A friend of mine in the ad business had a great line for the newspaper business: 'it's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic'. Such a perfect description. The lumbering giants cannot move fast enough to change the business model. Working right now with a property (that shall remain nameless, of course) that won't or can't work with me on a cost per click rather than impressions basis-and this for a unique ad that no one else is doing. They would be showcasing not only the ad, but their ability to run it and generate results. And you wonder why the newspaper business is suffering.
Paying for content is another. I finally figured out why this has me so fired up; I'm not going to pay for something that doesn't have any value for me. And quite frankly, most major publications have still not shown it in paid content. However, several specialty publications like Runners World are moving to a hybrid pay model; bundling interactive tools like show reviews and marathon training with a print subscription for one price.
According to a recent survey from the American Press Institute, 51% of publishers believe they can successfully charge for content. 68% of publishers thought that if they charged for content, users would have a difficult time finding content elsewhere, 38% would limit full story access and 28% would build a micropayment system for specific article purchase. Poll was completed by 118 newspapers of various sizes in small, medium and large media markets.
I think what's happening is publishers will start limiting access to content, watch their audience shrink and lose precious advertising revenue. Find a way to bundle and bring value to the product in new and innovative ways for both consumers and advertisers. Show some creativity and value and then, guess what- you can have your cake AND eat it too -:)
Monday, September 14, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
September 10 2009
Maybe I'm a little odd-most people that know me would say that is an understatement -:) However, I love the media business (which is why I'm co-authoring a book. Shameless plug here, more on that later) and soak up new + innovative strategies like a sponge, so here are a few samples that may actually rise above the clutter.
Campaign for the new ABC Drama 'Flash Forward':
Campaign for the new ABC Drama 'Flash Forward':
The show is based on a novel by Robert J. Sawyer and follows the aftermath of a global event in which everyone on the planet passes out for two minutes. During the collective blackout, everyone sees a vision of their future.
The cast includes Joseph Fiennes, Sonya Walger, John Cho, Courtney B. Vance and Christine Woods. David S. Goyer ("Batman Begins") and Brannon Braga ("24," "Star Trek: Voyager") created the show.
Ads were created in ad spaces that target a techno-geek audience; Wired, Popular Mechanics, gaming magazines and jointhemosiac.com.(http://www.jointhemosaic.com/site/index.html#/MAP)
When fanboys hold the pics up to a webcam, they'll be able to see a 3D ad for 'FlashForward'. Run your mouse over the pictures, and they'll turn into clips from the show. ABC Entertainment is calling this 'augmented reality' - would you ever spend over 10 minutes with a print ad? Didn't think so. In my humble opinion ( a phrase I've started borrowing from a friend of mine) this is what media innovation is all about. Taking what really could be considered flat and static (print ad) + making it interactive and engaging. Nice job ABC.
E! Entertainment TV Pushes Headlines Via Clear Channel Billboards:
The campaign that began on Labor Day, runs for eight weeks on 125 digital display boards in 9 top media markets. Electronic display gives the net much more flexibility and options when using this out of home media to promote feature news stories. Upload copy and artwork with the click of a mouse, no printing costs and creative change on the fly. And according to Clear Channel, the boards reach an aggregate daily circulation of 10 million. Here again is an example of taking a flat media like out of home and presenting messages on it in an exciting and attractive way.
Media really can be fun, exciting, unique and innovative. Even sexy. Just have to keep thinking beyond the traditional. At least that's what I'm all about -;)
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
September 2 2009
Disney acquires Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion
Bob Iger is certainly on a roll to build the worlds largest entertainment empire-add this newest company to the portfolio that already includes Pixar ($7.4 billion) and ABC Family ($5 billion) and the future seems bright for this powerhouse.
Marvel Entertainment gives Disney access to all of the super heroes we all grew up with: Captain America, Thor, Spider-Man and over 4,995 other comic book characters that have not yet been on the big or small screen. This is the perfect creative addition to an entertainment company that has not had a real mass appeal hit since 'Pirates of the Carribean' in 2003. However, this will take some time as Disney won't be able to distribute any Marvel movies until the Paramount deal ends in 2013.
All of these acquisitions are done for one reason only and that is to increase the bottom line. Disney needs to feed their real profit centers: merchandising, theme parks and TV channel. While it's certainley exciting to release a movie that will generate in excess of $200 million or more, its all about the merchandising-action figures, fast food liscensing, comic books, new rides in both US and international parks, tv show development (avails for national advertisers) and digital content.
Only time will tell if the creativity and innovation grows, or if Disney will become more like a huge conglomerate similar to P&G. I'm betting that creativity will prevail. Stay tuned. Its going to be an exciting ride -:)
Marvel Entertainment gives Disney access to all of the super heroes we all grew up with: Captain America, Thor, Spider-Man and over 4,995 other comic book characters that have not yet been on the big or small screen. This is the perfect creative addition to an entertainment company that has not had a real mass appeal hit since 'Pirates of the Carribean' in 2003. However, this will take some time as Disney won't be able to distribute any Marvel movies until the Paramount deal ends in 2013.
All of these acquisitions are done for one reason only and that is to increase the bottom line. Disney needs to feed their real profit centers: merchandising, theme parks and TV channel. While it's certainley exciting to release a movie that will generate in excess of $200 million or more, its all about the merchandising-action figures, fast food liscensing, comic books, new rides in both US and international parks, tv show development (avails for national advertisers) and digital content.
Only time will tell if the creativity and innovation grows, or if Disney will become more like a huge conglomerate similar to P&G. I'm betting that creativity will prevail. Stay tuned. Its going to be an exciting ride -:)
Monday, August 31, 2009
August 31 2009
I sometimes feel like the newspaper business is dying a slow and painful death that I keep reading about-on line.
According to recent research data from Bloomberg, during Q2 2009, display ad revenue is down 30%, recruitment 66% and classified advertising is off 40%. No other media has suffered such a downward spiral and in my humble opinion, I just do not see it rebounding.
The world is becoming much more digital on a daily basis and try as they might, newspapers cannot compete with the speed at which other media delivers both news and entertainment. If I can log in or tune into any cable news net at any time of the day or night to find out what's going on in Washington or what celeb went out without any pants on, why would I wait for the newspaper to show up on my doorstep. Many would make the argument that newspapers deliver local, community news-true. But so do local cable systems, radio stations and digital platforms.
This will truly be a case of survival of the fittest. The print publications that innovate and quicken their transition to digital will excel. The ones that don't will be acquired.
It will be a one screen world in the next five to ten years-newspapers will be part of that world. Or they won't.
According to recent research data from Bloomberg, during Q2 2009, display ad revenue is down 30%, recruitment 66% and classified advertising is off 40%. No other media has suffered such a downward spiral and in my humble opinion, I just do not see it rebounding.
The world is becoming much more digital on a daily basis and try as they might, newspapers cannot compete with the speed at which other media delivers both news and entertainment. If I can log in or tune into any cable news net at any time of the day or night to find out what's going on in Washington or what celeb went out without any pants on, why would I wait for the newspaper to show up on my doorstep. Many would make the argument that newspapers deliver local, community news-true. But so do local cable systems, radio stations and digital platforms.
This will truly be a case of survival of the fittest. The print publications that innovate and quicken their transition to digital will excel. The ones that don't will be acquired.
It will be a one screen world in the next five to ten years-newspapers will be part of that world. Or they won't.
Monday, August 24, 2009
August 27, 2009
I will admit that I will tune into unscripted TV fair on a semi-regular basis-'American Idol', 'Real Housewives ' franchise, 'Deadliest Catch', 'Ghost Adventures', 'Ghost Hunters' and 'Top Chef'.
We all know the economics of why in the last several years there has been a huge increase in the amount of reality TV: It is a lot less expensive to produce than a scripted series. Broadly speaking, if the cost to produce a non-scripted cable series is $150,000 per episode x 13 in a series=$1.95million. Spot time against the show is sold on a national and local availability and in a 60 minute show, there may be up to 5 commercial pod breaks with room for 2-3 minutes worth of messaging. Lets have a little fun with the math-If a national spot in 'Real Housewives of Atlanta' sells for a conservative $10,000 (and I think I am underestimating) x 8 national avails=$80,000 in revenue from national advertisers in hour x 13 episodes=$1.04 million. And that doesn't include the local airtime or the product placement or barter to offset the cost of production expenses. And keep in mind, a non-scripted show on cable can be run over and over again, gathering more ratings and revenue.
The fact is we enjoy watching others struggle, work hard, overcome challenges, argue and make up because we think to ourselves that could be me or I wish I had the balls to do that or I give them credit because I could never get on a boat or on a stage and do that. Kudos to you.
What I cannot tolerate watching is programming that is vapid, demeaning and quite frankly a waste of air time and most recently found to be linked to violent crime. Shows like 'NYC Prep' 'I Love Money', 'Real World', 'Miami Social', 'My Antonio' ,'MY BFF' and the list goes on and on and on. And now we have the sad story of Ryan Jenkins, a contestant on "VH1's Meghan Wants a Millionaire', and his murdered girlfriend, as well as the Brazilian TV producer that hired professionals to murder and then sent a crew over to film it.
When is it enough. I'm a business owner and a capitalist and I'm all about making money but I think this really speaks volumes about our society and culture when this programming makes it on the schedule.
I remember pitching several shows to the Manager of Development at VH1 several years ago. While we were discussing shows,ratings and revenue, her comment to us was:(and I'm paraphrasing) ' we're going to ride the reality train until it comes to a stop' Maybe it has. Or should.
We all know the economics of why in the last several years there has been a huge increase in the amount of reality TV: It is a lot less expensive to produce than a scripted series. Broadly speaking, if the cost to produce a non-scripted cable series is $150,000 per episode x 13 in a series=$1.95million. Spot time against the show is sold on a national and local availability and in a 60 minute show, there may be up to 5 commercial pod breaks with room for 2-3 minutes worth of messaging. Lets have a little fun with the math-If a national spot in 'Real Housewives of Atlanta' sells for a conservative $10,000 (and I think I am underestimating) x 8 national avails=$80,000 in revenue from national advertisers in hour x 13 episodes=$1.04 million. And that doesn't include the local airtime or the product placement or barter to offset the cost of production expenses. And keep in mind, a non-scripted show on cable can be run over and over again, gathering more ratings and revenue.
The fact is we enjoy watching others struggle, work hard, overcome challenges, argue and make up because we think to ourselves that could be me or I wish I had the balls to do that or I give them credit because I could never get on a boat or on a stage and do that. Kudos to you.
What I cannot tolerate watching is programming that is vapid, demeaning and quite frankly a waste of air time and most recently found to be linked to violent crime. Shows like 'NYC Prep' 'I Love Money', 'Real World', 'Miami Social', 'My Antonio' ,'MY BFF' and the list goes on and on and on. And now we have the sad story of Ryan Jenkins, a contestant on "VH1's Meghan Wants a Millionaire', and his murdered girlfriend, as well as the Brazilian TV producer that hired professionals to murder and then sent a crew over to film it.
When is it enough. I'm a business owner and a capitalist and I'm all about making money but I think this really speaks volumes about our society and culture when this programming makes it on the schedule.
I remember pitching several shows to the Manager of Development at VH1 several years ago. While we were discussing shows,ratings and revenue, her comment to us was:(and I'm paraphrasing) ' we're going to ride the reality train until it comes to a stop' Maybe it has. Or should.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
August 19 2009
Isn't it great when advertising creates dialogue and discussion? Ads purchased by the Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers, feature clouds against a blue sky and say, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”
The Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority removed the ads citing the word 'God' has never been allowed on buses in the past. Executives from the bus agency noted that they have had churches advertise in the past for worship and membership, but never for a belief. Eventually the ads were replaced when the transit authority realized that its rules and regulations were outdated.
So what we have here is a group or group of atheists that feel it is their right to promote their beliefs on a public transit system. Isn't this really preaching your ideas in a forum that I cannot turn off, throw away, tune out or otherwise not engage with?
However, if you are accepting ads and messages from churches, there is certainly an issue of fairness here. Perhaps the answer is to rewrite the rules and regs to note that any ads referencing 'God', 'religion', 'atheism', 'church' or 'faith' will no longer be acceptable ad copy. And that rule will apply to Christians and Atheists, Buddhists and Taoists, Jews and Mormons. The list goes on and on.
Then we can have a unique form of advertising called: propaganda
What makes all of this so interesting and controversial IS the differing viewpoints and beliefs.
Personally, I find the bus ads offensive. But that's just my opinion and I am certainly allowed to express that-as is anyone else. At the core here is the question of whether or not one group has the right to change a business model or practice based on their opinion or beliefs. This is a murky area and unless lines are drawn and companies stand firm, you will continue to see stories like this.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
August 18 2009
Newsday Rejects Ad Criticizing Cablevision-The Tennis Channel offered up the ad that leads with 'Thanks for nothing Cablevision'...you dropped the ball by preventing your customers from seeing round the clock coverage of the US Open. The ad goes on to encourage readers to switch to DISH, Fios or Direct TV. All of the NYC area newspapers (NY Times, NY Post, Daily News, Westchester Rockland Journal News and the Record of NJ) accepted and ran the ad.
By the way, the Newsday is owned by Cablevision.
It is perfectly acceptable in this business to deny ad placement based on objectionable content, or disregard for a certain group of people. However, in this instance, neither one of those issues was what stopped Newsday. What prevented the paper from running the ad was that it positioned it's parent company in a very negative way. Representatives from Newsday were quoted as saying: “The Tennis Channel ads are nasty, unfair and intentionally misleading, and we don’t think anyone should carry them.”
The Tennis Channel counters that arugment by saying,“We desperately wish we weren’t in this situation. This wasn’t of our choosing. But at some point you have to look a bully in the eye and say, ‘This isn’t right.’ ”
In my opinion, this cable net has the right to fight their fight in a public forum-both for their loyal viewers and for their business model. Cablevision is censoring information because it feels the ads are 'nasty'?? It would be like NBC not accepting any ads from an organization that criticizes GE. Seriously doubt that would happen.
Ken Solomon, CEO of The Tennis Channel made a comment that resonated with me: “We figured this was just business and simply a message to let viewers know where to find us,” he said. “The newspaper industry is not doing all that well, so it’s a surprise they turned down this amount of money.”
Its a surprise to me as well.
By the way, the Newsday is owned by Cablevision.
It is perfectly acceptable in this business to deny ad placement based on objectionable content, or disregard for a certain group of people. However, in this instance, neither one of those issues was what stopped Newsday. What prevented the paper from running the ad was that it positioned it's parent company in a very negative way. Representatives from Newsday were quoted as saying: “The Tennis Channel ads are nasty, unfair and intentionally misleading, and we don’t think anyone should carry them.”
The Tennis Channel counters that arugment by saying,“We desperately wish we weren’t in this situation. This wasn’t of our choosing. But at some point you have to look a bully in the eye and say, ‘This isn’t right.’ ”
In my opinion, this cable net has the right to fight their fight in a public forum-both for their loyal viewers and for their business model. Cablevision is censoring information because it feels the ads are 'nasty'?? It would be like NBC not accepting any ads from an organization that criticizes GE. Seriously doubt that would happen.
Ken Solomon, CEO of The Tennis Channel made a comment that resonated with me: “We figured this was just business and simply a message to let viewers know where to find us,” he said. “The newspaper industry is not doing all that well, so it’s a surprise they turned down this amount of money.”
Its a surprise to me as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
