Of course the journey is very long – but the principle of
marketing accountability seems to be finally getting a grip on the overall
Marketing Supply Chain. And I am thrilled!
Of course the journey is very long – but the principle of
marketing accountability seems to be finally getting a grip on the overall
Marketing Supply Chain. And I am thrilled!
Posted by Association of National Advertisers on May 24, 2005 in Advertising, Conferences, Marketing, Marketing Accountability, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
So what are the common denominators for successful
marketers in today’s rapidly changing environment? How can leaders best respond to the
challenges of putting consumers in charge … and for making marketing investments
more accountable?
The pathway to each of these six platforms is through
technology, innovation and experimentation. And importantly, they all recognize
that marketing has dramatically shifted -- from a focus on the masses, to a
focus on the individual. Marketing will
continue to evolve -- ultimately, I believe, becoming a true “One-to-One” discipline. Consumers have enormous leverage and power to
determine what they want to see and hear. We marketers must determine how we’re going to get invited to the table
because in essence, marketing is becoming “By invitation only.”
Posted by Association of National Advertisers on April 14, 2005 in Advertising, Food and Drink, Marketing, Marketing Accountability, Television | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (2)
The cornerstone principle that underscores all marketing is commercial free speech. When commercial messages for legal products are truthful and non-deceptive, marketers should be completely free to market their products and services unencumbered by government regulation – or the threat of such regulation.
* Think of the great work done by the Advertising Council
and its media partners who provide more than $1.5 Billion in donated media to
educate the public on a variety of issues including drunk driving, seat belt
usage and, of course, the well-being of children.
Posted by Association of National Advertisers on March 31, 2005 in Advertising, Conferences, Current Affairs, Food and Drink, Marketing, Obesity, Television | Permalink | Comments (7)
In my last blog posting, “Who’s Killing Television”, I
focused most of my remarks on key issues that the Television industry needs to
address in short order. At ANA’s Television Advertising Forum yesterday, I
reiterated those concerns – and, in fact, added one or two more.
* Second, convergence will be channeled through one of the most important future tools for marketers – the set-top box. This virtual in-home computer will become the advertisers’ best friend and will be the foundation for lots of positive change for television advertising. In particular, the data that cable and satellite companies will be able to provide to advertisers will – for the first time -- deliver important measurements and metrics and facilitate the level of accountability so needed by the marketing community.
* Third, television advertising inventory will continue
to expand with the proliferation of channels and programming. With more
channels and, theoretically, more content to fill those channels, the laws of
supply and demand just may tip the scales back in the direction of marketers. Advertisers
will be able to use television more selectively, hopefully moderating the
growth of CPMs and bringing them in line with more reasonable measures.
The television industry has some of the smartest and
savviest people in the marketing community. They are very much aware that
television is no longer the bedrock for brand communications. That’s why they
need to move aggressively to mitigate their structural issues and leverage the
spectacular opportunities they have before them – and do so with purpose and
passion. If they need a wake up call, they need look no further than the Pepsi
One re-launch – which has no television commercials in its marketing plan.
It’ll be interesting to see how the “drama” plays out.
Kind of like a soap opera – don’t you think?
Posted by Association of National Advertisers on March 24, 2005 in Advertising, Conferences, Marketing Accountability, Television | Permalink | Comments (7)
I love television as a marketing medium – pure and simple. It has sight, sound and motion. It has terrific reach, great entertainment value and a captive audience.
For years, television was the Great Brand Builder – the foundation of most integrated marketing communications plans. The growth of existing products was hitched to this powerful steed. The success of new products depended on mass distributed introductory TV ads. This was terrific… exciting… and easy! Indeed to marketers, Television was the best friend we could ever have.
But we’re killing the damn thing – and here are the culprits:
• Clutter: How many more commercials are we going to jam into the pod? Aren’t we inviting consumers to run out of the room or hit the remote every time they get a whiff that a commercial is coming? Haven’t we provided enough rationale for the DVR industry?
• Cost: Aren’t network prime CPM’s out of control? We can talk about supply and demand all we want, but the reality is that marketers have had it – and they will continue to shift dollars to friendlier media alternatives. And what about those hidden charges called Network Integration Fees? Why are marketers still paying for them – when the cable guys have nothing of the kind?
• Measurement: C’mon now. In this world of technology, why can’t marketers get their hands on affordable commercial ratings data? Not only are marketers getting slammed with overpriced CPMs, they may be overpaying even more because their buys are based on inflated program ratings rather than realistic commercial ratings.
• Creative: OK – this is purely subjective, but do we really think that the level of television commercial creative is anywhere near what it was – say 10-20 years ago? Where have all the creative cowboys gone – those geniuses that kept us glued to the TV for the eighth, ninth and tenth viewings of that hard-to-resist spot?
Putting my frustrations aside, I actually have great hope. With the advent of enhanced TV technology – including improved consumer targeting tools – I believe television marketing has the opportunity to be reinvented as the communications vehicle-of-choice in 3-5 years. But the television industry business model must change. The reporting and measurement tools must evolve. The pricing must become more competitive. And, most importantly, we must rethink our whole strategic approach to brand building. Can it be done? Absolutely. Will it be done? I’m taking bets!
Posted by Association of National Advertisers on February 28, 2005 in Television | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack (2)
One of the great privileges I have had during my tenure at the ANA is to work with the esteemed Family Friendly Programming Forum. The Forum is a confederation of volunteer advertising and agency executives that effectively works in partnership with the ANA and with the television network community towards one overarching objective – to assure the existence and growth of a family friendly television environment in prime time.
The Forum is not only the most successful organization working to change television; it is the only one that has focused on creating alternatives.
Unfortunately, Advertising Age somehow glazed over the Forum's numerous accomplishments when they published an editorial last week, entitled "Family Forum Must Show Might." (Unfortunately, the article is not online) AdAge took issue with the way the group handled the change in content on NBC’s "Father of the Pride." I was very troubled by their position and felt compelled to use my blog to counter this one-sided piece.
Here’s what really happened. The Forum withdrew its "Family Friendly" endorsement for “Father of the Pride” when, in the spirit of cooperation, NBC confirmed that the show decided to take a more "adult" positioning. AdAge suggested that the Forum needs to monitor the initial production of programs it endorses. The ANA disagrees. The Forum's historic track record suggests that the current levels of intra-industry communication and collaboration are sufficient to insure consistency with Forum standards. When those standards are not met, the Forum withdraws.
Furthermore, Ad Age had it wrong when it indicated that the Forum provided script development funds for "Father" – funds which were later returned. Ad Age is obviously not aware that the Forum provides no funds to the networks for shows that successfully find their way to prime time.
The Forum was created six years ago from the collective wisdom of founders Andrea Alstrup, Johnson & Johnson, and Bob Wehling, Procter & Gamble. The ANA serves as a "management partner" to facilitate their objectives and advance their respective causes. All advertisers represented on the Forum must be ANA members.
I wish that AdAge had taken note of the Forum's incredible string of accomplishments in their relatively brief existence. The Forum:
* Influenced the introduction of ten prime time family television shows including the much acclaimed Gilmore Girls (WB), American Dreams (NBC) and 8 Simple Rules (ABC). The Forum’s contributions this season include Complete Savages (ABC) and Clubhouse (CBS). These superb programs were responsibly developed through the group’s heralded Script Development Fund.
* Acknowledges the very best in family television entertainment through the annual Family Television Awards program. This year, the program will air on the WB network on December.
* Champions the development of future leaders in family-friendly programming through its scholarship program at the University of Southern California, Carnegie Mellon and Loyola Marymount University.
* Recognizes the need to be vigilant and sensitive to present and future challenges. For the second consecutive year, the Forum will sponsor this important discussion through its joint symposium with The National Council for Families and Television.
The accomplishments of this group reflects the industry’s volunteer efforts to influence and institute positive change – change that has, in fact, been heralded and acknowledged by the US Congress. The Forum’s success and momentum are grounded in the high principles and standards the group has set and the practices they follow. Those standards are the boundaries for the organization’s behavior, core operations and decisions. The net result is an extraordinary success rate and a series of contributions that, we, as an industry, should appreciate and honor.
I respect AdAge's right to disagree with the Family Friendly Programming Forum's decisions and actions. But disagreements should not be the basis for calling these actions “shameful” – particularly when the organization’s honorable history suggests otherwise.
Maybe that’s the reason they decided not to publish their editorial online.
Posted by Association of National Advertisers on September 20, 2004 in Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
An update to my last post on the network integration fees charged by NBC, CBS and ABC. TargetCast, a NYC based media independent media planning and buying agency, recently informed us that they have calculated that advertisers last calendar year spent between $110 -$125 million on these fees alone! TargetCast used TMS-Media Intelligence/CMR data to crunch this number.
Posted by Association of National Advertisers on July 22, 2004 in Television | Permalink | Comments (0)
Earlier this year the ANA conducted a survey of member marketers on the issues and challenges they face in TV advertising. A resounding 74% of the 140 major advertisers we surveyed said the integration fees the major TV networks charge are unfair. Here is a sampling of some of the feedback we heard:
"The fees are a legacy charge that no longer have a justifiable purpose. We're better off taking the money and improving the measurement capability of the industry." "Integration fees are a thing of the past, when there was a 'physical' reason to charge. With new technologies, etc., there is no reason. It's basically money in their hands."Integration fees were put in place years ago when a person used to have to manually have to place the commercial in sequence. Today everything is done on computer."
"The notion of integration fees is antiquated. Its real reason for being was back in the days when a human being was required to be in the studio to manually insert commercials in programming. With the advent of technology, a human is no longer needed. Therefore, we should not be charged for this. This is just another example of how the networks have figured out a way to rip off advertisers."
The ANA gets the message: advertisers are outraged over network integration fees. In their view these fees represent an old surcharge that has nothing to do with today's television production and trafficking realities. This survey indicates that the networks and advertisers need to revisit the issue. I urge our colleagues in the media to think hard about this issue.
Posted by Association of National Advertisers on July 12, 2004 in Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Recently, I blogged about the ANA's Enhanced TV initiative and why we are undertaking this project. To wrap this up, I thought I would share with you actually how this will project will work. The test and related meetings are only open to those ANA members who have elected to participate in the project.
Our test will run approximately one year and consist of two cycles. The first cycle will include the launching of the project, testing the different enhanced television advertising propositions (video on demand, Tivo, etc.) and analyzing consumer interaction. The second cycle is an integral element to the success of the initiative because it allows the participating advertisers to modify their approach based upon the initial discoveries and re-test the propositions. To track their advertising assets, participants will utilize Ad-ID.
Although we are still determining which specific technologies and will be included in the initiative, we can generically delineate what we hope will be gleaned from the experimentation. As an example, in the ad supported video-on-demand (VOD) realm we hope to answer some of the following questions:
• Do viewers forego watching real time programming to watch VOD where one may extricate commercials from the programming via VCR functionality/fast forwarding?
• Do households that access an ad supported offering also view the cable network?
• Do VOD households show any other kind of programming genre affinity?
• What is the amount of time users spend on the ad supported offering viewing (daily and weekly) as well as the amount of sessions (daily and weekly)?
• If VCR functionality is available as part of the VOD offering, how does it impact viewer behavior, i.e. fast forwarding through commercials (front and back), programming and so forth?
• How will the programs be packaged: by network brand (MTV on demand), by genre (news, children’s, sports), or by cable or broadcast service (basic or expanded basic on demand)?
• Will on demand product cannibalize ratings and ad revenue?
Keep an eye on this space and www.ana.net for updates in the months ahead.
Posted by Association of National Advertisers on July 06, 2004 in Television | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (2)
As I blogged earlier, the ANA is creating a venue in which advertisers will participate in test cells for upwards of a year in a variety of enhanced TV applications including addressability, ad supported video on demand, and personal video recorders. You may naturally wonder why we feel the ANA is suited to tackle this and why our members are electing to participae . Let me shed some additional light .
Some advertisers have tested some or all of the emerging models, but for proprietary reasons , the results are not widely shared. This inhibits the learning which could accrue to all interested parties. Since little information from these trials is broadly shared, they are not gaining traction with the advertising community.
As the advertising industry’s trade association that is advertiser, agency, media and content provider neutral, we believe the ANA is in the best position to lead a non biased initiative to explore this new frontier. We offer an environment that is advertiser, distribution, content and technology neutral. Through our relationships with the key constituencies, the ANA can bridge the gap for the benefit of all advertisers and discern its implications for the future of TV advertising.
There are a variety of reasons why ANA members are excited about participating in this initiative:
* This is a relatively new and rapidly changing field and it may be difficult for many advertisers to keep abreast of developments in this arena, gain valuable learning when experimenting and make the right choices that will best affect their brand’s future.
* Since it is an emerging area, many advertisers do not have internal personnel that specialize in the enhanced TV arena. For example it may be cross functional and handled both by television specialists and/or or the interactive group – neither of which may have the time and energy necessary to comprehend this important future media arena.
* Finally, the shared learning of the advertisers that participate in the test cells will allow participants to accelerate any learning they might garner.
Next up - How the test will work.
Posted by Association of National Advertisers on June 22, 2004 in Television | Permalink | Comments (4)