Transmedia Planning, Development & ROI (The New World Model)

Transmedia looks at narrative as a hypersocial activity in which a story can evolve across multiple platforms, manifesting in an array of products and various revenue streams.

Where ‘integrated marketing’ often seems to trip on itself by simply coloring content with the same brand palette rather than contextualizing and enriching it, transmedia picks up momentum and cultural relevance by creating and/or adopting advertising assets or ad-like objects as parts of a greater whole. In fact, ad campaigns can evolve as mutually exclusive parts of a transmedia story, since transmedia has the innate ability to promote itself and its constituent elements.

So, if we can look at advertising & marketing as a publishing practice, the possibilities seem unlimited because we can sell more media and sell more products and/or services, and we can do so in a compelling, engaging and even transformational way. This has already begun to happen, as evidenced by brands like Ikea, Army, Dodge, the NHL, Guinness, Red Bull and Levis, that are publishing richer, more dynamic, highly shareable and entertaining content.

Faris Yakob of McCann Erickson hatched the first transmedia planning model; to honor his work, I have created my own version of what the planning process might look like for agency folks, and is, as you might notice, a multi-disciplinary, fusion process:

I happen to believe very strongly that transmedia is a primary gateway for global change through creative, economic alternatives.  Transmedia already presents an economic incentive for media creators to lower their production costs by sharing assets. But if we go a step further, we can make this causal by creating peer-to-peer environments in which transmedia projects are funded by communities and proliferated by means of multi-community participation. This also means that in a marketplace where inventory and demand are greatly in flux, we can also make media (and respective products) more affordable to the creator and the consumer.

By the way, by causes, I don’t necessarily mean philanthropic (although that is ideal), but rather initiatives that inspire people to act, such as what we continue to see as a result of Dove’s ‘Real Beauty’ initiative (and a great example of transmedia adoption within culture at large).

So if we apply this construct to content development, here’s what that process might look like:

Coming full circle, we now can get a picture of how media and campaigning can be leveraged through non-linear storytelling (or storymaking), and as you can see, this certainly does not have to disrupt our current media models, but instead lends many opportunities to enhance them (by providing adaptive means), as well as creates a greater ‘spread’ effect:

You might also notice that the media, content and product elements represented in the model are reflexive, meaning that they can ‘reproduce’ themselves, or, they can spawn new media or product vehicles by virtue of feedback and collaboration.

For more on transmedia, be sure to check out the work and groundbreaking perspectives shared by the pioneers of the movement such as Henry Jenkins (author of Convergence Culture), Stephen Dinehart and Jeff Gomez, as well as MIT Comparative Studies grads and maverick agency strategists, Ivan Askwith and Ilya Vedrashko.

You can also check out a presentation I recently gave at my Miami Ad School communications planning bootcamp on transmedia development: http://www.slideshare.net/goonth/transmedia-development-the-new-world-model

OR...

...A cover story article I wrote a few months ago in iMedia Connection: http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/24339.asp

Here’s to now and the immediate future — let’s collaborate and see what we can create in the effort to transform our world.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The Conversation Tree & Social Forestation

A friend of mine, Robert Murray, had a really beautiful way of describing the conversation dynamic and the importance of seeing conversations to their full potential, as told to him by a Ugandan friend of his named Derrick. It got me thinking about this in a context that might be quite powerful for any brand, agency, media company or content producer out there looking to better understand how to socialize media.

Derrick describes conversations as trees.

Derrick says that he is often late to meetings and social events because his prior engagement runs beyond the allotted time. The reason for this is that he always wants to give each and every conversation its due course, so that the next conversation can build from the previous one and real progress is made. In other words, so that the relationship is advanced and cultivated, and nothing is forgotten or lost between the current engagement and the next.

[**Side cultural note: While one might argue that being late is never a good thing, Derrick contends that a sincere apology along with a quick, “enlightened” summary of the previous conversation tends to realign the current dynamic.**]

The “root” of the analogy (pun intended) is that if you cut the trees branches off before they've had a chance to fully bloom, then the tree can grow outwardly, but not up. But if we nurture the branches to their full extent, then the tree can grow up to its full potential, and help grow more trees.

Naturally, leaves fall from branches, just as conversations may die off or fade away. But what we glean from those exchanges allows us to develop new perspectives and keep those branches (and trees) growing.

So here are the elements of growth (which are reflexive and cyclical), the “soil” being the social nutrition we provide to “the grove” which represents an ongoing narrative:

SEEDING — putting ideas into action
CULTIVATION — enabling ideas to develop
PROLIFERATION — ideas spreading organically
REGENERATION — when (leaves fall) insights are created, sparking new ideas

From a marketing perspective, when we thoughtfully create, enable, shape, adopt, adapt, and most importantly, cultivate content, we grow more branches.

When we thoughtfully buy, sell and barter media, or truly earn it, we grow more trees.

When we grow more trees, we create or tap into more communities of people.

The more communities we empower, the more opportunities there are for people to sell goods and services to other people (as opposed to brands having to sell goods and services to people).

So, Social Forestation would be described as

The process of fostering conversation by providing relevant nutrition, enabling communities to develop, grow and flourish.

Thank you, Robert and Derrick, for sharing your wisdom, and I hope that all of you can take something away from this that is unique to your own experiences.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Marketing... It's all Cause-Related (Or Causal)

Today a client had asked a group of us what we thought the social consumption habits of Gen Y would look like in the next year or so, and more specifically, around their brand. Our collective response was "What exactly do mean by 'social consumption', and, do you consider this media, platform or 'line' agnostic?"

The even better response would've been, "Ask us in a year from now to the day, because every day tells a different story". In other words, trends are starting to mean very little in the grand scheme of things (and this a topic for another conversation).

Naturally, we face some serious challenges with clients over this whole notion of what social media is (I find the term to be oxymoronic), how it is used and why, but the real question we should be asking is "What really drives us to connect, engage, and ultimately, purchase?"

With over 75 million captive users and growing, platforms like Facebook Causes have already shown us that brands are becoming more relevant in the world simply because they've embraced the fact that they need to help improve it. Stalwarts like Kelloggs, Nike and Aflac are setting a great new example for the rest of the marketing world in this regard.

Further, online environments like Wired to Care and Project Label are making brands way more accountable for their actions as well as their words.

But the reality we also face is that causes can potentially be played out and manipulated... just like trends. So perhaps we need to reestablish that causes or cause-related dynamics of an initiative or specific forms of outreach don't have to be philanthropic (at least by clinical definition), but rather what they are inherently... which is causal.

So what defines causal marketing?

Initially it is the birth of an idea, culled from market needs tied to (but not necessarily bound by) environmental, social, political and/or economic variables. This idea then engenders a sense of true purpose for the individual or group, and empowers them to adopt or create messages as currency, as well as spread it.

How do we go about doing it?

Identify a need state, establish a cause to act, and within that intersection is borne an idea that can manifest itself in any number of ways, all of which is a solution to a larger problem. And since market needs and world needs are almost inextricably linked, the larger problem resides within the larger context of the world, which means that our marketing solutions might actually mean something beyond a campaign or a crude media buy, or even better, outside of what all of our polished up historical data wants to tell us.

Perhaps this is what "social marketing" has intended to do all along, and our mistruths about the media associated with it have led the marketing majority to believe that this is still a push mechanism that rams direct sales vehicles down their throats through the veil of conversation.

Look, at the end of the day, people are media, so it's time we figured out ways to better motivate them, whether they're looking to buy a product or a service... or not.

What do you think?

Thank God for German Engineering... (#BMW #UltimateDrivingMachine)

There’s nothing like a freeway wreck to put life and product into more colorful perspective.

On my way down to work last Wednesday morning, I was decelerating at about 45 MPH behind a line of cars when a red truck suddenly came careening into me, first taking out my entire right side and busting out the passenger window, and then slamming into me once more, taking out the rear bumper and collapsing in the trunk. The truck was apparently hit by another SUV, and was sent spinning across three lanes before it got to me — what’s amazing is that it didn’t flip or take out any other cars along the way. The frightening part about the whole thing was the fact that the truck had actually pushed me sideways toward the line of cars in front of mine (while it continued to spin), and so the ability for me to course-correct the car ultimately saved my life, as I’m certain that I would have become a sardine had I not been able to do so. Another crucial factor was that the front air bags did not deploy despite some considerable jarring caused by a front panel that had come loose from the truck, allowing me to see and react accordingly — I was able to steer the car to safety on the outside emergency lane (next to the carpool lane), and away from traffic moving quickly all around us. And, despite being hit by a truck that was probably traveling 20-25 MPH faster than I was, my car’s computer system did not fail on me in this critical moment. Once the CHP arrived on the scene (mere minutes from the time of the crash), I was able to drive the car over to the right shoulder... There was no discernable damage to the suspension or the engine even thought the impact and subsequent stress on the alignment was substantial.

As for me, I have a sore neck and an apprehension about getting on the freeway again anytime soon, but other than that, I am just happy to be alive.

I am very grateful to BMW for creating what I can attest to as truly being the Ultimate Driving Machine. As for those of you who plan on commuting anywhere during the holidays, PLEASE BE CAREFUL out there... It’s scary on the road, and even the most conscientious and defensive drivers are at risk.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Pop Culture Engineering

I just got back from South Beach where I taught a communications bootcamp at the prestigious Miami Ad School, in which we covered topics ranging from social media, to transmedia planning |development and technology integration. Each class (3 hour sessions over 3 days) had anywhere from 10-15 people in attendance, and the really nice part about the small group size was that we had representation from Austria, Colombia, Peru and various places around the States, as well as friends such as ex-Razorfish master developer, Robert Murray, making for a breadth of perspective. I always maintain that we are all students in the advertising, technology and media game, and so this experience was conversational more than anything, and there is no doubt that I took away as much from the students as they did from me. I look forward to participating in future courses on “Pop Culture Engineering” as well as visiting the other great locations the school has on offer.  

http://www.miamiadschool.com/

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

From Macro Media To Micro Media

What’s the association between these three macro trends – the decline in newspaper revenue, the increase in journalism school enrollment, and the decline in ratings for mass market advertising channels like broadcast television?

We’re seeing a huge downturn in newspaper revenue and readership - and at the same time a big increase in journalism school enrollment. Even given the expected increase in post-graduate school enrollment that comes with a recession, why choose journalism when the historic career path out of journalism programs is being decimated?

The answer is in the flow of advertising dollars, and, related, in shifting behavior by viewers and consumers. It is getting more and more difficult for large advertisers to make big media buys and reach a mass audience with a single message – and segmenting buys and tailoring messages by demo, behavior, intent will be a competitive advantage going forward.

So twenty years ago, I could spend 5 million dollars for 100 thirty second spots on prime-time, and be confident that I was reaching ten to twenty million people. Or I could buy a full page ad in the local metro paper and be confident that I was reaching a significant percentage of the local population.

Now, I still need to spend that marketing and advertising budget, and I still need to reach those people. But even if people are watching prime-time network shows, they’re on their laptops, or they’re fast-forwarding through commercials. Even if people are still getting the local paper, they’re spending less time with it.

The reality is that people are self-segmenting into smaller addressable groups. They’re finding the news they want, the entertainment they want, and the information they want – and because of the explosion of content and sources, they’re finding the voices and presentation that they’re most comfortable with.

So how do I spend that 5 million dollars in this new media landscape? Who will tailor my message and present it effectively to hundreds or thousands of addressable groups, all self-segmented by interest or voice? Yes, automation has a place, but ultimately marketing and advertising are communication, and communication happens between people.

The market for people able to bridge that gap will be a growth industry for years to come. It is certainly not traditional journalism, but it’s not traditional marketing either.

Advertisers will spend money here because they must. And as in everything in life, quality matters – good content, consistent voice, engaged viewers/readers/consumers – these will be the markers that advertisers will look for. So getting trained to provide this certainly makes sense.

Bottom line – brand advertisers still need to make large media buys to compete effectively, and as audiences fragment and self-segment, we will need many more media properties that serve both audiences and advertisers. Going through a graduate journalism program is not a bad way to acquire some skills and contacts that will be required to manage and create content for these media properties.

Interesting times!

related links:

* Exactly How Much of My Advertising Dollar is Wasted? (socialmediatoday.com)
* How Twitter can help news providers (guardian.co.uk)

Adapt or Die! Pt. 2: Agency Hubris

[image taken from Amalgamated's website...]

A new colleague of mine, Ana Andjelic, a freelance strategist and Ph.D. Laureate in Digital Branding, wrote a really controversial (and what I considered to be thoughtful) piece this week in AdAge on Why Digital Agencies Aren't Ready to Lead. The article raised some serious questions about how agencies deal with client needs, and the ensuing thread pointed to the fact that the holes in the agency model are more glaringly apparent than ever before. Particularly interesting was that many of the respondents chose to attack Ana personally, mostly under the pretense that they knew more than her given their agency backgrounds.

Here was my initial response:

I can't say that I share the same negative sentiment of others in this thread regarding your post - I think you raise some great points, but I would add that perhaps these issues are systemic across all agencies within the landscape.

Particular to 'digital', I think Sapient has done an excellent job of adopting and implementing a model that focuses on business solutions for clients, and much of this is predicated on a strong fundamental understanding of brand marketing functions, as well as operational dynamics that can affect a company's ability to reach audiences and drive sales. Basically, Sapient acts as a management consulting outfit that has the ability to translate business needs into multi-disciplinary marketing functions, all of which are data-driven and mostly built on ideas that are agnostic as well as scalable.

In general, it seems that 'digital' agencies need to consider (among many other things) three primary drivers:

- The development and deployment of 'adaptive' versus 'disruptive' technologies; as Nick Law puts it, the difference between 'fitting in' and trying to 'break through'.

- How these technologies become a part of business offerings for the longer term, and in a bigger context, how they provide cultural value.

- How experiences are no longer restricted to 'offline' or 'online' functions, but rather ideas that can live anywhere and indefinitely (think of utility in this sense).

By the time I had posted my comment (it was the tenth), I went back later to discover that 40 more comments were made in the thread, most of which were aimed at how 'wrong' Ana was, and how unqualified she was to author the post. AdAge editor Jonah Bloom even got into the mix, supporting the publication's decision to feature her insights.

Here was my second response:

Seriously, folks, Jonah takes a solid stance -- the point of these posts is to create a discourse, as well as enable all of us to weed out fact from fiction.

Ana may not be right; in fact, many of her points may prove to be wrong once put out to pasture, but isn't this a good thing? Put it this way, would you rather have an article talk at you, or, would you rather have one light a fire under your ass and get you to speak out? (like you have here...)

On the topic of 'agency hubris', some of you, honestly, need to step down from your ivory tower. I work with plenty of people who came out of big agency environments and they'll tell you that after spending years within the ranks and in the trenches, they have relatively little to show for it. I personally stayed on the independent side, and eventually went out on my own, so that I could actually create and build stuff and not be encumbered by some of the bullsh-- being slung around in this thread.

What makes you an 'expert' on something like digital (which is a term for debate in its own right) isn't so much where you come from, where you sit, or how many 'campaigns' you've done, but what you are doing RIGHT NOW.

The harsh reality of this digital landscape is that you either adapt or you die, it's that simple... and ultimately the point of Ana's post.

In fairness to the pundits of the article and within Ana's thread, a gentleman with the alias of "copyboy1" brought these questions to harsh light:

Let's try this Ms. Andjelic. Please explain:

- How R/GA fits into your theory of digital agencies not being ready to lead.
- How a "traditional" Goodby agency "ends up doing the same thing over and over again."
- How agencies like Droga5 can produce great online and offline work consistently.
- How a traditional agency like Crispin is left "with little time to experiment" in the online space.
- How smaller digital shops like Attik can't handle branding and offline work.
- Why Marc Lucas, the ECD at Razorfish, is disputing your claims about the "Laundry Fairy" campaign directly on your Twitter account.

Bottom line: opinions are just the things we need to create a discourse around why and how the current agency model doesn't work, and the steps we can take to improve the industry.

What do you think?