Author Archive

Slate blogger Mickey Kaus has been pushing an interesting theory on political consumerism, namely that the news cycle and technology have evolved and advanced so far – and in such coordination – that consumers are more adept at cycling news and information much more quickly than even a few years ago, “that voters are comfortable processing information at the vastly increased speed it can come at them”.

He cites this phenomenon, called Feiler Faster Thesis, on why everyone got NH wrong in Barack’s favor:

“…Voters who don’t really follow politics are much less informed than they used to be, which causes polls to shift rapidly when they do inform themselves … You’ve got a vast uninformed pool of voters that only begins to make up its mind until the very last minute–after the last poll is taken, maybe–and then reaches its decision by furiously ingesting information at a Feileresque pace.”

But what if we were to put this in general, non-wonkish marketing perspective: due to technology’s rapid dissemination of information and socialization of product and brand “truthyness”, the temporal market place for any brand or product is being truncated and only the most immediate message are penetrating.

One the one hand, long term investment in brand awareness creates only fleeting – not sustainable – consideration momentum that can be capitalized on (why Barack saw an Iowa bounce, but it disappeared overnight; why Hillary’s crying episode quickly overshadowed the Iowa results leading right up until voters made up their minds).

Retail sciences are exploring this trend widely, focusing on the “moment of truth”, when a consumer pulls a product from their shelves. But are agency strategists keeping up with the consideration cycle and funnel of today’s rapidly promiscuous consumer?

I’ve contended for some time now that the sales funnel looks less like an upside down triangle and much more like an extraordinarily thin hourglass, which continuously curves into itself. Maybe Kaus is right, and that it’s not so thin after all.

With even more appologies to Jeff – Man, I’m killing my career here – check out this post from AdAge: More Football Fans Hit ESPN’s Mobile Site Than Its PC Pages.

So maybe it’s just our definition of expectations that needs alignment. It certainly isn’t distribution – a recent annoucement that 1 of every 2 humans in the world now carries a cell phone surely resonates.

With great regard for Jeff’s annoyance of top ten lists, instead of a list of what I think will become major marketing and media trends for the coming 12-18 months, these are the things I will be keeping a running interest in (in no particular order):

1) Genomic Marketing: With tests for genetic ancestry and inheritances hitting the market for under $1,000, expect more consumers to take the bait. This will initially affect marketing spaces by way of the bioproduct’s complexity and the need for the industry to educate consumers and their doctors about genetic predictabilities and phenotype interactions (we’re already seeing the results of the PR push). Secondarily, and most importantly, when more consumers are armed with their genetic predispositions we should expect marketers to respond by introducing products and campaigns that speak to your DNA and not your preferences, your fears instead of your aspirations. Good times.

2) The end of the “Celebutard” glut: After a year in which users not only passively watched but became de-facto participants in the complete self destruction of Britney and company, I have a gloomy sense that one of these narratives of posturing will end very, very tragically. During an election year, when voters will be asked to reflect on what it means to build a great society, the TMZs and In-Touch Magazines of the world will watch their audience slowly disappear. Hasselhoff will emerge as the proverbial nuclear roach.

3) Neuroscientific Retailing: From AdAge’s 2008 predictions

Going beyond traditional focus groups and consumer surveys, market research will embrace scientific approaches that literally tap consumers’ brains to learn how they neurologically respond to commercial messages and make brand choices The Four A’s and ARF have begun researching this topic in earnest with an intensive study, “On the Road to a New Effectiveness Model.” In 2008 we will start to see practical applications of these insights as advertisers and shops begin to truly understand engagement.

I agree, especially within the context of Spun’s own growth in behavioral insights and some of the functional magnetic resonance imaging techniques being used on the campaign trail, but think the real gains will be on the shelves.

The major retailers have been way ahead of their manufacturing peers and suppliers when it comes to understanding what drives category growth through their channels – from packaging and traffic patterns to narrowcasting media in-store and “retailtainment” positions. Expect to see (but maybe not hear about) shifts in the grocery and big box landscapes to reflect learnings from the neurosciences as well as continued growth of boutique retail environments geared toward the particular behaviors of discrete populations. And expect to be surprised by how much the back of your receipt knows about you.

4) The web will find its narrative voice: In what is currently still a very clinical medium, the well crafted turn of verse will begin to find its way onto websites and into interactive advertising. With thousands of Hollywood hacks flooding the market with words looking for pages (and no end to the strike in sight), brand story arcs will begin to take shape, and consumer engagement will not only be task driven, but plot driven. Gorilla playing the drums for chocolate – Ok. How about a Gorilla who has to keep playing the drums or else his Gorilla gal pal gets dumped into a vat of hot banana pudding… stay tuned (and sponsored by BENGAY®).

5) BOOMERvision!: Marketers have increasingly recognized the power of the Boomer generation’s income and impact – now they will start to segment and speak to it. Today, 50+ American adults represent 38% of the population, exploding to 47% by 2020, and control upwards of 70% of the nation’s wealth and half of all consumer spending. From “Leading Edgers” to those “Ready to Launch”, marketers will begin to understand the unique passion points of those born on the cusp of the boom versus those later on, the subtle differences between those who still have kids in the household to the empty nesters. Most agency and media pros, on the other hand, will not.

6) Green Fiends: This is already being covered ad nauseam in the trades, but companies that preach environmental consciousness better be really self-aware. Not only will consumers collectively call their bluff (and expensively flood their customer call centers), so will our elected officials, their competitors and their partners. In the end, many marketers will realize that grubby granola ground hippies don’t buy antiperspirants or luxury automobiles anyway. (Just kidding). And that capital sustainability is sometimes counterintuitive to environmental sustainability. (Not Kidding).

7) Election Rejection: Interactive marketing professionals will concentrate more during this election on topics that in no way impact their lives (insert that subject here), but will have no idea where the candidates stand on the most important topic to our field: net neutrality.

And finally, speaking of elections:

Real Beauty elected in landslide: After wasting months of meaningless grey matter over what the Mitchell report really means, the electorate will turn out in record numbers to select the winner of Dove’s campaign for real beauty:

If you’re a sports or music enthusiast, you’ve no doubt done the “help 2″ before: strolling outside an arena or stadium holding up a couple of fingers to attract scalpers – or secondary market entrepreneurs, onsite re-sellers, etc. – who may have the goods you need.

Inevitably, the tickets they’re offering will be above face value – partly a marginal surcharge to cover their legal risk, and partly because ticket prices are set artificially low. Now, prices are synthetically low for a few reasons – unknown demand, to keep the stadium packed for a better overall experience (and to massage the artist’s ego, sell more beer, et al.), and to ensure access for the regular guy, Joe Mullet Headed Face Painter.

Ironically, and against the recommendation of almost every economist alive, scalping is for the most part illegal or dis-encouraged.

But the web has changed all of that – secondary ticket markets are a fruitful utility linking seat to potential fanny and identifying what the market really can bare. In fact, the NFL is exploring a possible relationship with one of the more popular online ticket resale exchanges, and some conventional thinking is that this will completely democratize the ticket buying process, at once identifying a market’s strike price and eventually freezing out the most loyal but more shallow-pocketed Fan.

But, what if we had this type of market with commercial media – a real time auction linking marketer to consumer? Well, probably two things immediately: 1) costs would sky-rocket, and 2) then they would plummet. Probably overnight.

Initially, artificial demand would propel media buying concerns (who currently over estimate the demand anyway, thus the Upfront) to pay way too much for the premium – probably even remnant – inventory. “Disposable” content, like reality shows and sports – where you pretty much have to see them when they occur – will make the quickest gains, and the crappy shows we all complain about will get the scraps. The actual demand would quickly be exposed, and costs would sink.

But, what would it be exposing – a true market for eyeballs, or a true market for the pockets connected to those eyeballs? Or even better, a true market for the value of the engagement? Broadcast has had it both ways: selling both general volume and/or particular audience qualities simultaneously and often contradictorily (MTV has been positioning itself recently with an engagement play, to some chuckles, but trying none the less) .

Some major marketers for years have been asking for an open market to traditional ad space inventory, but no one can agree on the product value: the cost to create the content + “what”? Of course, “what”ever someone is willing to pay – but this only works if the market is relatively transparent (and another reason no one thinks the writer’s strike will end anytime soon).

Mostly through ad networks and search models (Google even played, without effect, with an open auction model for print space), web advertising is creeping into the democratization of other kinds of media, at least creating a model for how inventory can be arbitraged.

Just something to keep in mind: Small marketers (the Joe Mullet Headed Face Painters) may be left out in the cold, even with a clearer cost structure and lower entry point; content will generally improve at the high end, sink lower at the bottom end; more “disposable” content will flood the market (until the production companies realize how much they’re giving up in lost syndication cash) and a third market will – and has already started to – open up: even more valuable inventories created by individuals themselves and their self-managed content networks.

Look, I’m as big a fan of the head fake shimmy to scallywag, foot shuffle back to head fake shimmy as the next guy, and love ironic jewelry that says something even more ironically specific when the jewelry is eaten, but I will not be upgrading to Direct TV’s HD offering – thank you very much, Beyonce.

[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=7dcrU6kXVLA]

In one of the most preposterous TV commercials of all time (I originally thought it was a parody of some kind), our luminary is starring in a music video that is going swimmingly, just beautifully, until she’s reminded that she’s actually hawking Direct TV, and desperately needs to upgrade me to a $29.99 HD package. But she doesn’t stop the video part, just injects the commercial part, or is it the other way around. I’m so confused.

But, then the mouthful of her gold “upgrade” medallion cleared it all up for me. However, the thing is, I’d much rather have the “upgrade” necklace than the Direct TV upgrade. All I can find, though, is a necklace with Beyonce herself on it, not the actual “Upgrade” necklace that would match my “With a 2-yr service agreement” bracelet, and “After mail-in rebate” anklet.

All kidding aside, this piece of advertising, and the hideously frequent volume of its showing, is really why the average consumer gets turned off by our trade, and why smart strategy is increasingly moving toward actual and resonant consumer insights driving brand gains. What could possibly be the core insight here? That Beyonce is an expert on High Definition television? Or that she really believes that $29.99 is the optimum price point for 75 of the hottest HD channels…

No, what we have here is the classic “music to sell stuff to” theorem, wherein a marketing exec, typically on the client side (but not always), heard the song or saw Beyonce’s video, and said, “You know, it has the word ‘upgrade’ in it, and people know who Beyonce is, and we can cover the cost of her talent fee by simply cutting up the music video with some VO about the offer…, as long as we run 1,200 GRPs a week during the holidays, man this stuff is going to sell itself”.

So in honor of one of the most ungainly, clumsy and annoying commercials ever to air under the “music to sell stuff to” theory, what other gems have gone untapped? Please submit your idea for a song that ‘totally’ needs to be paired with a product; example:

+

=

profits …