Modern Marketing - Blog by Collaborate PR & Marketing

Can The Big Egos Please Leave The Building

Most marketing agencies have a few big egos knocking around, often in the creative department.  Frequently the belief is that such individuals are required to come up with the Big Ideas that clients love so much - the brand propositions that everyone in a company can convene around and CEOs can sink the big bucks into.  Sometimes these individuals are able to get away with *ahem* unusual behaviour because it is excused as the flip side of their Big Thinking.  However, this breed may well be coming to the end of its life-cycle.  Why?  As marketing communications become more about pull than push, community over control, peer power not promotion, the personalities involved will reflect that.  Skillful community managers tend to be thoughtful folk - and good listeners to boot.  They are blessed with a natural curiosity about people and an ability to promote the views of others.  Or in other words, a mental make-up that is diametrically opposed to that of your typical Creative Director.  Take Craig Newmark for example, founder of craigslist and one of the world's most successful online community managers.  He has built a 'community service' that covers 570 cities in 50 countries and serves twenty billion page impressions a month.  However, despite being one of the web world's real superheroes, Newmark is best known for his modest profile, including a job title that remains, 'Customer Service Representative'.  Indeed, the idea of a Big Idea seems to be entirely irrelevant to Newmark who says his online empire was built with, 'no vision whatsoever', and that it's, 'all about listening and then listening some more'.  His focus was purely to build a, 'culture of trust'.  Which, of course, all makes a lot of sense.  It's perfectly evident that people would want to join a community based on Newmark's guiding principles of, 'giving people a break' and, 'treating others as you want to be treated'.  Compare this to communities driven by the brand-as-hero school:  my favourite example of which remains Wal-Mart's short-lived community site, The Hub.  The network launched with a range of fun tools for customers to play with, including an invite to create a list of the things they would like to buy at, er, Walmart.  It was the online equivalent of an ego-maniacal CD - 'Enough about me - how do you like my hair?'.  So next time you are with a Big Thinker who is being 'difficult', just relax and let them talk.  Take heart in the fact that the world has heard everything they have to say.  And is just about to switch them off.

The Unthinkable Marketing Industry

Clay Shirky’s latest essay, that encourages us to 'think the unthinkable', set me wondering about what the marketing industry could be like.  The part of Shirky’s ‘unthinkable scenario’ that leapt out for me was the suggestion that, ‘people would resist being educated to act against their own desires’.  Shirky is, of course, saying that one effect of a networked world is that people have less faith in the lessons being handed out on Madison Avenue.  Now it’s quite clear that media is still the dominant force in the brand and marketing business, which despite tough times, remains a trillion dollar global industry.  Indeed, the idea of building brands through massive investment in this industry is the reason most marketing folk get up in the morning.  And media metrics such as reach and frequency have been a reliable way to fill marketing directors’ pension funds for a long while.  But that’s not the point of Shirky’s challenge.  His suggestion is to think the unthinkable by, ‘simply looking out of the window’.  So, if people are resisting the Mad Men's tutorials and the stranglehold of media is loosening, what’s next?  After all, people still want to find good stuff to buy and use, right? The end of media doesn’t mean the end of consumption or indeed of brands.  All of which requires markets.  But if those markets aren’t going to be media-driven, what will keep them moving along? What will make people act upon ‘their own desires’, and in doing so, keep the shekels flowing into our factories, showrooms and shops?  Where do we begin?  How about if we follow the advice of...

'Facebook Killed TV'

Paul Graham on 'Why TV Lost' : "This was the most powerful force of all.  This was what made everyone want computers. Nerds got computers because they liked them. Then gamers got them to play games on. But it was connecting to other people that got everyone else: that's what made even grandmas and 14 year old girls want computers. After decades of running an IV drip right into their audience, people in the entertainment business had understandably come to think of them as rather passive. They thought they'd be able to dictate the way shows reached audiences. But they underestimated the force of their desire to connect with one another. Facebook killed TV. That is wildly oversimplified, of course, but probably as close to the truth as you can get in three words."

P2P Is TV's Wonderland

Today, the Competition Commission decided that Kangaroo, the UK web-TV platform looking to match the success of Hulu in the US, will not be allowed to move forward.  The reason being that, 'it is a threat to competition in this developing market and has to be stopped'.  What can you say?  The world of copyright, DRM, piracy debates and web legislation seems increasingly out-of-touch with the networked world.  A few years ago I saw Doc Searls make a presentation in which he noted, 'In networked environments, the demand side supplies itself'.  It’s a statement that sums up nicely what is happening in today’s TV industry - all beyond the legislators' gaze.  People aren’t satisfied with what broadcasters are offering.  So they use P2P systems running on free BitTorrent services such as Limewire, eMule, Pirate Bay and Mininova to create ‘services of their own design’.  This allows them to watch whatever they want, whenever they wish, often with the advertising stripped out.  All of which is illegal file-sharing activity of course and therefore hidden away in underground darknets. But it’s increasingly the new norm with more than one-third of broadband users admitting to downloading video content and two-thirds saying they didn’t see it as being wrong.  (Try doing a quick poll in your office about Limewire and watch the shifty glances as a few honest souls slowly raise their hands).  However, despite being largely invisible these systems have now reached a scale and sophistication which dwarfs the professional, mainstream broadcasters.  Mininova, for instance, which launched in 2005, has served more than seven billion downloads, many of which are well-known shows.  Requests for content from the file-sharing network currently runs at ten million downloads a day - almost ten times greater than the BBC's iPlayer.  And while the industry wrings its hands, the Torrents continue to grow and innovate.  An 'invisible' YouTube anyone?  P2P video is creating a vibrant, Alice-like world which is testing the normal rules of the TV industry.  But it seems that the policy wonks and lawmakers don't want to peek down the rabbit hole, in case what they see is too strange.  In the meantime, P2P TV becomes curiouser and curiouser...

[Update : The Doc adds some thoughts here: "Pretty soon the 'TV' you buy will be an Internet file and stream tuner and recorder, with 'must-carry' set-top-box features, so it can still get cable, satellite and over-the-air TV 'channels'. In the world that makes, old-fashioned TV will look as antique as the telegraph".]

How Do You Value Content?

When Channel 4's boss, Andy Duncan, writes in the FT, ‘The future must be about maximising the value of our content,’ he undoubtedly speaks for media executives around the planet.  So what’s the problem?  Why has the value of content suddenly become so newsworthy?  The answer lies in the media ratings industry and the challenges it faces from the web and digital technology.  Ratings in traditional media are vital as they allow the commercial world to work out what content they should be backing with their marketing bucks.  For example Nielsen's Television Ratings, the mother of all such services, which has reported on the TV viewing habits of 9,000 American households for more than sixty years, determines the destiny of $25bn of advertisers' cash annually.  Here in the UK the same job is done by BARB, which monitors televisual preferences in 5,100 homes.  Both are centralised systems that extrapolate trends from a relatively small group of individuals and use them to create a commercial marketplace, in which C4 and others have been able to operate successfully for many years.  However, as Duncan’s quote suggests, this marketplace is now under pressure because advertisers question the value of ratings services which have struggled to keep up with the web.  Or as one grand media fromage memorably told me: 'We know the bike is broken but it's the only one we've got.'  The difficulties arise because the concept of ‘ratings’ is very different online.  The goal is still to judge the value of content but the similarities stop there.  Online ratings services normally refer to...

'UK Online Is Nowhere' Says C4 Boss

I went to NESTA this morning to hear Andy Duncan, C4's boss, describe his vision for a Digital Britain.  Duncan said that big UK media should, 'collectively be embarrassed', about fighting each other over vested interests and consolidation while missing the impact of the web.  Rows which have been partially responsible for the UK being, 'commercially nowhere', when it comes to the global online geography.  'We are in danger of being like the US railroad operators at the end of the last century, which found themselves looking excessively inward - and then the car came along'.  The weighty speech came ahead of the long-awaited Digital Britain report from the UK Government's DCMS (which today the FT says might include Universal Broadband) and the next stage of Ofcom’s Public Service Broadcasting Review.  When considering its strategy to reignite the country's economy, said Duncan, the Government should recognise that the creative industries 'fluffy' image belies its value to UK PLC, two million jobs and sixty billion quid to be precise.  In fact, he said that the UK's media industries could replace the gap left by the country's decimated financial services sector.  But only if there is some very serious change.  In a world, 'where children don't differentiate between content they see on the web and TV', the C4 boss said, 'broadband and broadcasting' are effectively the same thing.  Now that the media ecology has changed to be no longer just content but, 'content plus tools' that allow citizens to 'create services of their own design', the UK could create a, 'digital tools industry' of great value building on its creative excellence.  As ever it comes down to the numbers.  Duncan's financial shorthand is that, 'ten years ago television advertising market in the UK peaked at over £3.5 billion'.  While online advertising didn't exist.  Today the TV market has shrunk to £3bn making it the same size as the online market.  And most of that cash goes to US companies (and one in particular) not into, 'quality British content'.  Inspiring stuff.

The Water Cooler Show Lives On...

I did something new this morning.  I watched a great BBC programme last night and was able to (legally) link out to it from Twitter today, because so much of the BBC's programming is now available through its Web TV platform - iPlayer.  So the show in question - Louis Theroux's chilling documentary about the gangs of Philadelphia - now has currency in a way that it didn't before.  Previously I could talk about it, but not curate it.  It couldn't become part of my personal media platform, the media space that I build everyday using tools that allow me to share-and-compare with my friends, contacts and the others I brush pass in the global mingle that is the modern social web.  Vitally, flagging my interest over coffee this morning didn't involve breaking into a strange locked-down fame silo called Theroux's Echo Chamber or the like.  Instead I created a tiny media byte to float off around the open web, for the heavy-lifting aggregation engines to thread together into a community on-the-fly.  One that will grow on the vine or reach its natural sell-by-date and naturally disperse.  This is what used to be known as a water-cooler moment, when people would gather together in the corner of an office and chat over their favourite lines from the previous night's TV.  So (surprise, surprise) water coolers are still very much alive, they just look different when media becomes networked.  Blogging at the LA Times, Jon Healey writes how Sling.com, the new video site from the makers of Slingbox, is working with this new legal, professional, TV environment.  "Much of Sling's most recognizable programming comes from almost two dozen networks and studios that Hulu supplies, but it supplements those feeds with content from about 100 additional cable networks, online TV channels and independent studios. It's an overwhelming amount of stuff, which is where the social layer of Sling comes in. Like Hulu, you can banter on comment boards about particular shows or episodes. But you can also create an electronic trail of commentary for others to follow."  Yes, TV is (finally) joining the party.

[UPDATE: Loved @beng's comment about Kangaroo's problems: "Who cares if Kangaroo will now not happen? I want proper, internet, on-demand, hypertextual, bookmarkable video services not cable tv."]

Hulu Breaks The TV Death Spiral

Sometimes the good ideas are just staring you right in the face, aren't they?  The decision by Hulu, the hugely popular Web TV service, to run fewer ads but charge more for them may just fall into this category.  It's a move to break the horrible dilemma that has arisen within TV world.  On the one hand, brands still crave TV's mass, albeit dwindling, audiences.  On the other, consumers are busy filtering excessive or unhelpful advertising out of their lives, using DVRs or by going online during ad breaks.  The result has been an erosion of belief in the power of mass media to influence people's behaviour, resulting in falling TV revenues, but also more advertising as commercial broadcasters try to pile-'em-high.  Which, of course, only makes the problem worse, creating a sort of TV Death Spiral.  This desperate situation has led to some truly strange claims such as the one about fast-forwarded ads being as effective as those watched at normal speed.  Or that because people are watching more TV programmes they must also be watching more advertising.  However, the fact remains - people still prefer free entertainment.  So how can the books be balanced?  Hulu have a very major advantage over traditional broadcasters.  They know exactly how many people are watching their programmes, as people request them on an individual basis.  The NBC-Fox hybrid doesn't have to rely on the vagueries of tiny panels of people to justify the spending of mega-brands' gazillions.  By calling an armistice with battered consumers, Hulu is trying to change the nature of the exchange.  Less (advertising) for the consumer means more (attention) for the advertiser - and therefore more (doshola) for the media owners.  All backed by new and improved viewing data.  It's a gamble, especially in the current marketplace.  But at least it's one that tries to address the issues, not paper over them.

Round One Goes To Hulu

Wired has a great account of the birth and growth of Hulu, the front running Web TV platform from Fox and NBC.  The article's interest comes from its focus on business issues and how seemingly resolute, dyed-in-the-wool thinking was quickly overcome.  "Kilar (aka Mr Hulu) won their (studio execs) support by explaining the obvious: In a world of limitless choice, 10-year-olds are no longer going to race home to catch a TV show. Admitting that fact means surrendering the scheduling power the networks have always enjoyed and putting a lot of their profits at risk. But Kilar focuses on the opportunity. If you were a network exec, he says, playing with his cheese-and-veggie scramble, "and I told you here was a tool that enabled your content to be shared, to be forwarded, to make your audience your most powerful marketing vehicle—it would be music to your ears, right? This is a tectonic shift, and what it does is allow network heads to find the audience they always should have had but couldn't reach."  Compare this to the story of Joost, which for a long time looked like it was going to be the Web TV service to beat, but suffered from the decision to use a client application rather than go straight-to-browser and not having direct access to the studios and their legal know-how.  It also, ironically, may have suffered from feeling it had no, or very little, competition.  Whereas Hulu seems to have been a response to a very significant threat in the shape of YouTube.  This has left Joost playing catch-up and needing to push increasingly ambitious schemes such as Live TV.  But for now, Hulu has had the last word, due to its radical outlook rather than radical technology, as illustrated by this quote:  "Hulu is weeks away from unveiling a tool that lets users embed the Hulu service itself into their Web site. Soon you'd be able to stick all of online television into your blog. Finally, after decades of dictating what we can watch and when, the networks would be reduced to a Web widget, functioning at the user's whim. Just as it should be."

Who Needs A Label?

The music industry remains fascinating from a marketing perspective as the distribution networks driven by its fans become increasingly influential and start to supercede the structures of the Big Labels.  This interview at TorrentFreak with a young musician gives a great flavour of what radical change looks like from the Y-Gen perspective.  “'Labels will complain and sue their very core audience just to make a dollar. I can’t blame them, it’s the way they’ve built their company. Change scares them, especially when they don’t control it. I honestly believe that I wouldn’t be a musician today if Napster hadn’t appeared. I think Napster fostered the incredible current musical culture and nobody gives them credit for it. I find it very hard for an upcoming artist to get any exposure without being willing to promote their music on p2p networks.'  The clash between artist and labels, and the ever increasing piracy statistics are forcing the big labels to rethink their business models. Nowadays, BitTorrent has the power to promote artists based on their music, not on the advertising budget. It is hard to deny that the music labels are in a crisis, however, music itself is more alive than ever before."  As Doc Searls says, 'in networked economies the demand side supplies itself'.