Archive for the ‘Television’ Category

The Year of… Equity Campaigns?

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

It’s 12:18 a.m. as I write this. I’ve been continuing work since putting the kids down for bed at 8 p.m. But something is keeping me awake—marketing WITHOUT meaning. It will keep me up even later if I don’t address it now!

In the past few days, I have run across several examples of big, powerful brands that are attempting to correct falling sales by simply launching a new TV campaign. All are losing opportunities to actually do something for people, rather than simply talking about themselves (see last Friday’s post for a good review of “do”). The script is usually the same: Sales are down; CMO and ad agency are fired; new ones are hired, and they need to recast the brand in a more relevant light. Solution: a brand-new ad campaign (preferably with celebrities) and a few hundred million to put it on air (preferably during the Super Bowl).

Gatorade first caught my eye with its “What’s G?” ads. A series of black-and-white commercials with voice-over of rapper Lil Wayne scrolls past a who’s who of celebrity athletes. I captured a screen grab above of some other individuals who make an appearance in the ads.

Most people who view the “What’s G?” ads are saying, “What the heck?” Viewers debate on Web forums that it might be for Nike, Guess Jeans, or… God. Some even thought it was the next Saturday Night Live digital short (that’s never good). The brand actually says the mystery was planned. According to spokeswoman Jill Kinney, “Our strategy is to create consumer intrigue and insure everyone stays tuned for more in our quest for G.”

Unfortunately, most viewers have tuned out. Number of YouTube views is the closest thing we have to a measure of a video or commercial’s popularity. It’s a good way to measure meaningful marketing—if people like something, they will choose to engage with it and share it with friends, who will view it in turn. The brand’s YouTube page shows a total of around 180,000 total views across its six posted commercials since its launch on December 23. That’s not exactly a home run.

For comparison, we just announced today that our Working Lunch live improv program for Healthy Choice has gotten 2 million video plays in only three weeks. I can guarantee our budget was a fraction of Gatorade’s! The main difference? Our program actually delivers value—it’s an entertaining program that allows the audience to play a role—while Gatorade is just talking at its audience as usual.

Gatorade is certainly not the only one using this cliche marketing playbook. Microsoft infamously launched its Bill Gates + Jerry Seinfeld “ad about nothing” over the summer thanks to Crispin Porter + Bogusky (who I usually praise here). Honda has hired celebrities to talk about “The Power of Dreams” in long-form ads that are appearing before short videos on ABC.com and Hulu. And Coca-Cola will unveil its new slogan, Open Happiness, with feel-good Super Bowl ads in two weeks.

Let’s compare these to other, smaller brands that have succeeded with something different. Red Bull has gained on Coke and Gatorade by launching events around the world. Scion became the best-selling new car brand by hosting invitation-only underground art shows. Google has never advertised on television; it just keeps pumping out valuable services.

Look, TV still remains the largest stage to get in front of consumers, and each of these brands certainly sells a “mass” audience. But I’m disappointed that none of them is trying anything truly meaningful. I predict that none of these campaigns will make a significant difference in the equity or sales of the brands that launch them.

A new TV campaign is the old success formula and definitely the path of least resistance, but the only kind of marketing that will drive breakthrough results is that which people choose to engage with—and that which itself adds value to people’s lives.

Hulu Makes a Move Away from Interruption

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

If you’re not a regular subscriber to Wired magazine, it’s worth the 5 bucks next time you’re at the airport if only to read the feature article on the new Fox/NBC online TV venture called Hulu (or you can just read it for free here). The Hulu story is a great lesson in new product marketing by not one, but two large, stodgy corporations with much of their business stuck in the status quo. Jason Kilar, the 36 year-old Hulu CEO managed to throw together an online television program with thousands of shows in a matter of weeks.  Hulu is growing rapidly and starting to challenge YouTube.

Aside from the outstanding innovation case study, Hulu is serving as a new benchmark in the future of advertising and mass media. The company is still showing advertising, as expected, but it has significantly decreased the number of ads as compared to traditional broadcast television. According to the article, Hulu is charging more but serving far fewer ads.

Let’s say the average prime-time cost per thousand viewers (CPM) ad rate is $25, which is a reasonable estimate. Television shows are averaging 8 minutes of commercials for every 30 minutes of programming, which means 16 30-second slots at $25 each. This makes the “effective” CPM for a program equal to $400.  On Hulu, the company claims that ad rates are “two to three times” that of broadcast TV. Let’s call it 2.5 times on average, meaning the ad rate is $62.50. However, Hulu is only showing two minutes of advertising per 30-minute show, or only four 30-second ads. As a result, it’s take is $250 per show, meaning that for every viewer who watches The Office on Hulu instead of regular TV, NBC loses 47% of its ad revenue.

You can’t protect old business models artificially.” – Peter Chernin, President, News Corporation

How is Hulu getting away with this? Well, the company realizes that the only way to win in online video is to put its consumers first and provide more value. And it believes great content and a modest amount of advertising will be satisfactory for the greedy online video viewer. The hope is that viewers rely on Hulu versus YouTube and other free and/or illegal options such as BitTorrent. The results seem strong so far: One analysis suggests that Hulu could beat YouTube in revenue this year.

Aside from dramatically cutting the amount of advertising per program, there are some other user-friendly marketing options here. Hulu sometimes offers the chance to select which ads you see. And there is a thumbs-up/thumbs-down button for advertising, which supposedly helps ensure that you receive better interruptions in the future.

I certainly do not believe that Hulu represents Meaningful Marketing.  It still relies on an interruptive advertising model that gets in the way of the content viewers actually want to see. But Hulu’s moves and early success are proof that the only way to win in the future is to get closer to what people want.

Side Note: While Hulu shows a dramatic decrease in advertising, the Chicago Tribune just revamped its newspaper to increase advertising to 50% of the total content.