ANA Marketing Maestros

3GTV—The New Advertising Medium?

By Cara Brooke Schultz

How many commercials leave a lasting impression, so much so, that they play out in your head while you are shopping at your local grocery store? Soon those commercials maybe viewable while you are doing your shopping. According to a recent article by The New York Times a company called, “Automated Media Services has been working on a system that would deliver television in retail environments in a way that would allow media agencies to plan and buy commercial time in stores just as they do on the networks.” The product is deemed 3GTV and will give advertisers an environment similar to what they had in the days of only three television networks—an effective way to reach audiences without distractions.

© The New York Times

Stephen Grubbs, a media guru who held positions at agencies owned by the Omnicom Group said, “The presence of the 3GTV screens near or in front of the products advertised in the commercials represents an advantage, compared with existing systems in stores that use TV screen at or above check-out counters, after purchase decisions have already been made.” As an advertiser, what type of commercials would your company broadcast on 3GTV? Would they be 10-second catchy commercials or a 30 second spot? 

From Thanksgiving Turkey to Springtime Favorite

By Duke Fanelli

I maybe a bit late to the party, but I was thinking about Tiger Woods and the hype surrounding his decision to play at the Masters Tournament. I have to admit, for all intents and purpose he played masterly…yeah some bad shots and he was highly critical of his own play, but he finished Sunday tied for fourth (-11 under par). Not bad after being out of commission for more than five months, dealing with personal and family issues.

Most striking throughout the four-day Tigerfest, was the media and gallery’s acceptance of Tiger. If you had spent the past five months living in a cave, you’d never have known how nasty things got. The #1 player in the world was back and he and his fans were basking in the glow. (Not to take anything away from Phil Mickelson’s win, which was spectacular, well deserved and a milestone in his career.) The Sports, marketing and armchair pundits, who earlier this year wanted to see Tiger’s head impaled on a fairway wood, were nowhere to be seen. Except for an errant Tiger-detractor, who paid to have a small plane fly over Augusta National—with a not so obvious reference to Tiger’s apology speech—the crowd loved watching his come back.

So where does this all leave us? American’s have notoriously short memories when it comes to celebrity misdeeds and we are certainly as forgiving when it comes to the idiotic behavior of our star athletes. So the question is: will Tiger get some of his old endorsements back? I’m guessing the answer is no. But a more intriguing question may be are new endorsements right around the corner? And, who is first in line?  Anyone want to weigh in with a guess?

By the way, Tiger’s comeback at the Masters gave ESPN the highest U.S. audience ever for a golf event on cable TV, as nearly 5 million people tuned in to watch Thursday’s first round. As the millions viewing the Master’s can attest, Tiger’s back, his fan base is strong and shooting 11 under par last week, is a clear indication that he is capable (which some doubted) of topping the list of golf’s superstars for some time to come. Is this a Rod Tidwell and Jerry McGuire moment?

New Plans for Local Ratings Unfair to Advertisers

By Bill Duggan

Nielsen, last week, formally announced its plans to eliminate the reporting of live-only local TV ratings to advertisers and its local station clients. Now, advertisers and local stations will only have overnight access to data for three different data streams: live program plus same day time-shifting of programming, live plus three day time-shifting, and live plus seven day time-shifting. Going forward, live-only data will only be available in custom reports, on a delayed basis.

Advertisers and agencies are disappointed. Nielsen has made it clear since this issue arose in 2009 that it could make three data streams available. Advertisers and agencies have been consistently adamant regarding the need for the live-only stream and have been willing to concede to the local stations the choice for the other two streams.  But now all available streams for local TV ratings will be “plus” and therefore include time-shifting.

On the national level, the evolution from program ratings to average commercial ratings has been a positive step and C3 takes into consideration three day time-shifting. But it is important to point out that on the local level program ratings continue to be used. Therefore, all the “plus” streams do not take into consideration commercial skipping in DVR playback. As a result, local commercial viewing would clearly be overstated—some agencies estimate that this change will result in an instant 7 percent viewership boost to local TV stations. Overstated rating could then lead to overstated ad rates.

 

This situation is unfair and unfortunate. Again, there are three local ratings streams available. One of those streams should be live-only as the majority of agencies and advertisers have consistently told Nielsen as well as the local stations. Remember, it’s those advertising dollars that ultimately fund the local stations and well as Nielsen’s ratings services. Why has the opinion of advertisers and agencies been disregarded?

Battles on the TV Screen

By Cara Brooke Schultz

Companies battling it out on the small screen is not new. In fact, Burger King had a slew of commercials in the 1980s taking jabs at McDonald’s.

And who can forget Pepsi’s commercials arguing how it tastes better than Coca-Cola.

Recently you’ve probably watched the public scuffle between AT&T and Verizon Wireless. If not, here are two commercials for your viewing enjoyment: 

With all of these public feuds taking place throughout advertising history, how does it affect you as a consumer? I personally rather hear why the company is better for me as a consumer; I could do without these public punches thrown at each other over the television screen. What do you think—do these commercials waiver your thoughts when making a purchase?  

And The Winner Is....Social Media!

By Cara Brooke Schultz

Who will be watching the Oscars on Sunday night? Okay…you can put your hand down now, and continue reading.

I’ll be watching the Oscars for two main reasons:

1. To see what all the actresses will be wearing—so I can then pour over the images on the Internet Monday morning and discuss the magnificent fashion hits as well as the misfortunate tragedies. 
2. To find out what movie will win best picture, which actor will win best actor, and which actress will win best actress.

So technically you could consider that four reasons, but for the purpose of this Blog post we’ll continue to count that as two. After the Oscars, when I discuss the fashion statements with my friends, am I going to be calling them to chat? No way! Who has time for that?! 
 
Instead, I’ll be online via Blogs, Web sites, forums, and of course social media—and advertisers are very much aware of this. For example, a USA Today, article talked about how several Oscar advertisers are making a push in their social media efforts this year, “’It's no longer smart just to buy on the Academy Awards,’ says consultant Charlene Li. ‘You have to tie into social media so that people talk about you.”’

According to the article, we can expect to see a social media push from the following companies: J.C. Penney, Samsung, Hyundai, and Cottonelle, just to name a few. If you plan on watching the Oscars, where will your water-cooler conversations be taking place?

A Fight on the Value of Television Advertising

By Bill Duggan

A fight broke out at the recent ANA TV & Everything Video Forum. The “contestants” were David Cooperstein, Vice President, Research Director at Forrester Research and David Poltrack, Chief Research Officer at CBS. 

David Cooperstein had just finished presenting research from a joint ANA/Forrester survey that asked national advertisers about their attitudes towards television and video advertising. Highlights of that presentation included advertiser responses that spending in television was down and that the medium had become less effective. But the research also pointed to opportunities in areas including branded entertainment, addressable TV, and online video. ANA members can get the full survey report here.

In the Q&A session that followed, David Poltrack commented, “The frustration is just great. Essentially all morning long we heard about all the great things we're doing with advertisers to create new and exciting ways to use television (comment: those presentations were from Subway, Kraft, Cisco, and Pepsi), and then we get this report that is totally contradictory and inconsistent with what we know.”

ANA tries very hard to program events with a fair and balanced perspective. So allow me to provide some observations about television.

Television viewing is at an all time high. The average U.S. viewer watches 4 hours and 49 minutes of television per day—up 20 percent from a decade ago, according to Nielsen.

Television provides advertisers the opportunity to build mass reach quickly (arguably better than any other medium). Super Bowl XLIV (this year’s game!)  was the most watched television program of all-time with 106.5 million average viewers.

However, the abundance of television viewing options has greatly fragmented the audience. American Idol was the top rated program of the 2008/2009 broadcast season with an average household rating of 15.1.  Ten years ago, ER was the top rated program of the 1998/1999 broadcast season with an average household rating of 17.8. Twenty years ago, The Cosby Show was the top ranked program of the 1988/1989 broadcast season with an average household rating of 25.3. Marketers can target audiences more narrowly given all the options, but audiences are generally smaller than ever before. 

Consumers are increasingly multitasking when the television is on. A generation ago we’d simply watch Happy Days or Dallas. But today, kids are on the computer and other mobile devices, which are distractions from viewing, although there has been some recent buzz in the industry that some social media can complement viewing. Remember that Nielsen reports “opportunity to see” and not engagement or true viewership of individual commercials.

Sixty-two percent of the marketers in our survey believe that television is becoming less effective. Only seven percent stated that television is becoming more effective while the remainder believe that it’s no more or less effective. So advertisers, and a lot of them, have the perception that television’s effectiveness is declining.

And then there’s the issue of spending on television—which was part of the “David versus David” debate.  Per MAGNA, total television ad spending has declined from $55.6 billion in 2008 to $48 billion in 2009—that’s almost a 14 percent drop. In the defense of television, however, other most other media had even steeper declines in 2009 so television share of spend actually increased. In 2010, television spending is expected to rebound somewhat to $50.5 billion but that’s still well below 2008 levels.

 
Meanwhile, opportunities for television indentified in our survey include:

• Eighty percent of advertisers agree that branded entertainment will play much more of a role in television advertising.
• Seventy-eight percent of advertisers are interested in addressable television to target consumers more precisely.
• Forty-six percent of advertisers plan to spend more on ads in online video/online television shows in 2010.

Plus, television is increasingly available via the web “on-demand” and on mobile devices providing consumers more options to watch.

Television is alive and well and the current times are both exciting and challenging for the medium. This is a blog so your comments are not only welcome but appreciated. David and David—anyone else—please jump in!

The Path to Brand-Specific Commercial Ratings

By Bill Duggan

Nielsen recently announced that this past Super Bowl (XLIV) was the most watched television show of all time with 106.5 million average viewers.  Also, Nielsen provided a special report on the viewership of individual Super Bowl commercials.

Of course, ratings for individual national commercials are not yet available.  The current C3 metric that Nielsen provides for national ratings refers to the ratings for average commercial minutes in live programming plus three days of digital video recorder playback.

ANA and Nielsen have been collaborating on an initiative to increase the granularity of ratings that could indeed lead to individual commercial ratings.  Advertisers deserve such granularity to answer the question, "How many people actually had the opportunity to see my spot?"  

The just-released white paper, “The Path to Brand-Specific Commercial Ratings,” has details of the work Nielsen and ANA have done.

By the way, a Doritos commercial featuring two men in a gym being attacked for stealing someone else’s Doritos was the most watched commercial of Super Bowl XLIV (and also the most watched commercial of all time!) with an estimated 116.2 million viewers. 

Nielsen’s full rundown of the most watched commercials of Super Bowl XLIV is here.

Opportunities & Key Threats for TV and Video

By Bill Duggan

For the fifth time since 2002 ANA has partnered with Forrester Research on survey work to better understand advertiser perceptions and use, both now and expected in future, on television and video.  Forrester has summarized the key research findings and provided their perspective on the results in their report titled TV Advertising Budgets Are Under Siege. Meanwhile, the following provides a topline from ANA’s point-of-view.

Overall:
The death of television has been greatly exaggerated. While it’s true that television budgets have been reduced (per the title of the Forrester report), those reductions are more a reflection of broader economic conditions impacting all media. The reductions in television spending have, in fact, been less severe than most other media. 

From the broadest perspective, when asked to “comment on the value of TV advertising for the specific needs of your company” representative responses were:
• Pro: “Television is essential for building broad reach and brand awareness.”
• Con: “Television’s effectiveness/value is diminishing.”

The ANA/Forrester survey helps point to many opportunities, as well as some key threats, for television and video.

Opportunities:
• Branded entertainment: Eighty percent of advertisers agree that branded entertainment will play much more of a role in television advertising. Thirty-eight percent plan to spend more on branded entertainment in 2010 as an alternative to the traditional 30-second TV spot.
• Addressable television: Seventy-eight percent of advertisers are interested in the ability to target consumers more precisely—by demographics, zip code, or purchase behavior. However, advertisers don’t expect to pay much of a premium for such targeting.
• Interactive television: Seventy-five percent believe that interactive television will be an effective source of lead generation, but only 28% plan to spend more on interactive ads in 2010 as an alternative to the 30-second TV spot. Advertisers may want to see the interactive television advertising landscape further develop before they increase spending.
• Brand-specific commercial ratings: An overwhelming 82% are interested in having ratings for individual commercials (also called brand-specific commercial ratings) available for analysis.  
• Online video ads: Forty-six percent of advertisers plan to spend more on ads in online video/online television shows in 2010 as alternatives to the traditional 30-second TV spot.
• Place-based video: Sixty-four percent agree that place-based video in stores, elevators, and other locations will become increasingly important.

Threats:
• Overall effectiveness: Advertisers believe that television advertising is not as effective as it used to be. Sixty-two percent of respondents think television advertising has become less effective in the past two years.
• Clutter: Sixty-nine percent of advertisers would like fewer commercials in a pod in order to gain visibility.
• DVRs and video-on-demand: Sixty-six percent think that DVRs and video-on-demand will reduce (61%) or destroy (5%) the effectiveness of the 30-second television commercial.
• Shifts to other media: Advertisers plan to spend more on various forms of non-television media including social media (77%), web advertising (73%), search (59%), email (46%), and mobile (46%).

ANA members can download the complete report at www.ana.net/thoughtleadership.

Whales, Babies, and Hotels from Hell Can Only Mean One Thing…Super Bowl Commercials!

By Cara Brooke Schultz

The day after the Super Bowl, the second most popular water-cooler topic would have to be the multi-million dollar commercials. Here are just a few of my top favorites:  

Bridgestone’s ‘Whale of a Tale’ commercial reminded me of the movie ‘Hangover,’ with the outlandish aftermath of a bachelor party gone-wrong.

HomeAway.com’s ‘Hotel Hell Vacation’ advertisement brought me back to a similar experience I had at a hotel in Israel. Needless to say, I found the commercial to be more than entertaining.

Although we all expected the E*Trade baby to make another appearance, the ‘Milkaholic Girlfriend’ commercial got a ton of laughs from my Super Bowl party.

Budweiser’s 'Clydesdale Befriends Cow' commercial received a cohesive exclamation of “Awww” from the females at my Super Bowl party.

Cars.com’s advertisement led us through the entertaining life of Timothy Richmond.  We watched as little Timothy put out a stove fire, neutralized a jelly fish sting, delivered a baby Bengal Tiger, and saved a cheerleading squad from a killer tornado. Although Timothy Richmond seems closer to Superman than your average Joe, he still needs help making his next automobile purchase—don’t we all?

Chime in—what were some of your favorite Super Bowl commercials?

Live Is Good!

By Bill Duggan

ANA continues to advocate for a “Live Only” data stream for local television ratings. Nielsen is making three data streams available to the industry and has decided that all streams should be “plus” streams to including viewing in DVR playback: Live + Same Day, Live + 3 Days, and Live + 7 Days.

It’s critical to recognize that local ratings are based on program ratings and not commercial ratings (national ratings are commercial ratings).  All of the “plus” streams include program viewing in DVR playback but do not recognize commercial skipping in DVR playback.  Ratings would be significantly overstated as a result.  And prices charged to advertisers could potentially (and unfairly) increase as well.  With DVR penetration over 30 percent this is already an issue which will intensify as DVR penetration grows further—an increasingly number of viewers will skip commercials in DVR playback. 

Given that three local reporting data streams can be produced by Nielsen, it is reasonable for buyers to request that one of these streams be Live Only.  To have all three streams be “plus—”including DVR playback of programs but with no recognition of commercial skipping—seems unfair and unnecessary. 

On January 15 ANA and the 4A’s conducted an industry meeting to discuss local television ratings.  Read more about that at www.ana.net/localratings