Agencies Trying To Find Ways To Cope With Digital Video Recorders

Ad agencies are spending many hours and dollars these days trying to figure out how to deal with Digital Video Recorders, or DVRs. A new article on Adage.com discusses how Fox is trying to take the necessary steps to have their advertisers skipped over completely.

Here is the link to the article:http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=116416

The article discusses the possibility of sending relevant advertisements to your TiVo box once you have recorded and watched a program. When you go back to watch the program a second time, you may see new advertisements, as with the third or fourth time. But how does this solve the problem of viewers skipping the ads? If I recorded the program to begin with, obviously I'm fast forwarding through ads. Not because the ads bored me, but because I just didn't want to watch them. Even if the worlds funniest commercials are inserted, does that mean I'm going to all of a sudden sit and watch? Odds are not.

I have another idea though that is probably being considered somewhere. I've blogged in the past about pre-roll video and other 1 to 1 video impressions that advertisers can achieve. In my mind, the only way to make money off DVR advertisements is to have a mandatory 5-8 second advertisement play before the program begins that I've recorded. Will this make TiVo subscribers irate? Maybe. But the point of it is that you keep the ad under 8 seconds which doesn't give the viewer enough of a chance to get mad that an ad is playing. Placing new advertisements during the programming where the old ones were will do nothing but give me something to watch while I fast forward at the speed of x4.

If you sell this like a sponsorship and make it relevant then you will achieve a high CPM, much like pre-roll video and you will make advertisers happy because they cracked the DVR problem. If you make the advertisements relevant then you will keep the viewers from complaining as well.

This also gives the advertisers an opportunity to create new content specifically for programs and it also will prove to be a trackable and measurable ad form. The ad opportunity would then fall into the category of sponsorships.

For example, Office Depot can place a relevant targeted ad on a recorded version of "The Office." They can make this ad specific to the show and focus it around paper products and office supplies. A pharmaceutical company can place an advertisement around one of the many medical programs on tv such as "ER," "Grey's Anatomy," or 'House."

Comcast has already began to perfect this sale in one form with their "OnDemand" programming. If you click channel 1 on your Comcast remote then you will be directed to the "OnDemand" programming. Then click on any program such as fitness, local info, pets, etc. and you will then see a relevant advertisement that you won't even grab the remote to fast forward through because it plays so quickly.

I don't have the magical answer to this DVR problem but I disagree with the way Fox is currently going at it. Maybe the article was written wrong, maybe I interpreted it wrong, but I see other opportunities with DVR viewers and it starts with sponsorships at the beginning of your recorded programming.

Analysts Believe G.E. Should Sell-Off NBC-Could Google Write The Check?

Citigroup analysts and others among the market have been reporting over the last few days that General Electric (Stock Quote:http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ge) should cut ties with NBC Universal.

The full article can be seen here at the New York Times Business page:http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/ge-should-shed-nbc-citi-analyst-says/

Although it's tough to understand why anyone would want to cut ties with a company that is estimated to have an equity value of almost $40 billion, the article makes a good argument.

NBC Universal is a worldwide media conglomerate. I stronglybelieve they are the top media company in the network tv space beating Fox, CBS, and ABC. Although I'm not stacking this up against any revenue numbers or factual research, it has always been my opinion that NBC has the strongest brand name and has always held itself to the highest standards.

But even with that said, why would a company whose core business comes from building jet engines and focusing on developing and building new energy components own a media conglomerate such as NBC?

That's not a question for me to answer. It's something that we can sit back and watch unfold as these rumors come out about a possible sale. It's hard for me to understand why G.E. would want to cut ties with NBC, other than the fact that it might make sense for them financially. The stock increased a few points just with the rumors.

Regardless of the reasons or speculation, it will be fun to watch over the next few months to find out if G.E. will put NBC on the block. Who will write the check? Google?

Why not? It would be the perfect opportunity for Google to step into the broadcast sales world. They have been dabbling with placing media across the country but they need a cable or broadcast partner to really step into the market. A few weeks ago they signed an agreement with Echostar to begin selling and placing advertisements on their satellite network, however in order to become a big player they are going to need a broadcast or cable partner deal. This could be their opportunity and few companies have the cash to be able to make this purchase.

Classified Job Postings: Why Don't Local Staffing Agencies Utilize Broadcast TV?

The last time you were unemployed you probably spent time searching the job section in the Sunday paper, posting your resume online, and searching endlessly through Monster.com, Craigslist, etc. The whole time you were sitting in front of your television giving staffing agencies hours of opportunity to reach you with a strong thirty-second commercial.

Chances are, even if you are not unemployed there is a chance that a commercial pushing job openings with your dream company could persuade you to call. We are always looking for that next best opportunity and employers and staffing firms need to realize that the common employed person doesn't scan the job posting page once they're hired.

Since the average adult spends over 4 hours each day with television, possibly more for unemployed adults, television is the perfect medium for staffing firms to reach their target audience. The internet doesn't quite compare with less than 90 minutes, although we realize this is time well spent on search and browsing to find targeted information. The place where staffing firms place all their dollars, newspaper, only harnesses less than 45 minutes. Of course this is all relative to the medium and the time spent won't shock anyone but the point is, TV is the strongest medium for reaching their target audience.

Television also provides the strongest medium for making an emotional connection with the viewer. Whether that viewer just walked in the door after a long, stressful day, or they are getting up early to head out for a long commute, television can speak specifically to that person. The message can be tailored to perfectly fit the time of day and situation the audience might in.

Over the last few months I have seen more television advertising for job openings. They are for broad careers with medium to large sized companies. They urge the viewer to call or check out the web site for openings. But with that said, I wonder when we will see these firms shift more of their dollars to television. After all, we've heard enough about the drop in newspaper circulation that the time would be right for those dollars to go elsewhere. Keep your eyes tuned to the tube to see if you can spot advertisements for a better career.

Advertisement of the Day

Alright, I apologize. The advertisement of the day (4-27-07) is the Quiznos spot from a few years ago that features rats, or monkeys, or ratmonkeys singing and playing the guitar. I found it brilliant for one reason. It got people talking. I happen to be in the minority because I laughed each time I saw it. Others found it repulsive and disgusting and maybe turned people away from the sub company.

Anyways, enjoy it while it lasts for the day. And relax knowing that you won't have to see it on television anytime soon.

You can also watch it here at Youtube.com:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTBlFY66xN0

Advertising Agencies Generous With Chairman Pay

Interesting article about CEO pay from some of the top advertising agencies. It can be seen here at Adweek.com:http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003577145

SignStorey Purchases Captive Audience; Gains 75 Million Viewers Per Year

SignStorey announced yesterday that they purchased Captive Audience for an undisclosed amount. Captive Audience, which has been rumored to be on the block for over a year now was valued at $2.3 million last year.

The full article can be found here at Aka.tv:http://www.aka.tv/articles/article.asp?articleid=1098

Captive Audience which is not known as a dominant player in the OOH Media game did have a large inventory of digital screens in delis and grocery stores across the Northeast region. Captive Audience also operates screens on a New York Ferry called SeaStreak. The Jacob Javits Center also features screens operated by Captive Audience.

The purchase will add to SignStorey's current inventory of digital screens operated in grocery stores. The other properties do not appear to line up with SignStorey's current grocery store strategy but they will be seen as added value or a bonus to this buy.

Cinema Ads: How Advertiers Could Capitalize on 20 minutes without a remote

The last 10 years has brought about change in all facets of media. The movie theatre is no exception to this rule. A new article today on AdAge.com discusses the $600 million business that is cinema advertising. Although I believe they missed the boat on this article to a point, go ahead and check it out here at:http://adage.com/article?article_id=116322

The article starts off strong discussing the fact that blue chip advertisers are now taking notice and creating content specifically for this venue. Coca-Cola won an award for top cinema advertisement last year and you can expect to continue to see the rise in advertising prior to your movie starting. It is a great venue to create a 1-2 minute piece to brand a product or more specifically, introduce a product to the market.

I see this from a totally different perspective than the article portrays. I see it as anywhere between 1-20 minutes that you have the audience's attention, with sound, and without a remote. The only other comparison I can make this to is pre-roll video on the internet; but even there you can open a new window and browse for thirty-seconds until your video starts. The movie theatre is one place that in order to avoid the advertisement playing on the screen, you have to physically get up and walk out, tuning out the sound and missing the picture.

Although the article does make a strong point for the fact that movie advertising should enhance the overall experience. Just because you do have a captive audience doesn't mean you should expose them to any advertisement. The most successful spots are going to be those that make an emotional connection between the viewer and the movie they are about to watch.

Advertisers have a tough job though with this time slot. Even though it is one of the most captive audiences you will find. It's like advertising in the last spot, right before primetime on a Thursday night. Even if you have the strongest spot, a viewer still is going to have their attention focused on their primetime show; not to mention all the spots they will see during that time frame. The spot absolutely has to stand out to the point where it overshadows the program that succeeds it.

If you've been following my blog so far then you've learned I'm a huge proponent of Out-of-Home Media (OOH). OOH Media is all about making an emotional connection with someone in a place where the messages are limited and a call to action can be made. OOH Media is also about taking advantage of a captive audience. Cinema advertising is by far one of the most captive audiences that you will find and hopefully this is just another step in the right direction for the OOH industry.

Ad Clutter Growing Year to Year on Several Networks

The annual Mindshare study released today discusses the up trend in the amount of commercial time on each of the major networks.

The full article can be read here at Brandweek:http://www.brandweek.com/bw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003575617

Miller Brewing Takes Jabs at Competitor to Increase Market Share

Miller Lite has taken the brand into its own hands lately after removing duties from Crispin, Porter & Bogusky. The new Miller Lite advertisements are now focusing around taking stabs at competitors and are being created in-house.

You can read the full article here at Adage.com:http://adage.com/article?article_id=116229

Although sales apparently dropped during the "Man Laws" campaign which ran for over a year, I have to say I'm completely disappointed that the plug has been pulled on the campaign. I think the Man Laws campaign was absolutely brilliant. It may not have increased sales but it did get men talking about social rules while drinking beer.

The Man Laws campaign was focused around manly men sitting inside a glass cube at a boardroom table discussing the laws of being a man. It featured stars such as Oscar De La Hoya, Burt Reynolds, Wrestling Superstar Triple H, comedian Eddie Griffin, Jerome Bettis and professional bull rider Ty Murray just to name a few. The premise of the spots was focused around the men discussing these rules then voting upon them and then solidifying the law into a book.

Miller claims their sales dropped and their market share declined during this time period but I have to say the advertising campaign might not have been to blame. Was it just bad timing while this campaign ran? Sure the ads never mentioned Miller Lite. The only reason you knew Miller Lite was the brand was due to the :5 tag line at the end and the fact that each of the men were holding a bottle of Miller Lite. But does this really have to do with the failure in the advertisements?

I was in numerous locations where I would hear men discussing a man law. The day it was announced that Miller would pull the plug I heard a talk show host on the radio discuss a man law. This was one of those advertising campaigns that was designed with the intent on increasing sales, but the end result could have been so much bigger.

Unfortunately Miller Lite got impatient and decided it was time. So they pulled the plug and ended the brilliant (in my mind) campaign. Is it worth more in the end to continue an advertising campaign that will have your target audience talking about your brand in the bar and at parties? Apparently Miller Lite did not believe so.

The basis of this article though focuses around the fact that Miller Lite is currently producing their own advertisements. A tough task they have decided to take on. Their new creative focuses around the Lite brand again. The new spots are primarily facing them off against the competition's Lite or Light beeer.

I first heard the Miller Lite spots on the radio about two months ago and I was confused. The spot features a male talking about drinking beer that included the letters GHT. I had no idea what he was talking about and I continued to wait for the punch or tag line to find out if I could decypher the message myself. I had to hear the spot at least four more times before I figured it out. They were discussing the fact that Miller Lite is the better of the light beers against Bud Light. Using the GHT in the Light versus the ITE in the Lite.

I still do not believe it is a strong campaign but as Mr. Tom Long is quoted as saying these ads are "cheap" and "easy" to produce. This is where I have another problem. Why would the CEO of a multi-million dollar company proclaim that his advertisements are "cheap" and "easy" to produce? These words scream to me that Miller Lite needs to find themselves an agency and get the ship righted, right away.

Only time will tell about this campaign but I'm afraid that Mr. Long's cheap and easy advertisements will be just that. Easy for me to forget about.

Magazine (Print) Publishers Face Uncertain Future

There is no doubt that our media landscape is changing. Newspaper circulation continues to drop. Dollars are being shifted into the online world. Out of Home Media is being a topic that we are hearing more about. And Magazines are dropping by the week.

An article today by Advertising Age discusses this trend and ponders this question. Where will magazines be in our media structure in the years to come?

You can read the full article here:http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=116231

In discussing the print media world it is easy to classify all print as "going out of business." I do not believe this is the case. My feeling is that newspapers will continue to drop off slowly in years to come, just not as quickly as many of us think.

I'm still one of those who subscribe to the newspaper. Why, I don't know? I read a few sections, sports, business, entertainment, and local. I rarely browse through the news sections because I get all of my news online. I think the newspaper for many of us though is still something that is a habit that goes along with breakfast. Anyways, back to the topic at hand.

Newspaper advertising is a completely different story. Circulation is dropping and ad rates are increasing to accomodate this change. I'm not a strong believer in the effectiveness of newspaper advertising. I think it is successful for weekend sales and events, but that is all. A 1/4 page advertisement is a great compliment to a dedicated television schedule, radio campaign, etc. But in this day and age, it is not a successful way to increase sales and awareness about your store.

I believe the reason is because the advertisements are not mixed with the content to give readers a reason to actually read the ad. Let's face it, an advertising campaign is effective when someone complains that the ad is obtrusive. Obtrusive="I saw the advertisement and it affected me in some way." But the current structure of content and advertisements is not a successful mix. I know that if I read 3/4 of the way down the page then I receive all the content I possibly need. The typical newspaper has advertisements on the lower 1/4.

Is there a way to spice up newspaper advertising without completely turning away readers? If we begin to see advertisements on the front page of each section then I'm sure readers will complain. But I guarantee that the publisher will get top dollar for that page.

Never the less, I've gone too far on the topic of newspaper advertising. Just goes to show you I have a real opinion on this topic. The article focuses on magazines. We have seen a number of magazines shut down this year and it is a sure sign that the industry is in trouble.

The article is extremely optimistic that "niche magazines" will always be in demand and will have no troubles staying afloat. The trouble is, are we focusing too much on the niche magazine? To me that is a sign that times are changing rapidly. The magazines that used to focus on broad audiences and subjects are the first to be phased out which means niche magazines now have the targets on their backs.

As far as magazine advertising goes, I do still believe that this is an effective medium. Since most are only distributed once per month, the advertisements do not become obtrusive or boring. Magazine advertising also speaks to a certain demographic, which is whoever that magazine targets. Your daily newspaper targets a large audience while a magazine targets a niche audience specifically. For example, Females 18-34 are more likely to read US Weekly or InStyle, while Males 25-34 are more likely to read Sports Illustrated or ESPN the Magazine. The advertisements in these publications are going to be very targeted towards these demographics. This is the reasy I believe newspaper advertising is the most effective print medium

L.A. Times Expected to Announce Job Cuts

The Los Angeles Times is expected to announce that they will cut as many as 150 jobs within the next few weeks. This announcement comes as quartely revenue earnings were announced.

The full article can be seen on Business Weeks web-site:http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8OKU0NG1.htm

This should not come as a surprise to many. Newspapers across the country are seeing a decline in revenue. Some are seeing a steeper decline and this has forced many to rethink the way they publish. This includes the idea that some newspapers could go strictly online in years to come. Several other papers are scaling down their currently production by a few pages each year. Cutting on content, not jobs.

Live TV On Your Cell Phone

It appears we will be even more connected to our television in the months to come, as Verizon Wireless and AT&T announced they will be offering live TV on your phone. The article is not specific but I'm wondering how the carrier will capitalize off advertising with this service. Where will the ads be served? If you are receving a signal in your local market, will they be local ads? Will all ads come from the carrier?

Here is the link to the article:http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/17/magazines/business2/livetv_cells.biz2/index.htm?postversion=2007041807


Currently, many of us can use our cell phones to watch short video clips ranging from Comedy Central to ESPN and upcoming movie trailers. I have yet to see an advertising plan that will capitalize on this though. There are some text ads but nothing that shows the 1 to 1 ad serve that these carriers could be using. If cell phone carriers find a way to serve an advertisement right before the video plays, and then capitalize on break time during these programs then they will have a whole new ad model that will only rival pre-roll video on the net.

When your television is on there is a good chance that you are getting ready to leave the house, writing in your blog, making dinner, etc. Sure you hear the advertisements but do you really pay attention? There is nothing that says you will pay attention to the ad being served on your mobile phone, however it will be a 1 to 1 impression model that will raise CPMs and could generate a ton of revenue.

Key Events Cause Chili's To Part With Long-Time Agency

Chili's announced yesterday that they will part with long-time agency GSD&M. The $125 million account will be put into review this month. The timing of the move though is key. Their long time CMO has resigned and Chili's parent company, Brinker International is set to release their third-quarter earnings on April 24th.

You can view the full article here at Adage.com; http://adage.com/article?article_id=116219

Google Sees Increases in Sales and Profits

Read the full article here at:http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/19/technology/google_earnings/index.htm?postversion=2007041918

Charles Schwab Brand Wins Top Honors

The "Talk to Chuck" campaign won top honors at the Advertising Research Foundation's Ogilvy Awards in New York yesterday. While I hated these commercials, it appears they did something for the brand.

Here is the link to the article:http://www.brandweek.com/bw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003572992

These advertisements definitely were going to do well with brand recall because of the animation used. They outlined an actual person speaking about their investments and then turned that person into an animation. You would see this ad across the room and know it was about Charles Schwab without hearing the sound.

These commercials completely turned me off. I did not like them at all. Every time they came on I changed the channel. They were sarcastic, rude, and didn't make a connection with me. Especially the lady who sat in her kitchen and went over her different fees. Don't get me started.

I believe this was the first ad that aired:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj2oqI8w1gA

Congratulations to Charles Schwab and their agency for creating success.

Google, Yahoo Tops in Search

No surprise here. Google and Yahoo are the leaders in search while MSN falls at a distant third. Here is the article on CNNMoney.com:http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/18/technology/microsoft_msn/index.htm?postversion=2007041817

Will Advertisers Avoid Shock Jocks After Imus Fallout?

Since the Don Imus fallout last week many in the advertising community are evaluating whether or not advertisers will avoid shock jock radio programs. Will the potential danger cause some of the nations top brands to steer clear of these hosts? My answer is no.

While we can only foreceast the future by what has happened in the past, I do not believe that advertisers are going to steer clear of these programs. Advertising is all based on ratings. Ratings come from the best programs. The best programs tend to be those that are edgy.

People don't typically tune their radio dial to be put to sleep. They tune to be entertained. While I do not agree with the comments Don Imus made, there is a reason all the top advertisers wanted a piece of his show. Wouldn't is have been fun to sell advertising space on his progam? Or, it would have been fun.

Is it possible that these advertisers gained more notority by being a part of this program? Before the fallout, could you have named three advertisers during the Imus program? Probably not, but I guarantee that you know a few of them now.

Now I hate to think that anyone would capitalize on a tragic situation like this. I also hate to be the person who points out that someone gained notority because of this, but it is the truth. Don't think for one minute that Staples, Proctor & Gamble, General Motors, etc. didn't talk about the buzz their pulling out would bring.

So to sum it all up. I absolutely do not think that advertisers will avoid these shows. If they do, then they are missing out on the ratings, and possibly the press if controversy ensues.

Will Ferrell to star in new Online comedy venture

Will Ferrell has apparently teamed up to launch a new site called Funnyordie.com which as a Beta version has already garnered some serious interest. Check out the full article here at:http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003572462

The site sounds very similiar to an all comedy version of YouTube where videos will feature people doing funny things or comedic acts. If your video is not funny then it will be taken off the site. I would definitely put my money behind a venture like this. With Web 2.0 exploding at this time and the opportunity to market to a young audience that will include college kids, this sounds like a site that will enjoy success if managed properly.

The extremely basic beta version can be seen here at http://www.funnyordie.com

DraftFCB Gets Redemption; Awarded Kmart Account

DraftFCB got a little bit of redemption today when they learned they were awarded the $200 million Kmart account. You can see the article here at:http://adage.com/article?article_id=116148

You might remember they lost out on the $570 million Walmart account after the Julie Roehm fallout just months ago. Although Kmart is no Walmart as we already knew, DraftFCB has to be happy they found something to replace the revenue they were salivating for late last year.

The Julie Roehm Story

For those of you who are unaware of the Julie Roehm story, er should I say saga. Let me catch you up to date, and start by saying, I've followed this from the beginning because like a good train wreck, you have to continue to watch.

Julie Roehm who was once named "Automotive Marketer of the Year" by Brandweek has found herself once again in the headlines. The two previous articles I've posted refer to the lawsuit that is just beginning, as well as the beginning details of an alleged juicy affair between her and Sean Womack, but let's back up and review for those of you who are unaware of the story.

Walmart put their $570 million account up for review in late December 2005 and hired Julie Roehm from Chrylser to oversee the account review. She officially signed with the company on January 12th, 2006 according to AdWeek. Then began a 1 year tour with all of the major advertising agencies across the country. But now, lets fast forward to December 2006. Julie Roehm is fired after Walmart accuses her of accepting gifts and inappropriately working with a vendor, as well as having an affair with a co-worker, which Walmart has strict policies on. These policies also include that you will not maintain contact with a vendor outside of the meeting rooms. However, back to Julie.

I won't go through the details of what happened because it appears that in a few months we will find out the truth. But what has came out so far includes car rides in Howard Draft's Aston-Martin, expensive dinners at NY hotspots such as Nobu, and an alleged affair with Sean Womack, the VP of Communications at Walmart. The account was awarded to Draft's agency, Draft FCB. However the plug was pulled once Walmart apparently received word that Roehm didn't follow proper policy when choosing the winner.

I've been glued to this story since the beginning. I'm very intrigued by it all. Aside from the alleged adultery and breaking of the rules that Mrs. Roehm has been accused of, I think she is a brilliant marketer. She went on a cross-country advertising tour like a high school kid who tours universities before signing a letter of intent. Can you blame her? Drive an Aston Martin? Sure why not, give me the keys. Dinner at fancy restaurants on someone else's dime? Order me a few extra plates of your finest sushi and top shelf liquor.

She indeed broke some rules while going through an account review. Unfortunately she broke rules at America's most tightly ruled facility, and she's going through hell because of it. I would hire her as my CMO anyday. She broke some rules and will learn her lesson because of it but hey Julie, if you want to come to work for me then shoot me an email!

By the way, for those of you who don't know, Dodge was the original sponsor of the inagural "Lingerie Bowl" in 2004. They only pulled out because shareholders and board members cried out that it wasn't proper for them to be behind such an event. I can see why you wouldn't want to be the top sponsor of an event that is going to draw the eyeballs of 10+ Million men, especially when your slogan is "Grab life by the horns" and your main advertisements revolve around "Hemi's." Yeah, that probably wouldn't catch the attention of your target audience and sell a few cars.

Continue to check back on this story as I can't get enough and look forward to writing more of my opinions on it.

More from the Roehm Fallout

It just keeps getting better and better. More details to follow later:http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405396/index.htm?postversion=2007041709

Julie Roehm Article

More to come on this later:
http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003571521

CMO's Not To Blame

Everyday I read up on the latest news issues surrounding marketing and advertising, the word is that CMO's are not doing their job and their advertising agencies are unsuccessful. Check out this article at AdWeek that defends CMO's:http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003571882

It makes perfect sense why companies can't keep a CMO for an extended period of time. We live in a society that is quick to jump as soon as results are not seen, and when sales don't increase and brand recognition is at an all time low, CMO's are typically to blame. One interesting point this article brings up is that executive searches to fill these positions are to replace departing CMO's, not fill new positions within the company. Therein lies the problem.

How can a company expect to fill a position with a new employee in such a critical role and think the transition will be seamless? Brands are not born and changed overnight. It takes several years to gain brand recognition and even more to change that brand name. Brand recognition is born from a brilliant team of people who spend hours crafting that brand. So tell me why a company thinks the person who develops and nurtures that brand can be replaced so easily without any major issues? The reason is, someone has to be blamed and the person at the helm is usually it.

My opinion on it is that a CMO's job can be one of the hardest in the company. Especially if you have an extremely recognizable brand. Take for example the Aflac brand. Last month the new Aflac CEO said he wants to clip the birds wings. Why? Why would anyone want to stop that little duck from walking across the screen and yelling "Aflac!" Probably because he wants to come in and instantly make a name for himself. Lots of pressure can definitely create this situation. But I think it's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would want to get rid of the Aflac Duck. Every time I see a duck I think of Aflac. That's not brand recognition you gain overnight!

What if one of the major cereal brands wanted to change their spokesman? Could you imagine Honey Nut Cheerios without the bee? Frosted Flakes without Tony the Tiger? Lucky Charms without the Leprechaun? It would take several years for us to adapt to a new spokesman and this is the strategy Fortune 500 companies should take with their CMO positions when evaluating their success. Give these people time.

Spongebob No-Pants Creates Controversy

As usual someone has to create controversy from a good advertisement that actually makes us laugh. Here is the link to the ad on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRIOy5byAd0

According to Adage.com, Rev. Donald E. Wildmon is trying to figure out why Burger King would be utilizing an advertisement with adult nudity to appeal to children. However, Rev. Wildmon has obviously missed the point. It is a humurous commercial to reach parents and get them to act upon the Spongebob promotion currently at BK.

The Adage.com article can be seen here at:http://adage.com/garfield/article?article_id=116110

Will the commercial increase sales for Spongebob? I don't think it's going to be a huge success because it really does miss the target audience. But come on, you have to hand it to Crispin Porter & Bogusky for trying to remain original in a time where agencies are under extreme scrutiny for boring content.

I like the ad. Tell the Reverend to find another topic to gain press from.

In-Store Sound Presents a Problem

Great article about in-store sound. This continues to be a hurdle for OOH media in grocery stores, retail outlets, and especially transportation hubs. Read on:
http://www.aka.tv/articles/article.asp?articleid=1078

PumpMedia to install gas station screens at Chevron's

Pumping gas becomes a little more entertaining now that Chevron has approved PumpMedia to become a vendor at a number of their Western U.S. locations. Here is the link to the full article at aka.tv: http://www.aka.tv/articles/article.asp?articleid=1087

This is not the first install of gas pump televisions we've seen. The past few years we've seen the growth of outdoor media in several sectors, this being one of them. Advertisers consistently want to reach people where they believe they have a captive attention. One of those places would definitely be the 3-5 minutes that we all spend standing next to our car while our gas bill rings up well over $50.

NBC is involved in a similiar venture that began last year. Here is the link to that article:http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6325558.html?display=Breaking+News

I was fortunate to see a dummy version of the NBC pump last year at the Outdoor Advertising Association of America's trade show in New York. I don't know how PumpMedia's platform works but the NBC version will only start when the pump handle is lifted and gas begins. This way you are not just serving advertisement impressions all day without a verified eye ball. CPM's can be much higher when it is a proven 1 to 1 impression, just like the internet.

Many companies believe that advertisers will purchase space on these screens because they have a particular product inside the store. Maybe a new stick of gum, beverage, scratch ticket, or a candy bar. Will these advertisements get you in the store? The bigger question is, will you stand outside your car and watch or will you go right back into your vehicle like you've typically done in the past? I think it's a great idea but it's going to take a while for it to set in with consumers. We don't always adapt well to new technology and ideas and although it is non-obtrusive content that includes news, traffic and weather reports, it might take a while before this becomes a favorite among consumers.

The bigger question is will advertisers want to get in on this opportunity? How much value is it will depend on the overall cost, number of ads served on a daily basis, and the total volume of different products they sell inside that convenience store where the gas is being pumped. Advertisers have to embrace this opportunity though. If a goal is to increase sales then why wouldn't Wrigley's, Pepsi, Coke, etc. want to get involved in this. Advertisers spend millions of dollars on television advertising each year, which I'm all for, but the difference is that most of us don't live less than 25 feet away from the location where we can buy these products.

Look out for these small television screens at a gas station near you.

Can this company help small, local advertisers?

Like any good business, local broadcast and cable companies set goals to increase revenue by at least 20% each year. This can be done by two ways, either gaining incremental dollars from agencies or local direct advertisers, or seeking new local direct accounts to make up that difference. Account Executives have a tough task though of walking into a local flooring company, health care facility, day spa, restaurant, attorney's office, etc. etc., and asking them to spend upwards of $5K per month on an advertising campaign. It can be a tough sell to a business who has managed to keep doors open each day without spending this money on something they get nothing back for right away.

If that Account Executive can convince a local business to sign that media contract then the dreaded production needs to begin. Not only can this be a tough task from the standpoint of hitting deadlines and getting the proper message across that will make the phone ring 50 times per day, it can also be extremely expensive. While many local production companies charge in the neighborhood of $1,500-$2,000 for a :30 ad, it still is an extra, up-front added expense that gets tacked onto the bill in the end. Instead of looking at this as an investment, they look at it as a start-up charge.

Never the less, a new company has come along that is going to solve all these problems. Or are they? They are called Spot Runner. A startup located in Los Angeles and backed with over $60 million in VC funds. Founded in 2004, they already have over 150 employees and were recently featured in Business 2.0 as 1 of the Top 25 new "Startups to Watch." You can check out their company profile on Business 2.0 here at http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0702/gallery.nextnet.biz2/19.html

You can also see their web site here at http://www.spotrunner.com.

But before you go ahead and check them out, let me give you some background on them. Spot Runner did their resarch in deed. They obviously have good intentions with their products. Remember that 20% increase thing I discussed earlier. Spot Runner knows that the local market is a great way to not only generate that revenue for local broadcast and cable companies, but they want a piece of the pie for themselves.

With their $60 million in VC funds, they hired a team and began producing generic commercials. At least 4,000 to be exact. Everything from an ad that would fit the pizza shop on the corner, to ads that would work well for an Italian restaurant. They have a very extensive library of generic advertisements that you can browse and order from today. They simply slap your tag line on the end of the advertisement and there you go, a cheap advertisement that is completed without all the hassles of a production crew coming to your shop, and a producer writing and re-writing script for you. The cost, roughly $500 per spot depending upon how many advertisements you buy, etc.

Their expansion into local markets is revolving around a media partner program that will work with local AE's from several markets. The AE gets a local sale, needs an ad, they set up the account with Spot Runner and an ad is ready to go in a short period. However, this is where I begin to dislike it. While Spot Runner is doing a great thing by giving the local guy an opportunity to be on big broadcast or cable television, they are robbing the AE of 15%. Spot Runner has no problem selling these ads for $500, as long as you allow them to become the agency. You've all heard the term "loss leader," well a $500 advertisement is Spot Runner's loss leader. The real money to be made is off the placement of the advertisements over a specific period of time.

While I was intrigued by Spot Runner when I first heard about them, I wanted to learn more so I set up a phone call with a Media Partner Representative at Spot Runner. The conversation was going great until I learned they wanted to act as the agency for each of these advertisers. From my standpoint it's a bum deal, but if you're Spot Runner then it's a beautiful model that will be sure to bring them some money over the long term. However I have to wonder how the pizza shop on the corner is going to feel about never actually meeting their agency and only dealing over the phone. Now you have asked for $5K per month, and the person who is handling most of these duties is located in Los Angeles and you two never shake hands.

Time will tell about Spot Runner and how they will succeed. I think it's a brilliant idea, but sometimes ideas don't always translate into big dollars. I'm going to stay neutral on my prediction because they didn't get $60 million just for a good idea, or did they?

Congrats to the OVAB

Congratulations to the Out-of-Home Video Advertising Bureau (OVAB) which finally got off the ground a few months ago. I'm a little late with this post but I do want to extend a congrats to them. You can check out their web site here:
http://www.ovab.org

I was fortunate to be at the first ever OVAB meeting in New York back in September 2006. I'm a big believer in Out-of-Home (OOH) media and I think that it is the future of advertising spending and media consumption. Many agences are placing their advertising dollars into the online space and pulling further and further away from print. While I have no problem with that, I do believe that more emphasis needs to be put on OOH media. Agencies have yet to really adopt OOH media. More on that point to come in a later post.

The OVAB was formed after years of advertising dollars being spent in other places. Now, the OVAB isn't going to change this on their own but it is a start for an industry that has consistently been passed over. For those of you who are involved in media already know about the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), Cable Advertising Bureau (CAB), or the Television Bureau of Advertising (TVB). These are all Bureaus which have been put in place to research, regulate, inform, and serve as an advocate for online advertising, as well as cable and broadcast advertising. So finally the OOH industry has something to stand behind them.

Although I do not know who is directly responsible for forming this organization I can say that two companies were behind it from the very beginning. Those companies are the Captivate Network and Premier Retail Networks (PRN). The Captivate Network is made up of hundreds of television monitors in high-rise building elevators. They feature news content mixed with advertising. Check it out here: http://www.captivate.com. PRN is famous for their networks inside big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Costco, and several others. You may not always recognize their networks because they are typically branded to that particular stores name. However PRN is a large name in the OOH industry. You can check out PRN here at http://www.prn.com.


The OVAB will be responsible for setting guidelines and regulations for OOH media going forward. They will be at the fore front of new standards and research that will hopefully lead to a gain in advertising sales and overall education about OOH networks and what they can do for advertisers, retailers, government transportation systems, and many other locations. OVAB has a lot of work to do though. Although you have seen networks popping up more and more in malls and grocery stores, this still doesn't mean the advertising sales are a success. I have no factual numbers or research to back up this claim but I can tell you from my background in the OOH industry, it's a tough sell, even to DR advertisers. (Which by the way, DR still is un-proven on these networks but we'll keep that our secret. Someday I'll go back to this point in a OOH post.)

Take the time to read the OVAB's mission and check back as they continue to update news on their site. They have put together a very strong team and I know they will make some way soon in the OOH industry.

Google Gets Bigger

Google buys DoubleClick for over $3 Billion. Check it out:
http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=116096

Not sure what my opinion is on this. It appears Google is trying to take over the world. They just paid over $1.7 Billion for YouTube, which many people believe was a mistake. Now they have combined to pay over $5 Billion for two companies. We all know they have the cash to do so but it seems they are trying to puff their chest each month with new moves like this. Only time will tell about this deal.

Patron Advertisement Creates a stir

Here is the link to the ad that has caused a stir with anti-alcohol and advertisement groups across the country. They recently got slapped with their third fine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAIHWr59xYw

I think it's a great commercial with strong product placement. That's all I'm going to say. I'll allow you to be the judge.

Imus fired from CBS Radio

No surprise here. For those of you who haven't read or heard yet, here is the link to the AdAge.com article:
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=116076

How are they going to make up the $20 million in revenue each year? Although they lost the major sponsors, you have to think that there were going to be some secondary sponsors who would have come to the table. From an advertising standpoint, if the show would have continued then I think they would have had to of raised their rates. I've never listened to Imus in the Morning but I definitely am curious as to what his show sounds like.

Why is it that we are so attracted to controversy? Was this a case of a publicity stunt that was taken too far? I personally don't think so, although when the story hit the air waves, many people thought it was. If you listen closely then you can hear his producer in the background saying the words that got him in trouble. It's thought that maybe it was a "liner" and was all set up. I don't believe it was set up. It's hard for me to think that a guy who's spent his whole life in radio and dealing with the FCC would have known better than to plan for something like this.

Will Imus win in the end? Many predict that he will end up with some sort of Sirius or XM deal worth much more than he was making. I'm afraid that this will only make him look worse in the end if we see him plastered all over billboards promoting his new Satellite show. It won't make me run out and buy a subscription, although neither did Howard Stern's move to Satellite, and they gave him a $500 million deal to start.

I typically don't have a whole lot of thoughts on these situations when a celebrity or a television/radio personality says something offensive. I do belive that Imus was completely in the wrong and I've actually now reached the point where I'm glad CBS didn't just let it go. For too many years personalities on the radio or tv have gotten away with saying things they later apologize for. Look, if you slip up and say something you shouldn't have said, then apologize right there and let it be known it was a slip. The only time these people apologize is the next day once the story has swept the country. Then they go on a big media tour where they apologize on every show they turn up on and then all of a sudden we look past what they said. For some reason I think it would have hurt Imus's reputation as a shock jock if he would have done a media tour apologizing on every station he showed on.

Welcome to my Blog

Hello and welcome to my Blog. I've created this blog to voice my opinion on different issues, much like many people do. Over the past few months I've watched and read about many things that I have an opinion on so I figured it was time for me to create this blog. I hope you enjoy reading about my thoughts and opinions. Thanks!