Spark Media Sales

I was thinking how life has changed for kids growing up today. I grew up in the 70’s where everyone played outside until dark or when Mom called you in. We had no computers, cellphones, tablets or drive-throughs. Mom cooked all the meals from scratch and baked twice a week. Today, a lot has changed. Kids don’t play outside much, Dad is working late and Mom is picking up fast food for dinner on the way home from the gym. Society has baked-in this new reality – we are time-starved. There is insufficient time in the day to do what we want or need to accomplish. Consumers don’t have time nor the patience to deal with everything. So we turn to the necessities offered in life which I call, “Societal Conveniences”. I’m not just talking about technical conveniences, like iPhones or Blackberrys, but some changes that have occurred because people don’t have the time or patience. For example, have you noticed all the new prepared foods and frozen entrees at the supermarket these days? Does anyone cook anymore? Marketers know that if they can develop new categories of conveniences, consumers will buy them. How about all the new drive-throughs opening up everywhere? I’m not just talking about food, banks and coffee shops. Did you know Moosehead has a drive-through beer store in Halifax? So how long before we see a drive-in window to return your empties and another to order a two-four of Canadian? Here is a quick test. Don’t scroll down. How many new drive-through services can you list that exist today, but that aren't fully available yet in Canada?

Now...look:

 marriage chapels

 prescriptions

 grocery stores

 dairies

 post offices

 dry cleaners

 strip club

 prayer booth (for after your wife finds out you were at the strip club)

 public libraries

 art galleries

 funeral homes, yes funeral homes

Just read an article on the Multi-Screen Marketer from the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau), and was enlightened by what they had to say about today’s TV viewer. It appears we are very busy multi-tasking in one way or another, either while the program is running or during breaks. Whether it’s to check Facebook or Twitter, get something to eat, or text message a friend, we seem to do just about anything but simply watch TV.

When I sit down to watch TV, it seems my iPhone never leaves my hand. Asking around, I find that family and friends are doing the same – and some to staggering degrees. It seems a second can’t go by without us getting fidgety and grabbing our laptops, smart-phones, or tablets. According to the article, we're being called the "Multi-Screen Consumer" (MSC).

They say that we aren’t the future that we are the present. Our type are ready, willing and able to shift our attention in a heartbeat to a second screen - whether to view a text, surf a site, or check messages. We're always looking to fill gaps in time.

For advertisers who've picked up on this trend (some may call it an obsession), the second screen can offer viewers so much more in an instant. These devices, with their speed of access, can deliver brand information, new content, and a complexity of new emotional experiences that our TVs can’t do in thirty seconds.

So why aren’t TV advertisers taking advantage of the Multi-Screen Consumers? There is a lot of information to cram into a commercial message – the brand personality, the story, the offer, the price, the timelines, the legals etc. That leaves little time to offer MSCs the information they want.

There is an opportunity for advertisers to take advantage of MSCs. It’s called digital TV. It allows advertisers to create content around their brand. By working directly with like-minded producers, advertisers can effectively build a program series around their brand without the restrictions of the broadcasters. A series can placed on an advertiser’s website, or sold to subscription video services like Netflix or Hulu, who are constantly in search of new content. No commercials, no interruptions and the ability to create content that specifically targets their brand.

This unique platform is perfect for MSCs because it encourages viewers to grab their devices, become part of the program and interact with the series by choosing alternate endings, companion pieces or simply the option to learn more about the embedded brand and its offers. If the MSCs are moving from one device to another on their own, why wouldn’t the advertisers want to help? Make it worth their while by developing unique content just for them.

When you have kids, you hardly envision them as adults. But as time passes, you start to wonder, what will they be when they grow up? Will they follow in your footsteps or chart a path of their own? Well, my son quit his job as Director of Marketing for a software company, to chart his own path to work full-time on his dream to launch an iPhone app. Today, I am proud to announce that his reminder-based app called Checkmark is now available in the iTunes store.

I was looking at weekly ratings of US programs last week and it reminded me of a blog I wanted to write. You see, as technology advances and consumers’ choices in viewing change, so too does the need for ratings services to adapt and report more accurately.

U.S. ratings service Nielsen now reports three streams of TV-audience measurement. The most common ratings service is called Live. It measures the number of viewers who watched a program broadcast that day. Live+SD includes persons who watched via PVR that same day. Live+7 includes all viewing of that broadcast over a 7-day period.

Nielsen had to adopt this tri-measurement system for three reasons:

It had to appease the broadcasters, whose revenue is based on the number of eyeballs tuned to a specific program.

Network producers gauge the performance of a series based on its audience. 

Advertisers and their agencies need to know the true audience to measure their ROI.

Nielsen reports the most-recorded programs in the week. Script-based shows seem to have the highest Live+7 viewing. Sports events and award shows have the lowest Live+7 viewing. When you think about it, this makes sense. Who would PVR a sports or awards show when it’s likely to be a water-cooler topic the next day? (Side-bar: Do people still hang out at the water cooler?)

As television measurement companies have to adapt to new technologies, so too do the advertisers. It is incumbent on the advertisers to either negotiate commercial rates based on actual commercial audiences (see June 27th blog), or find alternate media platforms to engage their brands. Since the broadcasters are unlikely to cave, the choice thus remains with the advertiser. And smart advertisers are choosing product integration. Brand managers are working closely with advertiser-friendly producers, initiated through my company, to produce cost-effective and demographically-targeted content.

As media buyers and broadcasters negotiate over this fall’s new programs and the estimates of ratings and pricing, I wonder if there are changes coming in how they transact business.

The common currency in Canada for buying TV commercials is based on the size of the programs’ audience. The broadcasters will not move off this standard; it maximizes the amount they can charge for ad time. The more eyeballs that watch their programs, the more money they can ask. What if this currency changed to one based on commercial audiences?

The technology to measure commercial audiences exists today. BBM Canada electronically measures every minute of each program's audience. It sells software to its clients so they can extract the data to measure actual commercial audiences based on affidavits (dates and times of airings) provided by the broadcaster. Clients can compare these audiences to the average-minute audience of any program. The resulting difference is the loss of viewership between the program content and the commercial content.

This loss of audience should surprise nobody – commercial audiences have been eroding for years.

We've always speculated that bathroom breaks and trips to the fridge reduced commercial viewing. Now we have tangible evidence that something is taking us away from our screens during commercials. And it’s not just nature calling anymore. With technology at their fingertips, viewers control what they watch, when they watch - and they can pause, fast-forward and easily skip past commercials.

In a BBM analysis performed on a major U.S. program airing on a Canadian broadcaster in prime time, up to 95% of a program’s audience was not tuned to the commercial breaks during playback of a recorded program. This degree of audience loss may not be typical, but it does make me wonder where the audience is going.

With PVR penetration about 32% and expected to reach 40% by years’ end, nearly half the TV viewers will be able to control when and how they get their entertainment. In this time-starved culture, consumers who can do things faster usually will. And let’s be honest, isn’t one of the best features of a PVR that new users discover, is the ability to skip commercials? 

More and people don’t return phone calls. I’m not sure why, but I do have some ideas.

First of all, a lot of businesses use sophisticated phone systems that provide their staff with call display. If the recipient of your call doesn’t recognize you, the odds that they’ll answer are greatly diminished.

Second, if you do leave a message and are a first-time caller, what is the likelihood that the recipient will call you back within a reasonable time? There is almost no chance that your call will be first priority. Their workload of the day will likely dictate that your call goes to the bottom of the pile.

What ever happened to being polite and answering your calls in the first place? Returning a call takes little time. If you’re busy, just call the person and tell them when you will have time to take their call. It’s called courtesy.

We all tend to sweep insignificant communication under the rug and hope it all goes away. It’s not the right answer. The ugly truth is that technology is turning us into cyborgs, churning out data and ignoring the human side of our jobs.

There's an inconsistency in the spoken English language that has finally caught my attention. Broadcasters, advertisers and announcers are using different pronunciations for the same word.

It’s not as bad as these abominations we hear all the time like: "sangwich", "axe", "nucular" and "liberry".

This word however, is regularly broadcast differently and it really gets under my skin when I hear it read in a different way. Here is the words closest cousins. Repeat after me:

Millimeter

Centimeter

Meter

And now:

Kilometer

Did you say kill-om-etter? Or did you say kill-o-meter?

Most people say the former. According to Wikipedia, the pronunciation follows the stress pattern used for the names of measuring instruments (such as micrometer, barometer, thermometer, tachometer and speedometer). The problem with this reasoning, however, is that the word "meter" in those usages refers to a measuring device, not a unit of length.

Yes it flows off the tongue smoother, but we all have our pet peeves, and because I work in the broadcast industry, I notice the other pronunciation every day. People like me, who dislike the second syllable being stressed feel like the first syllable should be the one that is stressed. In accordance with the stress patterns above the word kilometer should be read as: centimeter, millimeter, meter, etc.

So let’s agree on one pronunciation shall we? The one where the first syllable is stressed.

What are your pet language or pronunciation peeves? Please share them with me by emailing me at [email protected] or click on the contact button to your right.

I went to my local cable store to exchange my broken PVR and their computer systems were down. They apprised me of the situation when I walked in the door. I was impressed that they were being pro-active.

I decided to go to the counter anyway and ask the clerk if I could still do the exchange. I was emphatically told there was no way to proceed, because their computers were offline. I found this a bit odd and puzzling. Are companies relying so heavily on computers that they forget about the customer? What happened to the pre-computer days when these transactions were done manually? Are there no back-up systems in place to deal with these customers?

Apparently not, at least at this large communications company.

Are we so computer reliant that when computer systems go out, so do the abilities of people’s brains? Companies are always touting in the media that they have the most robust networks and the best customer service. Yes maybe, as long as they're online.

What fascinated me was the provider’s inability to think on its feet and to put customers’ needs first. I asked the person behind the desk if he could document the information necessary for the transaction and add it to the system once it was online again. After the stupefied look left his face, he told me that nothing could be done and I would have to return to the store later.

Surely, one would think that back-up systems would be in place so the consumers’ business is taken care of first, and the relevant data is manually added to the database later. With the existing computer dependency, an outage of any magnitude would drastically affect the company’s abilities to conduct transactions. This would lead to a significant loss in revenue, not to mention disgruntled customers.

I was thinking what to write about today. There are so many fascinating topics whirling in my brain. Instead I decided to write about writing.

Newspapers, books, magazines - we are familiar with how words are put onto paper. But have you ever wondered why magazines and newspapers lay out their lines differently from books? Book publishers use the entire page without columns, while newspapers and magazines usually write their stories in short multiple columns. In fact, magazines have three to four columns per page, while newspapers use five to six columns. But books usually just have one. Why?

When we have to read all the way across a page, our eyes and head have to move along with the words as they span the page. This constant head and eye movement can tire a reader. Rather than facing your readers with a sea of words filling your page, you may want to re-think how you structure your writing.

In April 2010, the Radicati Group, a technology market research firm, issued a report. It estimated that estimated that in 2010, approximately 294 billion emails were sent per day. More than 2.8 million emails every second and about 90 trillion emails per year. The average email is about 75 KB in size or around 7000 plain-text words (see About.com).

According to an article in Product Placement News, Hugh Jackman’s latest movie, Real Steel, has too many product placements. Critics have panned his use of product placements as “shameless” and “flagrant”.

I haven’t seen the movie, but I've read many reviews about the blatant overuse of product placement in this film.

We've all heard the saying, “Too much of a good thing is not necessarily a good thing.” If you love ice cream and eat it every day, you may enjoy it each time, but what are the health ramifications of this enjoyment?

There has to be a balance to everything we do. What is too much and what is not enough? Can any one person make that call? The world is full of people whose opinions and suggestions can help bring balance and order to everything we do. So why not use them?

Many factors weigh-in on our decisions. Though the benefits of any decision can be numerous - time, money, ego gratification and notoriety - sometimes an apparently big gain can blur our perception and shift the balance to our disfavour.

The October 11, 2011 edition of Product Placement News reports that Ikea is forging ahead into year three of its award-winning web series “Easy To Assemble”. The show is produced just for the web and has averaged over 10 million views on a variety of websites. It is now the most successful web series ever!

This initiative shows that web-based television works and is sustainable for many years. There are many reasons why advertisers are looking seriously at this media platform. I have identified ten of the top reasons here, but surely there are more, so feel free to drop me a line at [email protected].

No need for a broadcasting license. No negotiating of license fees, time periods, air dates and commitments to a broadcaster.

Producing branded web-based content gives the advertiser control of its broadcasting assets; it can air what, when, where and what it wants. The advertiser can easily re-enforce it’s brand image through a ‘uniquely ours’ media platform.

Advertisers can showcase new products in a unique program-skewed environment.

Star power: Advertisers can choose actors who befit their brand image to create celebrity endorsements.

Allows for co-branding opportunities with like-minded companies and can create new revenue streams or help subsidize the cost of production.

The obvious: Advertisers can demonstrate products and services, including visual descriptions and scripted elements.

Web TV builds credibility of the brand while providing customers with 24/7 access.

Strengthen brand loyalty - consumers who see an already purchases product or service in action have their choice positively reinforced.

Creates an opportunity for a product or service to stand out in uncluttered medium.

Online video ads scored higher in brand recall and likeability than TV ads, according to an interesting article in Marketing Magazine about a survey conducted by Nielsen IAG for Microsoft. The survey panel consisted of people who had watched ads on TV programs and online video. The study found that 26% of people exposed only to online ads deemed them likeable compared with only 14% for TV ads - almost double the number! Why would these people respond so favourably to online ads? Perhaps the answers lies in the relationship with the medium itself. Are you like me when watching TV; we can “feel” a commercial break coming seconds before it airs? We ask ourselves, “Hey, do we want to be sold?” and we dislike it. Could this be any different online? We’re in a different state of mind when we’re online. We’re in control. We’re actively engaged, whether we're in search of information or entertainment.

Perhaps we allow Internet ads more access to our mind because we choose whether and when we let them in. The “here comes the sell” signal is not yet as negative as it is on TV.

So the next time you see an ad online ask yourself if you like it better than on TV. And if you do, why? What factors led you to this decision? 

I was talking to my son about the TV show The Office and how I think it isn’t as funny as it used to be. I told him it had "jumped the shark" when the lead character Michael started his own paper company to win back customers he had lost to his former employer. My son thought I’d gone mad. He turned to me and asked what show I consider funny. I had never thought about that and how difficult it would be to answer that question. Considering our age difference and the fact that our tastes are so dissimilar, I knew we would never agree. But that’s what so great about television. There is always something that appeals to one and not the other. Because there's so much choice today, we should be able to find something that entertains us.