Why Social Media Needs TV and TV Needs Social

Advertising Age's DigitalNext Strengths and Weaknesses of Both Create Ideal Fit for the Future By: Mike Mikho Published: October 15, 2012 Every now and then, we come across a couple seemingly made for each other. Think of Barack and Michelle Obama, Jay-Z and Beyonce, or John Stamos and his array of hair products. Marketers are reaping the benefit of another match made in heaven, and as the industry evolves, these two will change the way each other operate: That's social media and television. I'm not talking about second screen marketing; I'm referring to social's growing ability to provide what television doesn't, and television's ability to dispel the biggest argument against social. I had an opportunity to speak with social media leads at a few brands that are well versed in both mediums -- Jon Budd of Hyundai, Adam Kmiec of Campbell's Soup and Barbara Liss of Quaker Foods -- and it was clear that the symbiotic relationship between social and TV is on the minds of marketers worldwide. Consider television's strengths: wide-reaching, immediate impact on sales proven through years of media-mix modeling and a universally accepted data provider. (Yes I just counted Nielsen as a strength; I'll explain later.) Now consider TV's greatest weaknesses: earned media and long-term benefit. Tracking the results of broadcast marketing is like looking at a heart rate monitor; a brand makes a media investment, impressions shoot up (directly proportionate to the dollars spent), and sales increase. Then as soon as dollars are out of the market, conversation and subsequent conversion drop significantly. This is where social comes in. More and more brands are using social as a megaphone to bolster broadcast campaigns, driving earned media that boosts the heart rate while lowering the cost per impression. Furthermore, since people are always talking online, social can allow a brand to monitor and impact the conversation so that the heart rate never drops down. Therefore, television's short-term benefits seed long-term advocacy, with social serving as the soil. As Barbara Liss put it, "With the advent of social, brands now have strong loyalty-building opportunities to complement the messages on TV. And if done right, TV can enhance conversation." That's not to say social is without flaws. The focus on social media is often around the oceans of accurate consumer data available, rather than its ability bring together and enhance traditional marketing tactics. Jon Budd suggests that social has been promoted as being measurable rather than as simply a great branding tool. "When digital first started up, it built itself up as being measurable at the bottom of the funnel instead of delivering on brand as broadcast did; measurement was digital's unique selling proposition. Social is falling into that same trap," said Budd. But while data is one of social's biggest selling points, it may also be one of its greatest downfalls. Adam Kmiec brought up social's lack of data standardization: "Ask how many homes a commercial reached and you'll get one number, from one source. Ask someone how many impressions a social campaign delivered and you might get four different answers. This creates skepticism." And therein lies my justification for praising Nielsen. Say what you will about its methodology and accuracy, but it's a universally accepted data provider that allows for fair comparisons. That's something social is sorely lacking, and Kmiec isn't the only one to express that. Liss went as far as to say, "There are 100 startups for every metric." Here's where TV can save social from the data confusion and subsequent skepticism of ROI. Consider social as an amplification tool for a TV-heavy marketing plan and plug it into a media-mix model. While social isn't typically known to drive immediate sales, brands that use social to amplify broadcast activations drive low-cost impressions and increase the brand-relevant conversation. This drives CPI down, and the lift in sales driven by those social impressions can be easily measured by comparing sales data to media dollars spent, both with and without social support. Several brands are already taking advantage of the complementary nature of the social and TV. Broadcast marketers are starting to create engaging, sharable content to leverage the long-term benefits of social, and social marketers are working more closely with broadcast teams to amplify reach and drive calls to action. As the mediums develop, we'll continue to see a shift in content strategy, and collaborative strategies will pay off for years to come.

Auto: Strong sales are driving up ad $

MediaLife On pace for best year since 2007 with 14 million vehicles sold By Bill Cromwell October 24, 2012 Olympic and political advertising certainly deserve much of the credit for the advertising gains being seen in 2012. But the biggest sign of a sustainable recovery, not dependent on the two-year election and Games cycle, is the strength of the auto category. After a solid 2010 and disappointing 2011, 2012 is on pace to be the best year for auto sales since 2007, and perhaps the best advertising year as well. Forecasters are predicting that 14 million cars will be sold this year, up 29 percent over 2009, when the auto industry was battered by the recession, bankruptcy and bailouts. There’s a huge market for auto sales, which is leading to strong advertising in the category by manufacturers and dealers fighting for market share. Add to that the big gains from the Japanese manufacturers, who pulled back on advertising last year following the earthquake and tsunami that led to severe inventory shortages, and auto advertising should remain strong for the remainder of the year and beyond. “The automotive category is coming back very strong on both the foreign and domestic front, with tier I, tier II and now tier III local dealer advertisers spending heavily [on spot television],” notes a recent forecast from the British agency ZenithOptimedia. “There is a strong appetite among consumers for new vehicles, with many holding off coming out of the recession, and automakers are offering deals and incentives to entice these consumers.” During second quarter spot TV spending by automotive was up 25.6 percent over the same time in 2011, according to the TVB, to $648.8 million. That was the biggest gain for any non-political category among the top 25, with the Honda, General Motors, Toyota, Hyundai and Ford dealer associations all up at least 9 percent. “Local dealer advertising was the No. 1 [spot TV] spender in 2007 for many markets; this category coming back is making a strong impact on local inventory in markets,” says ZenithOptimedia’s report. The appetite for new cars is being fueled by the recession. In 2008 and 2009, many people held off on buying new cars when their vehicles were six or seven years old. That’s led to a larger than usual number of 9- or 10-year-old cars on the roads. Now that the credit crunch has eased a bit, and it’s easier for people to get approved for long-term deals, dealerships are seeing much more traffic and thus laying out incentives to try to woo consumers, incentives that they’re advertising heavily on television and online.

Patience (And A Plan) Is The Prescription For Mobile Marketing

MediaPost's OnlineSpin Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2012 By Cory Treffiletti The medium is still maturing. There currently is a lack of proven brand case studies, and as a result there are more direct-response advertisers driving CPC or CPA ad models than there are CPM-driven brand advertisers. The ad formats are still in flux, and the growth rate for consumer use is so steep that standard metrics for success are almost obsolete by the time they are published. I’m not talking about mobile (yet). That’s how you described Internet advertising way back in 1998-1999. The fact is, mobile marketing is experiencing the exact same growing pains as standard Internet display did from 1998 through 2002. My prescription for the future is simple: mobile marketers, publishers and technology need to have context for where they are, and they need a plan for getting a seat at the table of true strategic involvement for large brand advertisers. Like any good doctor, let me lay out that prescription. First off, be patient. Success is going to come if you follow the plan. Mobile marketing has a clear path to success, but it is not an overnight occurrence. It will take time. The Internet marketing business grew faster than any other marketing avenue in history, and it took about 15 years to get a seat at the “big kids” table. Mobile will get that seat as well, and its growth is even faster than the “traditional” Web, so the timeline could be a total of eight to 10 years, of which we are really only five years in. As for the plan, there’s currently a plethora of direct-response advertisers playing on mobile on a CPC (cost per click) or CPI (cost per install) basis. The medium NEEDS brand marketers to prove value on a CPM model if mobile will gain credibility. To do so, some larger publishers are going to have to give away mobile campaigns, either at no cost or at cost so to cover their costs for implementation. In exchange for these discounted or free campaigns, publishers should be asking for big, public case studies for the industry. Back in the day, the IAB and a few other groups published groundbreaking case studies that demonstrated the value of Internet display marketing. These cases got play from agencies and marketers for years, and arguably the business would not have taken off as quickly if they hadn’t been published. Brand advertisers never like to be first, but they like to say they were. That means you need to have someone willing to go to bat with a minimal amount of risk, meaning they can still spend their money where they know it will work. Give them the impressions, and give them the chance to be that trailblazer. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the form factor of mobile ads is currently not where it is going to end up. It’s still in the “468x60” stage, for those of you who know what I’m talking about. If the creative units are not more engaging and larger than they currently are, and if sizes are not standard across all mobile sites, then brands will decide not to produce those ads and they may stay away from mobile. If you prove the value through a branded case study, and the creative is more engaging, then you as a mobile publisher have to ditch the CPC and CPI/CPA model in favor of CPM. Stop giving away your inventory and maintain a rationally priced rate card. Don’t expect $60 CPMs, but do expect that you provide a valuable service and should be paid as such. Every time you discount your pricing and every time you execute a performance-priced campaign, you effectively devalue the exposure of an impression on mobile, making it less likely for brands to take you seriously. You are shooting yourself in the foot every time you run a performance campaign. Be willing to walk away in order to take the high road. Most of all, and I will sound like a broken record, stay the course. You have a clear blueprint to follow in the case of Internet advertising, so follow it. Stop complaining, “we aren’t there yet” or “When will mobile be taken seriously as a marketing vehicle?” It will, but you need to be patient. As sure as the sun rising in the East, and as sure as the Internet being on when you wake up in the morning, mobile will mature into a viable medium that marketers view as a must-have. Stick to the plan! Or do you think I’m completely crazy here?

It's Time To Toss Average Frequency Into The Bucket

MediaPost’s MetricInsider by Ronit Fuchs, Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2012 You are building an ad campaign. You’ve completed vast amounts of research, worked hard on the creative, media plan and set your goals. Now it’s time to figure out frequency --how many times a person should see each ad. This task is extremely important. If your ad gets either too many or too few views, the whole campaign can derail. And once you’ve set the frequency, what is the actual probability of meeting it? Most premium publishers and ad exchanges claim they’ll help advertisers achieve the perfect frequency target, by ensuring that theaverage frequency meets a set frequency cap. The key word here is average. But is a frequency cap what you need? If you advertise with different premium publishers, how do you choose the cap for each site? How do you avoid overexposure to people visiting more than one of those sites -- or underexposure to those visiting just one? Achieving average frequency can mean you are not necessarily controlling ad exposure to those people reached. For example, a campaign reaching 1 million people with an average frequency of 10 impressions could mean either of the following: • 1 million people were exposed to 10 impressions each (the desired result), with total impressions of 10 million. • 800,000 people were exposed to one impression each (serious underexposure for a total of 800,000 impressions) and 200,000 others were exposed to 46 impressions each (serious overexposure for a totall of 9.2 million impressions). In the second case, there are again 10 million total impressions, and again an average frequency of 10 impressions. But while the first scenario is successful, the second one scenario misses the target frequency with both under and over exposure. So what can you do to avoid such a scenario? Instead of looking at average frequency, you can look at frequency buckets: the number of people exposed to an exact number of impressions. In the example above, for example, you’d want to know how many people fall into frequency bucket 10 – that is, how many saw the ad the desired 10 times? In the first scenario, the answer is 1 million; in the second scenario, zero – a total failure. Some advertisers would also consider any user exposed to the ad nine or 11 times a success; they would look at a frequency bucket of 9, 10 or 11 impressions. And again, in the example above, the first scenario would result in the desired 1 million, the second in zero. The question advertisers should be asking is, “How many people actually had the proper amount of exposure?” Not, “What is the average exposure?” So avoid averages. And raise the bucket! Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D. of Executive Decision Systems, Inc., Littleton, CO, along with partner and co-owner of System 21, Michael Guld, President of Michael Guld Resource Group, Richmond, VA. has always espoused 3-5x frequency per week for each media channel during what they call Brand Equity Months followed by 8-10 frequency exposure during Spike Months.

Mobile Pros: Industry Yet To Be Optimized

MediaPost's OnlineMediaDaily by Steve McClellan, Yesterday, 7:31 PM Is 2012 the year of mobile? Probably not. From a device standpoint, the year of mobile came and went sometime last year when smartphone penetration reached 50% of all mobile phones in the U.S. From an advertising standpoint, mobile's year has yet to come -- the industry is still trying to figure out optimal ways for marketers to use the medium, and mobile ad budgets are disproportionately low compared to usage. That was the consensus of a panel session of mobile experts who assembled at PHD headquarters in New York Monday to discuss the medium’s appeal to consumers and potential for marketers. The session was part of a week-long series of events that PHD is staging this week for clients and staffers to help them better understand the mobile ad marketplace and how it is impacting both online and offline platforms. According to Eli Goodman, media evangelist at comScore, about 12% of all Internet usage is now mobile usage, while only between 1% and 2% of marketer ad budgets are placed against mobile. But for sports fans, mobile has become virtually indispensable, said David Roter, senior director digital sales and strategy at ESPN. For the network’s coverage of live games, up to 50% of online usage comes from mobile, he said. The key for advertisers, he said, is “managing that connectedness to a live event.” Jeremy Steinberg, vice president digital sales and business development at Fox News Channel, said the network's “oh crap moment” with regard to mobile came about six months ago. “We woke up one day and people were consuming more mobile” devices then laptops, he said. Now, he said, the network is “almost entirely focused” on a multiscreen marketing strategy. The task for content providers is twofold, he said. First, they must successfully translate their product to all devices “or it will fail.” Learning how to make money from mobile platforms also remains a key challenge. “Nobody has figured it out yet,” he said. Except maybe ESPN, said Roter, who said the network sells mobile's qualities as an engagement vehicle with “synergistic” capabilities. “It drives great metrics when combined with other media,” he said. That said, mobile has a long way to go before marketers are spending at parity levels compared to usage, said Steve Siegel, video solutions specialist at Microsoft. In fact, he said, marketers are probably spending less in the overall digital space then they should be, based on usage. “I don't know if we’re at parity,” he said. “I think we have a ways to go with everything digital.” Seth Rogin, vice president advertising at The New York Times, said being aware of consumer habits is key and that the science enabling that knowledge has advanced.“We produce the water” while consumers “pick the faucet,” he said. One example he noted was that the Times’ site streamed the presidential debates live, while the company used its mobile platform to fact-check what the candidates were saying.

Nielsen Chief: GroupM Pushing XCR As Cross-Platform Ratings Standard, Asserts It's A Fait Accompli

MediaPost's OnlineMediaDaily by Joe Mandese, Yesterday, 9:54 AM Nielsen is approaching an “inflection point” in terms of the ad industry adopting its Online Campaign Ratings (OCR) as the currency for online advertising buys and it is getting“significant uptake” on its recently launched Cross-Platform Campaign Ratings (XCR), with WPP’s GroupM once again pushing the industry toward a new media currency, Nielsen CEO David Calhoun said this morning during a quarterly earnings calls with analysts. “If GroupM’s early runs are indicative, I don’t think the others will even hesitate,” Calhoun said of the big agency holding company’s initial foray into the new cross-platform ratings, which comingle TV and online audience estimates into one integrated rating that can be planned, bought and posted on, just like traditional TV ratings. “It’s going to take a while, because you need all the agencies to understand what it is, and have it line up with the TV ratings today,” Calhoun said, adding that it would be “months before we can get it even distributed in a way before it can become a standard.” Noting that big sellers such as ESPN and Hulu are already pushing the XCR ratings, Calhoun implied that it will ultimately be up to Madison Avenue to decide whether it becomes an advertising trading currency such as its conventional TV ratings, or its new OCR ratings appear to be becoming for online ad buys. He said GroupM is showing some “progress” and was hopeful that it could influence other agencies and advertisers to follow suit. GroupM historically has been very influential in motivating the rest of the ad industry to get behind new media trading currencies, as it proved several years ago by ending an industry stalemate around time-shifted TV viewing estimates, and convincing the industry to move toward TV’s current “C3” ratings, which include live viewing plus seven days of DVR playback viewing. During the call, Calhoun noted that TV networks have been pressuring Nielsen to include more days of time-shifted viewing, but that it was ultimately up to both sides of the marketplace -- both buyers and sellers -- to determine that. While Nielsen is hopeful that XCR may ultimately become a new media-buying currency for combining TV and online audience impressions, Calhoun said OCR is approaching an inflection point as a legitimate industry currency for buying online advertising. “With respect to the measurement of [online] video, I think we’ve already seen it,” he said, adding that he believes Nielsen is “getting very close” to achieving that same inflection point in terms of OCR becoming the standard bearer currency for all online advertising buys. He noted that Nielsen has measured 1,800 campaigns across more than 100 advertisers to date, and recently launched in the U.K., with plans to add five more overseas markets soon. While Nielsen has been giving its OCR data free to big marketers and agencies to vet the service, Calhoun said, “we pretty much have most of the TV networks signed up.” In response to an analyst’s question, Calhoun dismissed allegations from rival comScore that Nielsen’s OCR ratings do not sufficiently account for the “viewability” of online ads, which currently is a contentious issue in the online ad industry, with many buy-side stakeholders pushing to make it an industry standard for advertising’s proof-of-performance. “I understand that our competitor has tried to make that a big deal,” he said, emphasizing “it is not.” He explained that the reason is that measurement of “viewability” will become “less and less important, because all of the [ad] servers are going to determine that. I don’t see that as a big factor now, and even less in the future.”

MTV: Youngest Millennials Flee To Twitter

MediaPostNews' MarketingDaily by Sarah Mahoney, Yesterday, 3:54 PM Few brands are as clued in to what Gen Y is thinking as is MTV, with its sweet spot of 18 to 24. But increasingly, the company is trying to suss out what is on the minds of the youngest Millennials -- those between 12 and 17 -- not to mention how the older wave is navigating such gloomy employment prospects. We asked Alison Hillhouse, VP at MTV Insights, fresh off a research blitz, to share what’s coming from this next wave. Q: So what are the biggest differences between the younger end of Gen Y and their older brothers and sisters? A: They’re moving to Twitter, especially the 15 to 18 crowd. It really seems to be exploding all of a sudden with teenagers. They say, “We’re all transitioning to Twitter, because our parents are on Facebook, and we get a lot of spam on Facebook.” Of course, the numbers are huge for Facebook, and these kids know they need it. They have to check in there; you can’t avoid it. But their intimate conversations? Those are now happening on Twitter. They talk in code a little bit more there, and there’s less pressure to friend your entire school there. Q: So you have some research called Generation Innovation. What’s that about? A: We are just seeing such a spirit here, with these kids starting businesses on Kickstarter and Etsy. So we went to Detroit, L.A., and New York. Detroit was especially fascinating. It feels like it’s completely boarded up. Yet we’d go into these warehouses, and they are tech incubators with a bunch of artists and entrepreneurs. We went to one where there was a canoe-maker, someone designing apps, and someone making coats for homeless people, all in one space. They are all coming together to share with each other. These co-working spaces are a huge trend. Q: Is there something special about how they innovate? A: Yes. Beta. Swarm, Hustle. Hack. They are so very empowered to do this -- some by their parents saying you can do anything, some because they’ve been so enabled by technology, and in part, by the recession. Many are like, 'the economy is so bad, I might as well start this company now. What else am I going to do?’ Q: They’re not nervous? A:No. They think experience is overrated. In fact, 55% say their hustle is more valuable than an MBA would be. More than half of them think you can Google how to be the CEO of a startup. Q: Are they afraid of failing? A: No! They don’t even see failure as failure. They’ve spent their lives watching the next version of things come out. Millennials are eternal optimists! They view a flop as experimenting, not failure. Just like the next version of the iPhone. Q: Are there gender differences that marketers should be especially aware of? A: Yes. While I don’t think it’s quite accurate to talk about the demise of guys, Gen Y males are definitely pioneering what it means to be a man. They are navigating a new space, and their dads can’t really guide them. And the idea of the metrosexual is dead. They’re all metrosexual. If they tweeze their eyebrows, they aren’t embarrassed about it. Q: What about politics? A: That's very complicated. But one thing we see is that they like to be funny. They get their political views from memes. Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/185388/mtv-youngest-millennials-flee-to-twitter.html#ixzz29hM86HXB