Search results matching tag 'Advertising'

Sunday Paper Pick ‘n’ Mix

980070 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:06:00 GMT

I spend around 15 minutes every month down at the recycling bins in Sainsbury’s car park in Richmond.

It’s be a lot less frequent if I wasn’t throwing away a load of the Sunday Times I don’t read.

Regular news – forget it – rather get it from the BBC
Sport – too much footy and again rather hear what Aggers has to say
Appointments – quite happy where I am thanks
Culture – although I need some I have a TV to tell me what’s on next

What I do read?

Style – because gawd knows I need it and I like AA Gill’s restaurant reviews
Home – because I always want a bigger one and like to snoop
Magazine – the features are often very good
Travel – I like to get away from it all on the train
Gadget – because I love to see how negative the journos can be about MS products

So does that say something about me?

If I only went for the last 5 would that give advertisers something better to aim at?

It would save some trees, energy, and do much for the paper delivery man’s heart condition as I live on the 3rd floor with no lift.

Someone tell me why I can’t?

How to built up a media portfolio?

2643433 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:30:23 GMT

Advertising students have ads in their portfolio, multimedia design students stuff like websites. But how do you built up a portfolio if you want to work in media planning and buying?

Real People

2116546 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:33:00 GMT

I often wonder how many 'virals' have been viewed by real people.

I'm not talking about those figures that may have been faked by bots and all that underhandedness, but people outside of the industry we all have the privilege of working in. Ok, I know we are real people that consume so our viewing figures do count but if I had a quid for the amount of friends I've mentioned 'famous' viral campaigns to and they've never heard of them I'd probably have about £20.

Part of our job is viewing work being produced by our competitors so sometimes (well, most of the time) I'd love to be able to reclaim a YouTube view so as not to add to the clip's figures, or at least mark myself as "work in the industry, just checking out the promotion, not actually interested in the product".

Who needs Ad Agencies

2116546 — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:10:00 GMT

After spending a couple of days digesting this news I'm still not entirely sure what I think about it so excuse the brain dump.

I do think it fits into the viral subject however as Ideas Bounty is surely a viral exercise in itself but can this really work as a sustainable model across a brand's advertising. I'm not a huge fan of over-inflated ad agency models myself but there's more to creative than just shitting out a one-off idea. Isn't the Peperami brief (which is a tactical element of the overall 'Animal' creative concept) essentially another lazy UGC campaign in the same vein as Doriotos, Confused.com and quite a few others? It's great news if a client is taking more responsibility for the creative output of their brand, but it's not like Creative Agencies have been doing absolutely nothing for the past 50 years; is it?

Ok, I'll eat my face (on face)

2116546 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:32:00 GMT

As I've previously mentioned I'm not a big fan of face-on-face. This is perhaps just me, I don't get it, why would I bother. I don't like things not making much sense within their own world - however much fantasy is involved; I also still doubt how many people have direct to camera images of themselves.

However, if you get a chance to sniper a friend and the technology is the best implementation yet seen I can be proved wrong so check it out here.

Oh, and here's a kind of face-in-video that Ralph have just produced (www.jigsawsgame.com), but that's only one small part of the entire experience so I think we got away with it!

I'm wrong aren't I; people love seeing their own picture in anything?

Channel 4 / YouTube deal confirms Andy Duncan is still in the game

1641923 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:16:00 GMT

Channel 4’s departing chief executive Andy Duncan has no plans to go quietly at the end of this year, as proved by last week’s announcement of a ground-breaking content tie-up between the broadcaster and YouTube.

By the time Duncan is carrying the last of his belongings from the shiny building in Victoria, internet users should be able to view a selection of ad-funded C4 content, including Skins and Hollyoaks, via Google’s video site for free.

The move could be a significant development towards generating digital revenues for both C4 and YouTube.

The non-exclusive, three year deal allows C4 to keep control of its own advertising sales, and some non-C4 content to boot, while reportedly giving the broadcaster the larger share of revenue.

Martin McNulty from internet marketing agency TrafficBroker agrees the partnership has the potential to be very interesting for C4, noting it "opens the broadcaster up to a much bigger advertising market, that is liquid". He suggests that if traditional content providers can tap into the auction-type ad sales model that has already made adwords a success for Google, it could be a major break through.

Just as significantly, the deal is also the first real sign that exiting Duncan has a list of ‘unfinished business’ concerning commercial partnership which he has every intention of completing.

Last month, he told me he hoped to be able to announce "two or three commercial partnerships" before he steps down as CEO, and refused to rule out a tie-up with BBC Worldwide.

The deal, already dismissed by most as being dead in the water, gained renewed credibility yesterday when Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw called talks between Channel 4 and BBC Worldwide "encouraging."

Whether the BBC is now more minded to play ball or not remains to be seen, but Duncan clearly has a point to prove and his legacy in mind, which could make for an interesting final quarter. Watch this space.

Love the new Paul Whitehouse hairdresser ad?

2664107 — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:16:39 GMT

Wasn't sure about Aviva's ad series with Paul Whitehouse as a goth and the one as a silver surfer. But loving the new one as a hairdresser. What do others think?

#worldview - deconstructing the silo mentality

2544553 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:38:00 GMT

Even with the perceived turnaround in the global economy, we are all aware that the global recession has caused, and continues to cause, seismic shifts in the advertising and marketing industry, precipitating the need for rapid change. One area being impacted by the combined forces of recessionary pressures and technological progression is organisational structure.

One of the macro trends that we are starting to see is the deconstruction of the silo mentality that has been the status quo within client organisations, and which is mirrored by agencies in the major holding groups.

Discipline-specific fiefdoms exist around silos, with individuals and agencies behaving territorially to protect their specific areas of competence, guarding revenue streams or marketing budgets fiercely, and having accountability solely for delivery in the channel for which they have been responsible.

“My hope is that the recession will have been a huge wake-up call to clients with regard to that siloed mentality,” explained Bob Jeffrey, Chairman and Worldwide CEO, JWT. “It’s not only inefficient from a cost-savings perspective, but the more you collapse the silos, the more integration you drive, ultimately leading to a more effective environment in which to deliver better ideas and stronger creative output.”

Bob Jeffrey

Chris Colborn, Executive Vice President & Chief Experience Officer, R/GA, sees the silo mentality as a fundamental problem in developing effective creative work: “Many clients operate traditional structures where leads sit within verticals, each in charge of a discipline-specific agency and responsible for maximising effectiveness in a single channel. This model creates an artificial disincentive for collaboration, and therefore doesn’t engender an approach in which holistic synergies naturally form.”

Chris Colborn

“It’s a huge challenge for clients to evolve that model,” says Colborn, “to be leaner, more dynamic, cut costs and develop a more holistic structure, whilst still getting the best out of their agencies.”

The siloed organisational structure not only proves detrimental in terms of developing exceptional creative work, but actually creates natural disharmony and tension within the holding group verticals.

“I’m constantly saying that agencies need to work smarter,” Jeffrey continues. “They need to know when to compete and when to collaborate. Agencies are inherently territorial, tribal and competitive, but it’s critical to take an agnostic, less ego-centric approach to collaboration, and to have a bigger view of the world and the direction in which the world is heading if agencies are to achieve the ultimate goal of making their clients successful.”

Jeffrey understands that, “absolutely each agency needs to develop their own brand and build a reputation for creative excellence, but if client organisations start to evolve to be structured less around verticals, then agencies will be able to collaborate more effectively to deliver better work.”

The recessionary pressures on revenues and costs are forcing every client to analyse in fine detail how effective their marketing department is, and whether they are operating the most efficient ROI structure in a fast-changing environment.

As digital, mobile and social media platforms become more prevalent across all consumer segments, the discipline-specific silo mentality seems increasingly outdated and ineffective.

With CEO’s and CMO’s the world over looking to cut costs and increase the value of their spend, the time for significant and radical structural change is upon us. This will not only impact the client organisations themselves, but by definition the relationships with roster agencies across all disciplines.

Bob Greenberg, the Founder, Chairman, CEO & CCO, R/GA, believes that, “if you’re organised with a client around the consumer, then you’ll be much less affected by the storm than if you’re part of a siloed organisation. If you’re organised in verticals then the impact will be felt much more keenly, as cuts across each silo will need to be made. Nike are a client that have reorganised their internal organisational structure to revolve around the consumer, which is a model that I believe is much more efficient and effective.”

Bob Greenberg

If we look at some of the work that Nike are delivering, through R/GA as well as a number of other roster agencies, it is clearly evident that the reformulation of their organisational structure is paying dividends.

Ideas such as Nike+, the Ballers Network, NikeID, and HEAD2HEAD demonstrate that the company has truly put the consumer at the heart of all its thinking, delivering multi-platform solutions that are implemented more effectively by running a streamlined, de-siloed structure.

Chris Colborn summed up the dilemma facing many clients by describing why digital agencies are increasingly being perceived to offer greater value for money than the traditional agencies: “Initially digital agencies were one of the siloed verticals, but it quickly became apparent that every other silo needed a digital equivalent, in some form or another.”

“If you combine the breadth of experience, therefore, that digital needs to deliver, along with the relatively low spend in comparison to other channels, you can see why digital agencies are able to think more holistically in their approach to marketing, and also to deliver solutions that improve ROI levels.”

Although Colborn and Greenberg are approaching the topic from a different angle to Jeffrey, they are all in agreement that the concept of the traditional silo structure is fundamentally flawed.

The deconstruction of this model, reformulating around a more consumer-centric structure that has engagement and participation through digital platforms at its heart, is one of the major shifts that the recession has precipitated.

As with many of the changes this recession has brought, and will continue to bring, it is not that the shift wouldn’t have happened eventually; it’s just that the economic downturn has forced dramatic change to happen much more quickly.

The problem is that a rapid, fundamental structural revolution within the advertising industry has caused, and will keep causing, a great deal of pain while it happens.

The king is dead long live the king?

2604343 — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:09:00 GMT

I was at MIPCOM last week and talking to the great and good of the TV industry got me thinking will the internet replace TV or does TV just need to adapt.
For 50 years, the TV industry has delivered content and generated revenue effortlessly along the way. But technology is in danger of pulling its plug.

Can it alter its business model to chart a course into more profitable waters? Or is TV irreversibly sinking?

Advertising revenues are down and news that UK online advertising has overtaken TV doesn’t make the picture any brighter. And look at these facts and figures:

•   By 2010 Generation Y will outnumber Baby Boomers
•   96% of generation Y in the first world have joined a social network
•   Years it took to reach 50 million users: Radio (38 years), TV (13 years), Internet (4 years), iPod (3 years).
•   Facebook has added 100 million users in less than 9 months
•   The second largest search engine in the world, based on number of searches conducted, is YouTube
•   Only 14% of people trust advertisements
•   Only 18% of TV campaigns generate a positive ROI for advertisers

Okay, TV is facing some serious challenges, increased competition from online channels, new technologies, lifestyle changes – call them what you will – but cheer up, the business model might be on its last legs, but there's life in the old dog yet...

The answer for TV – embrace the online culture.

One billion consumers use social networks and the like. How can TV tap into the commercial potential of such vast numbers of people? The difficult part isn’t to create a presence; its knowing what presence should be created, where and for what purpose.

LISTEN CLOSELY
The truth is you're involved in the social media space whether you choose to be or not. Listen in to the online buzz in sites like Twitter, Facebook, You Tube, Flickr, the various forums, communities and blogs. Social media search engines like whostalkin, Social Mention, Delver or tuSavvy are great to use alongside Google analytics to get a good overview of your social media profile and performance. But for a detailed assessment, get a social media reputation audit done by a professional – you’ll be able to use this score as a benchmark for improvement.

START TALKING TO PEOPLE
Word of mouth - one of the most powerful forms of marketing, and it works so well online. If you’ve got something great - everybody’s talking about it. If you don’t - everybody’s talking about it. Before getting involved in social media, think carefully about your approach. Be prepared to share information or even tell the behind the scenes stories.

START SHARING YOUR CONTENT
Social media channels have a rather large ‘Welcome’ mat don’t you know and getting involved in this space will have a positive effect offline too. CBS has attributed a 200,000 increase in viewers in one month to the strategic placement of sample content on YouTube.

USE VIDEO PLATFORMS (DON’T TRY TO COMPETE AGAINST THEM)
YouTube probably presents the biggest threat but also biggest opportunity for content owners. Did you know that currently an average of 20 hours of video is uploaded every minute? OK, some of it may be there illegally, or poor quality, but audiences flock in their droves. Google, YouTube’s owner, has very deep pockets, so while it continues to build its audience, the commercial pressure is off (for now). And legal wrangles over copyright issues are unlikely to derail them, a recent ruling in Universal Music Group's copyright infringement lawsuit against Veoh Networks shows that social video sites may actually not be breaking any laws at all, at least not in the USA.

Then there’s Monty Python who placed free clips on their YouTube channel with click-to-buy links underneath. It's reported that even though the online content is free, Monty Python's DVD sales skyrocketed 23,000% on Amazon and reached #2 on the Bestseller list.

DISCOVER NEW REVENUE STREAMS
Content has an intrinsic value. Viewers will subscribe to watch it (if it’s good enough), advertisers will pay to be labelled alongside it (for the right price), but the online model is still evolving.

But take Facebook - it has 300m users - audience figures are potentially not the problem - it’s all in the packaging. Subscriptions models using Facebook apps are a potential money-spinner for content owners. Users don’t want to pay multiple subscriptions to access content (hello, Hulu!) so multi-layered content for niche audiences just needs to find suitable homes.

CREATE ONLINE ONLY CONTENT
Broadcasters can show content on their websites, but this is only the starting point. Bebo has a track record for commissioning its own content (KateModern and Sofia's Diary), funded by tactical sponsorships and product placement.

Joe Hughes, Yomego – the social media agency.

True or False: Ad Agencies CAN'T think outside the Barb box . . .

2553311 — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:19:00 GMT

I run some very niche TV shows on a minority satellite TV channel, and getting the right kind of advertising and sponsorship has always been an issue.

I had a really interesting session last week with a very experienced, knowledgable and smart ad media man, who was kind enough to give me an hour of his time to chat through how it really works.

One of the most interesting points he made was that the few really big players in the ad agency world buy their media in an almost automated way - for a publication or for a TV channel/show, the system demands ABC and BARB numbers, and the system doesn't work without these.

And the ads that this method of buying makes them produce don't work for me, either. The problem is that my audience isn't 20% people over 50 or whatever, or 15% package tour buyers, it is 100% people who're interested in the specific topic the programme addresses.

There are some simple effects from this fact - to get advertising, I have to go directly to ad agency clients, and to get an ad that looks and sounds really good, those clients have to get some service agency to make spots. My shows are particularly popular with clients who have a genuine, and often more personal, interest in the subject - the MD or chairman sees the show, and phones the marketing guy to tell him to do something about it.

I acknowledge that the biggest problem is that as my shows don't get BARB rated - but can't agencies, imaged by themselves as full of bright, clever and innovative people, think sufficiently outside the box to realise that the only reason some satellite programmes are in existence entirely because they fulfil a distinct need and address an audience that is keen to see them?

Here's a example. I make a programme called The Caravan Channel. It addresses Britains caravan and motorhome owners - reckoned at around 1,000,000 families/vehicles. I've produced it on a fortnightly basis for 3 years, 70+ programmes. It is sponsored by firms who say they get results, and the ad spots carry ads from businesses who come back again and again for the same reason.

But advertising people? It's like talking to a single-response answerphone. Haven't heard of it, not interested, goodbye. The only time they jump is when the client says, get me advertising on this show, and its at that point that we can have a conversation . . . thinking outside the box? Not really.