Online overtakes TV – or does it and does it matter?

Ok, i’m a bit late – but hey, i’m busy!

So news broke this week that Online Ad spend had passed TV ad spend – and a year before it was predicted to do so. The IAB published their latest result and you could barely read it for getting past the self-satisfied grins that most of the digital industry broke into. But then in a daring move, Thinkbox hit back (you can tell they are TV look at the rainbow colour palette) saying that was  a right load of bull**** cos it included Search – which may not be advertising anyway and if you included all the things TV does then it would be worth more anyways. And so TV wins. So there.

And their dad is bigger than IAB’s dad so ner ner ner ner ner!

And i’m thinking – the consumer doesn’t give a shit about any of this.

What the consumer really gives a shit about is this:

When and wherever they see an ad telling them about some snazzy new product, they go to the store and the sales assistant knows little or nothing about the promise the ad made about said snazzy product, they go on the website and that week the web team chose to highlight a different product, they phone customer service and get told its a web only offer. All of this could be in 15 minutes. So their media spend has been pretty much flushed down the toilet.

So, to be blunt, i couldn’t give an arse that Online or TV get the most spent (and don’t get me going on the whole ‘matching luggage’ approach to most TV<>Web advertising), but i do give an arse that brand owners are essentially wasting money. And lots of it.

The problem that i see is that most marketing and advertising starts when the brief is issued when in fact it needs to start up the food chain at the business problem level. Your  common or garden CEO sees this problem – his sales and marketing is not really connected to his commerce in any real coherent way and the analysts keep asking why sales are sliding Quarter on Quarter. And don’t even ask about how his IT department fits into all this.

The consumer just wants it simply joined up and for as long as the marketing and advertising industry is getting its knickers in a twist over who is beating who (Online or TV) for greater media spend then both consumers and brands are losing out.

Oh and this is not some argument to drop all media spend and go ‘crowdsourcing’, far from it. But i’ll leave you with this thought – would £10million be better spent buying space or getting the customer servicing reps joined up with the store staff joined up with the promise of that beautiful ad?

Big Brother – end of an era. Don’t be so daft.

So Channel 4 have decided not to chuck Endemol another £100m+ for another 3 years of Big Brother. The deal was due to end next year anyway and the end was really mooted a couple of years ago, so it’s not really a surprise that C4 have dropped it after 10 years. Endemol have been planning for this for ages.

Even 2 years ago we were discussing Big Brother living without a broadcaster. Afterall, Endemol turn over more money that C4 and it’s a key property – they won’t let it just die. I wouldn’t expect to see it picked up by another broadcaster. It’s a bloody expensive show to make and the house has outlived it’s use. Creatively, they wanted to change it a few years back and looked at alternatives, but the gap between Celebrity and the main show was too short to tear down and rebuild.

Endemol own the format. It has a young audience. That audience don’t really watch too much TV. Most damning of all, C4 had a shit website for the show and did not at all use online/mobile in any innovative ways for the show. I’m surprised that Endemol never gave C4 more crap for their lack of online exploitation of the brand. In the meantime,  Endemol have been experimenting with ‘original digital formats’ for a while, getting people like Bebo to commission them with brands picking up the tab.

My money would either be on Endemol going that route – i can easily see the ‘tasks’ as brand opportunities, a show sponsor and other affiliate deals. Or, Endemol, though more unlikely, could go it alone.

My money would be a license and commission deal with a social network. Afterall, it’s all Endemol know. They know no other way of making money. They are past masters at leveraging their brands – yes, you have been in  pub with a ‘Deal or No Deal’ fruit machine and XBox has produced a ‘1 v 100′ game for network play. And if they go it alone, they have no ready made audience like Bebo/MySpace/ MSN/ Yahoo/Whoever.

Online it could be reinvented as a format. And more cheaply than it would to make as TV. It is instantly global and avoids all those nasty territory rights issues.

So, Big Brother is dead, long live Big Brother.

Remember when you read this and in 2011, come back and read it again and be in awe of my predictive text.

Oh, while im here, why have Endemol UK not produced a hit format since Bazelgette had his genius run in the 90’s? Alright, they have couple of popular ones, but the real hits are from other parts of the empire which have been very well adapted in the UK. Just an observation..answers on a postcard, well, blog comment.

SXSW Festival…ooh the pressure mounts – PICK ME!!

OK, so this is more nerve racking than i ever began to think about when i did it. What was a 15 minute idea has turned me into a Big Brother wannabe wanting votes. I feel strangely competitive about the whole thing.

I now have an idea of the extreme thought process that a BB contestant goes through. I mean, i want votes so i can get to the SXSW Interactive Festival next year whereas in BB, you get cash and a shooting star media profile. I have colleagues who have ideas up for votes, but i’m even sneakily hoping i get more than they do.

Luckily SXSW doesn’t have a diary room, a big chair and Davina McCall asking me not to swear – but i keep checking, even though there is nothing to check. I have also realised that i’m the only Sapient entrant with one idea up. I did only do one idea (quite usual for me i hear my colleagues shout), but nonetheless. Did they think of hundreds and get two selected? or more. Should i have done more? inevitably ending up with Inner City Sumo and Monkey Tennis no doubt.

This is terrible.

Even if i get through then i have the actual thing to worry about. My family think South by South West is a festival in Cornwall. Wait till they realise it’s Texas.

Oh, the subject of the panel idea: Performance Pricing and Other Scary Thoughts.

I think it’s timely to be asking how we help our clients through the recession. Those of us in client services should be thinking everyday how we use this period to deepen the relationships with our clients. I think it a fine subject for a panel discussion.

I’d like to get a client on there if possible..that would make it interesting.

Now , let me look in that mirror and pretend i don’t know there’s a camera behind it…

Please note the shy and retiring graphic next this post…

Content sites more popular than etail sites..no s**t Sherlock

I was happily going about my business when i saw this and my bile began to rise. Apparently, after some blinding data mining and then insight to match that which said that George W was unpopular, i am now aware that since 2006, content sites have seen a 73% increase in traffic.

Great headline. Not so sure about the story.

One could say that the recession has impacted how much is being spent online. No doubt true. I would rather say that since 2006, Facebook, Twitter, more blogs worth reading and the ever present celeb gossip has become ever more powerful. Hence the massive increase in content traffic.

Hitwise tell us that just cos people are surfing more doesn’t mean they are spending online. Fair enough. I can see that logic. However, if content is driving huge amounts of traffic and we are told repeatedly by Rupe that ‘quality can’t be free’, why are etailers not investing in content to drive traffic to their sales funnels? Paying for the content through the increased sales all the lovely 73% more traffic will generate…i know, i know,  that’s not the way it works.

This is the age old the ‘experience’ v ‘the shop’. Apple (yeah, i know, an easy example, it’s late and i’ve got real work to do after this), know that their conversion rates would improve if they could combine the experience with the shop. Everyone wants more traffic, either to increase the value of this display ads, to get more people into their sales funnels or, just to get your blog readership out of double figures (ahem).

So all i can conclude then is that people like knocking around the web doing stuff that’s free and now and again they buy stuff.

Now that, my friends, is that article in a single sentence.

Tiger Woods in fart viral or apparently not.

That got your attention didn’t it.

However, there is a (semi) serious point to be made (after all, fart gags are just funny.) Look here for a good read about what got me thinking.

So as you wont be able to see the offending video, let me explain;

The world’s greatest golfer was on his way to winning the Buick. While he waits on the fairway with his caddy, with a camera behind him, someone in the crowd lets rip an almighty fart. Everyone hears, Tiger and his caddy crack up, the crowd cracks up…as the camera cuts, you see a Buick in the background..then Tiger tries to gather himself to concentrate on the job in hand. About a minute long. Perfect YouTube fodder.

Now, any self respecting marketing department would have paid a fortune for that viral. It was spreading like wildfire round the web. It had a famous celebrity, a fart, and a product and it made people smile. And millions of hits. Well it would have had. In fact if you had to pay for it, unless you were already a sponsor of Tiger, you wouldn’t even get past the first level of ‘his people’ and you couldn’t afford it.

But (and i’m not clear who) either the PGA and/or CBS pulled the video from everywhere for ‘copyright infringement’. Now, on how many levels is that just plain wrong? They lucked into the perfect viral and they killed it.

I can only guess the lawyers got to it first.

I wonder if Buick were even consulted? But for all three parties i can only see a good news story. Let’s face it, golf, only reaches a certain advertising audience and here they had a video being posted everywhere.

The response seems knee-jerk at best, and at worst it highlights a wiful desire to put heads in the modern media landscape sand.

but most of all I just hate to see a bloody good fart gag wasted.

Publicis and Razorfish…

Publicis have splashed $530m on Razorfish.

Digitas are determined to put digital at the heart of the business and spending nearly $600m in this climate is not a cheque written in haste. As with all these things, they must see strategic reasons for spending their hard-earned.

UK Razorfish (or DNA) as most people still called it finally reached it’s earn out for the DNA founders earlier this year. That certainly made the Microsoft disposal easier…no messy payouts to get in the way. Razorfish US is a good shop, with a good client list and no doubt smart people.

In any agency acquisition you buy people and client relationships. How many people will survive the transfer is a question yet to be answered. Especially when they look at how Digitas has been on somewhat choppy waters of late. The other is clients…it will be interesting to see how many go out to pitch or how many see teh new network association as a boon.

Microsoft have chucked in loads advertising freebies and guaranteed revenues as a client to Razorfish – which is nice of them and will sweeten the deal for many Razorfish clients.

From a selfish stand-point, it means another competitor who will be somewhat distracted, even with the best will in the world, that kind of move unsettles an organisation.

The industry continues to morph and consolidate in front of our very eyes. Don’t blink, you may miss something.

Manchester City appoint Endemol to build brand…WTF?

It’s been while since i was inspired to write a post. A combination of too much work, not enough time and little that seemed to warrant a post. But my, how that changed when i had a quick flick through Brand Republic and saw this.

Lets just read that headline one word at a time:  Manchester City appoints Endemol to promote global brand

That’s a sentence i would never, in this life time, expected to see.

Not many have taken the recent history of Manchester City that seriously. But this is a whole new level. It really does take the club and take it to its logical conclusion: reality show. Its the only thing Endemol really know how to do well.

Can we expect to be voting Mark Hughes out to boos and sensational Sun headlines in the new season? Some may say that was going to happen long before Endemol were on board, although having Davina at Eastlands could be  a new twist.

However, i think there is something missing in the article. Endemol doesn’t do brand work. It creates formats and content. It does Entertainment. And it does it very, very well. Admit it, you like the odd fix of that Endeol  drug. I still twitch that Charlie Brooker works for Endemol…

However, It doesn’t dirty itself with agency work (hence why Poke are there). They must have convinced MCFC that their is inherent value in their ‘content’ that can be packaged and made into various ’shows’ around the world. With the IP retained by Endemol of course…oh yes, they don’t sign that away. Too valuable, it’s their core business – secondary sales of second hand content.

The thing i am interested in is, growing a brand through entertainment. Now, i have a vested interest here, Sapient have an Enterainment group. So I can see the logic. I really can. But Endemol know nothing about actually selling product, nothing, as it were about modern online marketing. You can argue that what’s what Poke are there for. Poke do great creative, campaign site. I’m a bg fan. But hard core eCommerce and the like i don’t believe is their core reaason for living.

I think that MCFC have bought the Robhino as it were. A big money signing, hoping for an impact.

I’m going to watch it though my fingers, half not wanting to see it, half not being able to tear myself away.

Would it have been different if it had been Manchester United? Maybe. But you get the feeling Old Trafford isn’t up in the board room, Fergie giving the Glazers the hair dryer treatment… ‘get Rooney on Wipeout, Rio on Screen Burn and i’m off to Elstree’.

I’m fascinated and horrified all at the same time.

Media Guardian – A special report

What a little insert of joy i found this morning on the DLR. There i was reading Charlie Brooker as usual, when i chanced on the ‘Media Guardian: A special report on UK television advertising’

Brought to us ‘in association with the British Television Advertising Awards’ it’s 15 pages of TV advertising back slapping.

With articles titled ‘Turn on to TV’ ‘Prize Fighters’ and ‘Right on Target’. It spends every word desperate to tell us why TV advertising is still relevant, important and damn you – still the best thing ever!!

Swoon at Maurice Levy mimicking Wal-Mart (” i have chosen not to take part in the recession”), Gasp at how only Ad agencies can make brands relevant to people’s lives, lose all sense of perspective as they celebrate Mother for it’s pure, fucking brilliantness.

Throw up with pull out quotes such as ‘The company is populated with amazingly talented people – a smart thing to do if you want to bring success’ NO SHIT SHERLOCK.

Ok, i love a good TV ad as much as the next guy – and am not one of those digital jonnies who think that they will all be dead on 2 years. But F**K ME.

It’s exactly this kind of thing that makes people want to tell our ad agency bretheren that they are dinosaurs.

I heard a great term for advertising on the weekend – Heritage Media. How brilliant is that. In one simple phrase it tells you all you need to know: Outmoded business models, people refusing to accept the fact that their ivory tower now finds itself on the edge of a dodgy business park rather than in the groovy centre of town, an unhealthy focus on awards…

The simple fact is: This recession is the tipping point for digital. It is moving to the centre and displacing TV as the core creative output of clients. Clients need TV, but they need to be where their customer are more and that is online. Clients need to drive costs down through eCare and eSales and build brand enagagment everywhere but on TV.

The day digital has a Media Guardian insert is the day we have ‘jumped the shark’. Maybe like Animal Farm, it is inevitable. The Ad guys are those in the farmhouse…by the end of the story, maybe we will be just the same.

Poke and Snckrz – is all PR good PR?

Mmmmmm

Interesting bit of news that Poke have been forced by Mars to shut down their Snckrz website – apparently delivering one of those beautifully titled ‘cease and desist’ notices to the award winning agency.

This immediately made me think of the following things – not necessarily in order but

1. was this an elaborate play to win the Mars/Snickers account – make a site so successful that Mars thought ‘crap – we gotta have these guys on our team’?
2. if it wasn’t – did they think that they could play with a giant brand and get away with it?
3. why and who would leak the fact that you got a stiffly written letter telling you to stop? Poke themselves?
4. Maybe if you wanted a bit of PR in a slow week – when does marketing smarts become brand damage?
5. Or the brand wanted to ’send a message’ that they wont be mucked around with
6. Why because you did something in 2001 does it seem a good idea 8 years later when the world has somewhat changed.

I find this all rather curious. I don’t know if Poke will be upset at this, baffled or pleased. If it was a blog entry that a member of staff did that was found  and asked to be taken down is one thing, but conceiving, concepting, designing, building, measuring a full on site – means that many people were involved – did no-one think that mars maybe a bit pissed?

The very last odd thing is that Mars just had a disaster with the Skittles campaign and yet a site that they hadn’t asked for,  paid for, seemed to be getting good traffic and brand engagement…I think i’m going for number 1 on my list…

What do you think?

Prescott, Facebook and RBS Bonuses…you couldn’t make it up

For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, we are having a little local diffculty with our banking system.

But it’s OK, because John Prescott has launched a Facebook group. The group is focused on getting support for RBS not to pay out bonuses.

Isn’t that just so English. In the US President Obama moblises a whole new audience with a level of sophistication in the  use of social media, we have an ex-politician and a Facebook group.

I bet those guys at RBS are shitting themselves…

‘Look lads, we took the £37bn and the public own 70% of us. We have contracts saying we must get a bonus even though we would have been on the dole without the cash..but screw it, who’s to notice a little bonus….oh, Prescott has a Facebook group? With 5,000 members? Oh, better not then’

Do we think that this or any other social media application can influence these events…(not withstanding that the whole country is in agreement)…and if it can is it really a Facebook group?