Adapt or Die! Pt. 1: TV Everywhere (TV 2.0)

[image produced by Adam Goldberg, Principal & Creative Director of TRÜF]

This is part 1 of a series of posts that will attempt to support the notion of 'adaptive' versus 'disruptive' methodologies and media theories... I sincerely hope you find them engaging and helpful, as well as an opportunity to lend your perspective.

Recently, Optimedia's CEO, Antony Young, wrote a piece in AdAge challenging the TV everywhere model, and more specifically called out Hulu's content and distribution strategy. Mr. Young's piece -- in my opinion and that of many who spoke out in a rash of commentary -- was very myopic and self-serving; clearly as a media buyer he is threatened by the prospects, when in fact he should actually embrace them.

Here was my response to Mr. Young:

Interesting post, Antony. Your perspective is well articulated. My question to you is (and with all due respect), should the networks revisit their strategy, or should you?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that this is an all-or-nothing proposition that should either embrace the traditional media model, or, the more 'chaotic' digital model. Yet there is plenty of research that shows a healthy, symbiotic relationship between viewership online, viewership offline and social participation. In other words, viewers are getting exclusive shorter form content they can watch online, that they are compelled to watch in longer form in their living room... and then talk about it before, during or after programming times. What this ultimately means is that viewers will tolerate advertising if it means they have access to new forms of entertaining content. This is not the death of TV, but rather, its rebirth.

If I understand the networks correctly, this is a way of holding audience retention across platforms, not a means for cannibalizing one channel against another.

There is no question that consumer demand must be managed, and in some cases, mitigated. However, people are still very willing to pay for premium content, and further, different kinds of premium content. If you think about it, what the networks are doing with Hulu isn't so different than the subscription model cable nets have used... so one might ask, if I know I can watch a movie a few months down the road for "free" (or a part of my sub), will this preclude me from going to a theater? Probably not.

On another note, it's interesting that you use newspaper publications as an example of digital eroding the traditional medium. While many publications have undergone a slow death, the fact remains that those who have been earlier adopters in the digital realm have been able to salvage their print businesses -- just look at pubs like the NY Times. And while less people are advertising in print and circulation is way down, this was an inevitability in marketplace shifts and economic variables, not a result of pubs going online.

At the end of the day, we do have to respond to consumer demand, and we can manage it, provided that we give people ample choices in their viewing experience.

Following this was another piece from Andrew Hampp on the everywhere model itself, and detailed in 8 distinct ways what the ad and subscription model might look like.

A gentleman by the name of "J Rosen" wrote what I thought was a thoughtful response, that articulated the delicate relationship between consumer choice and paid content:

I have mentioned in previous posts that the key to survival for content creators is to focus attention on giving the audience options and knowing who your audience is.

Hulu has done a fabulous job of maximizing the audience experience. They have brand safe content, a sleek functional design and have some of the most coveted content in the media world.

The Internet provides opportunities for companies like Hulu to set a precedent. Content IS NOT FREE. But that said, we as consumers deserve choices.

A balance can be struck to provide options for subscriptions, PPV or ad-supported consumption of digital media without having a minority of viewers subsidize the majority.

The Fair Market Value of a performance to an individual needs to be determined. This can only be done through advanced audience measurement. Until a process is in place to determine this value, distribution and pricing of content is simply a guess.

I have worked very hard to produce a process that strikes a balance of fairness for each of the constituents involved; the creators, the audience and marketers.

Perhaps with a little luck and persistence, I will soon have the opportunity to present my process to the powers that be.

The funny part about this is that Mr. Young did not respond to the thread generated by his own post, but did have the presence of mind to comment in this one, in which he acknowledged the viability of the TV Everywhere model... and then referred back to his own article.

This TV Everywhere model seems to offer a sound proposition for consumers, content developers, advertisers and the Networks alike.

The key is building a sound revenue model across all platforms.

I'm not sure Hulu is giving that to NBCU, FOX and Disney. bit.ly/3oksZ6

Antony Young
CEO, Optimedia

There are some insights to take away from these exchanges:

* Saddled by abject fear, hubris and management inertia, media companies have a tough time seeing the light in a multi-channel offering.

* Further, the complexity of content offerings and their distribution channels seems daunting to these companies in developing a transitional model.

* As J Rosen intimates, creators, audiences and marketers can and will exist in a symbiotic and harmonious way, it's just that media companies and agencies will have to 'monitor' and 'contribute' rather than try to 'control' this discourse.

* Ultimately, with better content, more channels and more dynamic forms of measurement, the revenue opportunities for brands and agencies alike will be tremendous, that is, if the agencies can adapt their models to consumer markets, as opposed to disrupting them.

What are your thoughts???

'Fitting In' Versus 'Breaking Through' -- The Differences in Brand Relationships

Brands and agencies often talk about connecting with consumers as a means of disruption, or a way of cutting through all the media clutter.

However, R/GA’s Nick Law said it best: “Instead of asking ‘How do we break through?’, marketers should be asking ‘How do we fit in?’”

Here are what the differences might look like:

BREAKING THROUGH

• rising up against the tide of consumer adoption, as opposed to riding along with it
• pushing underlying messages more so than creating conversations, or better yet, building brand stories
• looking at products as a consumer affinity, instead of value adds as a lifestyle choice
• exhibiting hubris – thinking that your brand destinations will guarantee engagement
• thinking of utility as a technology solution, not a cultural benefit
• deferring to shock value, instead of social value
• planning merely in terms of a campaign, instead of creating currency that can last indefinitely
• capturing consumer attention, not building loyalty
  

FITTING IN

• thinking about all marketing functions as somehow cause-related
• bringing a higher purpose to all brand interactions and purchase decisions
• socializing all media efforts by creating experiences that can be shared, regardless of platform or channel
• enabling people to adopt brand stories as their own, or, collaborating with them to create new ones
• recognizing that people are loyal to information & content, not destinations
• moving with market demand, not ad inventory demand
• crowdsourcing product development & marketing outreach when necessary
  
• not being afraid to fail in the process of developing new consumer insights
  

Please, by all means, add to the list!

Microfinance: Our Media (and Immediate) Future?

In examining the three “Es” of social change – economics, environment and empowerment - economics are of course the foundation for spawning new growth in local communities. And while we are at odds with how to get there, and have been for quite some time, it seems that we've gone the way of 'micro-thinking' in just about every digital discourse... from tags, to content, media packages and payment systems.

And now, microfinance.

Microfinance is not a movement that was born yesterday. In fact, for some two+ decades, it has been implemented in carefully small successes in usury and heifer pools within areas spanning from Bolivia to Bangladesh. The idea was hatched as developing areas around the globe would desperately seek relief funding from banks that simply wouldn't lend to the poor or communities in crisis. As with any commercial lender, the primary issue centered around not having a way to collateralize loans with an asset base, or subsidies that could be guaranteed to those represented in outside investment. So, the very simple solution has been to enlist individuals in lending smaller increments of hard cash to these communities, and mitigate, as well as allocate, the risk across these groups.

Pundits have often spoken about the inevitability of corruption - extortion and collusion among them - as well as the larger threat of socialist schemes percolating these communities as the surefire argument against the microfinance movement. But the reality is that this method of fund raising is actually bringing the prospect of an acutely balanced, healthy return to the privatization of our banking and lending systems, and when you consider the parity we are experiencing across our global markets, perhaps we are staring a revolutionary new form of capitalism right in the face.

Case in point: Platforms such as CommunityLend, Lending Club and Zopa have managed to sidestep banks and build rich enough capital pools to strengthen local economies, and in some cases, save individuals and families from financial distress. The peer-to-peer model has even been extended to mid-size investment banks, private equity groups and special interest lenders that have been developing scalable solutions for international relief funds, educational centers and social reform initiatives involving select U.S. companies and more active players abroad.

And here's where things get even more interesting.

Cut to a certain corner of the world - Ontario, Canada - where a so-called 'socialist' economic system has kept a steady stream of academic and technology talent belly-full and wistful in creating a new cultural value system for current and future generations. Discussions with several of my colleagues there have shed light on the thought that we can not only use microfinancing models to engage whole communities of people in affecting social, political, educational and environmental change, but that we can develop whole new ecosystems in the process.

'Ecosystem' is the operative word here - representing the ecological and economic aspects of tying culture, commerce and common interests all together. Sounds like a load of verbage, but when you think about the fact that central banks can be removed from the development process, again, we are sitting on something of great value and worldly influence.

Think about it. Hollywood studios can barely support the arts, let alone themselves in getting movies and TV shows made. The recession has nearly killed off the entire independent film market, and TV shows are only getting harder to produce as private investment from independent entities is shrinking by the day. To boot, entertainment properties on the whole are still fetching up decent upfront advertising dollars, but the ad business has been plagued by commoditization, and consumers are tired of being fed thousands of messages a day. And where technologies have been able to abate the hemorrhaging by providing the promise of conversation, we are still stuck with the challenge of how to keep those dialogues ongoing and how to tell better stories.

Notice a theme here that we touched upon earlier: parity. More importantly, there is a clear symbiosis between the elements of storytelling, media influence and culture... the coursing thread of which is clearly economic.

So what does this mean?

It means that a good idea can be invested in. It means that technologies can be built to host, cultivate and help spread good ideas. It means that communities can adopt and shape stories as their own. It means that higher learning institutions, research facilities and entertainment arts centers can be built. It means that endowment funds don't have to wait on quarterly contributions to be redistributed to those in need. It means that global non-profit organizations can employ top-shelf private sector talent to run their divisions like real businesses.

It means that on the media side of things, we can tell stories the way we want to, and that we can be platform agnostic if we so choose. It means that we can create new channels if we so choose, and that we don't have to find ourselves beholdent to media models that only serve the needs of holding companies and upper management.

It also means, coming full circle, that we can monetize on our own terms, as well as build infrastructure that can create jobs and new economic opportunities. As a people.

Even better, we can get governmental support, and corporate participation, precisely when and where it is needed. This is not a party plan, or a special interest play... this is literally the manifestation of by the people, for the people, of the people.

So here's an abridged blueprint of how this might work in what can be considered a transmedia capacity, and know that in certain parts of the world... it is already happening.

A narrative is built around a cultural, cause-related need - be it educational, social, environmental, political, or perhaps all of these combined.

Communities adopt the narrative and shape it as their own; in effect, they tell their own version, and supply their own story arcs or touch-points.

The microfinancing process begins; incremental payments are made and moderated by community designates, those trusted by peer groups and with reputable track records in their respective areas of trade or interest.

Brands are recruited into the development process and are invited into the conversation, using their own stories to empower the process, supply their product as utilities to support it, or to fund further development as passive investors.

Collaboration ensues at scale, allowing others with like interests to participate. Jobs are created, and more stories develop.

Technology tools are built or provided to formalize this job creation and syndicate these stories. A thread is created between the jobs or tasks at hand, and the stories from which they are told.

'Spread' occurs. Adoption happens on a larger scale. The model is replicated to other communities who have similar needs, or those that can lend support.

Government is empowered to regulate, and reaps the benefits of a higher tax base, all streaming from the private sector. It then has the ability, and discretion, to develop new programs tied to the transmedia narrative, or, create new ones using a similar model to the previous one.

Brands who have been involved in the ebb-and-flow of development can then purchase pieces of the narrative that most accurately represent market needs and specific consumer interests; these are new currencies that will take on strong economic and social value.

A new media marketplace has been building; now, these currencies have a proven value, a 'convertible shareability' of sorts that move with markets, as opposed to pushing against them.

Creative development resurges; new artists of all types and backgrounds emerge into the fold, inspired by commonality and challenged to exceed the latest quality standard. Their efforts are measured by their true merit, and they are well compensated for it, along with others who have participated in the process.

If you believe in our future, believe in this. It is very real, and the possibilities are virtually limitless.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For while knowledge defines all we currently know and understand, imagination points to all we might discover and create." -Albert Einstein

It's time to create.

Where on Earth is the 'Multi' in Multicultural Advertising?

The power and influence of advertising, marketing and media never ceases to amaze me. In fact, what's even more amazing (or appalling, depending on how you look at it) is the fact that many of us can work our way through the days of the week not fully realizing this power or even exploring all the ways to harness it.

But those are the inherent challenges of working in a business where the bottom line can often drive us to forget the very reasons why we're here. The social web has introduced a great new way to remind us of why we're here, and the importance of making our decisions - whether personal or professional - count for something.

And then there's this thing called 'Multicultural Advertising'.

By definition, 'multicultural' means two things:

1. Of, or relating to, or including several cultures;

2. Of, or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interaction in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.

Let's take a peek at what some of the top global brands have produced in the way of 'multicultural advertising'. Since I’m a digital guy and I believe this where the most progress or harm can currently be made, we’ll focus on websites.

In the spirit of the new FTC guidelines, quick disclosure: I was not paid by anyone to express the opinions you see in this post. However, when you see some of this so-called ‘advertising work’, you might be incensed enough to call the FTC yourself and have some of these brands sanctioned and put under review for unethical, and questionably illegal, marketing practices. I’ll go even farther out on a limb and say that I’m not sure that some of this stuff is even constitutional.

Let's start with one of the industry's more popular (and unsurprisingly controversial) efforts from McDonald's, called "365 Black".

As you can see, this is a real gem of brand innovation. Where do we possibly begin? Well, let’s start with the fact that if I am ‘black’, I get to be ‘black’ 365 days of the year. Well isn’t that progressive. But most importantly, the mighty Bodhi, or Baobab tree, tells me never to forget my roots. Wow. Truly inspirational, especially since the tree’s silhouette so brilliantly resembles an afro.

Now let’s move onto the wondrous 365 Black homepage that is “deeply rooted in the community” (trademark).

Gee, I didn’t know that cultural IP – you know, the stuff that you share every day – could be copyrighted. But have no fear, cuz you can have a “Flavor Battle” with your homies. How dope is that, yo? Spin some fresh shit and you get a quarta pounda! And don’t forget that Dwele got a lot new fans, you know, homies, after he started working with McDonald’s. I just can’t believe none of my ‘black’ friends are doing this.

Oh, and for you Far East types, the McDee offering gets even better with ‘MyinspirAsian’.

Dude — Dollar Menu Money Origami! Really??? And since so many Asians are lacking in real career opportunities, now they can take workshops that teach them how to make paper dragons, fly kites and spin wool. What a godsend! And if that’s not enough, you can shock your friends by mastering NEW Asian phrases, not to mention you can download event photos, cuz, you know, Asians like to take lots of pictures and share them with each other.

Hey, I’m lovin’ it. Let’s just call this new movement exactly for what it is: McOriental. Or just plain McTarded.

Moving on, here’s another gem of brand wizardry soon to come from American Airlines, called Black Atlas.

First of all, Nelson George, what the f&*# are you thinking? Do you really need the extra money to whore yourself and your ethnicity out to a brand that actually thinks that there is a unique and extraordinary travel experience to be shared exclusively through ‘sophisticated’ African-American (kudos for not saying ‘black’) travelers? And just what is the ‘black experience’? Are we talkin’ Soul Plane? Oh, I forgot, this is for the elite.

And to AA, might I ask, what exactly are the criteria for ‘sophisticated’ African-American travelers? That seems pretty inane, considering that not only excludes a large portion of the African-American population, but a large portion of the population in general. Oh, and in the hopes that something of merit might be explained away prior to Black Atlas’s launch, I read a PR posting on BET.com:

Hmmm. Nice headline. A wealth of information here. All the respective marcom agencies really thought this one out. Did anyone get the memo that there are hundreds of ‘Web sites’ out there, you know, things called social networks where people of all races, colors and creeds can share content, and if they want to join a common interest group, for say, travelers, they can? One really popular social site is called Facebook.

To make matters worse, the post had one comment, coming from an understandably jaded ‘black’ person:

He nails it right on the head: “I wonder what their motive is?” Ain’t that the truth. It sure as hell isn’t meant to inspire advocacy. I’m even willing to bet that not one African-American was even involved in the development of this priceless idea. I say priceless because, thankfully, this site probably won’t make AA a red cent. Or is that a ‘black’ cent?

I checked out least two dozen other ‘multicultural’ sites and discovered similar travesties. That said, not all of them are offensive. This effort from General Mills is at least a thoughtful attempt at treating a definable community as a part of the cultural mainstream.

No exploding pinatas here, or overweight senoritas cooking enchiladas for families of fifteen or more. In fact, the site would rather tell you how to reduce your cholesterol and provide expert advice on nutrition. This is a site that chooses to look at people for who they are: General Mills consumers, and family people that care about quality product and a better quality of life. They even have the decency to say what a rich life this is. Seems they are talking about culture at large. Fathom that.

If you run a Google search on 'multicultural advertising', you'll see a whole slew of marketing agencies, organizations, non-profit groups and educational entities listed right there on page 1 and 2. Yet not one of them seems to be influencing the majority of messaging and content on offer both online and off. Apparently, from various sources that I know, groups like the AHAA (The Association of Hispanic Advertising Agencies) have been battling these issues for years, and have had to contend with the fact that ‘general’ marketing efforts eat up most ad budgets, leaving the ‘multicultural’ marketing groups in the lurch... Or simply fighting for the scraps.

Sounds logical, given how screwed up the system can be. However, money doesn’t have to be an excuse for poor strategy and creative execution. For one, building websites is far less cost prohibitive than it was only two or three years ago. For another, the social web affords us plenty of opportunities to spread messages and build real currency. In other words, there shouldn’t be any excuses. Not anymore.

Now, I'll also let it be known that I don't officially work as a 'multicultural marketer', but it seems to me that multicultural work should do three primary things:

1. Expose cultural mores and defy ethnic stereotypes.
2. Establish points of commonality and build mutual respect.
3. Embrace individuality, while buffering against group ambiguity.

Actually, this sounds a lot like what I do. When we socialize media, we set out to do exactly these three things. Further, when we run technographic, psychographic and/or ethnographic studies, we quickly realize that, in many environments, common interests often supersede age, economics and ethnicity.

So why then are specific ethnic communities targeted on their own?

Why are they targeted so poorly?

Most importantly, we are these efforts exclusionary?

Granted, we don't live in a perfect world. We also don't always share physical spaces with people who are different from us, or interact with them in the real world, in the ways that we probably should. But isn't the point of responsible advertising and marketing to change or influence these social dynamics in positive ways?

I’ll tell you one thing, I’m not going to raise my children according to a world that knowingly chooses to identify people by their race, color, creed or sexuality. Some may argue with me on this, but as a person of mixed ethnicity and heritage (Native American, German Jew and Irish Catholic), I believe racism only exists if we choose to recognize it. And it seems to be pervasive in a lot of the advertising we currently see.

Time to wake up, folks. Time to take a stand. Cultural wealth and integrity is a shared responsibility, plain and simple.

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Welcome to the New World Web

We are ubiquitous.

Think of people as pixels (or vice versa). The semantic web is taking on new life beyond artificial intelligence – it is incorporating real human sentiment and building personality into its own evolution. Scary? Perhaps. But perhaps it’s better to give rise to human growth, not just the machines. Case in point: online ads no longer follow ad inventory, they follow people -- tribes of them. The point is that we must move with markets. Ubiquity will also give us better opportunities to self-regulate, so even if we are followed (and we interact), we don’t take offense. On a more positive front, we are on the verge of profound, sweeping changes... All of which are activated in the ‘real’ world. As one might say, “You may be on, you may be off, but where you are right now can be anywhere.”

SaaS has evolved into multi-dimensional PaaS, Enterprise & API suites.

Google Wave is just one example of where web utility is meeting universal connectivity. Now we can not only aggregate content, we can create it, rate it and edit it before, during or after we share it. Look for brands via super-user communities to evolve as the new publishers, as well as those that turn brand content into adoptable vehicles that any user can shape and add to as their own. A further extension would be more active product development -- advocates using brand materials by way of network publishing tools to create and distribute their own products. The development community never mattered more than right now. And it’s not just about the cloud, it’s also about redefining culture. Want to be a great developer? Get out from behind the keyboard for part of the day and look around you... The world needs you. Seriously.

Transmedia is the high standard for planning & content development.

Speaking of culture, it’s time to start thinking from the perspective of the other side. If we truly want to remove the notion of ‘them’ from the equation, then we need to start thinking about how ‘they’ think... and why. Brands, communities, companies, countries, governments and new societies need to be shown commonality. Many-to-many means a one-to-one synchronicity involving a deeper understanding of language and action, knowing their differences, and marrying them accordingly. Media matters greatly in this mix, media of all types, and it all comes down to building strong, spreadable stories that can live on as currency beyond campaigns and cultural mores. Sure, choosing channels is important, but in the greater context of life, what we say is as important as how we say it (or maybe the other way around...). Bottom line: people are media. Give them a better voice and empower them to use it. Right now.

Research is not just a marketing function, it’s an inevitability of life.

The social web is teeming with truth. But understanding the truth is not only a product of how we listen, but what we actually hear. Predictive is one thing, adaptive is another. Can you handle the truth? (Sorry, had to go there...) Stop talking so much and listen in. YOU are lucky to be the topic of conversation, and if you’re not, you should be just as lucky to find out that your category has a reputation. Brands can take years to build, and mere seconds to destroy. Why? Because if your industry is a target, so are you. The Dominos YouTube Debacle wasn’t really about two knucklehead Dominos employees, it was about two people who were bored out of their minds in a pizza joint, desperately needing to express themselves and find a purpose behind their work. This could’ve happened to any franchise. Companies need to think more seriously about the bigger picture – their investment in human capital. As for brands, if you want to join in the conversation, and come away with real insights, you better bring something cool to the party. Try this on for size: instead of marketing brands, we really should be branding markets. Who’s better at this skill will boil down to contributors versus followers. Technology alone will not get you there, for the simple fact that you cannot automate sentiment, you have to cultivate it. Which is why ‘brand monitoring’ is a wholly deceptive term.

Brand (and product) collaboration is key.

Contrary to popular agency belief, crowdsourcing isn’t such a bad thing – we’ve been doing it for years whether we chose to accept it or not. In fact, cavemen and women were great at it. And while Neanderthals still exist within some of the higher agency ranks, there are plenty more brilliant people coming up through the ranks who recognize that real collaboration leads to catharsis, not calamity. The difference between yesterday and right now is that we need to guide it and make it our own. This requires a shared responsibility that balances wants and needs with healthy sacrifices for the Greater Good. As marketing agents, we must be better at shouldering this responsibility in the near term, and in the longer term, empower consumer groups to share along with us by giving them tools and information that have real cultural value. Turn breweries into learning centers. Make local reps into national icons. Use sporting events to inspire creativity in the darkest and loneliest of places. Think big and do better – together. And as brands, walking before talking means that we can be objective while still being ourselves. After all, people sell products to other people.

Utility is uniquely portable & competitively shareable.

Look for fixed, destination-prone, ad-like objects such as microsites (at least as we know them) to take a significant back seat to things like ‘dynamic content packets’ (formerly known as ad units) in which the extensibility of informational content can adapt to the needs, desires and passions of common interest groups. This will create a new media paradigm, as well as a much larger cultural one. Yes, all this talk about culture might conjure up images of a Petri dish, but great tools mean game-changing and life-changing offers, borne from brand stewardship, yet made by the people, for the people. Where does advertising fit into this mix? As culturally-relevant value adds (not ads), that take the ‘text’ out of contextual messages and turn them into conversations that are ongoing. You want to break through? First ask yourself the Nick Law question: “How do you fit in?” Fitting in entails that brand utilities actually change our daily lives in acutely powerful ways. Nike and Target have been doing it, other brands like P&G are working hard at it. Here’s something to chew on: even competing brands (like Coke and Pepsi) can share a voice – even complementary roles – in creating utility. Why? Because their legacies are everlasting, unlike many of their products. How? By acknowledging that brand loyalty is really about sharing consumer needs and experiences, and accepting that this requires the commitment of more than one company in the same category.

Mobile means a lot more than a platform.

Forget 3-screen thinking for now (and perhaps forever), there’s this thing called ‘content connectivity’. Set-top boxes aren’t just boxes, just like PDAs aren’t just devices – they’re assistants. Geotilities and purchasing apps like Red Laser are guiding us in ways that not only call retailers out on their bullshit, but are showing us that consumers have ultimate power in making the decision to purchase, as well as how to purchase. Preference-based platforms are enablers for this movement, although, as we’ve seen with large cable providers, not necessarily the gatekeepers. Comcast made this mistake, but wisely got hip to the way the game can be better played. Again, shareability is everything, especially to the bottom line. Perceived failures, such as Slingbox, provide windows into the truth about how we consume both media and product (or media product). Another thing to take note of: mindshare is collectively owned. The next time you make a trip down the aisle (no, not that aisle...), you may come to the realization that your friends are better to you than you might’ve thought. Ralph Lauren understood this before and after technology came along, which is probably why the brand uses it so well.

Good content is good content.

Here’s the shameful thing about Hollywood. Most movies are pieces of crap. Even worse, good movies often don’t make money, and bad movies most often do. Okay, that’s fairly subjective (not really), but you get the point. It shouldn’t be this difficult to create and distribute good content. Well guess what? It really isn’t. Video networks are overtaking cable nets in both viewership and engagement. Even better, we’re seeing strong correlates between TV viewing and online participation. This tells us that if we can’t provide people with entertaining and fulfilling content, they’ll either get it from somewhere else, get it from multiple places at the same time, or they’ll just make it themselves. Now of course, there is a ton of mediocre content on offer as well, but the extension of the mid-tail is creating – actually forcing – a higher demand on quality. Further, the intricacies of a channel experience demand that a story arc is told specifically to that touch-point. In other words, you better know your medium before you start delivering a message. When most internet marketers started touting that video ads were the Second Coming, they failed to realize that message and medium meant the same thing: good content. Further, things like curtains and overlays are interesting, but they don’t hide shitty content, nor do they sell ads. So, when we say that the origin of content shouldn’t be a deciding factor as to why we watch or engage with it, we must always pay our respect to the value of ideas and hope they can be adopted through stronger distribution channels. Which, by the way, might explain why MySpace has one of the best video platforms few people seem to know about or use.

There are new channels out there, just waiting to be discovered.

Actually, they’re not so much ‘new’, so much as they are ‘over there’ or ‘right here’. God has a wicked sense of humor. It’s called irony. There are 1.6 billion Internet users, yet 95% of the Internet is hidden from us. Tim Berners-Lee created the greatest Divine Comedy imaginable. Or maybe he, like God, wanted us to use our hearts and our imaginations to seek out more equitable paths in our communications. Heard of micro-financing? Well, you have now. A few Wall Street groups and foreign banks are using it to subsidize our future, by putting control and moderation back into the hands of the people. Notice a theme here – people. People are going to build infrastructure and create jobs. People are the ones who are willing to put money in the hands of other people, knowing that they can gut check their own agendas. What’s even more incredible about this, at least from a technology and media perspective, is that these channels will reveal themselves as carriers of new currency that can adapt to market fluctuation and asset flow. In vaguer English, communication is not limited to what see or hear, and it is often activated by what we don’t see or hear. Which is precisely why, in a social context, we have to earn media before we can share it. More importantly, this means that the next big media channel could be you and your peer group.

Networks are becoming truly interchangeable.

Here’s where the fight for world domination seems so glaringly pathetic. We no longer need to squabble over bigger pieces of the pie, we just need to create bigger slices in order to make the pie bigger. For more historical reference, hark back to the early 90s, when U.S. car companies colluded and created an enterprise fulfillment exchange so that parts suppliers wouldn’t gouge them on price or inventory. It worked, and this type of thinking rarely seen within the automotive classes saved the industry at that time (unfortunately, as we know, they now face much bigger challenges). Cut to present day, where ad networks face a similar dilemma over inventory and demand. The larger solution is to work together, and the smaller solution is to figure out how to enable the little guys to become more valuable. Users are no longer loyal to places, but they are loyal to information. Go where they go and help them get there, especially if it means crossing borders. Look, even Google is shrinking its mighty algorithm to serve the needs of the people, and ultimately recognizes that people make for the best publishers. And who has a renewed opportunity to play a mighty role here alongside Google? You guessed it – The Purple Cow. No need for pink elephants in the room, or on the network.

Embrace the human condition with real-time social search.

Attention brands (and agencies): you no longer own search. Repeat. You no longer own search. In some ways, you never really did, which is why it can cost so damn much. This might have something to do with the fact that people own brands, and more specifically to do with the fact that more and more search queries are user generated. Think about it – social sites and related content comprise a majority of the ‘webiverse’, not to mention that they fulfill both ends of the conversation loop. The funnel is stretching sideways, folks, and doing so in a way that is turning the Long Tail into a new mass market. Tipping points aside, what will come of paid search? Well, ask yourself this question: Do you own language? Maybe you do, but keywords don’t really live inside of ads, they thrive inside of conversations. If you want to send a message, write about it and be sincere. If people like what you have to say, they’ll share it (and index it). Look at everything they do, or you do, as a ‘Twiggle’ or ‘FaceFeed’. Sounds silly, but so is paying someone to wait in line.

Good marketing means improving the world. Period.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Facebook Causes is one of the largest active platforms around (well, actually it’s an app – which makes it even more impressive) with 75 million registered users. Consider the the three “Es” of social change – economics, environment and empowerment – then consider this: if you want to be relevant in the world, you’d better help improve it. Global brands like Dove, Kellogg’s and even Aflac (quack-quack) are leading the way. Why? Because they’ve realized and embraced the fact that brand equity is as important as product quality. Further, brands are not only the expectation of things to come, they are the projection of what we can be. At the end of the day, doing good is profitable. Really, it is. Now hold out your hand and open your eyes.

Welcome to the New World Web. What can we do together?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

Before media can be earned, we must earn each other's respect...

[Image created from a painting by Stephanie Ramer]

Just this week it dawned upon me that the social web is an amazing albeit tough place. Just looking at the blogosphere alone, the new and profound shift in conscious communications brings with it a rash of harsh criticism, personal attacks and digressions that often seek to well up emotional sores as opposed to cultural mores that can be collectively challenged in more positive ways.

When we think of earning media – what the social web mandates in our interpersonal exchanges – we must also consider that respect is a core value that has somehow gotten lost in the frenetic race to stay ‘ahead of the social curve’ (if that’s even possible).

Maybe we need to understand, or reacquaint ourselves with, what respect really is.

So what is ‘respect’?

According to Wikipedia, it is esteem for, or a sense of the worth or excellence of, a person, a personal quality, ability, or a manifestation of a personal quality or ability. In certain ways, respect manifests itself as a kind of ethic,  or principle, such as in the commonly taught concept of "[having] respect for others" or the ethic of reciprocity.

Esteem for, or a sense of the worth, or excellence, of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability, for example, "I have great respect for her judgment."

Deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.

Three things immediately jump out at me: esteem for others, what ultimately amounts to self-worth, and the ethic of reciprocity.

It’s funny because in the social media world, we talk about things like reciprocity in terms of transparency and authenticity, but rarely, if at all, do we discuss self-worth and esteem for others. Sure, we express mutual admiration, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that this is an attribute that primarily exists out of self-interest. For example, and at the risk of being cynical, if I commend you on something over, say Twitter, I am really soliciting you to commend me on that acknowledgment.

There’s nothing wrong with mutual admiration, by the way, but I’m trying to make a larger point which is that we often lose sight of the substance and inherent value behind our communication streams by virtue of how we actually engage in these communication streams.

As for esteem and self-worth, well, those are things we need to work on within ourselves so that we can evolve along with everyone else. There is a certain amount of heavy lifting we need to do in the way of self-introspection so that we can present ourselves to each other on the social web in a way that is emotionally resonant and contextually relevant. Perhaps technology has enabled us to cut some corners here.

So back to respect.

For purposes that hopefully extend this position beyond semantics, let’s reframe what respect can mean, or better yet, be, to us within a social context. Let’s make it all about reciprocity, about sharing something of value pretty much every time we come to the table with a desire, a need or an inquiry, so that when we share media – and all that it represents to us – we not only understand its value, but we then know that its discourse does not lose sight of its purpose... Which is to build trust, a primary tenet among many other things.

If we can accept that people are media, then respect is the foundation of successful relationships not only with brands, but the things that brands represent in the larger context of the world around us. In turn, the media that we earn then allows us to make a real difference in our lives, and, gives us real purpose behind our purchases.

So, perhaps we can reframe respect as a function of true reciprocity.

Enough of my pontifications... What do you think?

Posted via email from goonth's posterous

The Revolutionary Power of Transmedia Storytelling

The following is a cover story article that was published on iMedia Connection on September 8, 2009.

The revolutionary power of transmedia storytelling

By Gunther Sonnenfeld

September 08, 2009

Article Highlights:

• Unlike widgets or individual pieces of content, transmedia elements can be experienced an infinite number of times
• Transmedia is more than an integrated campaign, as each channel needs its own voice in the story arc
• Successful transmedia narratives make consumers hungry for the other elements while driving them back to the main product

Next in media planning & buying

There has been quite a bit of talk in recent years around the concept of transmedia storytelling. Few of these narratives have actually been implemented, but a select number of companies have chosen to satisfy consumer affinities, put great ideas on a pedestal, and think of creative ways to proliferate those ideas through carefully chosen channels.

On a deeper level, transmedia narratives strike an amazing balance between medium and message. In doing so, an exposition can carry out a story arc through application and dialogue that transcends all media execution. Whether you are a brand, an agency, a studio, or a publisher, transmedia storytelling is and will be an integral part of our future success as media entities and content providers.

Transmedia's history
So just what is transmedia storytelling, and why hasn't it been fully adopted?

For starters, it represents a process where integral elements of a fictional narrative get dispersed systematically across multiple delivery channels for the purpose of creating a unified and coordinated entertainment experience, as defined by Confessions of an Aca-Fan.

For those of you who are unfamiliar, the concept of transmedia storytelling was formally hatched by Henry Jenkins, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and author of the groundbreaking "Convergence Culture." In the book, Jenkins deftly deconstructs not only the inefficiencies of media influence and consumption (or what we might regard in this context as "confluence"), but also identifies most advertising outreach as communications streams that are significantly limited in what he describes as their "hypersociability."

Hypersociability is a term used to represent the conversational -- or what Faris Yakob has coined as the "spread" -- nature of content. So the idea is that if we can create a true story arc around or within an idea, the scalability of that currency (what we share) is virtually limitless. In effect, it takes us from passing along a piece of content, an application, or a widget (which may die on the proverbial vine), and allows us to engage and participate in a phenomenon, and do so indefinitely. Case in point: "The Matrix", along with many of its associated harbingers, will be the topic of discussion at cocktail parties and dinner tables for as long as the media world exists in its own vacuum.

Transmedia development emerged along with the advancement in digital storytelling, but as Ivan Askwith, senior director of strategy at Big Spaceship, points out, it was also partly cultivated as a means for solving the problem of marketing and licensing excess. This has been a particularly frequent issue with feature film franchises, but has reared its head across a variety of media.

Askwith actually studied with Jenkins and earned his masters at MIT. His thesis was an exploration of how television programs use transmedia extensions as part of a larger attempt to create audience engagement -- a means for allowing viewers to stay personally invested in a storyline. He also did work on alternate reality games (ARGs) as part of a separate research effort completed at the institute. Alternate reality solutions have been around for some time, but have only just begun to reveal themselves in a more seamless format.

Putting theory into application
One of the more famous case studies that blends content from a television property and utilizes (in part) ARG extensions is the hit series, "Lost." In addition to the popular television series, the creators of "Lost" have produced a wide range of narrative extensions, including original webisodes featuring the main cast; numerous websites for fictional organizations featured in the show, such as Oceanic Airlines and the Hanso Foundation; a bestselling mystery novel that was published as a final manuscript by a character on the show; a video game that lets players explore the island and interact with the characters in an original storyline, and much more.

"Lost" is a perfect example of transmedia as marketing technique because it blurs the line between advertising and product, according to Askwith. "While most of the transmedia extensions around 'Lost' are ultimately intended to drive viewers back to the mothership of the television series, some viewers might just as easily (and legitimately) feel that the show is driving them outward, to seek out the other pieces that complete the narrative," he says. "So all of these other pieces might be advertising the show, but they're also advertising themselves -- and, increasingly, providing the ability for content creators to tell more complex stories, while generating new sources of revenue."

Coca-Cola's 2007 campaign, "The Happiness Factory", brought out the true narrative potential of what originated as a purely advertising-based vehicle. Inspired by the success of an award-winning television spot depicting the fantastic world and creatures that exist inside each Coca-Cola vending machine, Coke has expanded "The Happiness Factory" into a full-fledged transmedia franchise. This comes complete with an interactive website and "Open Happiness," a new commercial song featuring several popular music artists.

While brands like Coke are far from deficient with respect to their media budgets, it seems they may be challenged with finding more objective and resourceful solutions such as those provided by Starlight Runner Entertainment.

Jeff Gomez, Starlight Runner CEO and a pioneer in developing transmedia content for a number of Fortune 100 brands, including Coke's Happiness initiative, knows that this is no easy feat.

"There are short stories and multi-volume epics; transmedia narrative is a way of conveying messages, themes, and stories -- a tool or methodology if you will," he says. "Smaller efforts may become as ephemeral as a tale written in a magazine, while truly grand and artful ones will aspire to epic literature. We try to distinguish transmedia narrative implementation from standard terminology such as advertising campaigns, although the two can co-exist or overlap."

One example of this type of real-world integration is Dove's now famous initiative for Real Beauty. When you think about it, Dove took a very transmedia-esque approach. With the simple core insight that women of the world don't describe themselves as beautiful, Dove deconstructed our media portrayal of beauty, uprooted messaging geared towards women that has been ingrained since their childhood through multiple sources, and quite effectively, defied cultural mores and peer pressures associated with those deeper messages.

According to Gomez, this is an approach that demands a kind of brand discipline not associated with most initiatives. "[It] requires a combination of diplomacy and a fierce loyalty to the tenets of the IP or brand itself above all else," he says. "Studios, agencies, and publishers that are not doing this are finding themselves trailing the frontrunners."

Spreading the love
Askwith and Gomez are two early adopters who have taken this phenomenon to new heights, but there is a host of emerging players who have not only made their mark with distinctive and groundbreaking creative strategies, but who have endeavored to offer scalable business models that serve a higher purpose.

One such play is "Humanitainment," the brainchild of Michael Fox.

What started with a successful viral campaign for Barack Obama (featuring 5 No. 1 viral videos including "Baracky" and "The Empire Strikes Barack") that helped to define the Obama brand and shape the 2008 election, has evolved into an innovative transmedia branding model that organically fuses commercial entertainment with socially-relevant messages. It's what you might call pop culture... with a purpose.

As Fox -- a former entertainment attorney turned cause advocate -- explains, "We are living in a time where technology enables us, and the state of the world requires us, to use new media not only as a revolutionary marketing tool, but as a way to galvanize the consumer to participate in transforming the future. Twenty-first century branding is not just about making consumers' lives better... it's about making the world better."

Reconstructing cultural paradigms
Goodwill and great intentions have been necessitated by tough economic, environmental, and social times. To the extent that we can seek out powerful interpersonal connections within the transmedia landscape, we also have to account for what type of thinking is required and retool the processes by which we implement this thinking. You might look at this as a hybrid of management consulting, technology development, creative ideation, and hub-and-spoke deployment.

The reality is that many agencies are not equipped or set up for success in this regard. Transmedia vehicles cannot be confined to a predetermined media plan or buy. And, as Conn Fishburn, a former senior partner at Ogilvy and recent head of partner innovation at Yahoo, points out, this is an inventive methodology that takes us far beyond creating just an ad campaign.

"Transmedia programs are inherently about the creation of culture. About understanding the living story, how it is picked up and adopted by people who add to it, shape it, and make it their own based on a core brand DNA," he says. "Agencies typically make static objects that have no history or future and represent ideas that are somewhat plastic. Great ideas must weave themselves into the broader cultural zeitgeist."

Further, all inter-agency departments need to be able to ideate and touch the work in a truly collaborative mindset, and this must translate well past coloring ad units, websites, mobile apps, advergames, or outdoor elements with the same brand palette.

Transmedia development is not a repository for the window-dressing that has become a host of fairly innocuous integrated solutions. What we're really talking about is building conversational elements with their own personalities that are endemic to a particular touch-point in which each channel has its own voice in the collective arc of a storyline.

Following audiences and moving with markets
Let's also not forget a paradigm that has left us all scratching our heads in the search for a viable solution: branded content and product placement. Many talent agencies and creative shops have scrambled to monetize content within very challenging and shifting models. Transmedia narratives have the potential to create greater opportunities by extending stories, reaching multiple platforms, and enabling better audience targeting when done right.

"Audiences are more willing to engage in a number of different ways now," according to Jesse Albert, senior new media agent in the Global Branded Entertainment division at ICM. "Loyalty is given to entertaining content and not to distribution, and audiences will look to find that content wherever they can or please. With transmedia, brands and IP can take advantage of the consumer's willingness to explore distribution channels by extending content offerings across the spectrum."

Loyalty is the operative word, and a formidable hurdle, when we consider the advances that new technologies are making to bring content to us. Retargeting, for example, presents a seesaw battle between what is intrusive and what is seamless. As content providers, when we move with people and not with ad inventory, we have to be very careful about how we extend invitations to interact with content.

As Albert explains, "Content only becomes of interest to consumers when there is something unique to each medium that extends the value proposition of the core IP offered, rather than simply replicating it. Above all, we must reward the true fan who follows the IP thru all channels with wholly unique offerings."

Marketing and development functions
What Albert and Fishburn allude to are actually two fundamental parts to transmedia: the marketing functions and the development functions of a rollout strategy. This requires a bit of reverse engineering, to say the least.

The marketing functions would serve to optimize a media plan or spend (in other words, reduce waste), or, from the ground level, would build out a framework that serves a market need -- in effect, putting the consumer front and center. The idea behind this is that we would actually brand markets, not market brands per se, so that common interests would supersede age or economics. So, in this sense, we are talking about developing initiatives in a true psychographic and technographic capacity as opposed to a mere demographic one.

The development functions would serve to build a mythology around IP. You could take your favorite CPG or electronics brand and build a storybook around its core DNA that is rich in lore, platonic soft text, amazing iconography, and a suite of virtually endless outcomes -- think of video annotations without a set number of second or third acts.

You can then take tools that are already on offer within the semantic web (artificial intelligence) and build layers that extend these stories out into the world, free of dictation, compartmentalization or even language barriers. Subsequently, you'll be creating a seamless, organic and highly collaborative experience.

In conclusion
We are literally looking at a global shift in the way we view ourselves and the way we relate to others in our natural environments, all through the possibilities and intricacies of our own imaginations. Picture this: Using a transmedia narrative to engage and build a new set of cultural values for a society completely different from our own, and creating an entirely new ecosystem in the process. Or perhaps it would call competing brand environments into gamesmanship.

Imagine Adidas's latest declaration that "Impossible is nothing" joining the ranks of Nike's "Just do it" on a wondrous stage blending fantasy and real human emotion.

What this means for advertisers is a potential windfall of consumer engagement and advocacy, or true "super-use." What this means for consumers are potential gateways of self-expression that can be mass adopted and at unprecedented scale. What this means for media is an adoption of content generation that breaks down silos and gives rise to human growth (not the machines).

With this type of quenchable mythos, anything is possible.

Gunther Sonnenfeld runs his own digital media consultancy, ThinkState.