What’s Your Privacy Worth?

Have you ever been tempted to sit through the time share sales pitch and take the 4-hour tour in order to get the “free” 3 day / 2 night Orlando vacation? How much are you willing to put up with to get something for nothing?

Do you use gmail? If you do, you may know that Google scans your inbox and delivers ads that are relevant to certain keywords in your email messages. Do you care? Are you okay with this in exchange for a free email account?

What about your phone conversations? Would you be okay with voice recognition software listening in on your phone conversations in order to serve you contextually relevant ads in exchange for free phone service? A company called Pudding Media is launching that very service. It was written up in the New York Times recently. It got me thinking about the price consumers are willing to pay to get what they want. What they want could be content such as TV programming, radio shows, music, web content or online video games. It could also be a free service such as an email account or phone service.

And what’s in it for the advertiser? Are these consumers as receptive as those who’ve paid for their content (think HBO, a magazine you may subscribe to, or Halo 3 for which you’ve just plunked down $50)? Or are these consumers just willing to put up the ad messages in order to get the free service. Obviously, consumers prefer ad free environments as evidenced buy the success of TiVo, Satellite Radio, etc).

My “retire early, make me a millionaire” idea is based on the premise that consumers will sacrifice a certain degree of privacy if there is a significant end benefit. Most people in the industry know that the way TV audiences are measured by Nielsen is dreadfully antiquated and project an unbelievably small sample size out to the general population. Yet, we live with it because it’s all that we’ve got and it is the accepted currency in the industry. Now, getting back to the part where I become a millionaire … would you care if your TV viewing behavior was tracked electronically through your cable box? What if your cable bill was reduced by $5 per month in exchange for this information? I don’t care who knows what I watch, I’d do it. And I bet most of you would too. In exchange, advertisers get reliable data from a large sample of consumers. Imagine the leap forward in local and national ratings data. Overnights would become actuals instantly. Minute by minute ratings you ask? No problem. Wonder if the “A” position is better than the “D” position? We’d have the answer. The benefit to advertisers would be endless. And while I’d get $5 off my cable bill each month, that wouldn’t really matter because I’d be a millionaire for coming up with the idea that put Nielsen out of business.

Now, if anybody has a thought on how to execute this, there may be $5 per month in it for you.

Gearing up for the new Fall Season

The kids are back at the bus stop. There’s a slight chill in the night air. And if you look closely, you may be able to find a few leaves that have started to turn. Labor Day marks the unofficial end of summer. Many people find this depressing. But it also marks the pending arrival of the new fall television season. The days of the Reality Show of the Week and Law & Order re-runs are coming to an end. Some of the nets are even starting to air last season’s final episodes to help get your head in the right place for this season’s twists and turns. Here are my picks and pans for the upcoming season:

Returning Shows I’m Most Looking Forward to Getting Back Into:
- Prison Break, FOX – What will happen now that Michael is stuck in that nasty prison in Panama?
- Criminal Minds, CBS – Will the shows’ high standard be maintained without Mandy Patinkin?
- Las Vegas, NBC – Watching Josh Duhamel is like looking in a mirror. :P

I wonder if these shows have Jumped the Shark:
- Nip Tuck, FX – Moving to Hollywood? Why the change of scenery? Plus, last year was the weakest yet.
- My Name is Earl, NBC – The buzz seems to have died. I just never hear anyone say “I Love That Show” anymore.
- Desperate Housewives, ABC – Is this fad over yet? I’m sure the ratings will still be decent, but it seems to have lost a bit.

New Shows I’ll sample:
- Cane, CBS – Starring Jimmy Smits … it must be good.
- Dirty, Sexy, Money, ABC – Don’t know if I’d put my clients there, but it looks entertaining
- Big Shots, ABC – Male version of desperate housewives. The backdrop is a Country Club so how bad could it be?

New shows that you couldn’t pay me to watch:
- Cavemen, ABC – A show based on an insurance company’s ad campaign. No Thanks.
- New Amsterdam, FOX – So there’s this guy who died 400 years ago. He’s now immortal because an Indian girl put a spell on him. He needs to find his one true love to break the curse. Oh, and he’s a cop in NY. Sounds good, doesn’t it?

Fire up the TiVo!

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Deloitte & Touche published a research study last week that essentially proved that “old media” (their words) still works. As with most research, you can punch holes in this study if you are so inclined, but that’s not really the point. The point is … why are we all so defensive? Traditional media folks are sometimes threatened (as evidenced by the fact that this study even exists) by the tsunami of new media options available to clients today. But it’s not all one sided. New media folks sometimes have a Napoleon complex and don’t trust that they’re getting their “fair share”. Can’t we all just get along?

There’s room for both. We’ve gotten into this mess because it’s basically a zero sum game. Clients’ budgets aren’t increasing (not much, anyway) and there are more options to consider than ever before. Also, there’s research out there that tells us that the channels that we’ve been using in the past aren’t as effective as they once were (declining ratings, circulation losses, etc). Yet media costs continue to rise. These factors make clients want to know what else is out there. They want to know if there’s a better way to reach, engage, and communicate with their current and potential consumers. It’s a natural question. Studies such as the D&T one referenced above make their authors or presenters come off as if they have their head firmly planted in the sand.

I don’t dispute their findings, just the way they are presented. Is traditional media still effective? Of course it is. Is it as effective as it was 20, 15, 10 or even 5 years ago? Probably not. Consumers have changed. The media landscape has changed. I don’t think that anybody would dispute those statements. But to see a study like this makes me think of the band playing on the deck of the Titanic. It doesn’t even acknowledge the elephant in the room.

On the other side of the coin, you have the aforementioned tsumani of new media options. How many of them scale? Are they an adequate replacement for the status quo at this moment in time? Some are, maybe. Many aren’t. Let’s take Second Life as an example. Over the past year, brands have been tripping over themselves to set up a presence in the popular virtual world. Many of those places are ghost towns with a quantity of visitors that you can count on one hand at any particular moment in time. But there are success stories as well. The American Cancer Society held a virtual Relay for Life in SL and raised over $150,000. That’s real money and an amazing success story. But how does it translate to marketing for big brands? That question is largely unanswered. But the only way to get an answer is to experiment. That’s why I don’t throw stones at any of the brands who took a shot in SL. At least they have learnings to act upon. Which is something that they wouldn’t have had if they just dusted off last year’s media plan.

There is no cookie cutter answer. Both camps have warts. Both can also generate positive results for clients. It doesn’t have to be one Vs the other. Now hold my hand and sing … “I’d like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony …”

Will It Blend?

I've already blogged about having iPhone envy. Which is what makes this video especially wrong in my eyes!

D'oh! The marketing behind The Simpsons Movie

My nominee for media plan of the year (so far) is The Simpson’s Movie. The challenge associated with marketing this film was to take a franchise that has been on television every week for 18 years and get people excited to see the movie. The marketing of this film is simply brilliant. By now we’ve probably all heard about the partnership where several 7-Eleven’s across the country converted their stores into Kwik-E-Mart’s, the fictional convenience store from the show. 7-Eleven also changed the name of their signature drink from a Slurpee to a Squishee during the promotion. Kudos to 7-Eleven for such extraordinary risk taking. It paid off big time as they received A LOT of PR mileage out of this. Of course, it was also a homerun for the movie. It was a true win-win partnership.

Another element of the campaign was the competition among 14 Springfields across the country for the right to hold the hometown premiere of the movie. This contest got large groups of people in 14 cities working together to create videos illustrating their enthusiasm for The Simpsons. Consumers then voted for the best video. The competition drew almost 110,000 votes. This was a great example of letting go of your brand and an excellent use of consumer generated content. Springfield, VT won the competition. Their video really got the whole town involved.

A third element of the campaign is the website where consumers can upload their own photo and have it turned into one of the characters from the Movie. It’s a very engaging web site that drew so much traffic that their servers were overloaded at the start of the campaign. A simpsonized photo of me at the Kwik-E-Mart is above.

But you can’t win Media Plan of the Year without results. And the Simpsons Movie has certainly got those. The Simpson’s Movie raked in $71.8 million on opening weekend, blowing away the aggressive $50 million projection of 20th Century Fox. It left all other films saying D'oh!

McDonalds YouTube ad

Interesting article in today's Boston Globe about how McDonalds turned a YouTube video into an ad that they are running on local TV stations in New York. The ad was created by Arnold. It's yet another example of consumer generated content making it to mainstream channels. Bravo to McDonalds for being willing to let go of their brand like this. And to Arnold for realizing that a good idea can come from anywhere.

Mad Men on AMC

Watched the 1st episode of the AMC series Mad Men last night (via Tivo of course). If you haven't heard, Mad Men is a an AMC original series about Advertising Execs in the 1950's. I actually thought it was pretty good. I'll be back for Episode #2.

For those in the business, we've all heard stories about the "old days" of advertising. This certainly qualifies. The whole plot centered around the Account Executive main character having to develop an ad campaign for a cigarette company. Which is very ironic since I just blogged last week about ethics in advertising in general and cigarette advertising in particular. So it's been on my mind.

My main take-away is: holy sexism! The women are all secretaries and are there for their bosses every need. Yes, EVERY need. There are some interesting portrails of client meetings. For those in the agency business, it's surreal. Picture a producer taking your life and recreating what it would have been like 50 years ago.

The funny part about it that I watched it via Tivo. Let's see, since I watched it 2 days after its' original airing, I guess I'd count in the Live +3 ratings currency that seems to be acceptable these days. Of course, I fast-forwarded thru all the ads. But AMC did something interesting. Between every commercial, the put in a 3-5 second interstitial on a blank white screen with red lettering containing a fact about advertising. Very clever. It took me a couple of commercial breaks worth of watching fast forwarded ads fly by before realizing that something was going on. Good job of knowing your audience AMC. You made me stop and actually watch an entire pod. Once. Then I went back to fast-forwarding. But good job none-the-less.