Time Time Time Time

We don't have enough time. I know you agree. I don't care how much people are multi-tasking. There is still only 24 hours in a day. And there is so many more things and options competing for our time today than ever before. So Opportunity Cost for Time Spent is a bigger factor today than it ever was.

In Economic/Finance Terms NetMBA has a nice description:
http://www.netmba.com/econ/micro/cost/opportunity/

This is very important when it comes to Media, Entertainment, and Advertising. Every time you ask a person to engage with your brand, or your product, that means they have to give up time spent with something else. So this ropes in Value into the discussion. As the link above shows Value is a very important factor whether it is monetary or perceived.

The ways to Engage and Draw Attention include good and bad:

• Offer greater content than the other choices out there (Perceived Value). Good.
  
• Offer greater monetary incentive (Monetary Value). Good.
• Offset something with greater incentive with ease of incentive. (Lazy Value) Mixed.
  
• Force yourself on your target (Negative Value). Bad.

Too often Advertising and Media is a Negative Value. Even when you add creative entertainment value, unless they willingly choose to view something, part of the experience is a Negative Value and a Waste of someones time. This doesn't mean it's a 100% Negative, it just means some of the Positive Value is offset with the Negative Value.

Since we all are exposed to Media and Advertising constantly throughout our day, and often we have choices, make sure what you offer either has better content or monetary value, with your last course of action Lazy Value such as making your experience so much easier to consume than other choices. A great example is the choice of watching TV in Bed with the remote control, vs driving to an overlook to see the city lights at night.

Remember everything is an Opportunity Cost in life and when people choose to Engage or Consume they are giving up other choices. So if you want to be Chosen, step up your game and do things to increase your Value to your target.

Be Engaging, Be Fun, Be Informative, Save them Time, Save them Money, do something!

The Convoluted Media Ecosystem

I have been thinking about this for quite a long time. My view point comes from several places. First is my Finance Degree and CFO view. Second is my many years in Sales/Business Development. Third is my new Advertising Career. Fourth is my view as a consumer. When it comes to Business Models Media is the hardest to be successful in because of all the competing special interests. It is almost like Politics. People love entertainment. They spend a lot of money on entertainment. And without the content the rest of the ecosystem is dead. We all love great content.

But to create great content and be profitable you need your revenues to exceed your costs. And the middlemen inflate the costs and your end user views of your content's value after all the middlemen add their take onto it. And there are parasites like Journalists and Media that use the content for monetary gain without being forced to Ad Value. But the parasites can often Ad more value to the content creator than the middlemen. And everyone wants to defend their business/revenues even if you don't have an inalienable right to exist. See I told you Convoluted.

One great example is the music industry as it was vs. how it is now. The old industry is crying because revenues are down. But consumers and the content creators are consuming and selling more than ever, just cutting out the old industry middlemen. Who is being cut out? Record Labels. Packaging Companies. Radio. Media like the Grammy's. Do we need them? Not really. When CD's cost $14 each the artist only got $1. $4.50 was for packaging. And a band with 4 members plus management if they sell 1 million units making them platinum only made $1 million to split between them all. A nice bit of change but won't make you rich.

But now I can create music. Promote it free online. Sell it myself. And tour and make as much money or more than when I had all the bloat.

What about TV-Cable? Similar situation. They create something but added onto the cost is the technology to send it (cable, internet), the technology to view/consume it (TV's, Sound Systems, Computers). The media that is used to promote it all.

And while Ads can help reduce the costs for the entities that make money off the Ads, the rest of the entities really don't care. TiVo and DVR OEM's do not care about Cable Channels needing Ad revenue, or Cable companies needing subscription revenue. Apple doesn't care that I-Tunes destroyed the CD packaging industry. Or the internet/social media destroying the Record Companies/Radio niche of promoting music. But the fact remains if the people who make the content can not make a profit, the whole ecosystem collapses.

So what really happens is the creators cut costs. That is why TV is filled with cheap reality shows vs stellar content. If we are only willing to pay enough to support crap we get crap. See You Tube! And sadly as sheep most people watch the crap, because they refuse to either not watch and find something else to do, or they have decided they will watch anything. But this does a big disservice to the content creators and artists who are forced to dumb down what they do just because we are all lazy and cheap.

Why the Supreme Court Decision on Corporate Campaign Spending is Bad for Media and Advertising

Yesterday the Supreme Court gave Corporations full freedom of speech rights by ruling they can spend unlimited monies on advertising positive or negative that support their positions. Even though it was never part of the discussion it will be a boon then a bane for Media Companies and Advertising Companies and even Brands which I will discuss.

One of the issues regarding 'ethics' that I struggle with for accessing 'free' content has it's roots with the decision to create a new Media Format way back when called Television. Somehow the revenue metrics for Television allowed content to be viewed for free by consumers supported by Advertising. But it was not a contract with the consumers. Nothing forced consumers to view a commercial. We can switch channels, leave the room etc. So this created a true 'opt-in' relationship with consumers. This has been the root of most of today's troubles for Media Companies aside from the Movie Industry.

Until 2 years ago I was not in Advertising. I was very happy to use FireFox with Ad Blocking and No Scripts Ad-Ons so I see pretty much ZERO digital Advertising. And while I valued Advertising-Media it was a Love-Hate relationship because the industries can be evil in pursuit of profits, such as the marketing of cigarettes to children. I also witnessed the demised of most quality content on the major networks so that in 1999 when High Speed Internet came out I canceled cable for DSL and stopped watching TV altogether. Why pay good money to receive crap in my living room.

After entering the Ad Biz I started thinking about the ethics of accessing content and blocking all the Ads. And while I am a champion for paying directly for content in return for not seeing Ads until this becomes a reality what am I supposed to do? So I have 'unblocked' the Ad Blocker from specific Web Sites that I enjoy free content from out of a sense of Ethics and Honor. But since the Media-Advertising Industry doesn't force people to view advertising I refuse to unblock all websites. Sorry. Earn my eyeball time.

But now things might become different. With the Supreme Court ruling, at first Media Companies and Ad Agencies will benefit from increased Ad Spend for political advertising. In some cases this could be dramatic. As of today the Insurance Industry can buy up all the Ad Time and pitch lies about Healthcare reform because nothing in the Ruling Requires Truth! And they can hide behind Special Interest Entities which make it impossible to know who is paying for the Ads. This will dramatically increase people's negative feelings towards Media and Advertising and eventually turn people off. They might start TiVoing everything just to remove commercials from their lives.

Case in point during the Kerry - Bush election I was in Ohio and Florida for business and couldn't watch TV because every other commercial was an attack ad against one or the other candidate. I had to give up Sports Center! Now it is going to get worse.

So if a Media Company is willing to take money from groups with Nefarious Purposes (meaning they do not require transparency), then my view of Ethics changes and maybe I shouldn't feel obligated to unblock websites from Ad Blocking. Maybe I will be more ok with eliminating commercials from my life for good?

This will be interesting to see how this unfolds. But as the first case in point. Yesterday my local paper had a full page Ad from a mysterious group with no website, just a gmail address attacking a Democratic Senator over the GOP win in Massachusetts. Was this paid for by Insurance Companies? A Right Wing Religious Group? Who knows. But I am punishing the paper for the lack of transparency and not for the content. So for the next 30 days I am reading the paper online and blocking all Ads.

Paid Tweeters and how I feel decieved

I am not going to mention any specific people since I do not know the whole story yet. But there is someone in the Advertising/Marketing world with a website and lots of followers on Twitter. I agreed with the FCC's ruling that paid Tweeters somehow must announce they are being paid (this goes for Bloggers too), for the most part I always assumed this was just for products. Like Paris Hilton being paid to state she is buying a Brand of Nail Polish, to separate the 'real life' from the 'paid to respresent' Tweets.

Yesterday while reading an article from a very well known business publication, it seems someone I follow on Twitter, whom I just figured was either sharing, building their own business, or being social. My hunch is that some Tweeters are now paid per Tweet to drive traffic to specific websites. And this can come across as innocent especially when the subject matter seems beneficial, funny, informative etc. And when the article said that while Kim Khardasian someone I would never follow or care about is paid $10k per Tweet (talk about throwing money away on a G Lister) this person gets $900 per Tweet!

So in fairness I have asked this person to explain because I wish to know what they are being paid to promote. Is it all the Tweets? Is it specific ones? I don't want to see the paid Tweets unless they are clearly marketed as Advertising-Promotional so I can decide whether to read, click through any links etc. This isn't to say I won't click through to links. I mean if there is value being shared sure thing. But I do not like deception and currently I have 'Followers Remorse' since I have re-tweeted some of the persons Tweets.

Now to be fair when a Brand or a Website or any Business Entity has a Twitter or Facebook account the people who are managing it obviously are being paid, but we all know they are being paid to promote a product and are on the payroll. But when it is an individual the lines blur. If this specific person makes money when I click through to their website and read content I am very OK with that as long as I can connect the dots. It is very important trust not be broken between Brands, Businesses, and Consumers because it is very hard to win back that trust.

Subtle Startegy, Network Greed or Poor Media Buying

We have observed this, we are watching a program on Cable or Network TV and we notice one or two commercials are repeated so often that we actually switch over while they play because we are sick of hearing the same message. I am currently watching a stand up comedian on Comedy Central. I have seen in 45 mins the same I Pod Touch commercial 6 times and an I Phone App commercial 4 times.

So is this strategy on someone's part? To ensure the message is beaten in my skull. So that I get brainwashed into buying the devices.

Or is this greed by Comedy Central? Apple gave them money for inventory to reach a certain demographic and they are light on clients for spots on this show so they just keep plugging Apple?

Or is this poor media planning? Where someone isn't paying attention or not critiquing the performance reports they get from Comedy Central when they come in?

I know media planning and buying for a major national brand across all platforms is as complicated as curing cancer. But Apple spent about 30% more than they should of on spots during this 1 hr program. And as a champion of the brand with a Finance/Sales background I call it wastage.

Google isn't a tech company...it is a Media-Advertising Agency

There has been many articles in the Business News about Google and Apple competing in more and more ways. Well the answer is yes and no. Apple creates products for people. Gadgets and computers and phones. From these gadgets they make money selling software and digital products such as apps, music, etc.

Google is a Media/Advertising Business. They create applications that enable them to make money from Brands seeking to advertise. They have their own Digital Ad Server Business and their search engine is specifically for Advertising revenue.

So in reality Google is closer to a WPP, Omnicon, New York Times or Yahoo than they are to an Apple or Sony.

Recently Eric Schmidt has mentioned the reason for Android is so that Google will eventually be able to serve ads to your phone using behavioral targeting. Google also created the Chrome browser. Why? Because Firefox has Ad Blocking Software so it impacts Google's revenues (not for search BTW). And while Chrome might be promoted to 'improve' your browsing experience, it ensures all Ads Served reach your browser.

Now they are working on Chrome O/S which I am sure will be tightly tied to help behavioral target and serve even more Ads to your desktop or Laptop.

Apple makes their money selling products. Google makes their money selling Advertising. So technically in my view they do not compete.

Perfect Ad Perfect Content Perfect Placement

So recently I was walking around NYC observing advertising content and placement. The true problem with out of home advertising is it is impossible for one person or even a small group to physically choose where their signs and billboards they rent are in relation to reality. Though Google Street View can help. But just imagine trying to make an out of home buy in NYC. How many signs and locations there are, and coordinating the actual installation of the ads!

So even a massive media buyer has to rely on small fry to get all this work done at a reasonable cost and timing.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I am a cynic. I truly feel that certain locations are very effective to get your message out. But this one was the winner.

Dr. Scholl's ad for the gel inserts. Placed outside a bus stop on 3rd Ave that is seen by anyone who just walked up the gradual hill heading south. Anyone who has spent time walking NYC know that your joints and feet ache after pounding the concrete...and that pain starts sooner and hurts more as you get older. So as I am returning from a long walk to a book store and having jogged central park in the AM....just as I am burnt and feeling the pain....there is the Dr. Scholl's Ad!

Nearby there was an Ad for America's Next Model which is great for their narrow demographic (wasted money to have me included in the CPM), the Dr. Scholls really reaches it full demographic which is anyone who has walked up the hill and feels their feet could use some loving!

That being said....I will guess the actual choosing of that window was probably random from a map of all available properties in the city at the time of the buy.