic + Emotion. http://www.businessweek.com/print/innovate/content/apr2007/id20070409_372598.htm
- http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/television/which-forms-of-advertising-do-consumers-trust-and-act-on-the-most-36767/attachment/nielsen-trust-in-advertising-sept2013/
- Intro: do you like stories – do you like watching films – OK, let’s watch then
- Intro: do you like stories – do you like watching films – OK, let’s watch then
- Intro: do you like stories – do you like watching films – OK, let’s watch then
- Een reclamevideo voor Doritos was dit jaar de meest populaire commercial tijdens de Super Bowl, het absolute hoogtepunt van het Amerikaanse reclamejaar. Opmerkelijk is dat de reclamevideo gemaakt werd door een semi-amateur en amper twaalf dollar had gekost. In het Amerikaans kijkersonderzoek laat het de miljoenenprojecten van grote reclamebedrijven ver achter zich. Het Doritos-spotje 'Live The Flaver' werd op YouTube al meer dan 1,15 miljoen keer bekeken. "In het overzicht van Advertising Age laat Doritos de reclamespots van Blockbuster en Coca-Cola achter zich," aldus het magazine Emerce. Nochtans hadden die grote bedragen geinvesteerd in hun reclamespots. Dit jaar werd er ongeveer 2,6 miljoen dollar betaald voor een spot van dertig seconden. Dat is een absoluut record. Het spotje van Doritos haalde volgens Advertising Age de grootste populariteit, maar was toch niet het best herinnerde spotje. Daarin klasseerde Doritos zich op een achtste plaats. Het betrokken spotje werd door de internetgebruikers op een speciale website gekozen uit vijf finalisten. In totaal waren er ruim 1.100 inzendingen. De winnaar van de Doritos-commercial was de 22-jarige Weston Phillips. Hij stopte twee maand geleden zijn marketingbaan om met een aantal vrienden zelf een klein bureau op te richten. Dat is gespecialiseerd in creatieve video producties. ------------------------ Kudos to Doritos, which was essentially the first brand to take the CGC phenomenon to the max (reach). Doritos asked consumers to make their own submissions for consideration as the official Doritos commercial for Super Bowl XLI (2007). While I am not a big fan of crammmg new marketing into old marketing, I'd be the first to concede that this is one idea I wish I had come up with myself. Anyway, it turned out that three of the five finalists were professionals, and I don't mean "pro-fessionals", "pro-sumers," but small advertising agencies taking their shot at being hired (fortune) in addition to being noticed (fame). Personally, I believe Doritos should have offered up two categories: man-in-the-street and man-in-the-cube, if you get my drift. That said, I was reasonably comfortable with the blurring (or relaxing) of what are normally incredibly anal rules and regulations, provided that consumers didn't cry foul about not being given a fair shot. JAFFE.2007.76 ------------------ Frito-Lay is one company that has been bitten by the partnership bug. First there was Dorito.s Crash the Super Bowl initiative. which invited people to submit their own spots for consideration. The creation of the eventual winner was aired during Super Bowl XLI in 2007. The winning spot cost $12 to make, of which $6 was spent on the product! As it turns out, three of the final five spots were created by semiprofessionals, that is, amateur filmmakers or small production or advertising boutiques. This fact drew some consternation, criticism, and debate, but at the end of the day true partnership does not discriminate. I'll share here a couple of interesting learnings that came out of the Dorito's initiative: 1.By the end of October (when the campaign launched), only four entries had been submitted. November through December saw a jump to 400, and by the end of January over 2,000 entries had been submitted. The catalyst for this growth spurt was conversation - the ability to activate the influencers and get people excited and talking about the program. Frito-lay divided its buzz targets into three distinct categories: makers, voters, and watchers. Note how neatly these three categories dovetail into Chapter 5's producer, prosumcr, and consumer classification. 2. The number-one question asked of the brand by participants was the following: ..Will you air what we produce and will you edit it?" The insight is clear: If you're asking your audience to contribute and participate in partnership, there needs to be a quid pro quo. Partnership can be one-sided (communication) or mutually beneficial (conversation). Another Frito-Lay experiment was the launch of "Flavor X19R" -a new, unnamed variety of Doritos that was actually marketed and distributed in this incomplete format. The snack's packaging drew attention to the work-in-progress development and invited consumers to help name the product. Very smart. JAFFE.2007.236-37
- Media Metrics: A Game Plan That Scored by Jim Nail, November 2007 issue Now that we are deep into the NFL season, you may be rooting for your team to make the playoffs. But if your company (or client) will be running an ad during the Super Bowl, you are already in training for the championship game. With advertising costs nine times more than a typical 30-second primetime spot, this investment has to make a positive impression and get people talking about your brand. For the 2007 game, Doritos rewrote the rules with a radical and risky strategy that drove tremendous levels of positive traditional media coverage and social media discussions around the brand. So successful was the chip maker's "Crash the Super Bowl" ad-creation contest, that the Frito-Lay brand is following up this year with an original song contest online. A performance of the winning song will air in a 60-second spot during the 2008 Super Bowl. Last year, getting a jump on the competition was key. Five months before the Feb. 3 game, Doritos announced the "Crash the Super Bowl" contest, which invited consumers to submit their own home-made Doritos ad. More than 1,000 entries were received and the finalists were posted on a promotional Web site in January so the public could vote for their favorites. The votes were kept secret and the winning ad was revealed during the game broadcast. Doritos' strategy defied conventional wisdom on two fronts. First, the company let consumers and not a top-tier Madison Avenue creative agency develop this important ad. The risk paid off, as both the "Live the Flavor" and "Checkout Girl" spots were given high marks for their quality and humor and "Live the Flavor" was among the top spots in the consumer rating polls. Second, Doritos risked cannibalizing post-game discussion by revealing ads online weeks before the game. How well did this bet pan out for them? To measure the media coverage and word-of-mouth impact of this strategy, TNS Media Intelligence/Cymfony analyzed traditional media coverage and social media discussions of Super Bowl advertisers during January and February 2007. Doritos gained a clear advantage by announcing the campaign months before the game and had much of the early Super Bowl ad-related media coverage and social media discussion all to themselves. In fact, even as other advertisers began announcing their ad intentions in early January, Doritos led all companies in volume of coverage during the first two weeks of the month. It was only after the media swarm around Nationwide's Kevin Federline ad and the National Restaurant Association's complaint that it denigrated fast food workers was Doritos nudged out of the top spot. And these high levels of media coverage and online consumer discussion before the game did not detract from post-game coverage, contrary to some commonly held beliefs. In fact, all the pre-game coverage "primed the pump" for post-game coverage and discussion. Before the game, Doritos 12 percent share of voice placed the brand as the third highest volume of traditional media coverage and social media discussions among all Super Bowl advertisers before the game. Millions viewed and voted for their favorite ad on the official "Crash the Super Bowl" Web site and on YouTube. After the game, Doritos retained the third highest share of voice and saw the volume of coverage increase 38 percent. Maintaining the No. 3 position in post-game volume is impressive since Doritos was competing against 38 other advertisers. The only advertisers to gain higher discussion were Budweiser, the king of Super Bowl advertising, which ran nine different ads during the game, and Snickers, which drew significant criticism from the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation with their "mechanics kissing" ad. The innovative consumer-creation aspect of the ad alone doesn't explain Doritos' success. Chevrolet ran a similar ad creation contest. Like Doritos, Chevrolet announced their ad very early in September of 2006. Unlike Doritos, entries were limited to college students and viewers could not vote for the winning ad. The volume of Chevy's traditional and social media coverage was strong, but fell short of Doritos. Chevrolet was the fifth most covered brand before the game and the seventh afterward. Nor can the likability of the creative alone explain these impressive results. Blockbuster's "Mouse" ad was praised by many and received high scores on polls like USA Today's Ad Meter, SpotBowl and AdBowl. But their participation wasn't announced until the very last week before the game and no hint of their ad creative was released until the game broadcast. The volume of their post-game coverage ranked eighth, behind both Doritos and Chevrolet. To give perspective to the success of companies that revealed their ads before the game, Cymfony applied an index rating to the total volume of traditional and social media coverage after the game. By revealing their ads a week or more before the game, Doritos and Nationwide generated an average post-game volume more than five times greater than the 20 companies that only announced their participation before the game. By promoting its contest, Chevy made a strong showing with a 356 volume index, but since the automaker did not release the ad until the day before the game, it fell short of Doritos and Nationwide. Perhaps Blockbuster missed an opportunity. The strength of this creative drove more than twice the volume compared to other companies that did little to promote their ads beforehand. But without any pre-game media to tease and promote its ad, the volume of coverage was less than half that of Nationwide and Doritos and 32 percent below Chevy. By combining humorous, appealing creative and the consumer, and revealing the ads before the game, Doritos raised the bar. The Marketing quarterbacks preparing for the 2008 Super Bowl can benefit from studying Doritos winning game plan. Jim Nail is the chief strategy and marketing officer for TNS Media Intelligence/Cymfony. (jnail@cymfony.com) http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=70309 ____________________________ Super Bowl ads bad for stock price? I doubt it. The SportsBiz blog on CNBC speculated that a 20% drop in the stock of sports apparel maker Under Armor was caused by the company's announcement that they will advertise on the Super Bowl. I know it has been a slow news year for Super Bowl advertising, but this blogger should stick to sports, and forget about the business... We noted this news earlier today on our SuperBowlAdvertisers.com blog. Digging into it shows there is more to the story than the Super Bowl ad. The company announced 2007 results and discussed 2008 outlook in a press release yesterday. The main points are: The company confirmed previously forecast overall revenue and profit growth for the year. But the company announced front-loading the marketing expenses in the first half of the year to support the launch of their Performance Trainer shoes. The Super Bowl ad is one element of this acceleration of marketing expenses. The Performance Trainer shoes hit the store in May, so sales of those shoes won't hit the books until H2. Wachovia immediately downgraded the stock to "market perform" citing "...the slowdown at retail...and the uncertainty of launching the cross trainers" as reasons to "step to the sidelines on the stock." CreditSuisse maintained their "outperform" rating, noting that "Marketing is a critical investment for any brand company..." So the bean counters are nervous about the company spending a bunch of money now and promising future revenues from an unproven product in an uncertain economy. The Super Bowl is the least of the concerns. Posted by Jim Nail on January 18, 2008 at 05:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Doritos Super Bowl contest -- what do last year's winners say? On Monday, Doritos announced the three finalists for this year's Crash the Super Bowl contest. I took that opportunity to talk to last year's winners, Dale Backus and Wes Philips of 5 Point Productions. The full podcast is on our SuperBowlAdvertisers.com blog. I talked with Dale and Wes right after their success last year, so I used this as an excuse to catch up on how that success drove their business this year, what they think of changing to more of an American Idol type contest vs. last year's ad contest -- and, of course, which of the finalists they were going to vote for. We also spoke with a reporter at Ad Age yesterday, so a story should be out soon. Dale and Wes revealed one other bit of history I hadn't known before: they had only started 5 Point Productions a month or so before entering the contest. Take a few minutes to listen to the podcast -- Dale and Wes tell the story of how they used word of mouth marketing to drive the voting that made them a finalist and have some advice for Doritos about how to overcome some of the potential limitations the music video format may have in delivering strong brand messaging for Doritos. blog.cymfony.com/marketing/index.html
- The story In 2005, Avila moved to Tempe, Arizona with nothing more than clothes and work essentials. He was still stuck in a lease on his California apartment, and could barely afford his new apartment in Arizona. After a bit of frustration over not having furniture, Avila remembered that a former roommate had solved a similar problem by constructing furniture using FedEx cartons. Using hundreds of FedEx boxes and materials that he "already had lying around" for shipping various items, Avila constructed every piece of furniture in his apartment. Avila's designs were sturdy and attractive. Friends urged Avila to put pictures of the furniture on a Web site. According to Avila, he did so in order to show that trying financial circumstances need not lead to despair; one can respond creatively, even artistically, by using "found" materials.[1] The site's message was "It's OK to be ghetto".[2] The site subsequently attracted widespread attention, both from Web surfers and the press. Because the site was getting so much traffic, Avila placed a Paypal donation link on the page and asked for help to pay for the bandwidth charges. He also announced a plan to sell Fedexfurniture.com T-shirts, although Avila says that no T-shirts were ever sold.[3] On June 27, 2005, FedEx attorneys wrote to Avila's ISP. Citing the takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), they demanded that the ISP remove Avila's materials from the Web.[4] They justified their request on two grounds: Infringement of FedEx's intellectual property (specifically, copyrights and trademarks.) Violation of FedEx's terms of use for packaging supplies. In order to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, Avila's ISP complied with the request and removed Avila's materials from the Web. Had the ISP not done so, it could have been held liable for contributory infringement (aiding and abetting the infringer) if Avila's materials were subsequently found to be infringing in a court of law. FedEx's actions concerned Internet free speech activist organizations, such as Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society, which are concerned about the use of the DMCA's takedown provisions to censor unwanted speech. According to these organizations, the DMCA's purpose is to prevent Internet copyright infringement; it was never Congress's intent that the DMCA's takedown provisions should be used when the real issue is trademark infringement or breach of contract.[5] A Stanford attorney, Jennifer Granick, assisted Avila on a pro bono basis. In her letter to FedEx, she disputed the use of the DMCA to remove Avila's site from the Web; she argued that the company's claim of copyright infringement had no merit; therefore, FedEx should not have used the DMCA to silence Avila's speech. The company's underlying motivations, she argued, were to protect its trademark and ability to place restrictions on public use of its cartons.[6] Avila restored his site briefly. The dispute attracted widespread press attention, and Avila was frequently interviewed to tell his side of the story. In response to Granick's letter, FedEx attorneys reiterated their claims. Subsequently, Avila removed his site from the Web, citing technical difficulties. By January 2006, Avila's site had returned, however, by June 30 2006 the site had again disappeared. This was caused by a server crash, and as of July 27 2006 it was back online, but as of August 16 2007 the site is gone. It popped up again in October 2007, but is currently down (January 27 2009).
- The story In 2005, Avila moved to Tempe, Arizona with nothing more than clothes and work essentials. He was still stuck in a lease on his California apartment, and could barely afford his new apartment in Arizona. After a bit of frustration over not having furniture, Avila remembered that a former roommate had solved a similar problem by constructing furniture using FedEx cartons. Using hundreds of FedEx boxes and materials that he "already had lying around" for shipping various items, Avila constructed every piece of furniture in his apartment. Avila's designs were sturdy and attractive. Friends urged Avila to put pictures of the furniture on a Web site. According to Avila, he did so in order to show that trying financial circumstances need not lead to despair; one can respond creatively, even artistically, by using "found" materials.[1] The site's message was "It's OK to be ghetto".[2] The site subsequently attracted widespread attention, both from Web surfers and the press. Because the site was getting so much traffic, Avila placed a Paypal donation link on the page and asked for help to pay for the bandwidth charges. He also announced a plan to sell Fedexfurniture.com T-shirts, although Avila says that no T-shirts were ever sold.[3] On June 27, 2005, FedEx attorneys wrote to Avila's ISP. Citing the takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), they demanded that the ISP remove Avila's materials from the Web.[4] They justified their request on two grounds: Infringement of FedEx's intellectual property (specifically, copyrights and trademarks.) Violation of FedEx's terms of use for packaging supplies. In order to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, Avila's ISP complied with the request and removed Avila's materials from the Web. Had the ISP not done so, it could have been held liable for contributory infringement (aiding and abetting the infringer) if Avila's materials were subsequently found to be infringing in a court of law. FedEx's actions concerned Internet free speech activist organizations, such as Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society, which are concerned about the use of the DMCA's takedown provisions to censor unwanted speech. According to these organizations, the DMCA's purpose is to prevent Internet copyright infringement; it was never Congress's intent that the DMCA's takedown provisions should be used when the real issue is trademark infringement or breach of contract.[5] A Stanford attorney, Jennifer Granick, assisted Avila on a pro bono basis. In her letter to FedEx, she disputed the use of the DMCA to remove Avila's site from the Web; she argued that the company's claim of copyright infringement had no merit; therefore, FedEx should not have used the DMCA to silence Avila's speech. The company's underlying motivations, she argued, were to protect its trademark and ability to place restrictions on public use of its cartons.[6] Avila restored his site briefly. The dispute attracted widespread press attention, and Avila was frequently interviewed to tell his side of the story. In response to Granick's letter, FedEx attorneys reiterated their claims. Subsequently, Avila removed his site from the Web, citing technical difficulties. By January 2006, Avila's site had returned, however, by June 30 2006 the site had again disappeared. This was caused by a server crash, and as of July 27 2006 it was back online, but as of August 16 2007 the site is gone. It popped up again in October 2007, but is currently down (January 27 2009).
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/01/24/mcdstories-when-a-hashtag-becomes-a-bashtag/ #McDStories: When A Hashtag Becomes A Bashtag 7 comments, 3 called-out Comment Now Follow Comments A crowd-sourced campaign turns on McDonald's Here’s a cautionary tale for the corporate social media consultants of the world. Last week, McDonald’s launched a Twitter campaign using the hashtag #McDStories; it was hoping that the hashtag would inspire heart-warming stories about Happy Meals. Instead, it attracted snarky tweeps and McDonald’s detractors who turned it into a #bashtag to share their #McDHorrorStories. Sample tweets: – Dude, I used to work at McDonald’s. The #McDStories I could tell would raise your hair. (via Twitter) – One time I walked into McDonalds and I could smell Type 2 diabetes floating in the air and I threw up. #McDStories (via Twitter) – These #McDStories never get old, kinda like a box of McDonald’s 10 piece Chicken McNuggets left in the sun for a week (via the LA Times) – The promoted TT of #McDStories isn’t going the direction I think @mcdonalds wanted it to go. Lots of weed stories and heart attack jokes. (via Paid Content) – Ate a McFish and vomited 1 hour later….The last time I got McDonalds was seriously 18 years ago in college….. #McDstories (via Twitter) – #McDStories I lost 50lbs in 6 months after I quit working and eating at McDonald’s (viaThe Daily Mail) McDonald’s had paid for the privilege of having their hashtag promoted on the Twitter homepage, but they quickly realized this wasn’t helping their brand. The Los Angeles Times reports that they pulled the campaign within two hours. But they discovered that crowd-sourced campaigns are hard to control (or stop). The #McDStories hashtag is still gathering steam, according to data from Trendistic. “As Twitter continues to evolve its platform and engagement opportunities, we’re learning from our experiences,” Rick Wion, McDonald’s social media director, said in a statement to the L.A. Times. As for this campaign, McDonald’s certainly isn’t lovin’ it.
- 2 Super Bowl Spots Remain November 28, 2007 By John Consoli Fox's innovations have helped drive Super Bowl ad sales. NEW YORK Fox has just two 30-second in-game commercial spots left for the Feb. 3, 2008 Super Bowl telecast—and those are units the network is expected to hold onto until closer to game time. Sources said there are more than two advertisers interested in the remaining slots. At the end of October, Fox had sold about 56 of the 63 in-game 30-second avails, with the price peaking at about $2.7 million per unit. But sources said at least one of the five spots since sold has brought in $3 million. Fox officials would not comment. ABC holds the record price for an in-game Super Bowl spot, getting $3.3 million for one 30-second Super Bowl spot from netpliance.com in the 2000 Super Bowl. As Mediaweek reported last month, Fox's early near Super Bowl sellout is in stark contrast to the past several years, when the broadcast network airing the Super Bowl scrambled to sell its in-game commercial inventory right up until game time. Last year, CBS had sold only 42 in-game units by mid-January, and media buyers say it's been many years since a network has reached a Super Bowl sellout level as early as Fox this year. The Super Bowl has become a hard sell for all the National Football League TV rights holders over the past few years because of the pressure to produce high-quality creative commercials, on top of the hefty price per 30-second spot. But Fox this year offered advertisers two innovations as value-added incentives that helped motivate particularly movie companies and automakers to participate in a bigger way. A deal between Fox and MySpace (both News Corp. companies) will enable in-game Super Bowl advertisers to have their commercials placed on a special Super Bowl site on MySpace, where the advertisers can also add special video, such as extended movie trailers. The MySpace site will be promoted during the Super Bowl telecast to drive viewers to the site. http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003678299 _____________________ Bookmark & Share© Add This Favorites Del.icio.us Digg Google Facebook Reddit Live Yahoo MyWeb Furl StumbleUpon Ask More... Get marketing charts daily in your inbox, subscribe to free newsletter Home » Super Bowl Ad Spend Totaled $1.84B over 20 Years, Rates Quadrupled Super Bowl Ad Spend Totaled $1.84B over 20 Years, Rates Quadrupled Super Bowl XLII is not just about football, with the TV commercials to be shown during the game as much the subject of anticipation and speculation. No wonder, then, that in the past 20 years Super Bowl ads has translated into $1.84 billion of network sales, from over 200 different advertisers, according to TNS Media Intelligence. Below, the findings released by TNS MI. Top Five Super Bowl Advertisers The top five Super Bowl advertisers of the past 20 years (1988-2007) have spent $659 million on advertising during the game, accounting for 36% of total advertising dollars spent in the game. Anheuser Busch and Pepsico, which have appeared in every game during this period, lead the pack, followed by General Motors, Time Warner and Walt Disney. Each year, about 62% of the network TV ad money invested in the game comes from incumbent marketers who ran commercials the previous year. “While that’s a very high retention rate, it’s actually lower than the comparable rate for two other showcase TV events. Over the past 10 years, the average dollar retention rate has been 75% for the Academy Awards and 67% for the World Series,” said Jon Swallen, SVP, Research at TNS Media Intelligence. The Price of Advertising The cost of an advertisement in the Super Bowl has nearly quadrupled in the past 20 years. After reaching $2.5 million in 2006 for a 30-second unit, the price fell back last year to just under $2.4 million. For the 2008 game, Fox is reportedly seeking $2.7 million for each 30-second spot. Compared with the average cost of commercial time on primetime network programming during the first quarter, Super Bowl spots are 17-18 times more expensive. This premium has held steady in recent years. First-Time Advertisers In recent years, the number of first-time Super Bowl advertisers has been on the rise. On the one hand, that indicates fewer marketers’ returning to the game, potentially a sign of weakness. On the other hand, new advertisers have eagerly filled the voids. In short, the Super Bowl retains its attractiveness to marketers, who are willing to pay the price for access to advertising’s biggest stage and an audience of engaged viewers. More Advertising, More Clutter Over the past 10 years, the volume of commercial time in the game has been edging upward even as the price of advertising has become more expensive. The CBS telecast of the 2007 Super Bowl contained over 43 minutes of network ads, including paying sponsors, commercial messages from the NFL, plus “house ads” aired by CBS to promote its own programming. The Top Super Bowl Advertising Category - Not What You Think The popular perception is that beer, soft drinks and autos are the prime ad categories, given their annual presence in the game. Actually, the perennial leader is promotional advertising from the network itself. In a typical Super Bowl, 15-20% of all commercial time is a plug by the network for its own programming. In 2007, the value of this air time exceeded $46 million. “The Super Bowl offers the host network an attractive platform to promote its upcoming programming and try to build an audience,” added Swallen. “In deciding how much ad time to keep for itself, the network has to assess the trade-off between giving up current revenue in the game versus building future revenue from its other programming.” How Big Is the Super Bowl vs. Other Sporting Events? The Major League Baseball’s World Series and the NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship are two other high-profile sporting events that attract significant interest from TV advertisers. The World Series is four to seven games. March Madness peaks with the semi-finals and championship on its final weekend, a total of three games. The Super Bowl is a single telecast. In recent years, the Super Bowl and World Series have been running neck-and-neck in total ad spending. In 2007, for the first time, the collegians surpassed the pros as the final weekend of the men’s tournament generated $168.4 million in network TV ad spending. PRIVACY · ABOUT · CONTACT · © 2007-2008 Watershed Publishing LLC and Media Buyer Planner LLC. All rights reserved. http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/super-bowl-ad-spend-totaled-184b-over-20-years-rates-quadrupled-3153/?camp=newsletter&src=mc&type=textlink ________________________________ Who's Afraid Of UGC? by Jim Kaskade , Monday, January 28, 2008 AT THE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS SHOW a few weeks ago, Bill Gates posited that the future of technology will be "user-centric." Personalization is a trend we see everywhere, from preferred libraries on iPods and TiVOs to Facebook videos that combine personal and public content. In the world of online video, content owners are now starting to give consumers more control as they seek to drive interaction and impressions. >From what I've seen, one of the biggest reasons that video content producers have historically limited interactivity is due to their fear of losing control, either of the asset itself in a piracy situation, or of the message/intent of the original content. Although these are valid concerns, they are easily overruled by the added time interacting with the brand and the added viral factor that content interactivity delivers. As online video becomes ubiquitous in '08, look for a shift in attitude about user-generated content from savvy content owners and publishers. Consumers are leading the way. A Jan. '08 survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that 48% of Internet users said they had ever visited a video-sharing site, and this increases to over 70% for those between 18 and 29 years old. The report also points out that daily traffic to such sites on a typical day has doubled in the past year. These are all great stats, but what's not reflected is the added effect of allowing consumers to change, modify, and personalize content they view online. Today, when content owners think about user-generated content (UGC) and video sharing, they tend to think of YouTube -- which conjures images of low-quality homemade videos or of illegal copies of mainstream programming. But personalized video encompasses more than these extremes; at its best, consumers can be invited to interact with professional content to make it their own. A few examples: The Doritos Superbowl competition, which invited consumers to create ads and supplied various stock images and music. Recent presidential campaigns have asked voters to create content supporting their candidates. And LucasFilm, legendary for keeping tight control over its content, recently shared video selections so that its fans could put themselves in " Star Wars" adventures. A few thoughts for content owners and publishers considering taking the plunge: § People are invested in what they create. By allowing users to interact with video grabbing clips, mixing them with their own content, adding music -- they will spend more time on a Web site and are more likely to send to friends. § You can protect your brand while making it more available to consumers. There are a range of tools publishers and content owners can put in place to increase the comfort level -- from automated applications that reject certain text, to call-center-like human screening of personalized videos before they are permitted to go live. § You are already living with the risk. So why not benefit from it? Your content probably already lives on several sites outside of your control and on blogs with commentary your PR team didn't pre-approve. By embracing personalization, you can engage users on your Web site, letting them virally market your brand while you capture the statistics and learn from it, even monetize it. Yes, there will always be examples of UGC unflattering to its subject, but it would take an incredible amount of negativity to offset the upside -- free marketing, and possibly an added advertising revenue stream. When it comes to online video, content is valuable, but personalization is the key to driving meaningful brand interaction and inciting viral sharing. http://blogs.mediapost.com/video_insider/?p=148
- http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/super-bowl-ads-pre-game-game/296631/ For Super Bowl Advertisers, Pre-Game Is the Real Game Advertisers Without a Pre-Game Plan are Wasting Their Money By Sean Muller. Published on January 16, 2015. 0 Reprints Reprints AD AGE REPORTS Exclusive Ad Age Research Available Omnichannel Retail Technology and retail are converging to blend into a seamless shopping experience, and customers now expect to be able to move from online to in-store with ease. Find out how retailers are successfully delivering and meeting consumer preferences. Learn more We don't even know who's playing in the Super Bowl yet, but already the first official Super Bowl commercial has been released: Lexus's Super Bowl ad for its NX SUV. Early releases of Super Bowl ads always raise questions. Aren't marketers spoiling the suspense that keeps viewers watching during Super Bowl ad breaks? Aren't they ruining the fun for consumers? But it's increasingly clear that the TV advertising game is won by preparations done well before kickoff. And advertisers that don't have a solid game plan in place today will find themselves on the loser's bench on Feb. 2. Related Stories Mercedes Advertises Its Super Bowl Spot With NFL Push This Weekend Get the New, All-Super Bowl Newsletter in One Step While most of the press attention gets focused on the ads that air during the game, it's the pre-game activity that sets stage for this spotlight. The two-week runup to the game contains a massive amount of hype, both for the game itself and for the game's supporters and sponsors. Once the game is over, that hype quickly dies off. So the smart strategy for advertisers dropping millions on a Super Bowl ad buy is to leverage the buildup and anticipation by airing ads in advance in support of the upcoming spot. According to our iSpot.tv analysis of 2014 Super Bowl ads, the spots that were released early or tied into a pre-game campaign in some way enjoyed far higher digital engagement rates than those which did not. Take Budweiser for instance. The brewer is largely considered to have "won" the TV ad game of the last Super Bowl with its "Puppy Love" spot, despite the fact that it didn't air until the waning minutes of a blowout game. But Budweiser had posted the ad on YouTube a week in advance, which went viral. (It plans to do the same this year with three ads, including a sequel to "Puppy Love.") That "Puppy Love" spot blew away the rest of the field, generating over 54 million online views and over 2.6 million social interactions. For context, that's twice the number of online views and five times the social interaction rate of the second-ranking spot -- the Jaguar "Rendezvous" campaign -- which itself had significant pre-game buildup. Other advertisers taking this tack include Doritos, which crowdsources its Super Bowl ad through a contest of aspiring filmmakers, fans and others. It generates some 5,000 submissions and posts 10 finalists online a month before the game. Two will air during the broadcast: one chosen by fan votes and the other by the company itself. In the nine years since this strategy began, Doritos has consistently scored highly on all post-game reviews. AD AGE LOOKBOOK Weekly Feature Looking to Name a Global Agency of Record? Learn more And then there's Esurance, which ran a sort of ran a sort of "trick play" last year by not broadcasting an ad during the game. Instead it aired an ad immediately after the game announcing plans to give away the money it saved by not running a Super Bowl ad, with an associated hashtag for viewers to vie for the prize. That ad was supported by a pre-game teaser campaign on social media. The common thread of these pre-game strategies is their focus on generating earned digital activity around their brand. Ultimately, that's the most meaningful measurement of success. That's the scoreboard. The name of the game is digital, and Super Bowl advertisers should be focused on gaining online attention in the form of earned media, online views, social chatter and so on through their Super Bowl ad spend. TV spots that had no pre-game support on average scored in the six-figures for online views, and the four-figures for social actions. With a 30-second spot running an estimated $4.5 million now, the idea is to get the most bang for your buck. Just buying a Super Bowl spot alone means nothing. Advertisers have to think multiplatform. Think not only of the ad, but think ahead to where that mindshare goes next. Spending millions on a Super Bowl ad with no additional investment in pre-game momentum is like buying first-class airline tickets for your vacation and staying in a flea-ridden dump. You're just wasting the money you've already spent.
- Superbowl Ads and Social Data: Where’s the End Zone? Posted on February 4, 2014 by susanetlinger 585061_85722682Let me preface this by admitting that I’m not an American football fan. Sorry. But I do love the window-dressing of the Superbowl: the inane commentary, the screams of joy and agony from the living room (and neighboring houses), the lame excuse to eat fried food and stuff wrapped in bacon, the over-the-top ads. And what goes better with fried food and extended primal screams than cold, bubbly beverages, whether of the alcoholic or non-alcoholic variety? Apparently nothing, if this data (supplied by Brandwatch) is any indication. (NB: If you’re just looking to see who won on the conversation volume front during the game itself, you can stop reading in 3, 2, 1…) Screen Shot 2014-02-03 at 2.16.03 PM But when you dig in a bit, you can see that there was very little momentum from that social conversation once the game ended: it went…flat. Unless you’re Coca-Cola… Screen Shot 2014-02-03 at 2.26.48 PM …in which case you also had to contend with the highest negative sentiment in terms of pure volume. So, aside from the obvious rout on conversation volume, and the high amount of negative feedback about the Coca-Cola ad, who would you say are the winners and losers here? Screen Shot 2014-02-03 at 2.32.32 PM My answer: it depends. I’m sure the folks at Budweiser are thrilled to have dominated the conversation during the game. I’m not so sure they would have expected that conversation to extend past the final seconds of play. Awareness and brand preference, pure and simple. I’d like to think that The Coca-Cola Company, which is firmly defending its ad (along with many others) might be happy to have reached a segment of Americans who it might otherwise be at risk of losing based on health concerns. But let’s take a look at some of the other contenders on the sentiment front. Screen Shot 2014-02-03 at 2.51.34 PMWhile AdAge ranked Radio Shack’s ad the top of the pack from a creative standpoint, the people’s choice was T-Mobile. And it was Axe, not Coca-Cola, that led in negative sentiment as a percentage of total volume. Bottom line: does any of this matter? The truth is, we’d need a whole lot of proprietary data to know that for sure. But here are some questions I’d ask: What was Budweiser’s conversation volume last year? Is this higher or lower? Do they care that conversation dropped off after the game, or were they hoping for a longer tail? Was Coca-Cola surprised by negative reations to their ad? After all, they did make the classic “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing” commercial back in 1971, which in many ways is internally consistent with the current one. Does–or should–Axe care that its ad offended a whole bunch of people? If we could drill into the demographics, I’d look for correlation between age, gender and sentiment. Middle-aged mothers of four are not too relevant to this segment, unless Junior isn’t old enough yet to buy his own body spray. Did Axe simply do a brilliant job of speaking to its audience, damn the consequences? How’s Chobani’s creative team doing today? Are they feeling whomped by Dannon/Oikos, or did their results correlate decently with expectations based on creative budget and ad spend? What about the middle-of-the-pack brands? What were their goals and how will they evaluate their performance? Was it too much to be drowned out by puppies, Clydesdales and David Beckham’s abs, or was it worth it for an–abeit brief–shot at reaching such a huge audience? Finally, as Ken Wheaton asks in his Budweiser review, “Has a Clydesdale ad ever sold a single Budweiser?” I don’t know, and I don’t know if Budweiser knows either. That is an awfully long (and interrupted) chain of causation. In the end, does it matter? This is what makes The Advertising Superbowl so different from The Football Superbowl: in football, you know where the end zone is. It’s always in exactly the same place and you pretty much know when you get there. But the end zone in advertising is a moving target, and sometimes you don’t know whether you reached it–if ever–until many months later.
- http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/239919 Too many business owners think sales techniques will lead to life-long customers. Unfortunately, these businesses don’t understand the engagement techniques necessary to build engagement and customer retention. In this recent Google hangout, customer service expert Brad Smith of Sage North America and Ezra Firestone, founder of Smart Marketer, explain how strategies like content, gamification and other tactics can add value to customers’ lives and keep their attention. “When we do run a sale, people remember us because we’re in their lives,” says Firestone. For more insights, watch this short video. downloaded as “Engagement_2014”
- http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/global-deck-2013-edelman-trust-barometer-16086761
- http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/global-deck-2013-edelman-trust-barometer-16086761
- http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/global-deck-2013-edelman-trust-barometer-16086761
- http://get.simplymeasured.com/rs/simplymeasured/images/SimplyMeasured_CrossChannelMeasurement.pdf
- TRUST! file:///Users/jeanpierreranschaert/Dropbox/Whitepapers/MarketingCharts-Top-20-Charts-of-2014.pdf
- http://meekspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/the-evolution-of-advertising-home-based-agencies/ The Evolution of Advertising - Home Based Agencies Jump to Comments If you were anything like me, when you watched this year’s Super Bowl, you were glued to the TV set BETWEEN plays…you were actually waiting for…God forbid…the commercials. The most popular ads were pimping Bud Light and they were kinda humorous, but they did little more than recycle tired jokes/stereotypes and put the face of Bud Light on them. Hardly worth millions of dollars, they simply delivered laugh-track-chuckles and disappeared into a forgettable black hole… never to be referred to again as we product buyers march up and down the aisles of supermarkets and C-stores searching for our favorite products. Of the few ads that I felt actually worked, were the “user-generated ads”…or put in layman’s terms, regular people created the them; not the glamorous agencies that line Madison Avenue in New York City (gasp!). For example, after receiving more than 1,000 entries for the Doritos “Crash the Super Bowl” contest five finalists were chosen and consumers viewed and voted for their favorite ad online and it was shown during this year’s Super Bowl. Doritos ended up airing two of the five winning spots on the Super Bowl. If you missed “the commercials” during the Super Bowl (click here for ad industry expert blogs and videos of all the commercials). You’ll no doubt agree that the overall quality of ads was a major disappointment. In my view, the Doritos ad was easily among the top 3 ads shown. In fact, many experts suggest that the Doritos’ “Crash” spot might be a seminal moment in the growth of consumer-generated advertising. In an Online Media Daily article this week, Jason McDonell, director of Marketing for Frito-Lay’s Doritos brand, expounded the need for marketers to “get real” and acknowledge that marketing isn’t merely advertising and communication: It’s about “building a relationship with consumers.” What he’s really saying is that to sell to today’s consumers, you actually need to be more in tune with them than the ad agencies are. It’s fine to sit in a war room and pretend you’re an 18 year old girl, but the fact is, you’re working at an ad agency…you’re a guy…and you’re 32 years old. It’s not out of the realm of possible that you’ll get it wrong. Even slightly off the bulls eye is enough to have today’s consumers filter your message to the trash bin of mindshare. Just today I read and article suggesting that although there’s no consensus number, it is agreed by most experts that we are hit with between 500 and a few thousand advertising messages per day. The theory of evolution tells us that our brains are learning how to filter out the junk. For example, McDonell also said that Doritos “learned that its target consumer–16 to 24-year-olds–embrace self-expression, independence, and something he called “belongingness”–the desire to belong to something. Doritos learned that the target lives a “hyperlife” (life on a multitasking, 24/7 basis); likes creative control and evidence of its own creative DNA (it wants a stage to perform on); and craves authenticity, reality, and relevance.” To be honest, that’s a very complex concept (especially for the aforementioned 32 year old male) to nail down in a board room if you don’t inherently “get it”. To that end, Doritos found a winning concept and is going to milk this until the media interest fades. In fact, they just now launched a new online contest asking consumers to vote on two new flavors–Smokin’ Cheddar BBQ and Wild White Nacho. Of course, although I speak sarcastically, Ben & Jerry’s has been letting consumers submit ideas for new flavors for years. They got it a long time ago. But that’s not even the best part of this consumer-generated-revolution. According to Nielsen Monitor-Plus, Doritos posted $19 million in ad spend in 2006 and according to this adage article on XLNTads, there’s very good news on the horizon for you consumers who are also blog readers…some of that $19 mill could come your way in the future. XLNTads is looking to be just this conduit between creative, capable consumers and those brands that are desperately trying to find the perfect voice for their sales pitch. “The average cost of a Super Bowl spot was $350,000,” said XLNTads CEO Neil Perry. “Some auto manufacturers spend $600,000 to $650,000 to do a single campaign. We say take that same amount of money, pay $20,000 [for creative], and that leaves you more to reinvest in media, in delivering the message.” Think of XLNTads as giving those of us who are truly brand evangelists a way of turning our fun, little side project we normally jam on You Tube into a revenue source…like those ads on our blog sites (not this blog site, however…yet). All of a sudden Madison Avenue exists in every town, in every neighborhood. I’ve even got a KILLER idea for an ad that I’m currently preparing to lob into XLNTads to see if I’ve got what it takes. Of course, I’m probably going try to negotiate a bigger fee than just 20K. If it takes, I promise to post my results here. Trying to counter-argue the XLNTads approach, Sarah Fay, president of Isobar U.S., calls this “the democratization of creative content” and she’s skeptical that advertisers will get into the mode of regularly having consumers create the 30-second spot, the idea being that once it’s been done a few times, it’s unlikely to have the same punch. I think, however, that she’s missing the point. It’s not about having a dual message that says “Here’s our message AND listen extra carefully because it was done by amateurs.” Although there was an initial curiosity for the Doritos ads (well, duh, they’re actually running them during the Super Bowl against the most creative big agency stars…and they matched them easily), you’re not trying to leverage a novel concept, but rather, an effective message. The big agencies aren’t banging them out of the park with enough frequency these days, so naturally the brand marketers are looking to see if someone else can translate their messages better…and apparently, yes they can. This is about the fact that anyone at home now has access to the tools to make a commercial…anyone at home now has the forum to post an idea…brand evangelists are the best buzz marketers and now the brand marketers have seen the light and unless Madison Avenue’s big agencies figure out how to provide better creative, they’re destined to reduce their roles to being media buyers. Folks, that’s my story…and I’m stickin’ to it.
- People share their love for brands with their friends http://mashable.com/2013/12/05/starbuckss-tweet-a-coffee-180000/ A Starbucks program that lets consumers buy coffee for friends on Twitter, has prompted about $180,000 in purchases to date since it launched in late October, according to a researcher. Research firm Keyhole tracked all the instances in which someone used "@tweetacoffee" in conjunction with a friend's Twitter handle and found that more than 27,000 fans used the program. Some 34% of users bought multiple gift cards and 32% of the purchases occurred on the first day. Launched on Oct. 28, Tweet-a-Coffee let you give a $5 gift card to a friend by putting both "@tweetacoffee" and the friend's handle in a tweet. To do so, users had to link their Starbucks account to Twitter and their credit card to the account. Saif Ajani, co-founder of Keyhole, says $180,000 is a respectable return on investment since the program probably required a low investment. (Starbucks reps could not be reached for comment on his report.) SEE ALSO: 7 Things You Didn't Know About Starbucks Ajani says the real coup for Starbucks is that it now has linked 54,000 users 'Twitter IDs to their mobile phones and customer IDs. "Here's proof that direct-response [marketing] works on Twitter," he says. Even better, Starbucks will now be able to access the Klout scores of those customers and see what topics interest them. The report also demonstrates a downside of Twitter-based marketing: Keyhole used publicly available information to determine the campaign's success. So can competitors.
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441236/Were-hiring-Company-responds-I-quit-video-dancing-office-4am.html 'We're hiring!' Now boss of video editor who quit her job by dancing around the office at 4am bites back Marina Schifrin made video in office at 4.30am to Kanye West's Gone Since posting it online last week she has had more than 7 million views Ex-boss made his own video to make an announcement of his own By DAILY MAIL REPORTER PUBLISHED: 05:12 GMT, 2 October 2013 | UPDATED: 07:18 GMT, 3 October 2013 83 View comments When video editor Marina Schifrin decided she wanted to leave Taiwanese animator Next Media Animation, she probably didn't expect that her boss would fire back with his own video. In a tongue-in-cheek video response uploaded to YouTube, employees at the Taiwanese animation company performed their own 'interpretive dance' to Kanye West's 'Gone.' Her boss also had some stern words for her: ' I wish marina would have applied more creativity to her daily work as she did in the video.' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441236/Were-hiring-Company-responds-I-quit-video-dancing-office-4am.html#ixzz3QbazuqV1 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
- http://gregorypouy.blogs.com/marketing/2010/04/les-diff%C3%A9rents-contenus-qui-constituent-une-marque.html Les différents contenus qui constituent une marque Par greg, à 09:45 Tweet 0 Like One person likes this. Chez Nurun nous avions envie d'expliquer à nos clients le rapprochement entre les logiques de contenus et les logiques médias et il s'avère qu'évidemment tout est entrelacé puisque sans media, le contenu n'a pas de valeur et sans contenu le media ne sert à rien. Jusque là, rien de très intéressant... Sans partir dans des théories incroyables, nous avons souhaité coucher sur un schéma simple les différents types de contenus qui composent une marque et les stratégies associées : Je partage donc avec vous. Une marque est composée de 6 types de contenus plus ou moins important quantitativement (taille des bulles) et plus ou moins crédible pour l'internaute et plus ou moins exacte d'un point de vue marque. 1. Les contenus générés par la marque sur son site web Ici vous allez évidemment travailler le SEO (référencement naturel), le SEA (référencement payant), mettre en place une stratégie de nom de domaine afin que ces contenus soit visible au maximum. S'ils sont les contenus les plus exact du point de vue de l'entreprise, ils sont aussi les moins crédibles et les moins important quantitativement à priori. 2. Les contenus créé par les internautes et contrôlé par la marque sur son site Ici l'idée est de donner la possibilité aux internautes d'interagir sur le site évidemment (outils communautaire on site), de les modérer par du community management réactif mais aussi de les générer par du community management proactif Cela peut donc être développé par du Facebook connect par exemple qui aura l'avantage de créer du contenu hors du site également puisque sur les profils Facebook des internautes. 3. Le contenu créé et contrôlé par la marque hors du site Bien sur la 1ère idée qui doit vous venir, c'est la page de fan sur facebook et vous n'avez pas complètement tord maisiIci on parle également de SMO (Social média optimisation). L'idée est de se dire qu'une marque doit être visible dans google par son site web mais mérite aussi d'être visible dans les autres espaces que compte le web (moteur de recherche vidéos, photos, présentation powerpoint...). Il s'agit donc d'avoir une stratégie de contenu qui permet d'avoir des éléments mis à jour de manière régulière, de les rendre visibles sur ces plateformes évidemment et de faire du community management réactif afin de répondre aux questions ou plus largement aux commentaires. 4. Le contenu créé par les utilisateurs et relativement contrôlé par la marque : Je dis relativement car la marque va mettre en place des opération qui permettent de gérer un peu près ce qui va être dît. L'idée n'est pas forcément ici de contrôler mais bien d'influencer. Afin de développer cette partie forcément plus crédible auprès des internautes, il s'agit de mettre en place des opérations UGC (User generated content) ou des RP digitales avec des blogueurs. cela doit se faire de manière intelligente et sur le long terme mais nous avons déjà abordé ce point il y a peu 5. Le contenu créé et contrôlé par les internautes C'est évidemment la plus grosse masse de contenus. Ils sont générés sur les blogs, twitter, les sites d'avis, comparatif, forums et autres... Ici l'internaute est roi et la marque n'a aucune main mise sur ce qui peut se passer. C'est également dans cette catégorie que l'on va ranger les contenus générés par les salariés alors que la marque ne leur à rien de demandé... IL s'agit pour la marque d'écouter ce qui se dit, de réagir (community management réactif) quand cela est nécessaire. Le community management proactif qui va être mis en place, va permettre d'influer sur cette partie également 6. le contenus généré par les médias c'est une partie importante également si l'annonceur gère bien ses RP (relations presse) évidemment. C'est un contenu crédible au vue des internautes et qui est sans doute l'un des plus regardés par les dirigeants d'entreprises aujourd'hui. Évidemment, ne vous méprenez pas, tout cela doit rentrer dans une stratégie globale évidement, il ne s'agit pas d'appliquer sans réfléchir...mais vous commencez à connaître le discours, non ?
- http://www.business2community.com/online-marketing/new-online-marketing-mix-paid-owned-earned-shared-0906449 The New Online Marketing Mix: Paid, Owned, Earned & Shared 84 SHARES TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedIn image: http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c2be49ef09987eafb7c34d5162c4f015?s=48&d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D48&r=G Shelley Pringle JUNE 13, 2014 ONLINE MARKETING 0 A few weeks ago, my colleague Jennifer Kelley, sent me a link to a MarketingProf’s article discussing the recent Maserati advertisement called Strike. She wondered why someone would refer to this TV spot as a PR piece and not an ad. image: http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/online-marketing-mix.png online marketing mix The commercial apparently “blew the doors off everyone” when it aired during this year’s Super Bowl. It was created by Portland-based Wieden + Kennedy, a full-service advertising agency best known for its work on Nike. Think Differently founder Lyndon Johnson, who wrote the MarketingProf’s article, also blogged about Strike. He describes it as the “start of rebuilding relationships with customers that had purchased the ill-fated Ghibli of the 1980s; [and] customers of other four-door sedans who secretly wanted an Italian sports sedan.” Like Jennifer, I, too, wonder why Strike should be considered public relations. After all, advertising professionals have long used emotion-laden ads to foster deeper relationships with consumers, as opposed to selling to them overtly. Moreover, as a PR practitioner, I worry Johnson’s point is part of a bigger issue: the lingering perception that our profession is about relationship building and nothing else. Recommended for You Webcast: Why, What, and How to Do Social Selling Yes, PR pros have unique communications tactics we can apply to effectively build customer and stakeholder relations. More importantly, however, our full PR tool set is comprehensive and powerful. We can use it to help our client achieve a broad range of their communications and marketing objectives, including driving sales at the cash register and directly improving the bottom line. Maserati’s Strike campaign is noteworthy for its masterful television spot, but it also features elements of the new online marketing mix – paid, owned, earned and shared media – that PR agencies offer their clients. image: http://cdn2.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/paid-earned-owned-shared-media-600x307.png paid earned owned shared media Image courtesy of TopRank Blog If you’re unfamiliar with the terms, here’s a quick run-down with a look at how each fits into the Strike campaign. Paid Media Paid media is traditional push-style advertising in which a company pays to distribute its message via TV, radio, newspaper, magazines, billboards, online banners, social media platforms and pay-per-click. There are many benefits to paid media. You control the message, have the ability to target niche audiences and, in some cases, determine when and where the ad appears. Maserati’s Strike falls into the category of paid media. The car manufacturer spent big bucks – more than $10 million, according to Advertising Age – for its 90 seconds of air time during the 2014 pigskin finale. And that doesn’t include the cost of production and other elements of the media buy, including the Yahoo home-page takeover and USA Today cover wrap. If that’s not paid media, I don’t know what is. Owned Media Owned media is the content – copy, photos, videos, eBooks, webinars, etc. – you create and distribute across your website and social media properties (as well as partner sites and other non-paid media platforms). A company has full control of its owned media, including the message, where it’s published, and when. Many brands hire editorial staff to create and manage their owned-media content in order to connect and engage more intimately with their prospects and customers. Maserati posted Strike to its YouTube Channel, which is an example of owned media. However, this seems to be the extent of its use of this particular element of the digital marketing mix. The ad is not posted on the Maserati website. Earned Media The Strike story is an interesting business story that crosses over into the mainstream. So it’s not surprising that Maserati leveraged earned media, a traditional strength of PR professionals, to get the word out. Google the term Maserati ad Strike, and you’ll see earned media coverage in the Huffington Post, AOL, BusinessWeek.com and many more online publications. Earned media is publicity gained through editorial coverage. A company pays a public relations professional to pitch its story to target journalists with the hope the journalists will cover the story. There are a number of challenges to making this approach work. First of all, the decision whether or not to write and publish the story is entirely in the hands of the journalist and publishing entity. Further, once the PR practitioner pitches the story, the journalist takes over and is free to interpret the message in a different way. It can be difficult to control what is communicated to the consumer. Finally, if you’re fortunate enough to get coverage for your story, you still don’t control when it will appear, where it will appear or how long it will be available to be read. On the plus side – and it’s a big plus – consumers consider earned media highly credible since it’s communicated by an objective third party. Shared Media When someone shares your content with their connections on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other social media platforms, it becomes shared media. Strike was highly shareable. In April, two months after the Super Bowl, the ad was one of the most popular videos on YouTube, boasting 12.2 million views and more than 100,000 social media shares. Each of the media types I’ve described – paid, owned, earned and shared – stands on its own. But they also play well together and, when combined, can give you more bang for your buck. For example, if you sponsor a tweet (paid media), people may decide to share it with their followers (shared media), thereby amplifying your message at no extra cost. And if that tweet includes a link to a blog post (owned media), you could achieve a deeper level of engagement with your audience. The elements of the marketing mix have changed significantly over the last decade. An integrated campaign used to consist of advertising, PR, sales promotion and direct. Today, our definition of integrated has expanded to include an online marketing mix as well. If you want to take full advantage of your marketing budget, be sure to consider every available avenue for communicating your message. Read more at http://www.business2community.com/online-marketing/new-online-marketing-mix-paid-owned-earned-shared-0906449#qpokpJQuoJIaV1mY.99 ————————— http://www.toprankblog.com/2011/07/online-marketing-media-mix/ Paid, Earned, Owned & Shared Media – What’s Your Online Marketing Media Mix? By Lee Odden Online Marketing 572 SHARES media mixIn the Content Marketing Trilogy of Discovery, Consumption and Sharing, there are a mix of media types online marketers employ to facilitate the connection between brand information and consumers / buyers across the customer lifecycle relationship. Those media types are often characterized as Paid, Earned, Owned and Shared media. What do those media types mean and where do they fit within an online marketing mix? Here’s a 30,000 foot view of each media type and what they might contribute to a content marketing strategy: Paid Media - Often thought of as “traditional” online advertising through display ads, pay per click search ads and sponsorships. The pro for paid media is it’s ability to be implemented pretty much on-demand, the ability to have some degree of control and also that it scales. The growing popularity of social advertising on sites like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn (YouTube as well) adds another option for marketers to gain presence in channels where consumers and buyers are spending their time. The appearance of brand messages and content within paid media can work together with social sharing and organic search. Earned Media – The result of public & media relations efforts to gain coverage in publications – on and offline. Or essentially, brand presence within media without having to advertise. This definition also extends to brands that behave online in such a way that “customers empowered to publish” create content on the brand’s behalf inspiring buzz and word of mouth. Owned Media – Media, content and assets that the brand controls, like websites, blogs, newsletters and brand social media accounts. Brands are increasingly behaving like publishers with editorial staff managing content creation steams. “Content Marketing” is the hot topic when it comes to Owned Media and can facilitate brand information discovery through search and social channels. Content engages customers and fosters relationships throughout the customer lifecycle. Brand content to serve both broad and niche audiences is not immediately scalable, but can provide long term growth benefits without corresponding growth in costs. Shared Media – Brand social web participation and interaction with consumers on content on sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube that results in content is “shared media” since it’s a result of a shared interaction. Because of the nature of social sharing and engagement on social media sites, Shared Media can propagate across an individual’s network to others, and so on and so on. Paid and Owned Media can inspire Shared Media. Shared Media can inspire Earned Media. As more online marketers are exposed to these terms most commonly used by Advertising and Public Relations Agencies, I think it’s useful to explore what they mean for content marketing and the options for marketers to best facilitate consumer information discovery, consumption and sharing. Within your marketing organization, do you refer to media in these terms? Do you use different definitions? Which of these media are in your online marketing mix?