Updates from March, 2008 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • dbinkowski 2:10 am on March 3, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Sportscenter ad shows CGM isn’t always the way to go 

    In a departure from the regular “This is Sportcenter” ad format, the current spot for SC doesn’t feature a high profile athlete or famous mascot, but instead offers viewers the opportunity to vote on having one of two anchors read the next highlight, or, option “C”, watch a cockatoo slam dunk a basketball. Michael David Smith from AOL’s Sportshouse blog says he doesn’t like it:

    The commercials are at their best when they give us the utterly ridiculous juxtaposition of LaDainian Tomlinson sorting mail or Tony Romo having a party at ESPN’s headquarters or LSU’s mascot stuck in a tree. The dunking cockatoo isn’t a recognizable figure in our shared sports consciousness and therefore isn’t as funny.

    As a sports fan who works in this medium, I found it to be a great spoof. Similarly to how Time magazine named You, the Consumer “person of the year”, ESPN pays an Onion-esque homage to the push toward consumer generated everything. Worth noting among sports fans is that while it’s great to have your voice heard, the real reason we watch ESPN — including the pro and college highlights — is for the star power and athletic feats. I can dunk a basketball, but I can’t throw one down like LeBron — and there’s a big difference between an amateur and a pro (wow, haven’t journalists and advertisers made the same argument?), including taking them out of their element and controlled environment and allowing them to be funny.

    That being said, I did enjoy the spot. How about you?

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/television/Sportscenter_ad_shows_CGM_isn_t_always_the_way_to_go’;

    Advertisements
     
  • dbinkowski 3:06 am on February 17, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    CG-Dunk? NBA star Rudy Gay uses YouTube for dunk ideas 

     
  • dbinkowski 3:48 pm on June 24, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Study: Senior marketers afraid to "let go" 

    Last week my employer, MS&L, and PR Week did a study among senior marketers asking if they thought CGM was very important to their marketing platforms. Just 12% thought it was.

    You might be saying “Well, 12% is pretty high, Dave.”

    I’m not disagreeing with that, but this was the kicker:

    The survey also indicated that while marketers may be highly aware of the power consumers wield, most are still wary to give consumers more control. Just 22 percent said they were “very willing” to let consumers play a significant role in shaping their marketing programs.

    That’s incredibly low. I can understand why this whole “letting go” has some brand managers and marketing folks nervous, but only 22% are willing to let consumers play a significant role in shaping marketing programs? I’m stunned. This ain’t the 1950s. It’s not about “reaching consumers.” It’s about engagement. It’s about listening and learning. It’s about embracing their values and not forcing them on “audiences.”

    Our CEO, Mark Hass, had this to say:

    “Despite the increased awareness of the power of consumers in a digital age on brands and sales, marketing executives are reluctant to loosen their grip on marketing content, unwilling to give too much control to these empowered consumers.”

    Interesting to note what they will spend budget on this year:

    1. Traditional online activities, such as building web sites (82%)
    2. Targeting influentials (70%)
    3. Media relations (65%)

    Building web sites? Really? Welcome to 1995! 😉

    CGM came in at 43%.

    Here are the new media and CGM techniques their company had used:

    1. Web site production (71%)
    2. Consumer feedback for marketing/product strategies (50%)

    Ah, so they’re sticking with the traditional one-way communication because, “nothing bad can happen if we don’t listen.” Riiiiiight …
    Mark Hass noted:

    “These marketers basically address the consumer empowerment trend by using web sites to get consumer feedback. This raises the issue of whether or not marketers really understand the concept of new media and CGM. Marketers who think that using a web site, or asking for consumer feedback on a web site, represent cutting-edge new media tactics are missing tremendous opportunities to build their brands.”

    It is encouraging to know that a few years ago getting brands to give products out for review online was a big step, so for that number to reach 50% in a few years isn’t too bad. What’s really shocking is that while text message usage among Gen Y is high, only 10% of marketers used text messaging in programs last year.

    Text messaging has privacy issues…

    Consumer-generated advertising was used in only 14% of programs last year, which I’m guessing is making A.G. Lafley chuckle. The world’s top marketer says “let go” and 14% listened. Rome wasn’t built in a day either.

    Innovation (36%) and cost (32%) were also considered solid reasons to engage in new media and CGM. But here is the stat I’m taking to every pitch:

    Other popular reasons include … the declining credibility of traditional advertising and marketing (31%).

    More telling are the reasons why they’re reluctant to let consumers take control:

    • No clear ROI (32%)
    • Don’t want consumers that close to their business (6%)
    • One-third (33%) gave various other reasons, such as “management doesn’t embrace it yet,” “we simply haven’t given it enough priority to consider it at this point,” and “we’ve had difficulty in getting the establishment to understand it.”

    That last point needs restating: difficulty in getting the establishment to understand it.

    I’m not going to turn this into a sales pitch for MS&L, WOMMA or any other group out there, but Iif you email or call me, explaining CGM will take no more than 5 minutes via phone without slides.

    This isn’t that hard to grasp. Smart companies like my boy Clay C over at Quicken are seeing the ROI firsthand — their LeBron James Etch-A-Sketch video on YouTube cost less than $6,000 in out-of-pocket expenses to produce and has received over 1.3 million views. They just reached millions of consumers for a fraction of what they would pay for an ad, air time and acting talent.

    Clearly this isn’t just about knowledge, though, as budget played a role in this conversation:

    The survey results show that 31 percent of those polled say they have no budget for such programs, while 44 percent say there was no change to the amount of funding for new media and CGM efforts over the past year. Additionally, the survey shows that nearly 50 percent of respondents spend 10 percent or less of their company’s marketing budget on new media and CGM efforts. Industrywide, the technology sector spent the most, coming in ahead of consumer, healthcare and b-to-b.

    It’s not a surprise to see that technology companies are spending the most in this space: that’s where their audience is: online, gaming, virtual worlds, blogging. If I were ranking them I would put b2b ahead of healthcare; legal and privacy concerns prevent a lot of pharmas and health care companies from doing more in this space.

    I was recently asked, “How can you justify budget for something that has little or no internal buy-in? How would you propose I sell this in to take budget away from one program and put it toward this?”

    The answer is simple: Look at your marketing mix and find the program that delivered the lowest return for you last year. When I worked at the Karmanos Cancer Institute we axed our Yellow Pages budget and put it toward online. It’s common sense- if something isn’t producing the results you want, you change course and try something else.

    digg_url = ‘http://davidbinkowski.blogspot.com/2007/06/study-senior-marketers-afraid-to-let-go.html’;

    Categories: , , , , , , , , ,

     
    • Constantin Basturea 4:19 am on June 27, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      Hi David – thank you for sharing!

      Would it be possible to get more information about the survey’s methodology? The press release you’re pointing to states that “based on the sample size, the results are statistically tested at a confidence level of 90%.” However, sample size is not a guarantee for statistical significance. Thanks!

  • dbinkowski 3:48 pm on June 24, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Study: Senior marketers afraid to “let go” 

    Last week my employer, MS&L, and PR Week did a study among senior marketers asking if they thought CGM was very important to their marketing platforms. Just 12% thought it was.

    You might be saying “Well, 12% is pretty high, Dave.”

    I’m not disagreeing with that, but this was the kicker:

    The survey also indicated that while marketers may be highly aware of the power consumers wield, most are still wary to give consumers more control. Just 22 percent said they were “very willing” to let consumers play a significant role in shaping their marketing programs.

    That’s incredibly low. I can understand why this whole “letting go” has some brand managers and marketing folks nervous, but only 22% are willing to let consumers play a significant role in shaping marketing programs? I’m stunned. This ain’t the 1950s. It’s not about “reaching consumers.” It’s about engagement. It’s about listening and learning. It’s about embracing their values and not forcing them on “audiences.”

    Our CEO, Mark Hass, had this to say:

    “Despite the increased awareness of the power of consumers in a digital age on brands and sales, marketing executives are reluctant to loosen their grip on marketing content, unwilling to give too much control to these empowered consumers.”

    Interesting to note what they will spend budget on this year:

    1. Traditional online activities, such as building web sites (82%)
    2. Targeting influentials (70%)
    3. Media relations (65%)

    Building web sites? Really? Welcome to 1995! 😉

    CGM came in at 43%.

    Here are the new media and CGM techniques their company had used:

    1. Web site production (71%)
    2. Consumer feedback for marketing/product strategies (50%)

    Ah, so they’re sticking with the traditional one-way communication because, “nothing bad can happen if we don’t listen.” Riiiiiight …
    Mark Hass noted:

    “These marketers basically address the consumer empowerment trend by using web sites to get consumer feedback. This raises the issue of whether or not marketers really understand the concept of new media and CGM. Marketers who think that using a web site, or asking for consumer feedback on a web site, represent cutting-edge new media tactics are missing tremendous opportunities to build their brands.”

    It is encouraging to know that a few years ago getting brands to give products out for review online was a big step, so for that number to reach 50% in a few years isn’t too bad. What’s really shocking is that while text message usage among Gen Y is high, only 10% of marketers used text messaging in programs last year.

    Text messaging has privacy issues…

    Consumer-generated advertising was used in only 14% of programs last year, which I’m guessing is making A.G. Lafley chuckle. The world’s top marketer says “let go” and 14% listened. Rome wasn’t built in a day either.

    Innovation (36%) and cost (32%) were also considered solid reasons to engage in new media and CGM. But here is the stat I’m taking to every pitch:

    Other popular reasons include … the declining credibility of traditional advertising and marketing (31%).

    More telling are the reasons why they’re reluctant to let consumers take control:

    • No clear ROI (32%)
    • Don’t want consumers that close to their business (6%)
    • One-third (33%) gave various other reasons, such as “management doesn’t embrace it yet,” “we simply haven’t given it enough priority to consider it at this point,” and “we’ve had difficulty in getting the establishment to understand it.”

    That last point needs restating: difficulty in getting the establishment to understand it.

    I’m not going to turn this into a sales pitch for MS&L, WOMMA or any other group out there, but Iif you email or call me, explaining CGM will take no more than 5 minutes via phone without slides.

    This isn’t that hard to grasp. Smart companies like my boy Clay C over at Quicken are seeing the ROI firsthand — their LeBron James Etch-A-Sketch video on YouTube cost less than $6,000 in out-of-pocket expenses to produce and has received over 1.3 million views. They just reached millions of consumers for a fraction of what they would pay for an ad, air time and acting talent.

    Clearly this isn’t just about knowledge, though, as budget played a role in this conversation:

    The survey results show that 31 percent of those polled say they have no budget for such programs, while 44 percent say there was no change to the amount of funding for new media and CGM efforts over the past year. Additionally, the survey shows that nearly 50 percent of respondents spend 10 percent or less of their company’s marketing budget on new media and CGM efforts. Industrywide, the technology sector spent the most, coming in ahead of consumer, healthcare and b-to-b.

    It’s not a surprise to see that technology companies are spending the most in this space: that’s where their audience is: online, gaming, virtual worlds, blogging. If I were ranking them I would put b2b ahead of healthcare; legal and privacy concerns prevent a lot of pharmas and health care companies from doing more in this space.

    I was recently asked, “How can you justify budget for something that has little or no internal buy-in? How would you propose I sell this in to take budget away from one program and put it toward this?”

    The answer is simple: Look at your marketing mix and find the program that delivered the lowest return for you last year. When I worked at the Karmanos Cancer Institute we axed our Yellow Pages budget and put it toward online. It’s common sense- if something isn’t producing the results you want, you change course and try something else.

    digg_url = ‘http://davidbinkowski.blogspot.com/2007/06/study-senior-marketers-afraid-to-let-go.html’;

    Categories: , , , , , , , , ,

     
    • Constantin Basturea 4:19 am on June 27, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      Hi David – thank you for sharing!Would it be possible to get more information about the survey’s methodology? The press release you’re pointing to states that “based on the sample size, the results are statistically tested at a confidence level of 90%.” However, sample size is not a guarantee for statistical significance. Thanks!

  • dbinkowski 1:30 am on June 18, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Now THIS is what they meant by CGM 

    Via Mashable, YouTube has launched ReMixer. Powered by Adobe, the Remixer is very similar to Photobucket’s remixing tool. Let’s do some simple math:

    1. Brands upload commercials (a la Nike “Second Coming” clips) to YouTube
    2. Fans make their own commercials
    3. Friends and other fans view the ads and like ’em
    4. (optional) Smart brand managers get permission to use those ads

    Damnit, Ad agencies, better come up with another way to bilk your clients out of millions for CGM campaigns. Ok, I could’ve posted this without that snarky comment but this is a blog, right? 😛

     
  • dbinkowski 3:20 am on May 26, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Advertising still clueless on CGM 

    If you read my Nike post you might have thought “Dave, you’re a nut. No brand is going to go all in and let someone create their ad”. This is where you’re wrong and, taking it a step further, so are ad agencies for trying to pretend the “get it”.

    See, Heinz is running a CGM contest where people can create a commercial and get paid $57k. Not bad for screwing around with a product on camera to let the ad agency collect their fat paycheck minus $57,000 in out of pocket “expenses”. The NY Times sites the number of hours involved in screening the videos and “work” that’s involved in selecting the right videos that make the cut. So you have to work to earn your pay? Damn, someone needs me to call them a wah-mbulance (credit goes to my cousin Brian for that one, circa 10 years ago).

    Here’s where they’re wrong: It’s not the fault of the people that you created a stupid campaign. And I mean stupid as in “lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity”, not “stupid, I mean outrageous, stay away from me, if you’re contagious.”.

    Any time we’re asked to pitch, are coming up with ideas or are working with clients on new campaigns it all starts with how their brands are being talked about. That’s what research can do for you – create real strategies based on research and insights from that research. It’s not about “let’s jump on the bandwagon with the hope of capitalizing on a hot trend to try and stay relevant within a demographic”, which is what the ketchup campaign is about. Let’s look at how people talk about Heinz ketchup (or catsup if you’re buying the generic brand) on a few sites. Huh, that’s funny — I don’t see anything that would lead me to believe that people are just raving about condiments and that they’d have the passion involved in creating a video about a product or service that has changed their lives or they’d tell a friend about. But I digress…

    Don’t get me wrong — there are products out there that get people jacked up (disclosure: P&G’s a client, and I worked on the launch of Mr. Clean Magic Eraser). And there there are those brands that people don’t talk about. The last discussion about ketchup that I had included the words “high fructose corn syrup” and that I’ll spend the extra 60 cents on an organic version that doesn’t include it. Selling your brand that they should ask users to create a video around it is just misguided and wrong. So I guess it’s back to the drawing board for ad agencies to “get” CGM.

    Here’s an easy rule to follow: If your brand is a commodity and people don’t really care about it then chances are you’re going to get sub-par enthusiasm around it (and even worse CGM).

     
  • dbinkowski 5:56 pm on February 12, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    It’s illegal to shill in the EU 

    From the Times:

    Hotels, restaurants and online shops that post glowing reviews about themselves under false identities could face criminal prosecution under new rules that come into force next year.

    Businesses which write fake blog entries or create whole wesbites purporting to be from customers will fall foul of a European directive banning them from “falsely representing oneself as a consumer”.

     
  • dbinkowski 5:10 pm on February 10, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Sure, it’s "user generated" – but who’s the user? 

    Ben McConnell over at the Church has a great post today about the CGM craze that has Madison Avenue salivating. I’m not going to go all Bob Garfield on y’all and critique the ads — or even Andrew Keen, who says they should leave it to the professionals) — because the quality of the ad isn’t what’s in question.

    The concept or notion of CGM is that people create unfiltered content based on their passion for (or against) something. It’s not about winning a $10,000 booty or fame, but about enthusiasts embracing your brand. Ad agencies don’t and can’t get that because you can’t measure passion by target audience or in 30 second spots.

    The Doritos ad illustrates my point: When your Superbowl commercial contest winner was an Ad guy, whose “finalist” status was approved by Ad folks and voted on by what amount to online focus groups (a la American Idol) then it really doesn’t count as CGM. I’m sure the next step is for this to come full circle, where ad folks will be selling the notion that all advertising created on Madison Avenue is CGM (“See? Because when you break it down we’re consumers too!”) — but with the filters of the agency, research, focus groups, budgets and clients in the way.

     
  • dbinkowski 5:10 pm on February 10, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Sure, it’s “user generated” – but who’s the user? 

    Ben McConnell over at the Church has a great post today about the CGM craze that has Madison Avenue salivating. I’m not going to go all Bob Garfield on y’all and critique the ads — or even Andrew Keen, who says they should leave it to the professionals) — because the quality of the ad isn’t what’s in question.

    The concept or notion of CGM is that people create unfiltered content based on their passion for (or against) something. It’s not about winning a $10,000 booty or fame, but about enthusiasts embracing your brand. Ad agencies don’t and can’t get that because you can’t measure passion by target audience or in 30 second spots.

    The Doritos ad illustrates my point: When your Superbowl commercial contest winner was an Ad guy, whose “finalist” status was approved by Ad folks and voted on by what amount to online focus groups (a la American Idol) then it really doesn’t count as CGM. I’m sure the next step is for this to come full circle, where ad folks will be selling the notion that all advertising created on Madison Avenue is CGM (“See? Because when you break it down we’re consumers too!”) — but with the filters of the agency, research, focus groups, budgets and clients in the way.

     
  • dbinkowski 9:29 pm on January 10, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    This just in: Word of mouth influences people 

    A study from Compete.com tells those of us who engage in word of mouth already know – it changes minds and influences decision making in the purchasing process:

    To isolate the effect of CGM, Compete surveyed automotive and travel buyers who had made a purchase within the past six months and who had visited a blog, review site, message board or online community during the past 60 days. According to the study, 51% of auto and travel buyers turn to consumer generated media to narrow their purchasing decision, nearly one quarter say that consumer review sites influence their purchase decision; and 24% change their mind about the type of vehicle/travel reservation they end up purchasing as a result of CGM influence. Additionally, consumers influenced by CGM have a major viral effect on other buyers, with 68% influencing friends and family post-purchase and magnifying the overall impact.

    Other key findings from the study include:

    * 71% of auto and travel buyers influenced by CGM say that CGM is credible. Only 35% of these consumers find brands credible.

    * About one third (35%) of auto buyers say that consumer reviews and ratings sites influence their decision, more than company websites (32%) and car dealers (32%). One in five says that advice from other consumers online is an influence.

    * Two thirds of travelers say CGM impacted their purchase decision. At an average of $500 per booking, Compete estimates there is more than $2 billion in travel impacted by CGM each year.

    Thanks to Sally Falkow for the point.

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel