A Moment Of Honest Contemplation...

I don't presume to believe that there is anyone out there waiting for me to post my next post. I don't even pretend that there are that many people interested in reading my old posts. Or that I matter that much to anyone but my family and friends (who won't read my blog because they don't care about what I write about). But I can speak truthfully that, when I began this blog of mine, I had every intention of keeping it fresh and adding content on a regular basis.

Believe it or not, I had planned to add a post daily. I thought that I had that much to share and that it would be so easy to spend a little bit of time every day and express my views, thoughts and ideas. But I was mistaken. As it turns out, my posts have been about as frequent as a bar mitzvah invitations for the president of Iran.

I want to say it's because I am focusing on quality not quantity but that would only be part of the answer. Or I could kid myself into thinking that it's because I am too busy but that's not only part of it, too. But the real reason I dropped off so fast is this: my fragile ego.

I wrote posts that I thought were intelligent, insightful, relevant and well researched. I put in what I believed were clever images and even a little humor. In short, I was proud of my efforts and was sure that others would enjoy reading them as much as I had enjoyed writing them. My posts would serve as catalysts for a thoughtful dialog about things like business, marketing, communications or even society.

But that, it turns out, is not the case (or not yet, at least). The painful truth is, I don't know if anyone at all reads what I write. If anyone does, none of them add to it (OK, so a couple of people have). And I think this is the case for many, if not most, blogs; people put them up and they put stuff on them for themselves. Maybe they want to be part of the next, newest, greatest thing. Maybe they hope that their blog will become "hot" like so many (or few) others.

Or maybe they think that it's important to be a voice whether you get heard or not. And I guess that might be the best thing about this medium: it is a forum for any and all who want to make the effort. And I, for one, have reconciled my delusional aspirations with that fact and pledge to make more of an effort and throw my voice on the wind and see if it lands on any ears. Or eyes.

"Industry Executives" Are So Smart

Amazingly provocative. The big brains of media have gotten together and some exciting, insightful, brilliant thinking has emerged: people will ignore or avoid advertising that isn't relevant. In this case, we are talking about people who watch TV. Of course, I am simplifying this because most normal-brained people couldn't comprehend what it takes, intellectually, to come to such amazing conclusion. But a pack of "industry executives" at the Digital Hollywood conference managed to figure it out.

Not surprisingly, "all agreed on the demise of traditional TV ads." And that TiVo, with it's fast-forwarding capabilities "represents a huge problem for traditional TV advertising."

Some other gems:

"... right message in the right content. Google's business was founded on that."

"... "I don't think a brand marketer can establish a deep connection" when the viewer is fast-forwarding.

"... television," is "increasingly delivered digitally."

"... user-generated content is proving much harder to monetize than "premium" or professional content on the Web."

Amazingly, I was able to get all of this intellectual capital from one story covering this obviously monumental conference. Imagine how much wisdom was dispensed over three days...it boggles the mind. Unless you are one of these sharp "industry executives" who are starting to sound more like the ubiquitous guy, as in, "my washing machine's broken...better call the guy." No, my friends, this type of heavy mental lifting is definitely better left to the professionals.

Don't Blame The Advertising

According to a new study from the FTC, advertisers might not be to blame for the childhood obesity epidemic. According to Michael Salinger, director of the bureau of economics at the FTC, "I think childhood obesity is a major problem. But I think the study casts doubt on whether food advertising is the main culprit." As a matter of fact, according to the Federal Trade Commission, children ages 2-11 were exposed to fewer paid TV food advertising minutes, at about 9% fewer ads — 5,538 commercials in 2004 versus 6,100 food ads in 1977.

But before there are too many back slaps and hearty handshakes of self-congratulations, let's not overlook another difference between 2007 and 1977: the Internet.

In 1977, there were no web sites for kid foods, kid restaurants or kid menu items. There weren't web sites for any food, restaurants or menu items for that matter.

But today:

• A Google search for Happy Meal returns 5,320,000 results
• A Google search for McDonald's delivers 15,200,000 results
• Go to Disney.com and click on content for boys, girls or kids and teens and see ads for Cheetos, Honeycomb and Frosted Flakes cereals
  
• Nickelodeon features a Baby Bottle Pop promotion. Nick, Jr. and Noggin feature McDonald's salads since, presumably, moms help their toddlers and preschoolers surf the Internet — and work up an appetite doing it.
  
• Yahoo features Mt. Dew promotions (games, music) tied to the Transformers movie release
  
• Checking on the Most Talked About Moments from the 2007 MTV Movie Awards featured a :30 Taco Bell commercial. Banners were also featured prominently (on reloads, it was Ghost Rider)
  
• MySpace music features Dr. Pepper
• AOL Games features a Hillshire Farm-sponsored Shrek game (what?)
  
• Noggin.com pushes McDonald's salads to moms (since it's a preschooler site and kids and moms probably access it together)
• Candystand.com, sponsored by Wrigley's is loaded with games, as is the Willy Wonka Candy Factory
• Postopia.com is the Post cereals game site
  

It goes on and on; virtually every kid food product (really, every kid product) has an online presence to engage and entice the children of today. This is important because, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project report entitled Teens and Technology (07/27/2005), the number of teenagers using the internet has grown 24% in the past four years and 87% of those between the ages of 12 and 17 are online. Compared to four years ago, teens’ use of the internet has intensified and broadened as they log on more often and do more things when they are online. And according to Nielsen/NetRatings, the amount of time spent online by kids 2 - 11 has increased 41% in the last 3 years.

And according to Susan Linn, a Harvard psychologist and spokeswoman for the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, whether kids are seeing fewer ads on TV isn't the issue. Newer forms of advertising, such as product placements in movies and TV shows, Internet ads and product tie-ins between popular movies and fast food restaurants makes the volume of TV ads "kind of meaningless," Linn says. "Just because children may view fewer television ads in no way means that they're being advertised or marketed to less," she said.

So are marketers and agencies breathing a collective sigh of relief after being (slightly) exonerated for causing childhood obesity? Or are they saying, "True, it's not the TV advertising; we've just finally cracked the code on truly integrated marketing."?

Believe me, I don't think that advertising, no matter how good or integrated, is causing obesity in children or adults. Does it play a role? Probably but not that significant of one. Can it play a role in helping to turn the tide? Absolutely. More to come on the subjects of obesity and the role of marketers.

Fragmentation or Focus?

In media and communications, you can't help but be bombarded with doom and gloom messages regarding media fragmentation. Fragmentation, in this instance, refers to the fragmentation of the audiences for various media and the impact it has on the ability of the media outlets to make money selling advertising.

You see, back in the good old days, you could count on millions of consumers showing up at places and times determined by networks, publishers and the marketers who funded them. It was so comforting and reliable. But with the relentless and growing wave of technology (beginning with the remote control), those huge flocks of consumers began behaving less and less like sheep and more and more like what they were: individuals with their own likes, dislikes, tastes and interests.

So, in the minds of those entities who take it upon themselves to determine what we see, hear and read, fragmentation is an abomination to the model they created and perpetuated for so long.

Truly, they built it and come we did. And happiness and satisfaction was in abundance. But, as is in nature, capitalism and businsss change is inevitable and the model began to evolve. As individuals and societies grew wealthier, enterprises developed and adapted to relieve them of their wealth. And as the number and variety of goods and services increased to compete for the attention of the consumer's dollar, the attention of the consumer began to focus on where their money was going; was it going to what was best for them? To the best value? To the most entertaining? In short, the consumer began to focus on what they needed and wanted as opposed to what was simply available.

So, in a round about way, I've finally gotten to the idea of focus rather than fragmentation. The world of media has not become fragmented — it's become much more focused; focused around the indvidual as opposed to the entity, focused around context as much as content. Because of the internet, TiVo, VOD, mobile communications and any number of other technologies, the individual cannot only find exactly what they want but get it exactly when they want it. They can move with soul singularity of purpose or gather and congregrate around a shared idea. Or create the idea and advance it.

But what is not needed in many – if not all — of these instances is a commercial sponsor. Perhaps the opportunity for the old-model players mentioned earlier in this post is to adopt and outside looking in view of the world as opposed to an inside looking out; you are whining about fragmentation while the world around you is embracing the freedom offered by free-flowing information, entertainment, commerce and communication.

Finally...a "unique sonic brand" from USA Networks

Thank God it's finally here: USA Network's "unique sonic brand." This thanks to a deal between Yahoo and USA Network in which the two companies will join forces to promote emerging artists and share in resulting revenue. According to Chris McCumber, USA's senior vice president of marketing and brand strategy, this "innovative partnership has the potential to create a new model for the way musical artists are discovered and developed." (note to Chris: sonic branding refers to audible brand signals like the 3-note Intel sound or AOL's "you've got mail.")

In this arrangement, Yahoo Radio will identify unsigned artists with high listenership and pass them on to USA where they can be signed by NBC Universal (what NBC Universal will sign them to I can only guess; they don't have a record label. Did I mention most musicians want recording contracts?). While this is no doubt an oversimplification of the process, you can see why it's so important; it's not enough that consumers have already identified these artists as being relevant by listening to their music and, most likely, shared their selections with their friends and cohorts.

No, to really work, it has to make some uninvolved third (or fourth or fifth) party money. Only in this instance, the uninvolved party is making it's money on the backs of the consumers who have taken over the role of the traditional record company A&R guy (again, I haven't been able to track down the record label in this mix; the relevance of record labels will be a post for another day).

Yahoo Radio is a great offering; it's easy to find and easy to use. You can listen to a lot of music, create your own station, see videos (already better than MTV) and share the things you like. There are lots of artists, both well known and not so well known so it's pretty obvious why USA/NBC Universal would want to hop on this bandwagon. And the promise of creating a "unique sonic brand" is so enticing.

But for the consumer and the artist, what's the upside to a "sonic brand" from USA? Are they going to distribute music? That's already going on. Are they going to become a label? That business is proving less and less relevant. Are they going to put these artists on TV? Well, it won't be the Monkee's but TV distribution is ultimately what the end game probably is.

So, in a round about way, USA/NBC Universal is telling the audience of Yahoo Radio to get the hell away from that computer and get in front of your TV! Which is a further round about way of saying what you want to do is not as important as what we want to do: make money off of you.

I just can't wait until we start getting some unique visual brands for radio.

No more fast forward...

Today I read that ABC and ESPN (parent company: Walt Disney Co.) has put together a deal with Cox Communications regarding their video-on-demand service that will effectively disable the fast-forward function on programs like "Desparate Housewives", "Grey's Anatomy", "Lost", and "Ugly Betty". Granted, these programs are available for viewing the day after they run in their regular time slot but I have to wonder...

Cox's consumer customers pay a fee for VOD service that has certain features and benefits that they (the customer) have determined are worth a premium price. Now, Cox has decided that the needs and wants of their business customer (Disnsey, ABC, ESPN) are more important so they are, in effect, changing the offering for their consumers to satisfy their business customers.

Now I love cable TV. I love TV in general. But I would bet my hard earned cash that Cox didn't mention to their consumer customers that they were changing their offering. I'll bet they never asked them if they'd mind a change in the offering. And I'd bet even more they never said, "Look, we're making this deal and it's going to change the way the service you pay for works; you won't be able to fast-forward for certain shows. If you want to be able to fast-forward with the service you pay for, there are other offerings out there that will let you like a satellite service or competing cable provider; you should go there."

The president of advertising sales for ABC, Mike Shaw, says that cable operators "are in the same business we're in", that being the business of selling ads. But here's sort of the rub: if you're in the business of selling ads, then the programming should be free for consumers, as it is, for the most part, on network TV. I know cable costs money but that is my next point.

Cable operators are in the business of selling access — not ads. Cable subscribers pay for access to the infrastructure that the cable companies have built. Networks also fund that infrastructure by paying to access it as a means to delivering their content (ad funded) to consumers; it's a cyclical thing.

But what Disney, ABC, ESPN and Cox are missing is that they are trying to force an outdated model and method of thinking on a progressive and independent consumer; a consumer that has made a decision to assert some control over something that was previously out of their control.

Part of the reasoning that makes Cox and Disney think they can devalue the consumer role at this point is that VOD and DVR have a low penetration into consumer households and that, at this point, there are fewer people to piss off. I think that this is a bad idea and a bad precedent if other cable operators, satellite operators, and others, adopt this thinking and approach.

It seems appropriate to insert this quote from, of all things, the movie Network: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"