TV Spots Rates Hold Steady

We wish each and every one of our family within the crazy, unpredictable and wonderful world of media a Very Happy Holiday season...along with a healthy, NEW YEAR FILLED WITH ABUNDANCE AND JOY. May the world be filled with peace and comfort, passion, contentment, patience and tolerance, hope, charity and forgiveness and may the unnecessary wars, famine and pestilence end and once again we can regain the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D. Publisher MediaDailyNews by Wayne Friedman, Dec 21, 2012, 1:17 PM For almost two-and-a-half years, broadcast network television commercial costs have been up or virtually flat -- reversing declines in previous years due to the recession, among other factors. That trend continued in 2012. Third-quarter commercial unit costs averaged $82,396, virtually the same as 2011. Fox is at the highest level, with $119,265. CBS is next at $82,265, followed by ABC at $73,618 and NBC -- sans the Olympic programming -- at $71,368. This analysis comes from independent media agency TargetCast tcm, using data from NetCosts and research firm SQAD. During the bigger previous period -- the second quarter of 2012 -- average prime-time 30-second commercials were up 3% to $130,194. Fox was tops again -- at almost twice the level of the next networks, with $227,490. ABC was at $122,396, followed by CBS at $121,464 and NBC at $101,586. TargetCast says this makes 10 consecutive quarters in which broadcast network unit costs were either up or virtually flat, which comes after the economic recession, declining broadcast ratings and the growth of cable. Despite a softer scatter market than last year, overall costs were stable due to the high sell-out levels in the upfront, stated Gary Carr, senior vp and executive director of national broadcast at TargetCast. He added that advertisers committed more money up front to avoid potentially high prices in scatter. Cable networks' TV commercial pricing was flat in the second quarter of 2012, among the top 15 networks for adult 25-54 viewers at $14,267. ESPN was at the top with $32,575, with TNT next at $32,525. In the third quarter of 2012, commercial prices were down 2% to $12,793 -- due to lower demand caused by advertiser dollars going to Olympics programming. TargetCast added that ad-supported cable ratings in the second quarter for the Top 15 networks among 25-54 viewers were up about 4%. Third-quarter ratings were down 2% due to Olympics programming. TV Spots Rates Hold Steady by Wayne Friedman, Dec 21, 2012, 1:17 PM Comment Recommend (1) inShare.1 Subscribe to MediaDailyNews RSS Email Print Tags advertising, tv For almost two-and-a-half years, broadcast network television commercial costs have been up or virtually flat -- reversing declines in previous years due to the recession, among other factors. That trend continued in 2012. Third-quarter commercial unit costs averaged $82,396, virtually the same as 2011. Fox is at the highest level, with $119,265. CBS is next at $82,265, followed by ABC at $73,618 and NBC -- sans the Olympic programming -- at $71,368. This analysis comes from independent media agency TargetCast tcm, using data from NetCosts and research firm SQAD. During the bigger previous period -- the second quarter of 2012 -- average prime-time 30-second commercials were up 3% to $130,194. Fox was tops again -- at almost twice the level of the next networks, with $227,490. ABC was at $122,396, followed by CBS at $121,464 and NBC at $101,586. TargetCast says this makes 10 consecutive quarters in which broadcast network unit costs were either up or virtually flat, which comes after the economic recession, declining broadcast ratings and the growth of cable. Despite a softer scatter market than last year, overall costs were stable due to the high sell-out levels in the upfront, stated Gary Carr, senior vp and executive director of national broadcast at TargetCast. He added that advertisers committed more money up front to avoid potentially high prices in scatter. Cable networks' TV commercial pricing was flat in the second quarter of 2012, among the top 15 networks for adult 25-54 viewers at $14,267. ESPN was at the top with $32,575, with TNT next at $32,525. In the third quarter of 2012, commercial prices were down 2% to $12,793 -- due to lower demand caused by advertiser dollars going to Olympics programming. TargetCast added that ad-supported cable ratings in the second quarter for the Top 15 networks among 25-54 viewers were up about 4%. Third-quarter ratings were down 2% due to Olympics programming. TV Spots Rates Hold Steady by Wayne Friedman, Dec 21, 2012, 1:17 PM Comment Recommend (1) inShare.1 Subscribe to MediaDailyNews RSS Email Print Tags advertising, tv For almost two-and-a-half years, broadcast network television commercial costs have been up or virtually flat -- reversing declines in previous years due to the recession, among other factors. That trend continued in 2012. Third-quarter commercial unit costs averaged $82,396, virtually the same as 2011. Fox is at the highest level, with $119,265. CBS is next at $82,265, followed by ABC at $73,618 and NBC -- sans the Olympic programming -- at $71,368. This analysis comes from independent media agency TargetCast tcm, using data from NetCosts and research firm SQAD. During the bigger previous period -- the second quarter of 2012 -- average prime-time 30-second commercials were up 3% to $130,194. Fox was tops again -- at almost twice the level of the next networks, with $227,490. ABC was at $122,396, followed by CBS at $121,464 and NBC at $101,586. TargetCast says this makes 10 consecutive quarters in which broadcast network unit costs were either up or virtually flat, which comes after the economic recession, declining broadcast ratings and the growth of cable. Despite a softer scatter market than last year, overall costs were stable due to the high sell-out levels in the upfront, stated Gary Carr, senior vp and executive director of national broadcast at TargetCast. He added that advertisers committed more money up front to avoid potentially high prices in scatter. Cable networks' TV commercial pricing was flat in the second quarter of 2012, among the top 15 networks for adult 25-54 viewers at $14,267. ESPN was at the top with $32,575, with TNT next at $32,525. In the third quarter of 2012, commercial prices were down 2% to $12,793 -- due to lower demand caused by advertiser dollars going to Olympics programming. TargetCast added that ad-supported cable ratings in the second quarter for the Top 15 networks among 25-54 viewers were up about 4%. Third-quarter ratings were down 2% due to Olympics programming. TV Spots Rates Hold Steady by Wayne Friedman, Dec 21, 2012, 1:17 PM Comment Recommend (1) inShare.1 Subscribe to MediaDailyNews RSS Email Print Tags advertising, tv For almost two-and-a-half years, broadcast network television commercial costs have been up or virtually flat -- reversing declines in previous years due to the recession, among other factors. That trend continued in 2012. Third-quarter commercial unit costs averaged $82,396, virtually the same as 2011. Fox is at the highest level, with $119,265. CBS is next at $82,265, followed by ABC at $73,618 and NBC -- sans the Olympic programming -- at $71,368. This analysis comes from independent media agency TargetCast tcm, using data from NetCosts and research firm SQAD. During the bigger previous period -- the second quarter of 2012 -- average prime-time 30-second commercials were up 3% to $130,194. Fox was tops again -- at almost twice the level of the next networks, with $227,490. ABC was at $122,396, followed by CBS at $121,464 and NBC at $101,586. TargetCast says this makes 10 consecutive quarters in which broadcast network unit costs were either up or virtually flat, which comes after the economic recession, declining broadcast ratings and the growth of cable. Despite a softer scatter market than last year, overall costs were stable due to the high sell-out levels in the upfront, stated Gary Carr, senior vp and executive director of national broadcast at TargetCast. He added that advertisers committed more money up front to avoid potentially high prices in scatter. Cable networks' TV commercial pricing was flat in the second quarter of 2012, among the top 15 networks for adult 25-54 viewers at $14,267. ESPN was at the top with $32,575, with TNT next at $32,525. In the third quarter of 2012, commercial prices were down 2% to $12,793 -- due to lower demand caused by advertiser dollars going to Olympics programming. TargetCast added that ad-supported cable ratings in the second quarter for the Top 15 networks among 25-54 viewers were up about 4%. Third-quarter ratings were down 2% due to Olympics programming. TV Spots Rates Hold Steady by Wayne Friedman, Dec 21, 2012, 1:17 PM Comment Recommend (1) inShare.1 Subscribe to MediaDailyNews RSS Email Print Tags advertising, tv For almost two-and-a-half years, broadcast network television commercial costs have been up or virtually flat -- reversing declines in previous years due to the recession, among other factors. That trend continued in 2012. Third-quarter commercial unit costs averaged $82,396, virtually the same as 2011. Fox is at the highest level, with $119,265. CBS is next at $82,265, followed by ABC at $73,618 and NBC -- sans the Olympic programming -- at $71,368. This analysis comes from independent media agency TargetCast tcm, using data from NetCosts and research firm SQAD. During the bigger previous period -- the second quarter of 2012 -- average prime-time 30-second commercials were up 3% to $130,194. Fox was tops again -- at almost twice the level of the next networks, with $227,490. ABC was at $122,396, followed by CBS at $121,464 and NBC at $101,586. TargetCast says this makes 10 consecutive quarters in which broadcast network unit costs were either up or virtually flat, which comes after the economic recession, declining broadcast ratings and the growth of cable. Despite a softer scatter market than last year, overall costs were stable due to the high sell-out levels in the upfront, stated Gary Carr, senior vp and executive director of national broadcast at TargetCast. He added that advertisers committed more money up front to avoid potentially high prices in scatter. Cable networks' TV commercial pricing was flat in the second quarter of 2012, among the top 15 networks for adult 25-54 viewers at $14,267. ESPN was at the top with $32,575, with TNT next at $32,525. In the third quarter of 2012, commercial prices were down 2% to $12,793 -- due to lower demand caused by advertiser dollars going to Olympics programming. TargetCast added that ad-supported cable ratings in the second quarter for the Top 15 networks among 25-54 viewers were up about 4%. Third-quarter ratings were down 2% due to Olympics programming. TV Spots Rates Hold Steady by Wayne Friedman, Dec 21, 2012, 1:17 PM Comment Recommend (1) inShare.1 Subscribe to MediaDailyNews RSS Email Print Tags advertising, tv For almost two-and-a-half years, broadcast network television commercial costs have been up or virtually flat -- reversing declines in previous years due to the recession, among other factors. That trend continued in 2012. Third-quarter commercial unit costs averaged $82,396, virtually the same as 2011. Fox is at the highest level, with $119,265. CBS is next at $82,265, followed by ABC at $73,618 and NBC -- sans the Olympic programming -- at $71,368. This analysis comes from independent media agency TargetCast tcm, using data from NetCosts and research firm SQAD. During the bigger previous period -- the second quarter of 2012 -- average prime-time 30-second commercials were up 3% to $130,194. Fox was tops again -- at almost twice the level of the next networks, with $227,490. ABC was at $122,396, followed by CBS at $121,464 and NBC at $101,586. TargetCast says this makes 10 consecutive quarters in which broadcast network unit costs were either up or virtually flat, which comes after the economic recession, declining broadcast ratings and the growth of cable. Despite a softer scatter market than last year, overall costs were stable due to the high sell-out levels in the upfront, stated Gary Carr, senior vp and executive director of national broadcast at TargetCast. He added that advertisers committed more money up front to avoid potentially high prices in scatter. Cable networks' TV commercial pricing was flat in the second quarter of 2012, among the top 15 networks for adult 25-54 viewers at $14,267. ESPN was at the top with $32,575, with TNT next at $32,525. In the third quarter of 2012, commercial prices were down 2% to $12,793 -- due to lower demand caused by advertiser dollars going to Olympics programming. TargetCast added that ad-supported cable ratings in the second quarter for the Top 15 networks among 25-54 viewers were up about 4%. Third-quarter ratings were down 2% due to Olympics programming. TV Spots Rates Hold Steady by Wayne Friedman, Dec 21, 2012, 1:17 PM For almost two-and-a-half years, broadcast network television commercial costs have been up or virtually flat -- reversing declines in previous years due to the recession, among other factors. That trend continued in 2012. Third-quarter commercial unit costs averaged $82,396, virtually the same as 2011. Fox is at the highest level, with $119,265. CBS is next at $82,265, followed by ABC at $73,618 and NBC -- sans the Olympic programming -- at $71,368. This analysis comes from independent media agency TargetCast tcm, using data from NetCosts and research firm SQAD. During the bigger previous period -- the second quarter of 2012 -- average prime-time 30-second commercials were up 3% to $130,194. Fox was tops again -- at almost twice the level of the next networks, with $227,490. ABC was at $122,396, followed by CBS at $121,464 and NBC at $101,586. TargetCast says this makes 10 consecutive quarters in which broadcast network unit costs were either up or virtually flat, which comes after the economic recession, declining broadcast ratings and the growth of cable. Despite a softer scatter market than last year, overall costs were stable due to the high sell-out levels in the upfront, stated Gary Carr, senior vp and executive director of national broadcast at TargetCast. He added that advertisers committed more money up front to avoid potentially high prices in scatter. Cable networks' TV commercial pricing was flat in the second quarter of 2012, among the top 15 networks for adult 25-54 viewers at $14,267. ESPN was at the top with $32,575, with TNT next at $32,525. In the third quarter of 2012, commercial prices were down 2% to $12,793 -- due to lower demand caused by advertiser dollars going to Olympics programming. TargetCast added that ad-supported cable ratings in the second quarter for the Top 15 networks among 25-54 viewers were up about 4%. Third-quarter ratings were down 2% due to Olympics programming.

Tribune Co. Looks To Divest Newspapers

MediaDailyNews by Erik Sass, Yesterday, 4:29 PM After five years of bankruptcy and a seemingly endless legal battle, the Tribune Co. is hoping to sell some or all of its newspapers. It is meeting with bankers to lay the groundwork, according to Bloomberg, citing sources familiar with these conversations. Tribune Co. owns several big metro dailies, including the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun, as well as somewhat smaller newspapers including the Orlando Sentinel, South Florida Sentinel and the Hartford Courant. Tribune Co. could choose to sell some or all properties, or divest them separately over time. If it choses the latter, per Bloomberg, the small pubs would probably go on sale first. Tribune is currently scheduled to exit bankruptcy at the end of this year, marking the end of a disastrous chapter in the company’s history. That began with the buyout engineered by Sam Zell to take Tribune private as an employee-owned business in 2007. Struck at the height of the credit bubble, this deal loaded Tribune with around $8 billion in new debt, just as the bottom was about to fall out of the newspaper industry. With print ad revenues tumbling, Zell was forced to take Tribune into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December 2008, where it has since remained. Bondholders and creditors with claims predating the buyout have battled creditors, including the consortium of banks which funded the ill-fated deal in 2007. At one point some members of the former group claimed that the entire deal was insolvent from the beginning and therefore illegal as a “fraudulent vehicle.” The bankruptcy court agreed to defer these claims, ruling that pre-buyout creditors can sue the lenders from 2007 to recover some of their earlier debts in separate legal actions. Tribune has already secured permission from the FCC to transfer its TV and radio licenses to creditors, including JPMorgan Chase, Oaktree Capital Management and Angelo, Gordon

The Big Story of 2013: Digital Spending

Medialife Magazine Media economy Online Will Rise 18 Percent to Nearly a Quarter of All Spending By Toni Fitzgerald December 4, 2012 With the fiscal cliff looming and the recovery from the recession still bumping along in fits and starts, there are many things that are uncertain about ad spending in 2013, but one thing that’s not is the increasing role of digital in the media equation. Next year total ad spending in the U.S. will be up 3.5 percent, according to a forecast released today by ZenithOptimedia. By contrast, digital will grow by 18.1 percent. That's triple the growth rate of the second-fastest-growing media, outdoor and cinema, both at 5 percent. That hot pace is on track with recent years, but what’s more interesting is that digital advertising now accounts for almost a quarter of all media spending, 22 percent. That's a huge milestone for a medium that accounted for only 14 percent three years ago. “Digital ad spending continues to be strong as consumers spend more time with digital media and advertisers look for new ways to reach them. The internet will continue to drive total ad growth in the U.S.,” notes the report. Total internet spending will hit $36.25 billion next year. Though television will still have the lion’s share of total spending at 38 percent, or $63.895 billion, internet will be a comfortable second. Digital is clearly drawing away some money from traditional media, most notably newspapers and magazines, as print becomes less and less relevant in a world where headlines are now delivered to your palm via smartphone. Digital media isn’t simply siphoning off ad dollars from other media. It’s also becoming an integral part of traditional media, which is trying to prove its continued relevance as screens accounts for a rising amount of media consumption. More and more, print publications in particular are looking to digital as their savior. ZenithOptimedia notes that the increased popularity of tablets, which about a third of Americans currently own, is giving the magazine industry new hope for increased revenue streams. “As newsstand options expand, publishers will be able to capitalize on this increased accessibility and capitalize on this new revenue stream. Less than half of all publishers have presence on the iTunes newsstand, so there is definitely room for growth,” says the forecast. Within online there are two forms of media that will see explosive growth in 2013, again reflecting the increasing amount of time users are spending with digital media. Social media ad spending will jump 35 percent, to a record $4.61 billion, while mobile media will rise 51 percent, to $1.87 billion. Ten years ago those media were barely imagined, which certainly begs the question, what will be the fastest-growing segment of new media 10 years from now, and does it even exist yet

Right Nice Bump for Third Quarter Advertising

Medialife Magazine Media Economy By Bill Cromwell December 12, 2012 After a disappointing start to the year, U.S. advertising kicked up in third quarter, reflecting strong spending on the Olympics and the election. Third-quarter ad spending grew by 7 percent, according to Nielsen data released this morning, far outpacing the modest 2.4 percent growth recorded during second quarter of this year. Year to date ad spending is up 2.5 percent, with slow growth during the first half of the year that had some worried the media economy could slip back into decline. But third quarter yielded strong results, partly because of the two biannual events that attracted some of their strongest numbers ever. Political advertising kicked up in third quarter as the elections neared, with more than a billion dollars spent on spot television. And the Summer Olympics produced stronger-than-expected advertising. Ratings were higher than NBCUniversal had anticipated for the Games, and advertisers clamored to get their ads in once they’d seen those strong numbers, allowing the company to charge higher prices. But, in a promising development for the ad economy going forward, the growth wasn’t only built on political and Olympic spending. Several ad categories saw big ad spending kickups, most notably automotive manufacturers, which finished as the quarter’s biggest spender at $2.7 billion, up 26 percent over last year. Six of the top 20 advertisers during third quarter were manufacturers. Auto dealerships, meanwhile, finished third in total spending, up 22 percent to $1 billion. “Model year-end promotions traditionally make the third quarter the biggest of the year based on ad sales,” notes Nielsen. Other big gainers included fast food restaurants, up 14 percent to $1 billion; wireless/telecom, up 15 percent to $887.3 million; and department stores, up a scant 1 percent to $772.8 million. Movies and pharmaceuticals, while still finishing among the top seven advertisers, pulled back on spending. Movies were down 12 percent, to $689.7 million, and pharmaceuticals plummeted 22 percent, to $661.7 million. Nielsen data is based on seven media spending categories: TV, magazines, newspapers, radio, outdoor, FSI coupon and national internet. Fourth quarter numbers are also expected to be strong when they come out next year, based on the huge increase in political spending in the final month of the campaign, with spot television alone generating more than $1 billion. But buyers remain uncertain whether the boom will continue into January, with their clients concerned that fiscal cliff worries will prompt people to reign in their spending after a better-than-expected holiday season for retailers.

The Critical Difference Between Leadership and Motivation

Smart Blog on Leadership By Garret Kramer on December 11th, 2012 Here’s something that might surprise you: The best leaders do not attempt to motivate their employees, athletes, students or children. In fact, those people in leadership positions who try to light fires for others tend to not keep their jobs for long. However, those who know the difference between leadership and motivation create a different legacy; their impact on others endures. The difference between leadership and motivation, to me, is summed up like this: •Leadership: A consistent example of rising above any and all circumstances. Leadership is external. •Motivation: The inner knowledge or insight that makes rising above circumstances possible. Motivation comes from within. So, in my opinion, leadership is not about encouraging, pushing or cheering on; it’s about pointing others inward so they recognize that the ability to be motivated rests with them. If you are a parent, for instance, you know that it is virtually impossible to motivate your children to work hard at their studies. But you can lead. You can show your children, by example, that no matter how sick you might get or how difficult your circumstances might appear, you can passionately apply yourself to your own job or projects. Thereby pointing your children inward to their innate ability to rise above any circumstance (and excuse) and crack the books with pride and vigor. My message about leadership is simple: Great leaders serve to bring out the inner wisdom and free will of those they serve. Instead of inducing people to view life situations a certain way (or their way), great leaders demonstrate that there are an infinite number of ways to view any life situation. To illustrate, one of my mentors, Sydney Banks, must have given hundreds of seminars and lectures during his lifetime. Like clockwork before each talk, the audience would file in with notebooks in hand. While Syd was incredibly generous with his wisdom, he would always instruct those in attendance not to take one single note. His words were his alone — his interpretation of “truth,” he would say. He wanted the audience to develop their own feelings and ideas, and draw their own conclusions, not follow in his footsteps. I believe, then, that great leaders are those individuals who, like Sydney Banks, set great examples. Why can’t we simply leave leadership right there? Who came up with the belief that leaders must be motivators of others anyway? We must recognize the difference between leadership and motivation, because if we don’t, our companies, teams, schools and even families will be overrun by followers incapable of lending an imaginative hand, let alone coming through when the chips are down. Motivation is personal; leadership brings out personal potential for the benefit of the greater good. Take note of the difference. The business, sports and political worlds — actually the world, in general — can use more of both.

It's Time To Toss Average Frequency Into The Bucket

MediaPost’s MetricInsider by Ronit Fuchs, 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!

Metric Rethink: Local TV Surpasses National Time-Shifted Viewing

MediaDailyNews by Wayne Friedman, Yesterday, 12:52 PM Looking to make its case that local TV time-shifted viewing is still going unaccounted -- and unpaid for by advertisers -- the TVB says time-shifted viewing in top 25 TV markets has overtaken national DVR viewing. The TVB, the local TV-focused advertising trade group, says an average of 18 programs per market in the top 25 markets -- which are local Nielsen people meter (LPM) markets -- have 26% higher time-shifting activity than national TV networks average. The study looked at live-plus-same-day time-shifted viewing through the first six weeks of the TV season. Some of the biggest overindexed markets were: Chicago (44 programs), Dallas (44 programs), San Francisco (29 programs), Los Angeles (38 programs) and Houston (37 programs). “High levels of time-shifted viewing in LPM markets reveals a large number of impressions not accounted for when media planning and buying is based on live only data," stated Steve Lanzano, president/CEO of TVB. "Across all 25 LPM markets for the first [six] weeks of the season, 140 million adults 25 to 54 impressions came from same day, time-shifted viewing." As a result, the TVB says the "live-only" rating metric pegged to local TV advertisers deals is shrinking. The TVB adds that 43% of all time-shifted viewing occurs on the same day the programming originally aired. Three years ago, the TVB and other major TV groups backed a new local TV metric for deals with advertisers that included time-shifted viewing -- the live program viewing plus three days of time-shifted viewing. Nielsen had initial plans to institute the L3 measurement in the last six months of 2008. But pressure from major local TV advertisers and their media agencies forced the measuring service to reconsider. Media-buying executives says the L3 measurement did not account for the skipping of TV commercials -- unlike the one for nationally distributed TV networks. National TV networks' advertising deals include time-shifted viewing, but this is under the C3 metric -- commercial ratings plus three days time shifted viewing, where commercial skipping is accounted for. C3 was started in 2007.

Nielsen's 3Rs Offer Advertising Effectiveness Calculations

TV Blog from: TelevisionNewsDaily by David Goetzl, 9 hours ago There’s no sense for advertisers to ever be fully satisfied with the effectiveness of their messaging and tactics. So, they’ll always be in search of more data and the finish line will keep moving. But here’s at least one enticing landing spot: a gauge of how many consumers saw an ad on one of four screens (TV, PC, tablet, smartphone) and what it prompted them to do (or not) in real time -- with the data coming in an easily digestible form, ripe for swift action. Randall Beard says Nielsen’s on that path with its “3R framework,” an umbrella term for its efforts to measure how reach and resonance lead to reaction. (It could be called 4Rs with an equation where reach + resonance + reaction = revenue.) Helping in the kitchen are the 3Vs of Big Data, where there's more volume and variety of information coming at greater velocity. “There’s way more data, way faster that’s coming at advertisers and agencies,” said Beard, Nielsen’s global head of advertiser solutions. “And one of the big challenges is to have a simplified (platform) that brings it all together in a way that they can easily operationalize it.” Beard will lead a webinar next week with details on how Nielsen envisions opportunities in a 3R playing field. In advance, he took some time to offer some thoughts: --In the “reaction” area, the Nielsen Catalina Solutions services look to connect media consumption with purchase behavior. There are multiple research providers looking in that direction with TV advertising. What makes the offering different? “The audience data is from the Nielsen people meter data set -- supplemented by set-top-box data,” he said. “Most of the other players in the space are just simply using set-top-box data … The second thing is that we’re cross-platform, so we have this service not only with TV, but with online, with mobile, with print. So you can identify the most responsive buyer behavior group and then execute that across platforms.” --If the same ad runs on live TV and online, which is more effective? The data is not for the exact same ad on both platforms, but 2011 research found the “breakthrough” -- percentage of consumers remembering an ad -- for 15- and 30-second spots was about 50% higher in an online platform than TV. Hypotheses Beard offered include online platforms offering more of a lean-forward experience and usually a lesser ad load. --Nielsen, of course, doesn’t determine what the currency is in a particular market. But can any of its “reaction” tools – Nielsen Catalina, Buyer Insights – offer the basis for one should advertisers want to trade on the data? Beard indicated Nielsen believes it plays more of an advisory role, but there are opportunities for sort of one-off deals. “We’re trying to bring data to the advertisers, agencies and media companies that they can use to be smarter about the way people plan buy, execute and ultimately optimize the advertising,” he said. He said working with NBC, Nielsen has found the same ads in its Olympic programming have more “resonance” than when they run elsewhere and NBC has used that to demonstrate effectiveness in a sales process. --One argument networks make is there is value in ads viewed as they zip by in fast-forward mode via DVRs. Logos might be seen or there may be some reinforcement if a viewer has seen the ad before in full. Has Nielsen developed any insight here through its research? Not discretely. But it has found that ad recall is 30% lower for time-shifted viewing -- whether an ad is skipped or not with a DVR -- versus live TV. “If you know that there’s a difference there, you can certainly assume that at least some part of a lower score in a DVR’d program is because of fast-forwarding,” Beard said. “How much? Couldn’t say.” -- One coveted metric in the “reaction” area would be: did an ad prompt a purchase the next day? (Helpful to consumer package goods and telecom marketers, among others.) Can a viewing-purchase link be available in a sort of overnight fashion a la the cornerstone Nielsen TV ratings? Not yet. It takes time to connect the dots. But in a “resonance” sphere – both with TV and digital ads – results come in much faster. --But clearly the quicker the better – especially if there’s an emphasis on providing real-time insight to allow adjustments. That’s a “big opportunity,” Beard said, across all platforms. That would give an advertiser with, say, three ads running a chance to determine certain effectiveness gauges for each and do some editing mid-flight. That not only can improve “resonance,” but save money. If a 15-second spot is doing just as well as a 30-second one, why stick with it? “Why spend money on 30s,” Beard said. “Move all your spending to 15s … there’s lots of opportunities for advertisers, in particular, to measure “reach” and “resonance” in as close to real-time as possible and then make smart choices about how they allocate their spending, or improve their advertising to get a better reaction outcome.” The article has been revised to reflect research on how ads performed online versus TV and when viewed via a DVR versus on live TV, as well as Nielsen "resonance" data coming in faster than "reaction" information.

Engagement Key To Making Mobile Work

MediaPost's OnlineMedia by Mark Walsh, Today, 8:38 AM Online businesses face a serious challenge adjusting to an increasingly mobile world. Some, like Facebook, are dealing better with the “mobile problem” than others like Zynga. But few will be left unaffected by the mobile transformation underway. The key to surviving the upheaval is not to adopt a mobile-only strategy, but to extend existing business models to mobile to bridge the digital and physical worlds, according to a new Forrester report authored by analyst Thomas Husson. That means focusing on ways to build mobile engagement as customers shift from PCs to smartphones and tablets. Husson casts a skeptical eye on mobile business models, which he argues are still largely unproven. Even seeming mobile success stories like "Angry Birds" maker Rovio and Web radio service Pandora don't look as impressive under closer scrutiny. Mobile may have triggered Angry Birds' popularity, but it has given way to real world merchandising as the company's primary revenue driver. Still, companies can hardly afford to ignore the mobile revolution. Smartphones and tablets are going mainstream. Global use of the mobile Web and apps will continue to skyrocket. Mobile opportunities will improve as advertisers master mobile engagement and the promise of SoLoMo (social, location, mobile) moves closer to reality through increased knowledge about mobile customers. So how do companies close the mobile monetization gap while maintaining their current businesses? Husson advises they “obsess about mobile engagement.” That includes developing content and services tailored to mobile devices -- personalized, immediate and contextual. As an example, the report points to the popular Nike+ FuelBand app and bracelet for tracking daily physical activity. Adapting key performance metrics and measurement systems for mobile is another important step. That means determining what is working in mobile and the resulting ROI. Have the data to answer questions like: When will customers engage and how many minutes will they spend with your mobile services? Collecting such data, however, requires getting permission from consumers and meeting expectations of privacy. Husson also recommends that companies build mobile centers of excellence internally to serve as hubs that bring together mobile, social, cloud and big data technologies to build apps and other “smart” products. The recent launch of Mondelez International's Mobile Futures program is an example. All such steps require funding. Husson says he knows of several companies that each plan to spend more than $100 million in the next three years to make their businesses mobile-ready. “There is no excuse for a lack of investment,” he wrote.

The Primer On Tech: How to Connect Marketing with Gen-Y

Media Post's Engage: Gen-Y By Ryan Crowder Monday, Nov. 19, 2012 Entitled, demanding, out-spoken, and flighty; there are a lot of negative stereotypes associated with Millennials. But if you look past these generalities, you will find that this generation wants to change the world and feel empowered to do so. They know how to harness and use technological resources both for their own benefit and to reach a very broad audience for their concerns. Marketers need to understand what makes them tick - their aspirations, behaviors, frame of reference and most importantly their relationship with the technology – in order to truly connect. Device is a proxy for the desire to consume content differently It’s not news that Millennials constantly look for ways to consume content. They are always on the go, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that this tech-savvy bunch prefers alternative consumption methods for particular situations. Marketers need to make sure that content is relevant to the medium with which it is being consumed, whether that be mobile, tablet, or desktop. For example, if your company is a non-profit and the goal of your online video is to appeal to this crowd on an emotional level, smartphones with tiny screens may not be your best bet. Millennials are more likely to engage and connect with your brand with the use of a bigger screen like a tablet or laptop. It’s imperative for marketers to have an intimate understanding of each device and the goals and objectives for a brand’s message in order to be effective. Generation Y consumers are collaborative With the popularity of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and their attractiveness to Gen Y, marketers need to engage in social media. This is not a surprise, and there is no out. This generation has come to age with their voices being heard online, and their desire to share their thoughts and opinions with others drives their daily activities. Gen Yers are crowd-sourcers; they seek information and approval from peers and strangers alike through social sharing. It’s imperative for brands to provide reliable and timely information consistently on social platforms to meet this need. Brands should also engage, and entering into conversations is only the first step. Marketers must capture insights they gain from these conversations and be flexible enough to adapt their services and communication strategies to meet the expectations of these new consumers, who are very different from the generations that preceded them. Expectations are higher than previous generations Based on years of sharing their opinions online, Gen Y consumers expect to be heard and understood. They expect brands to tailor their products around their needs, especially if they see they are not the only ones who want changes. Millennials won’t stick around if your product doesn’t perform to their expectations; seriously, an alternative is only a Google search away. Millennials also expect to being entertained. This plays back into their habitual daily communication and connection with others online. When Millennials are alone, even for a few minutes, they instinctively reach for their devices. Why? Because there is something going on somewhere, and connecting is as easily as tapping a button. Millennials will not be satisfied with blanket communication strategies. Marketers need to make sure content is personalized and adds value for consumers in their campaigns. Without continuous adaptation based on analysis of social trends, efforts will fall short. Brand loyalty is not their strong suit Keeping a brand relevant is tough for this crowd. Millennials like engaging brands, but gravitate toward ones that change and offer new opportunities - just like what they expect from their technology. Whereas previous generations may have made purchases because of the brand, Gen Y consumers care more about the value and functionality. Look at tablets and smartphones; this cash-strapped generation is willing to pay to keep up with their peers. Millennial don’t want to be left out looking in, they want to participate. Brands need to evolve with this audience and latest technologies if they want to keep up. Millennials will continue to take center stage as technology defines today’s marketplace. Marketers need to think different about Gen Y and adapt their messaging and strategies accordingly to maintain relevancy. This will only intensify with generations to come.

Mobile Shopping To Double On Thanksgiving

Media Post's OnlineMediaDaily by Mark Walsh, 7 hours ago Brick-and-mortar stores have Black Friday. Online ones have Cyber Monday. What does that leave for mobile? Thanksgiving. E-commerce data from IBM/Coremetrics last year showed that 15% of consumers used a mobile device to visit a retailer’s site on Turkey Day, up from 6.5% the prior year. With hopes that “mobile Thursday” will catch on as the latest holiday marketing phrase, Digitas released its own survey results today showing the proportion of mobile shoppers on Thanksgiving will nearly double to 28% this year. That trend is even more pronounced among young people, with 38% of students planning to shop on smartphones or tablets following the day's ritual feasting. Retailers including Digitas client eBay plan to capitalize on the growing appetite for mobile shopping on Thanksgiving by posting 20 mobile-only deals on its eBay app at exactly 5:23 EST on Nov. 22. A recent survey showed that this was the time that most people, on average, would end their meals. (It will launch another 20 at 5:23 PST for West Coast shoppers.) eBay has been among the online companies pushing most aggressively into mobile in recent years. In the third quarter, the online marketplace said 800,000 shoppers made their first-ever eBay purchase through a mobile device. It also expects its PayPal unit to handle $10 billion in mobile payment transactions in 2012, up 150% from last year. “They have 100 million downloads of their various eBay apps, so they have a huge audience of people turning to them when they want to shop,” said Chia Chen, SVP, mobile practice lead at Digitas. “And eBay wants to drive growth in fulfilling people's needs when they have them.” Others, such as Toys “R” Us, HSN Inc. Rue La La and ideeli, are also rolling out mobile-specific offers this Thanksgiving evening, according to a Reuters article. A separate forecast released by Adobe Systems today projects that 21% of online holiday sales this year will come from mobile. The Digitas survey, conducted by Harris Interactive earlier this month among a group of 2,059 adults 18+, however, also highlighted some shortcomings of mobile shopping. It found that three-quarters (76%) who shop on both a mobile device and a computer say it's easier to do so on the latter. Only 8% said mobile was easier. Chen pointed out that some retail sites still are not optimized for mobile devices and others have not gone far enough in adapting their presence for phone and tablets. There are also just the inherent limitations of a 4-inch screen and the variable quality of a wireless connection. Regardless, Chen said Digitas will be watching closely to see if Thanksgiving lives up to the “mobile Thursday” billing. “We definitely want to see how actual commerce behavior on Thanksgiving Day turns out to be. We're also looking forward to seeing whether other marketers have advertising efforts really incorporating mobile at the core,” he said.

TiVo to Launch TV Advertising (You Read That Right)

MediaPost's Marketing Daily by Aaron Baar, Yesterday, 4:01 PM TiVo, the company that scared the bejesus out of the advertising industry by introducing the digital video recorder in the U.S., is launching its own -- yep -- television advertising campaign to deepen consumer perception about its services beyond simple video recording. “For a long time, TiVo has been thought of as a DVR, and we’re so much more than that,” Tara Maitra, SVP and GM of content and media sales for TiVo, tells Marketing Daily. “And in this world where there’s an insatiable demand for a better TV experience, that consumer call for a better experience is something TiVo has been delivering.” For its inaugural television advertising campaign, the Alviso, Calif. company has enlisted professional quarterback Tim Tebow as a spokesman. (The advertising will be part of an integrated effort that will include print, radio and television advertising as well as social media.) The advertising is scheduled to break on Nov. 27, and will showcase the many features that set TiVo apart from its competitors, in particular its “Collections” feature that enables consumers to set programming based on genre, star or other material, Maitra says. Enlisting Tebow was a natural fit (and not just because his name and the product sound so similar), Maitra says. “It’s much more than the name,” she says. “When we thought about Tim Tebow as an interesting and unconventional guy, we started giving more and more thought about what TiVo stands for and how he would be a great spokesperson." As part of the campaign, TiVo will feature a “Tim Tebow Zone,” a collection of Tebow’s favorite shows, movies and recommended content for kids from television and the Internet, on its boxes. TiVo will also use social media to support the Tim Tebow Foundation, donating a dollar for every “Like” the brand gets on its Facebook page (up to $25,000). Maitra acknowledges a touch of irony in the brand turning to television advertising to promote its features, although she adds that the company’s mission has always been to work with advertisers to provide additional content, not circumvent advertising. “We are strong believers in the power of television advertising in getting your message across,” she says. “The campaign is designed to tell the broader story about how special and different TiVo is, and bring along a new generation of users.”

Media Economy:Behind the Record Political Ad Dollars;

MediaLife Magazine Ohio, Florida and Virginia got the biggest share By Diego Vasquez November 6, 2012 Note: We at LeNoble's Media Sales Insights thought it might be a clever idea to post an essay following the election which told a story to be inveiled post-election...to see it's acccuracy as well as the questions leading up to its conclusion. Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D. Enjoy...the following...... On election night all eyes will be on Ohio to see which candidate won the battleground state. Both candidates and their super PACs have heavily targeted the state, along with Florida and Virginia, over the final weeks of the campaign, pouring absurd amounts of money into local television. That’s contributed to an estimated $2.6 billion in political dollars that will be spent on the medium this year, according to a new report from SNL Kagan, up 68 percent over the 2008 presidential election. It’s also up 24 percent over the record tally of $2.09 billion in 2010. While analysts have been forecasting a record year since the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling two years ago, which essentially lifted a ban on political spending by corporations, the sheer volume of advertising has been overwhelming. Voters may be extra fatigued because political ads began earlier than usual. With the big surge in ratings for the Olympics, candidates and super PACs scrambled to get their ads on during the August event, leading into a very tight fourth quarter, where 60 percent of all political money was spent. Peter Leitzinger, analyst at SNL Kagan, talks to Media Life about the impact of Citizens United, how 2012 fared compared to his earlier expectations, and what political ads have done for radio. How does political ad spending this year line up with your early estimates? We knew political was going to be higher than the 2008 election. In our original 10-year projection we estimated this year to be $2.5 billion in local TV revenue, and by 2018 that number would grow to $3 billion. The original $2.5 billion projection represented a 21 percent increase over the $2.09 billion in 2010 and 63 percent over the $1.55 billion in 2008. We had to revise those numbers because of the massive Olympic spend, early caucuses/primaries, and the importance the PACs and super PACs were placing on television. Our new estimate stands at $2.6 billion in political revenue. How much of the gains do you credit to the Citizens United ruling? The Citizens United ruling was a huge part of the increase in political spending, but this year seemed to be the perfect storm for political advertising that started with the Olympics and ramped up all the way through election day. We saw political spending on local TV start earlier than the last few years in part due to the Olympics being a perfect advertising platform for the candidates and the early caucuses and primaries held in January. We also saw a record amount of political contributions for both parties. A larger amount of political ad dollars was spent on the Congressional elections as well, because of the competition between parties to control Congress was at stake. Which swing states have seen the most spending and why? Ohio, Florida and Virginia. They are crucial battleground states with a large amount of electoral votes. They are also very close in the polls, making them advertising magnets for the candidates. Since 1964 no winning president has won the presidency without taking Ohio. Why does so much of the spending come in the final weeks? In each of the last three election years the second half of the year has produced 80 percent of political revenues for local TV and radio, with 60 percent of the total political coming during the fourth quarter. This has to do with political strategy in the modern era. The candidates have better information on which states are swinging in a party's direction. The candidates and their campaigns hold onto contribution reserves so they can effectively target the markets that matter the most before election day. Then we see a flood of political advertising hit those areas. How much of a boost has the election given local television this year? Will the stronger spending last once the election is over? Each party's campaign reserves are unleashed in the two to three weeks before the election. It is the last surge of money in hopes of swaying any voters in one direction and targeting the swing states for the much needed electoral votes. Much of that money doesn't come into TV stations until after the election, which is reported by broadcasters in the fourth quarter. There will be some spending on issue-related political ads, but I haven't been following post-election political in previous years so it is hard for me to comment on post-election (first quarter 2013) political ad dollars. What kind of boost has radio gotten from the election? Radio gets a surge right before the election, as this is the crucial time when voters are really thinking about their votes and are actually in transit to the voting polls. It is the most influential period. Why does television remain such a popular medium for candidates in an increasingly digital age? Television will always be king for the political candidates because it can effectively communicate a message to a market/demographic that no other medium can. Using sound, picture and message candidates can influence voters in a way that radio and internet cannot.

Study: Connected TV Viewers More Receptive To Advertising

MediaDailyNews Friday, Nov 9, 2012 by Wayne Friedman, Nov 8, 2012, 3:20 PM More smart TV capability has been forecast for the future. But what does it really mean for TV marketers and interactive advertising? Estimates are that around three-quarters of North American TV homes will have smart, Internet-connected TV sets and/or equipment -- around 87 million of them -- in four years, according to a report from media researcher Parks Associates. A significant number of those 87 million connected TV homes come from Blu-ray units, according to Parks. The study was commissioned by Rovi Corp, the electronic TV program guide provider that has built an interactive advertising platform around connected TV sets and TV service providers. Concerning interactive, connected TV advertising, the research says that over 50% of connected TV homes find that consumers "consider these ads as content, containing useful and valuable information." Research also says that 55% of connected TV homes earn at least $75,000 annually and own 11 Internet-enabled devices on average. Some 72% of connected TV owners say the connected platform makes watching TV more convenient; and 49% of connected-TV viewers depend on connected TV platform when they are unsure what to watch. “Consumers are more receptive to advertising that takes this brand-infused approach,” stated Jeff Siegel, senior vice president of worldwide advertising for Rovi. “Advertising on connected TVs provides more immersive brand experiences and has a positive impact on consumers." Connected-TV homes for this study are defined as households that have smart TV or Blu-ray player connected to the Internet. Parks Associates forecasts over 70 million Blu-ray players, a majority of which can be connected to the Internet, will be sold worldwide in 2016.

Why TV Networks Want To Move From C3 To C7 Ratings

MediaPost's TVWatch A media critique by Wayne Friedman, Monday, Nov. 12, 2012 During their respective earning calls In the space of a week, both Walt Disney Co. president/CEO Bob Iger and CBS Corp. president/CEO Les Moonves talked aboutlooking for ways to get paid for all TV network viewing through metrics that would measure more time-shifted viewing, which could increase measures of program viewership by 30% to 40% during a week. Right now networks do get to monetize some of that time-shifting viewing. C3 ratings -- the average commercial minute ratings plus three day of time-shifted viewing -- is the currency through which all national TV networks get paid from advertisers. This metric started up in spring of 2007 just before that season's upfront advertising market. But C3 isn't enough for many TV networks. There's still other viewing that goes un-monetized -- in days four, five, six and seven after a show's initial airing. Research analysts say live plus seven days accounts for 90% of all viewing. Moonves said -- rightly so -- that industry observers should not focus on live airing plus same-day time-shifted ratings. But TV ratings are released each day, becoming fodder for the consumer and business press. And though those daily numbers aren't the currency by which media executives make their decisions, many still analyze this data anyway. There's not enough awarerness of C3 ratings, since Nielsen only releases C3 numbers every two weeks or so and they aren't easily accessible by the mainstream press, or regularly published. Despite TV executive's cries for more accountability, national TV advertisers aren't necessarily interested in extending C3 to C7 ratings. Better to leap ahead to the next phrase of measurement to behavioral or contextual metrics, including addressable and interactive messaging, something that will show a more exacting return on their media investment ROI. Perhaps Messrs. Iger and Moonves are setting the table for next year's TV upfront process. Extending C3 ratings to C7 ratings is only a short-term step for TV sellers. But, in the short-term, it can mean additional money gained -- especially as fast-forwarding of commercials continues. Additionally, TV sellers too would like to include all digital TV viewing in ratings, which Nielsen is working on. TV networks executives are also restless, consistently looking down the barrel of a fractionalizing media gun -- while digital platforms still lag behind traditional TV in terms of scale -- and, most important, competitive advertising dollars.

What's Going to Kill the TV Business?

The Atlantic By Derek Thompson Nov 8 2012, 12:23 PM ET15 Two things: The rising cost of making television and enough cord-cutters abandoning the cable bundle to blow up the business model. The first trend is happening. The second one isn't. The first thing to ask when somebody predicts The End of Television as We Know It is: Which television are we talking about? There are three things we talk about when we talk about TV. First, there is the box with a screen, which we call "The TV." Second, there are the stories we watch on the box, which we simply call "TV." Third, there is the company we pay to transport those stories to the box, which we can call "Pay TV." Those distinctions sound simple enough, but they're often confused. A familiar argument about TV is that remotes are confusing and guides aren't intuitive, so obviously the television industry is backwards and ready to get disrupted. Partially true! Remotes are confusing and guides aren't intuitive, and it would be better for the cable companies if they weren't. But this isn't a fundamental problem with the business model between media companies, cable/satellite providers, and consumers. It's really a hardware design challenge. If Time Warner Cable comes out tomorrow with the perfect remote and an awesome guide interface, consumers will rejoice and TWC will grow its market share, and The TV will be more fun to use ... but the fundamentals of Pay TV won't change at all. Here are those fundamentals, as I explained in a column for the magazine. A small clutch of media companies owns 95% of the channels you watch. This oligopoly has the power to dictate terms to the cable/satellite companies that you pay each month. These cable/satellite providers are legally obligated to offer less popular channels alongside must-have networks like TBS and ESPN. That bundle costs the average household about $80, with roughly half going back to the media companies in "affiliate fees" and roughly half staying with the cable companies in infrastructure costs and profit. Cable companies didn't invent the bundle. They're prisoners of the bundle, just like you and I are. This model isn't written into stone, and my column doesn't claim that the cable business is invincible. It explains why cable has been resilient. There are lots of reasons why TV hasn't gone the way of music and newspapers in the Age of Internet. First, HD video is much harder and more expensive to transport than a music file or article page. Second, networks have learned from the music industry's collapse to cling furiously to their rights. But the most important reason why cable TV hasn't changed is also the simplest to understand. It simply hasn't had to. It's making too much money. What's going to kill the TV business, or at least challenge it, isn't Apple designing the perfect remote or Microsoft designing a superior guide. It's two things. First is the rising cost of entertainment, which is happening right now. The sitcoms and great dramas you love cost more to produce every year because they're labor intensive. Sports rights are seeing even worse inflation. ESPN recently signed a deal with the NFL to pay 73% more each year for Monday Night Football. So Comcast and its ilk are stuck between rising programming costs and flat-lining middle class wages. That's a problem, and eventually something has to give. But in the short term, providers can merge and channels can be cut and costs can be saved. Expensive shows and sports rights shouldn't destroy the TV business on their own. Combined with a second trend -- the accelerating exodus of attention away from television -- the TV business might really be in trouble. But this second trend is still more of a projection than a reality. One hundred million households still pay for a bundle of networks. That number isn't really going down. With the pace of household formation tripling in the last year, it could even go up. The number of cord-cutters -- households that have replaced the bundle with over-the-Internet video like Netflix -- is in the low single-digit millions. TV-providers have even found a hedge against cord cutting. They've become Internet-providers and expanded overseas to make up the revenue they're not making here. Cord-cutting is a marginal trend that could sneakily turn mainstream, creating an innovator's dilemma for TV and cable. But not yet. If you're interested in the future of TV, don't pay too much attention to the remotes and the guides. Just follow the eyeballs. They're still tuned in.

Ford on Quest to Revive Lincoln

DetroitNews November 8, 2012 at 1:00 am OK...my media friends...Get over to your Ford-Lincolndealer and lettem know you know about the exciting new MKX..as it is veddy cool! Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D. Read below.... by John McCormick Jim Farley, Ford’s global vice president of marketing and sales, says the Lincoln revival is aimed at buyers seeking the “next thing.” (Sam VarnHagen / Ford) If you are a premium car owner or shopping for one, you may well be bored and looking for the "next thing." At least that's what Jim Farley, Ford's global vice president of marketing and sales, would have you believe. Farley and his fellow top executives at Ford are engaged in the "reinvention" of Lincoln, the Dearborn automaker's luxury brand which has been on life support for the past decade or so. Several previous attempts to revive Lincoln have failed for various reasons, but this time Ford says it's serious and is putting the money, people and resources behind the effort. One of those resources is a brand new design studio dedicated solely to Lincoln and integrating engineering and other disciplines in one open plan, loft-like space. "This facility allows us to gather design and engineering teams together quickly," says Raj Nair, Ford's group vice president of global product development. For J. Mays, Ford's global design chief, the point of the studio is "to bring together a combination of imaginative engineering and style in a compelling package. Style is not just poured over the top of engineering." The first evidence of Lincoln's new style is the 2013 MKZ midsize sedan, which comes to market before the end of this year. As well as a new signature Lincoln waterfall grille design, the MKZ will boast a novel interior feature, a vertical set of push buttons on the center of the instrument panel for controlling the automatic transmission. This frees up room on the center console for more elegantly designed storage space. The MKZ is the only "new" Lincoln to be shown publicly, but insiders say a "very attractive" small crossover vehicle is close to fruition. This will be a welcome addition because Lincoln's current crossover, the MKT, is not known for its good looks. Now that Ford has shed all its previously owned European luxury brands, including Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin, it is free to concentrate on Lincoln. However, questions remain whether Ford truly has the stomach for such an expensive and long-term commitment, and if the crowned premium market really has room for another brand. Aside from the well-established high volume luxury marquees, such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi and Lexus, there are several second-tier contenders, including Cadillac, Volvo, Infiniti, Acura, Porsche and Jaguar/Land Rover all hungry to expand their shares of a market still suffering from the recession three years ago. So what can Lincoln do to regain its former luster in the eyes of consumers? From Farley's perspective, the answer lies in being different, with a combination of attention to details and unique personal touches. "Wealthy Americans are curious about what is the next thing, that's the opportunity for Lincoln," says Farley, who worked at Lexus prior to Ford and therefore knows a thing or two about launching a luxury brand. Lincoln will focus on the heart of the premium market, meaning smaller and mid-sized vehicles, and eschew the large sedan segment, demand for which has dropped sharply since the recession. "We are not going to make a big box with a cappuccino machine," Farley notes, "our ambition is to produce something very personal, because emerging customers are more reflective and interested in authenticity, rather than showing off how much they have." How such inspiring statements will translate into reality for future Lincoln buyers remains to be seen and skeptics would point out that the brand's track record for revivals is less than stellar. Still, it is promising to see physical evidence like the impressive design studio and the stated commitment to Lincoln from so many high-profile Ford executives.

People Don't Hate Ads -- People Hate Bad Ads

MediaPost's OnlineSpin​: 1:48 PM (52 minutes ago) by Dave Morgan “People don’t hate ads. People hate bad, interruptive ads.” That was the response of noted venture capitalist Fred Wilson when I asked him why Twitter and Tumblr have eschewed the online ad industry’s standard display ads in favor of their own, native ad formats. The exchange took place during an onstage interview I had with Fred on the past, present and future of digital advertising at AdTech here in New York. Fred is co-founder of Union Square Ventures in New York and one of the most respected venture capitalists in the world, with an extraordinary track record. He and his partners at USV were early investors in Twitter, Zynga, Foursquare, Tumblr, Etsy, Indeed, Kickstarter, Boxee, Flurry and dozens of other hot companies (disclosure: Fred was an investor in both TACODA, may last company, and Simulmedia, my current one). Fred is also one of the highest-profile venture capitalists out there. His blog, AVC, is among the most-read venture capital blogs, and he has almost a quarter of a million followers on Twitter. Fred has an interesting and unique perspective on the online advertising ecosystem. In the mid 1990s, he had great success backing companies like Geocities, Yoyodyne and StarMedia. He was right in the center of the Web 1.0 world and the development of display advertising. Today, he has a front-row seat (and time in the cockpit as a close advisor to his entrepreneurs) in the development of a wide range of new Web 2.0 advertising formats and monetization models at companies like Twitter, Tumblr, Etsy and Foursquare, none of which use “conventional” display advertising, but which are among the Web’s largest consumer properties. Over the course of the interview, Fred highlighted six key issues as critical to advertising-based Web services as they build their businesses for the future (credit to AVC community member William Mougayar for helping summarize them). Here they are: 1) Native monetization is key. The atomic unit of your content is what you should monetize. For Twitter, it is the tweet. For YouTube, it should be the video. 2) Focus on scale before revenue. It’s not an accident that Twitter and Tumblr focused first on building massive audiences before they focused on monetization. Each service reaches more than 600 million folks every month. Fred’s belief is that if you focus on revenue too early, you may never get to a scaled platform. Monetization can be distracting, drain resources and inhibit user growth. 3) Everything is going to mobile. That’s where growth is coming from for most Web services, and where all should be focused. 4) Social will reshape commerce. Fred believes that social will be an extraordinary driver of commerce and that e-commerce companies are better positioned to exploit it than social companies. His view is that it's better to make e-commerce more social than to turn social media into e-commerce. 5) Build mobile first. Try designing for mobile first, then move it to the Web experience. This is easier and more effective than going the opposite direction. 6) Amazon is more dominant in its best business than Google is in search. Guess what? Fred’s not talking about e-commerce. Fred loves Amazon’s Web services and views them as much more powerful businesses for the company than its retail business. As he puts it, Amazon is more dominant in Web services than Google is in search. That’s a big statement!

Mobile Is Key To Cross-Media Marketing Strategy

MediaPost's OnLineMediaDaily by Laurie Sullivan, Nov 7, 2012, 12:42 PM Forrester Research has released a method for benchmarking a company's "mobile maturity," as campaign budgets continue to rise. The guidelines are intended to help marketers understand different growth stages, and determine budgets to create a cross-media strategy and road map. Advertisers will spend $77 billion on interactive marketing by 2016, similar to the amount today spent on television, Forrester estimates. Search marketing, display advertising, mobile marketing, email marketing, and social media will comprise 26% of all advertising spend as marketers embed more media in the mix. "The Score Your Mobile Marketing Maturity" report describes three processes: Organization, Planning and Execution, and Measurement. Each section lists a series of questions, such as "How does your organization view the importance of mobile marketing," along with possible answers like "Mobile marketing is the connective tissue between online and offline channels and is key to any marketing campaign." About half of all companies have some type of mobile marketing strategy. While the personal nature of the device creates a tighter bond between brand and consumer, no event mobile ad campaign can live in a silo. Tagga Media confirmed that theory during a recent campaign with adidas. The company, which specializes in mobile marketing and advertising strategies, developed a cross-channel campaign in partnership with adidas SLD (Sports Licensed Division), according to Amielle Lake, Tagga founder and CRO, which views mobile as the backbone to cross-channel strategies. The campaign aimed to raise awareness and sales of adidas college football attire through Kohl's Web sites in Tennessee, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Michigan. The co-branded initiative created a cloud-based, cross-channel campaign that increased sales between 30% and 100% across each of four markets. In 21 days, the campaign generated more than 13,000 entries and leads across all four markets. For each entry, consumers entered their name, phone number, mail and email address. About 1,968 were completed via SMS. It also prompted 49,000 page views across all four sites in the four markets. The cross-channel campaign began on Aug 24 and ended Sept. 15. Consumers entered the sweepstakes online via a branded landing page or in Kohl's department stores by texting a keyword to a short code and completing the entry form on a branded mobile optimized page. Once the sweepstakes entry form was completed, customers were presented with a success page that included a link to the Kohl's e-commerce store. Customers could purchase adidas college football merchandise directly from their mobile or desktop devices. Winners received prizes ranging from college football team merchandise to game tickets.

Millennials: The Scoop On Food, Dining, Clothing

MediaPost's MarketingDaily by Karlene Lukovitz, Yesterday, 4:39 PM Millennials are also know as Gen-Y...Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D. Consumers 16 to 34 are indeed different than older consumers when it comes to dining out, dining in, grocery shopping and apparel shopping behaviors and preferences, confirms a new study from The Boston Consulting Group. For the study, “Millennial Passions: Food, Fashion and Friends,” BCG surveyed 4,000 Millennials and 1,000 non-Millennials (ages 35 to 74). Dining Out Habits, Preferences Restaurant meals and drinks rank high on Millennials’ list of what they like to spend their money on—above consumer electronics, apparel, footwear, beauty, cosmetics and accessories. On average, they also spend slightly more on dining out than non-Millennials, and they eat out more often (3.4 versus 2.8 times a week). Males and Hispanic males in particular eat out more often. Millennials also: * Prefer fast-casual dining venues such as Panera Bread, Chipotle Mexican Grill and Pei Wei Asian Diner, although they also often patronize casual-dining venues such as Olive Garden, Applebee’s, Chili’s and The Cheesecake Factory. They also prefer Asian, exotic and organic foods more than non-Millennials (who prefer seafood and steak). *Are more likely to get food to go than to dine in the restaurant, particularly at breakfast. * Are more likely to eat out with friends and coworkers than non-Millennials (65% versus 43%), and get more social value out of casual dining than non-Millennials. * Eat at restaurants during off-peak hours twice as much as non-Millennials – a behavior that appears to be generational, not just related to life stage. But Millennials are far from homogenous; subgroups differ in regard to their priorities for restaurants. For instance, “Gadget Gurus” (typically male and the generation’s most frequent restaurant goers) want great-tasting food and convenience, whereas “Hip-ennials” (primarily female and the largest segment) want customized and error-free orders, friendly/attentive service, good value and an orderly, clean environment. Millennial segments also report somewhat different emotional needs related to dining out. In general, however, they want to feel like they are “experiencing something new,” and they care more about late-night dining, convenience, décor, menu/drink variety, entertainment and Wi-Fi. (Challenging restaurants to meet their needs without turning off older consumers.) In addition to offering fast(er) service, ready-to-eat and to-go options, food/beverage combinations that include exotic, organic and local ingredients, and entertainment experiences, BCG recommends that restaurants provide innovative services for large parties and technology options that enhance the dining experience. And of course, that they use digital, mobile and social media promotions, as well as advocacy marketing. Dining In and Food Shopping Millennials prefer farm-to-table and organic foods (they care twice as much about organic food than non-Millennials), and are willing to "trade up" for fresh produce and prepared or organic foods. They’re also more likely than non-Millennials to love cooking and to consider themselves experts in the kitchen (64% versus 52%) – and they enjoy exotic and diverse foods and creative menu ideas. A major point for food and beverage manufacturers: Millennials still prefer branded foods, and perceive them as offering noticeably higher quality – but economic realities (including having children) tend to drive purchases of store brands. When it comes to food shopping, Millennials exhibit preferences that are likely to stick with them as they get older, reports BCG. Millennials at all income levels are less aware than non-Millennials of traditional grocery chains such as Albertsons and Safeway – they prefer club, specialty and convenience food-store formats. However, there’s a gap between where Millennials say that they would like to shop (chains such as SuperTarget, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s and Costco) and where theyactually shop (one-third shop at Walmart Supercenters). Apparel Shopping Nearly half (47%) of female Millennials and a substantial 38% of male Millennials report shopping for clothing more than twice a month (versus 36% and 10% of female and male non-Millennials, respectively). Regardless of demographics and income levels, male Millennials spend twice as much annually on clothing as non-Millennials, and female Millennials outspend older females by about a third (although personal clothing purchases decline in Millennial households with children). Both male and female Millennials are knowledgeable about clothing and have definite brand preferences. While there is some overlap (Levi’s, Gap and American Eagle Outfitters, for example), the two sexes’ preferred brands generally differ. Also, men are more apt to stick with a relatively few brands, although when they try and are converted to a new brand, they tend to stay loyal longer than women do.

Millennials Are Re-Shaping The Concept Of 'News'

MediaPost's Engage:Gen-Y By Emily Anatole Friday, Nov. 9, 2012 Millennials are often criticized for not consuming news, but, despite this perception, they actually are reading and responding to news constantly. Their habits, however, differ from those of previous generations and, because of that, they’re shaping the ways in which news exists. They’re innovating the industry, making the consumption of news more social, yet they’re still informed and are active in responding to what’s happening in the world at large. Millennials’ approach to consuming news reflects how they differ from Gen Xers -- they perceive the “power of the pack” (or Facebook updates, tweets, and trending topics as we know them) as more valuable than the fact-checked, overly polished, POV of one reporter. Ask a Millennial what’s the first thing they do when they wake up or before they go to bed and they’ll likely say they look at Facebook or Twitter (we even recently learned that 30% of men now say they won’t enter the bathroom without their phone!). To them, social networks aren’t just for talking to friends; they’re also for staying plugged into the world around them. According to our survey conducted among 1,780 14-34 year olds during October 2012: •TV is still the top way in which Millennials consume news, with 7 in 10 (73%) saying they turn to TV to stay informed •However, two-thirds of Millennials say they get their news from Facebook •One-third say they receive news from Twitter In a world where communication is consumed without geographic boundaries and in real time, the concept of “news” is clearly being re-shaped. A 17 year old today was barely 12 when the iPhone came out, so a world in which opinions, comments, and updates weren’t flying at them is not just forgotten, it never existed. Millennials have grown up at a time where anyone with internet access can, in theory, be a journalist. By tweeting a picture, updating a status, or uploading a YouTube video, sharing news is a co-created experience between the media industry and its consumers. This is a generation that expects to understand something like Hurricane Sandy’s impact through the expressed point of view of their peers online. One creative Tumblr blogger’s Sandy experience, “A New Yorker’s Sandy Experience As Told Through Gifs,” went viral last week amidst all the other news coverage. We know Millennials see being the “first” (to share, to know, to comment on) as a valuable character trait. And with this in mind, it’s not surprising that they would gamble credibility for immediacy. This generation would rather watch the crowd form a POV within their social graph than wait around for the well-curated 5 o’clock news. With that said, Millennials work to keep their network informed and they, in return, want to be looped in by their peers. “Staying up to date” is a relationship between consumer and world that requires mutual responsibility from each party. If they read, see, or hear of something newsworthy, they’ll quickly share it with their network. The word spreads rapidly, with their friends leaving comments, adding to the story and seeking out more information in response to their status or tweet. Previous generations may have had to seek out the news, but Millennials are finding it easier than ever to stay connected, especially because “the news comes to me” -- as one of our panelists put it. Twitter trending topics help them figure out what’s happening -- and represent a shift from a time when people validated news (the news as we once knew it) to technology validating news. Like any other content Millennials engage with online, news, too, has social currency; it gives consumers gasoline to drive their conversations, recognition, and overall relationship with the world around them. How do the things you post shape your personal brand? It’s clear this emerging consumer behavior is driving innovations across the news industry. Huffington Post launched HuffPost Live earlier this year, a streaming video network where community members from around the world can join in via their webcam. In the same realm of thinking, Yahoo created #Hashout, the first talk show conducted over social media. Additionally, sites like Reddit, which serve to make news social -- putting a unique spin on this overall shift in news consumption, are gaining popularity. Reddit users submit links and vote on the ranking of posts: a unique middle ground between the “new” behavior of consuming news through pedestrian updates and the “traditional” behavior of relying on established news sources. Millennials certainly aren’t abandoning traditional news sources altogether, but they’re changing the nature of news in how they read, report, and react to it.

Is Your Brand On Her Holiday Shopping List?

MediaPost's Engage: Mom By Michael Fogarty Friday, Nov. 9, 2012 It’s barely mid-November but moms already have much of their holiday shopping done. Even for marketers who understand this audience, that may seem hard to believe – especially given how time-pressed moms’ lives are today. But according to our 2012 Holiday Survey, due to rapid increases in digital media usage and mobile solutions, moms are planning further in advance than ever before. As a result, 53% of them are doing their holiday shopping before Thanksgiving – only 16% cited Black Friday as the official start of their seasonal shopping. That’s not the only change in moms’ purchasing behavior. Though she plans to spend nearly 10% less this holiday season than last, her budget of $750 on gifts for friends and family is now 16% higher than the U.S. average, according to a 2011 American Research Group Study. So mom is shopping earlier and spending less. She’s also finding new ways to research products and brands, getting recommendations from her mobile social networks, and expecting increased convenience and regular discounts. What’s a marketer to do? By better understanding mom’s mindset and new shopping behaviors, marketers have new ways to be noticed and get their products on her must-have list. A great deal is mom’s favorite gift When we launched our “Shopping Rituals of the American Mom” report last year, we learned that mom shops for sport, trying to get the best deal. During the holidays, with so much more to buy, she wants more than ever to score big. Our latest data shows that nearly 9 in 10 moms say they will pay more attention to deal-related advertising over the holidays – a 10% increase over last year. And 3 in 5 tell us that a retail promotion has the power to sway where they’ll buy. In fact, 44% cite deals as the biggest influencer to making a purchase, with 36% even saying that a deal makes way for an unplanned holiday purchase. Fifty-nine percent say that, aside from a discount, free express shipping is a big draw, followed by an easy return policy and extended store hours. Holiday hint: Deliver on mom’s wish list -- savings and shopping solutions simplify her life. New media choices require a new marketing plan Mom is faced with a flurry of holiday marketing messages, and for good reason – she represents a $2.4 trillion market, making buying decisions for the entire household, everything from clothes to consumer technologies to stocking stuffers. Time-starved and media-shifted moms tap into an increasing variety of resources to decide what to buy. Television (61%), online (58%), and email (57%) are all important ways to reach her. While traditional media plays a key role in the mix, digital is a true holiday shopping tool. Seventy-one percent tell us their in-store holiday shopping is greatly influenced by online research – 10% higher than the general population. In fact, 88% say that researching gifts online before trekking to the store ups their confidence that they will find the best gift at the best price. Email marketing also plays a big role in mom’s decision-making process; 40% of moms look for inbox holiday offers from merchants. Social media is right up there with email. During the holiday season, almost 30% of moms turn to parenting social media for inspiration – 45% higher than mainstream social media. Holiday hint: The 21st century mom is making her list and checking it twice across multiple media platforms. Mobile is mom’s holiday helper Along with the rapidly evolving media habits of moms, we’ve seen a corresponding rise of new pathways to purchase. Mom’s go-to resource to shop smarter is her smartphone. Moms are 58% more likely than the general population to shop from a mobile device. Based on our September poll, 91% of moms who own a smartphone expect websites to be easily accessed from their mobile device. During the holidays, more than half of moms will use their device to compare prices online, right in the store – a 37% increase in just the past six months alone. And nearly 1 in 4 will scan a bar code for price comparisons – 25% higher than April 2012 data. Holiday hint: Mobilizing your message is a must. Make it easy for mom to research and buy from the palm of her hand. Empowered with the latest tools and technology, the modern mom continues to be the leading indicator for the future of shopping. This holiday season, the brands that meet her when and where she’s shopping -- and deliver on her new expectations -- are going to get to the top of her wish list.

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.