Watching holiday season commercials can sometimes feel like sport — akin to tuning in for the Super Bowl for the creative execution of the advertising as opposed to the game itself. My research for this post turned up a plethora of opinions on the web. (As much as I loved the Gap commercials, there were plenty of viewers who found them annoying.)

That said, there were a few commercials that I found particularly inspiring this holiday season. Amazon features musician/actress Annie Little (http://www.annielittle.com/) singing “Fly Me Away” in their spot for the Kindle. She not only sings the song, but also is the woman who appears in the stop-action animation. Amazon also features her music for sale on their site: http://www.amazon.com/Fly-Me-Away/dp/B002VXMLO2

The remarkable thing is that the ad was actually not professionally produced, but was the winner of a competition called the “Your Amazon Ad Contest.” Filmed in just 7 hours during a single session in July, this was a memorable commercial — and one that will reap immeasurable benefits for Amazon. The song is simple, curious and folk-like, with lyrics written by Ms. Little that strike a certain chord. It seemed to resonate with the popular culture, or at least among the Blogs I read. Through the number of impressions and global reach, like so many successful commercials, the music “Fly Me Away” will be indelibly connected to the Kindle forever. Please see the website if you would like to view the runner-up award winners. It’s an amazing testament to the creative ability of those without the empowerment of agencies resources, who entered the contest.

Amazon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT2idh99bpw

Advertising for Gap, Inc. is generally excellent, but this year’s campaign, designed around an upbeat cheerleader theme was especially powerful. The company even created a microsite (http://www.cheerfactory.com/).

Crispin Porter & Bogusky created the campaign, which features a multi-pronged, integrated strategy of social media, traditional print and broadcast advertising, and even a four-city tour by a troupe of cheerleaders and drummers who will “appear in unexpected places when you least expect it,” according to Ivy Ross, executive vice president of marketing for the Gap brand.

New York Times article:
Something to Rah-Rah-Rah About for Christmas

Gap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVMPWlWDvsI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j1yupiHgek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGUd6sFGMN8

J.C. Penny Company supplemented their ads in traditional media this year with a presence in social media. According to Mike Boylson, executive vice president and chief marketing officer at J. C. Penney, “We’ll be leaking out our best deals on Facebook and Twitter.” The company also purchased time on YouTube on Thanksgiving Day to air its first holiday season commercial.

J.C. Penny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CmQjU2f2rk

And, of course, what would the holidays be without an “i-Everything product” and an equally impressive commercial? Apple jumped impressively into the fray this Fall with its spots for the iPod Nano:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6nTgfS6EiY
http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/gallery/ads/

As for my 2 cents, the freshness and raw, simple expression of the Amazon Kindle campaign wins the vote for best commercial of 2009. Congratulations to Angela Kohler and her boyfriend, Ithyle Griffiths, who simply purchased the product and were inspired to make the short film.

Posted in Marketing | No Comments »

After watching traditional publishers fumble and stumble their way into a new business model, The New York Times reported last week that a new venture is in the works. The online community portal — for lack of a more appropriate term — will involve a consortium of top media companies like Hearst, Condé Nast, Meredith, and Time Inc., as they engage outsourced consulting firms and agency partners to create a new online newsstand.

Only this online newsstand is very unlike the affinity marketing initiatives that were exploited by agencies like Publishers Clearing House, or the now defunct American Family Publishers. No one is looking exclusively for subscriptions at $19 annually. This online site will be modeled after ad-hoc, or tiered “content purveyance.” In brief, think of it like an iTunes for media content.

Suppose, or imagine a community website where you can surf your favorite subjects of interest, peruse the most recent content, make a selection and download the article — say, for example, on how to develop your lower abs, improve your cooking of French cuisine, or find and appraise antique artifacts — and pay a nominal fee of only $1 or $2 per article selection.

Or, alternatively, you may become a fan of that “content-supplier/owner” and actually order a subscription to the print product, or just be directed to the proprietary, unique website and have full access for only $12 per year.

I’m not exactly sure that this is the way the new model will work, but it should. Brian Steltzer reports that the named companies will take equity shares in the new proposition, although deals have yet to be signed. A few newspaper owners have also expressed interest.

The model is not new. Ventures like Hulu, owned by a consortium of television networks, have offered new channels to broadcast content for consumers. Vevo, which will make its debut in January 2010, is attempting to tackle the challenge of monetizing music content that is presently being downloaded for free.

Of course, one of the big challenges is figuring out how to aim for a moving target. Integrated devices and smart phones are rapidly transitioning their applications and models, and no one is quit sure where to aim, or how to build a web model and channels to mobile that also is relevant in 2012, much less 2010.

Still, in my opinion, this is the most dramatic, forward-thinking move that traditional media has taken in decades. It represents a sea-shift or paradigm change that is relevant to modern content-consumerism, and it’s absolutely necessary. No amount of venture capital or commitment of publishers’ collective time could be applied in a more valuable way.

Winning the battle of “paid online content” has been the conundrum and nemesis of publishers for ten difficult years. But publishers are content owners. Content is their core value proposition. It’s what consumers crave and need, and sadly, what they have discovered for free online, whether the result is accurate and satisfying or not.

And it’s clearly about more than advertising, as the finite universe for advertising revenue continues to be compromised by recession and is diminished through ever-increasing, seemingly infinite, digital channels. According to Charles Townsend of Condé Nast, “We know that the world of digital is far grander than display advertising.”

But content proprietors — owners of the best content in the world — like Time Inc. Condé Nast and Hearst are experts in their respective categories. It’s time that those C-level leaders made smart business decisions, understood the worth of their core assets, chose the channel and value model of the future, and kept their companies competitive.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/magazine-publishers-to-build-an-online-newsstand/?scp=1&sq=online%20newsstand&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/media/16adco.html?_r=1&ref=business

Tags: media, publishing
Posted in Media | 1 Comment »

Rupert Murdoch achieved his long-coveted prize, by buying Dow Jones & Company, publisher of The Wall Street Journal for $5 billion.

Warren Buffett leveraged everything, split the B shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock and paid $26 billion for Burlington-Northern Santa Fe — a railroad, of all things — to achieve a childhood dream.

Now, we hear that Bloomberg L.P. has paid $5 million in cash and reportedly assumed another $10 million in liabilities for BusinessWeek — at a time when print journalism is confronted with its greatest challenge in history, with news in printed form taking the biggest hit. If daily newspapers are strained to remain relevant at all, news weeklies are not far behind as they seek ways to remain viable, usually under the brand image and market position of analysis or commentary. It’s no longer a matter of reporting what happened, but rather a matter of explaining what it all means.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/business/media/18mag.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Business%20Week&st=cse

Is there something more at work here? The November 18 New York Times reports that Bloomberg has assembled an A-team of former Time Inc. executives like Norman Pearlstine, Jim Kelly, and most recently, Josh Tyrangiel to oversee the transition and head up the revamped, relaunched magazine and website. Reportedly, the new property will be called Bloomberg BusinessWeek, but will continue to serve consumers (and we would guess also be distributed to subscribers of Bloomberg financial terminals). How much of a focus the website will have is still to be determined, as there is an audit of staff presently being conducted. Announcements about who, among the editorial team, will remain are set for December 1, 2009.

As the organizational structure is rethought and the title is integrated into Bloomberg News operationally, the great irony is that none of these investments appear to be betting on Web 2.0. News journalism has almost completely made the transition to the internet, as we watch traditional outlets like the evening news broadcast on network television struggle.

As much as I personally prefer reading a printed journal or publication, I don’t view any consumer print news vehicle as a wise bet for future investment. My daughter and son seem like fairly typical teenagers and they hardly pick up anything besides their iPod and laptops. I can’t recall the last time they asked to visit a newsstand. If they turn to the television or print at all, they certainly are not looking for breaking news, or even for analysis and commentary.

How Mr. Bloomberg can leverage and reinvent a preeminent business magazine in 2010 that was launched in 1929 is beyond me. It may become a smart channel for advancing his own business communications and brand goals, and it wouldn’t be unthinkable to imagine that he intends to use it as a platform for his own future political aspirations. Steve Forbes certainly did it once with Forbes magazine when he ran for President in 1996 and 2000.

Apparently, the plans are to immediately reduce the workforce by about 100 positions, or 25 percent of the magazine’s staff. Some of those layoffs have already reportedly started, with more to come this week.

Maybe there’s something developing in the market that I’m not seeing, or maybe Mr. Bloomberg will simply apply the same sage insights and special talents to make this new venture as vibrant and successful as he’s made his financial services company. Either way, it’s undeniable that these media purchases are going against the grain of conventional Web 2.0 thinking.

Posted in Media | No Comments »

According to my financial adviser, today, over $3.43 trillion is held in cash and money markets, waiting to enter the market “when the time is right.” And yet, in the third quarter of 2009, both the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones had gains of over 15%. In fact, since the low this year on March 9th, the Dow has gained back nearly 4,000 points, which would understandably cause financial advisers to wonder what magical benchmark in record gains has to be fulfilled in order to restore investor confidence.

Historically, according to Robert Votruba (www.robertvotruba.com), people have done exactly the opposite of what they should do, which is sell high once the market has rebounded, and buy or reinvest low. Instead, they tend to wait to buy until investor confidence has returned, which means the stocks have already appreciated, of course.

Marketing has functioned exactly the same way, in my opinion. In the last year, agencies have discounted professional fees, media properties have slashed rates for advertising, and everyone is doing far more with less. So, at a time when advertising and marketing professionals are able to pre-approve, procure and lock-up valuable services — now and for the future, at rates that are 20-30% less than standard market value — why are marketing managers so reluctant to jump in?

For one, they clearly have restricted budgets. In an enviable buyer’s market, advertisers have very little empowerment to capitalize on the opportunities that exist in the market. In this case, it’s a “trickle up” effect. Injections of taxpayer bailout money might have trickled down (an arguable and dubious assumption, by the looks of debacles like the bonuses at AIG and the recent CIT bankruptcy maneuver), but in a contracted economy, the reverberations and cost reductions seem to trickle upward.

It’s a shame, as a business value proposition. I always enjoy watching smart, effective business being conducted, which makes the marketing world pretty frustrating these days. Marketing or advertising expenditures are generally some of the first budget line items to be eliminated or reduced. In fact, having weathered this type of storm twice in 15 years, I consider IridiumGroup a leading economic indicator. We were hit early in June 2008, well before the financial markets plunged in late September on news about Lehman, Bear Stearns and other brokerage houses. That trend continued, with only a few modest aberrations, through 2009. In fact, if Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke ever wants a clear indication of what is just around the corner, his office might consider creating a new index: Marketing dollars allocated.

During this time, we have continued to market at a consistent pace, and focused our efforts more carefully than ever before. I don’t think we’ve ever been sharper, more capable, or projected more relevant messages. And yet, there was a clear downturn in leads generated during the last 18 months. We would gladly work within constricted budgets and try to deliver as much value as possible for highly competitive rates — at times, at cost — if it meant the opportunity to prove our worth and build an important new relationship.

And yet, those few prospective clients have often declined to engage. Like the Dow Jones, it’s a buyer’s market, but no one is spending. It’s like being in a bargain basement discount store with desirable merchandise and watching all the hungry shoppers stand around, declaring that they need to wait until the prices go higher.

As Stuart Elliott reported on November 6 in The New York Times, the Association of National Advertisers are meeting and looking back on the unusual circumstances of the past year as well as trying to determine what shape their companies — and the economy — will be in for their 100th anniversary. According to Rebecca Saeger, executive vice president and chief marketing officer of the Charles Schwab Corporation, the downturn was “by far the worst of any I have lived through. It took everything we know how to do to get through this.” She added, “The answer has been for marketers not to disappear,” but rather “to seize the moment and take advantage of the opportunities.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/business/media/06adco.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=marketers%20regroup&st=cse

Bad economies are no time to retreat like tortoises under our shells. No company ever achieved a breakout performance with their brand, without thinking independently and taking a few smart, calculated chances.

Hunkering down, slashing budgets and waiting for the storm to pass is one approach. Being proactive, seeing the opportunities in the market and securing valuable talent that is well-aligned to support marketing and brand managers’ goals — at smart rates — is another. For high performing companies and the businesses that will emerge as capable players, ready to embrace the new opportunities, that’s the current modus operandi.

Posted in Marketing | No Comments »