Media

A reason local direct is so important! Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

ADVERTISING

For Holiday Ads, Nothing Says Tradition Like Cardi B’s Twerk Shop

Multimillion-dollar seasonal campaigns like Pepsi’s were a TV standard, but fewer companies are making a big splash beyond their usual digital strategies.

Pepsi’s multimillion-dollar ad campaign featuring the rapper Cardi B and her holiday helpers is really something of a throwback as companies shift toward targeted online ads.Credit...Pepsi

By Tiffany Hsu

• Nov. 24, 2019

In a 22nd-floor suite of the Ritz-Carlton in Manhattan, sipping a nonalcoholic sparkling rosé from Pepsi, I was waiting for Cardi B to talk to me about Christmas.

The Grammy-winning rapper stars in Pepsi’s new holiday commercial. It is set in Cardi’s Twerk Shop, where Cardi B offers twerking tips to an elf as a jingle plays.

Here comes Cardi B

Here comes Cardi B

She’s gonna make it rain

When she arrived for the interview, she seemed exhausted. She curled up on the couch, bundled herself in a blanket and laid her head near my lap. She talked about the commercial, which went online on Thursday, saying the outfit she wore during filming was edited in postproduction to mask some of her cleavage.

“Can you believe that?” Cardi B said. “I didn’t even feel like it was a lot.”

In an advertising environment that has shifted toward targeted online ads, Pepsi’s multimillion-dollar campaign — with its celebrity spokeswoman, its elaborate sets, and a planned broadcast rollout during the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade and several N.F.L. games — is really something of a throwback.

These days, companies need to reach people who are flipping through their phones, looking to get 10 percent off their next shoe purchase. Their seasonal ads are a long way from the campaigns that helped shape the American idea of Christmas.

Coca-Cola spread the modern image of Santa Claus with full-color magazine ads starting in the 1930s. Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer originated as part of a promotion for Montgomery Ward in 1939. Hershey’s “Christmas Bells” commercials, which have featured Hershey’s Kisses candies since 1989, have been around longer than many millennials.

Now that holiday shopping has become a monthslong pursuit and increasingly takes place online, many companies opt for simple digital displays that can be used year-round.

“The big holiday campaigns that make a lot of sense on television make less sense in a Facebook or Instagram ad,” said Danielle Sporkin, the head of integrated planning at the agency OMD USA. “It’s not that big brand messages are dead, but it’s about having a bigger sweep of messages to use on different platforms.”

Many ads are doing away with snow drifts and conifers. This year’s holiday campaign from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is footage of a roast spinning slowly over flames — a “Drool Log” that’s based on the WPIX-TV “Yule Log” of yore.

The electronics company Philips, famous for its decades of commercials featuring Santa riding Norelco shaving products, stopped running the ads after 2011. “Our marketing strategy has evolved to more of an always-on, less seasonal approach,” Shannon Jenest, a marketing executive at Philips, said.

In recent weeks, companies like Best Buy and Macy’s have pulled back on spending for digital holiday ads compared with last year, even as the total amount that brands spend on online advertising has more than doubled, according to the advertising analytics platform Pathmatics.

Retailers spent nearly 21 percent less on holiday TV ads in the United States from Oct. 28 through Wednesday than they did during the same period last year, according to the research firm Kantar. Gap is keeping its Christmas-focused advertising away from television. Home Depot and Wayfair have cut their spending on holiday-focused TV commercials by more than half, Kantar found.

Still, the giant red bows atop cars won’t completely disappear from TV commercials. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been plowed into seasonal marketing this year, including Oreo’s first holiday campaign since 2016.

Amazon, which reported last year that customers had ordered a record number of items during the holiday season, is another exception. The company increased its recent holiday TV budget 89 percent, according to Kantar.

As overall spending on holiday TV ads has dropped, so has spending on Black Friday commercials. The designated shopping day is fading after years of hype.

“Advertisers shot themselves in the foot with Black Friday — they diluted the term and overused it and confused the consumer,” said Jacqueline R. Wachholz, an advertising expert at Duke University. “Now it’s the whole week, the whole month. I’ve seen the phrase mentioned in July.”

The Art of the Bluff: How This Poker Tactic Could Boost Your Sales

The Art of the Bluff: How This Poker Tactic Could Boost Your Sales

Mon, 11/25/2019 - 15:59

Author: 

Greg McBeth

“Bluffing” isn’t a word you’ll hear often in the professional world, partly because it conjures some negative connotations. It’s often interpreted synonymously with lying. But this staple tactic of the poker table can be a valuable and valid tool in sales negotiations.

There’s admittedly a fine line between a bluff and a lie. It can be helpful to think about a bluff as a tactic used in a zero-sum game where both parties are on an even playing field and trying to maximize their individual outcomes. For that reason, a bluff is generally considered ethical, whereas a flat-out lie is not. For example, if you’re trying to negotiate a price, then both parties have the opportunity to bluff. But if you’re selling a product and a customer asks a question about a product capability and you answer dishonestly, you're likely out of bounds.

At the poker table, bluffing is the strategy of disguising your hand to distort other players’ expectations. In a sales situation, bluffing can help you maximize your revenue outcomes. It can mean using knowledge gaps to present a potential price that suits both parties, for example, while gaining the upper hand in a negotiation. Say you believe that your prospect is willing to pay $15,000 to $20,000, a range you’re willing to accept, so you make an offer that's “at your floor” of $20,000 – you've bluffed, and your prospect now has the chance to call.

Integrating artful bluffing into your sales strategy can also empower sales representatives to achieve their potential. According to CSO Insights’ "2018 Sales Talent Study," the cost of representatives failing to maximize their selling ability is taking a toll on businesses, with 49 percent of organizations recognizing the need to improve their salesforce’s deal-making performance.

How to Master the Art of Bluffing in Sales
Bluffing in sales is more complex than in poker and can take many forms in the sales process. Bluffing can range from subtle to direct according to what phase you’re in and how established the customer relationship is. Here are four ways to adapt the art of the bluff to your organization:
1. Know your audience. Successful poker players learn to read the players around the table to become more shrewd in their bluffing. It may even take several rounds to establish the foundation of a good bluff, learning who the conservative players are, who is willing to gamble, and who is inclined to bluff themselves.

You can use the same technique in your sales cycle. Learn how your prospect behaves, and use this insight to determine your bluffing style. Is he knowledgeable or uninformed, rigid or flexible, experienced or naive? The more you know about the stakeholders in a deal, the better you can leverage that information to your advantage.

2. Be on the lookout for opportunities. The successful bluffer will look for situations where she can take advantage of another player’s behavior. If a player has just lost a lot of money, for example, he may well start playing more conservatively or more aggressively because losing tends to polarize people’s actions. In the right situation, this person is a prime bluff target.
In sales, any information you glean from a prospect can be an opportunity. Say you learn that the company you’re selling to is under a tight time pressure to complete a project that your product will help support. You can leverage that information to get an upper hand on pricing or legal terms. Similarly, if you know that company is under extreme cost-cutting measures, bluffing aggressively on price may be a losing strategy.

3. Tell a believable story. Storytelling is a crucial part of good bluffing technique and a successful sales strategy. A story helps the other person relate to and believe in what you’re saying. At the poker table, stories can be made up of body language, bet sizes, what cards are visible to the table, the personality of the players, and more.

In sales, you can assemble a coherent narrative with the pieces of information you choose to share. For example, share that you’re in a fundraising stage and are being cost-conscious, and you may get a better deal on a new tool than if you just shared news that your company just raised $100 million in capital.

4. Practice. Executing a bluff, especially in less-than-favorable circumstances, requires confidence and skill. To do it successfully will take practice, especially if you’re not a bluffer by nature. Start by integrating the technique in small ways. Test the water and make sure you can walk back from the bluff if you’re called out on it.

Only by practicing will you develop a poker-like instinct for determining how far you can push people in different scenarios and gain confidence in observing and predicting others’ behavior.
Artful sales leaders and representatives are always on the lookout for ways to gain fair advantages and come out with a good deal. They’re watchful of their environment and the other players in the game, ready to adapt their strategy. The art of bluffing will never be the primary tool in your set, but it can add a little fire to your sales cycle.

Greg McBeth is the head of revenue at Node.io, the first turnkey AI platform that enables businesses to embed artificial intelligence into their own products, customer databases, and external systems of record, all via a standard API.

Future of News Media: Advertisers, Agencies, and Consumers Weigh-In

Author

Erich J. Prince

Publish date

November 26, 2019

Channel

The Myers Report

Archived in

News on the Record

When taking a pulse on the state of the news media, perhaps it's better to look to data from advertisers, agencies, and consumers, than to focus unduly on a few of the loudest pundits and press from within the news space itself. So, I decided to review The Myers Report Media Brand Equity Study 2019, conducted online by MediaVillage and Synqrinus in August 2019. I noted several findings that are particularly illustrative of important trends and points of interest in the news space. MediaVillage members may scroll down for results comparing consumer respondents with advertisers and agency respondents for the attributes referenced in this article.

It's worth drawing attention to consumers' relative confidence, in particular, regarding the future prospects of BBC America relative to cable television news typically more associated with overtly partisan content. For instance, a full 75 percent of consumers indicated their confidence in BBC America's ability to "thrive in the future," as compared to 64 percent of consumers who would say the same of MSNBC — which was precisely the same share of consumers who expressed confidence in Fox News thriving in the future.

Although certainly far from immune to bias, BBC/BBC America — despite dogged suggestions of a pro-establishment bias (along with a preference for various left-leaning social issues) — is arguably perceived as slightly above some of the partisan fray of American politics. It's a point that may be fueling elements of consumer confidence in the brand.

This comes at a time when, according to a September Ipsos poll, fewer than half of Americans believe that the news media reports fairly or even-handedly on political issues. However, advertisers, agencies, and consumers would be wise to keep at the forefront of their minds that, of the top 25 cable news programs in Q3 2019, the first 22 consecutive slots belonged to programs on either Fox News or MSNBC. This may be a particularly important reminder for agency respondents, who expressed a 15-percentage-point higher estimation for MSNBC's future prospects than those of Fox News. (Interestingly, the relative difference in advertisers' confidence between the two networks was much less significant).

So, even if there might be reason to believe that the future may favor a move away from overly partisan coverage, at present, that appears to be what sells — even as demographic concerns continue regarding the consumers of cable news aging.

On a related note, respondents largely failed to grasp the disconnect between profitability and the perceived ability of certain brands to thrive in the future. For instance, 75 percent of advertisers and 80 percent of agency professionals expressed confidence in BuzzFeed's future prospects, despite the well-documented struggles that the digital media company has had in generating profits. This notably culminated in its January 2019 decision to lay off 15 percent of its workforce to support its efforts to reach profitability.

Thus, it is interesting that advertisers would express greater confidence in this category for BuzzFeed than for The New York Times, the latter of which has seen increased profitability due to its recent expansion towards a greater reliance on subscription-based revenue. But still, a chasm existed in confidence within BuzzFeed's future prospects between professionals and consumers, where only 59 percent of consumers expressed similar confidences. The glitzier, "new media" BuzzFeed was also preferred by professionals in this category, as compared to Forbes — even at a time when Forbes reported 2018 as being its most profitable year since 2006.

Also of note was the range of responses to the perennially-elusive question of the perceived social responsibility of certain brands. This question comes amid a broader national conversation about the role corporations ought to have (or not have) in pursuing interests other than maximizing returns to shareholders. To this effect, approximately 200 corporate chief executives of the Business Roundtable signed a letter in August, suggesting that they would act with other interests in mind than that of just their shareholders when making decisions.

This is a break from those who would argue, as Milton Friedman did in his famous 1970 New York Times Magazine essay, that "the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits." This is all to say that social responsibility is in the eyes of the beholder, and its meaning can be interpreted very differently by well-meaning, good faith parties putting forward different definitions. So, in this case, 67 percent of advertisers and 76 percent of agencies argued that The New York Times is socially responsible, compared to the 25 percent and 30 percent, respectively, who said the same of Fox News. The New York Times has been widely criticized, for instance, for its unquestioning support of various foreign policy decisions, including the war in Iraq, for which then-public editor, Daniel Okrent, subsequently had to issue an apology.

And, given the currently in-vogue definition of social responsibility, many would find that Tucker Carlson's recent economic endorsements are likely far more redistributive than those supported by many New York Times columnists and contributors. To this point, 47 percent of consumers expressed a belief that Fox News exhibited social responsibility — nearly double the number of advertisers who said the same.

A final major point of interest concerns the differing perceptions between professionals and consumers of a brand being culturally relevant. Responses regarding The New York Times, again, present this case clearly, as agencies and advertisers appear to overstate the cultural relevance this publication has relative to consumers. It's a similar story with regards to The Wall Street Journal, where 70 percent of advertisers and 71 percent of agency professionals indicated their belief in the cultural relevance of The Wall Street Journal, relative to 57 percent of consumers. A similar breakdown existed when evaluating BuzzFeed, with 80 percent of advertisers and 88 percent of agency respondents articulating a belief in the brand's cultural relevance, as compared to only 60 percent of consumers.

On the other side of the coin, professionals underestimated the cultural relevance of ABC and CBS relative to consumers, while overestimating the cultural relevance of CNN, MSNBC, and NPR relative to consumers. This is in line with responses in the "thrive in the future" category, in which some media professionals may fail to fully appreciate the differences between the types of media often consumed in major cities versus consumer preferences in other parts of the country. For instance, professionals overestimated the cultural relevance of Spotify relative to consumers and underestimated the potential cultural impact of iHeartRadio, as compared to consumers. Differences in perceptions between media professionals and consumers have been well-documented and have both economic and content implications.

In all, the study's findings offer worthwhile insights into the current state of news media and how perceptions can differ among advertisers, agency professionals, and consumers. As we learned:

• Partisan media's ascendancy may not be guaranteed in the future
• There exists, in certain cases, a lack of engagement with the actual profitability of various news companies
• There are marked differences of opinion over what social responsibility means
• Media professionals and consumers often have a different sense of what cultural relevance entails

Also, of worthwhile future exploration is an examination of attitudes about various news business models some companies have been experimenting with lately — from The New York Times' (and others') increasing reliance on subscription-based revenue to those outlets such as The Guardian, which notably broke out of the red, via the increasingly-popular revenue model of voluntary contributions from readers.

Commentary

TV's Impact On Movie Theaters Might Change Rules Of The Game

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, November 21, 2019

Decades ago -- before the powerful rise of TV networks -- there were cries of monopolistic intentions regarding powerful movie studios controlling the flow of theatrical movie content by also owning movie theaters.

There was a federal decree back in 1949 prohibiting this.

But now, the Department of Justice deems all this unnecessary. With a rapidly expanding media entertainment marketplace -- TV, streaming, video gaming, social, virtual and otherwise -- this kind of vertical integration prohibition isn’t necessary.

Maybe it is kind of like when a big communications/broadband company (AT&T) buys a movie studio/cable TV network group (Time Warner). Or in looking at more general media mergers, when CBS (a major broadcast network) decides to combine with Viacom (a major cable TV network group).

For some time, theater owners have been threatened from increased competition from a slew of platforms -- TV and cable networks, streaming services, digital media, video gaming, to name a few. So why not let movie studios buy theater chains?

Theater chains increasingly have been impacted by movie studios. For years now, studios have wanted -- perhaps privately or so -- to dip their toes into two different marketplace at the same time -- releasing their movies in-theaters and  in big-paying home TV entertainment streaming services, all to maximize revenues for all their theatrical content.

Theatrical chain owners want none of this. They worry about the erosion of their customer base, which might just stay home. But, if they had a choice, many frequent customers -- those young skewing and/or male movie-goers -- would still go to their local cinemas.

Older consumers might still go as well -- but on their own time, and for the right content.
TV networks and distribution executives continually say their intention is to deliver content to consumers wherever they are, and at anytime: cable, satellite, telco operator, TV network via a digital antenna or virtual pay TV streaming app.

And yes, sometimes those consumers need to pay a different price for the privilege of accessing that content, depending on the platform. But the same isn’t exactly true in the movie industry. Theater owners demand movie studios’ consumers come to them first.
Does that make a good movie finale?

Commentary

Evaluating TV's Enhanced Role In A Full-Funnel Environment

• by Artie Bulgrin , Op-Ed Contributor, 10 hours ago

The lines are blurring between TV’s role as a high-reach, long-term brand builder and a short-term targeted sales activation platform due to the growth of addressable TV households. According to the Video Advertising Bureau (VAB), 54% of U.S. TV homes can receive targeted TV advertising, and as a result, addressable TV ad spending is projected to grow 33% in 2020 to $3.4B.

The evolution of addressable consumer targeting means that television could deliver valuable business outcomes across the full marketing funnel -- from brand awareness to sales activation.
But seminal research from Binet & Field for the IPA Databank recommends a balanced approach between long- and short-term strategies of roughly 60/40, given that reach remains essential for long-term growth.

TV is certainly offering new value for marketers, and the industry believes that addressable TV will deliver a deeper level of personalization, resulting in greater relevancy and attention for TV advertising. But is this true from a scientific perspective?

For the last decade, MediaScience has been testing the performance of TV/video advertising formats in long- and short-term messaging applications across traditional TV and digital platforms.
Based on a series of controlled lab studies on category-baed targeting, we have produced insights in five key areas. These may run counter to conventional wisdom, but are essential to understanding the value and limitations of addressable advertising:

1. Addressable advertising does not improve ad recall and brand recognition. Even when controlling for factors such as program liking, brand familiarity and brand category relevance, there is no significant difference in ad recall or brand recognition influenced by category relevance to a viewer.

  2. Targeting and relevance alone does not affect ad engagement or reduce ad avoidance.

In general, ads for product categories relevant to the viewer do not affect engagement or ad avoidance. Only when the category is highly relevant and the need is very timely can addressable ads reduce ad avoidance.

 
One key insight for advertisers is that likable ads, brand familiarity and optimized frequency are essential to gaining engagement and mitigating ad avoidance.

3.  There is no difference in addressable ad effectiveness in a cluttered vs. a limited interruption environment.
In evaluating ads that were highly relevant and “in-market” and ads that were of low or no relevance, we found that limited interruption produced no significant difference in ad avoidance, ad liking or attitude toward the brand across ad types. Another insight was that ad liking and brand attitude explained more than half of the total variance in ad avoidance, while rated relevance explained less than 10%. 

4.  Optimizing frequency for addressable ads is critical -- especially for new and unfamiliar brands.
Brands that are highly familiar or repeated are more likely to be seen and more likely to improve brand measures, but managing excessive frequency in short periods is critical as this can increase ad avoidance and erase all benefits.

The best conditions for addressable advertising occur when familiarity and optimized frequency are combined with ads that are targeted using timely consumer information -- same day or less.

5.  Regardless of which screen it is, behavioral targeting does not produce higher ad engagement.
Whether on TV or a personal smartphone, ads targeted for product categories more relevant to a viewer do not stimulate more attention or more emotional response than standard ads. There is also no difference in memory between moderate and high relevance ads. Creative matters more than relevance.   

It's clear that consumers do not ignore ads from non-relevant categories, nor do they favor targeted ads from relevant categories.

What is clear is that ads for categories and brands we use may be easier to process or remember, but attention and the enjoyment of ads are more attributable to creative quality than relevance.
So, video ads seem to have the ability to gain the attention of more than just the "most likely" viewers, which is good news for advertisers that need to strengthen their brand.

It's more important for an ad to be "good" than "relevant." Our research suggests that advertisers should not pay a premium for targeting ads based on the hope of higher engagement.
Instead, premiums should be justified in terms of efficiency, extra reach and less waste.

Commentary

Streaming Entertainment: There May Be A Financial Cap For Consumers

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, November 14, 2019

Looking for streaming video trends may be tough to come by. A rough picture may be to look at the past -- where the physical video industry has been, in terms of overall value.

We speak of DVDs, Blu-ray discs and even videotape.

In 2005 -- the entire home video market, comprised mostly of physical video products, DVDs, Blu-Ray discs, and other sales --- was around $25 billion. The bulk of this being $16 billion in DVD sales alone.

What’s the entire home video market now in 2019? Also, $25 billion. DVD sales have dropped to $2.2 billion, with total annual streaming services now at $15 billion annually.
This may sound crazy. But, for some analysts, streaming may have already peaked. “Now the question is: Is $25 billion just the natural cap?” asks Bruce Nash, founder and president of Nash Information Services, in speaking with CNBC.

With new services coming on board -- Apple TV+, Disney+, NBCU’s Peacock, and HBO Max -- this \ doesn't seem to make sense.

But think about this: Two of those services -- Apple TV+ and Disney+ -- are starting out at a modest $4.99 and $6.99 price tag, respectively -- perhaps a super-discounted price. Next year, there has been talk that NBCU’s Peacock may be cheaper. Like free. (OK, HBO Max might just ruin this far-fetched analysis with its $16 a month price tag.)

Analyzing a $4.99 or $6.99 price tag may tell more. In 2005, that might have been the average price for a single purchase, perhaps rental, of a movie.

No doubt there are plenty of estimates that the new TV-video streaming businesses will expand consumers' total monthly entertainment dollars. But by how much?

If consumers are paying $80 to $120 a month for total home TV entertainment -- on-demand, streaming, traditional pay TV providers, individual movie/TV subscriptions -- do we really think this number will rise 10%, 25%, or 100% over current levels?

How much much more can consumers pay for entertainment per month?

Traditional media companies continued to worry about how to push new streaming services, while maintaining legacy pay TV distribution revenues -- a business that will continue to dominate their financial quarterly earnings reports for years to come.

Cord-cutting isn’t just the name of a trend. In years to come, that activity will need a new definition/name -- especially if it increases 5% or 10% or more a year. Cord-slashing? Cord-crashing? Maybe that will get legacy media’s attention.

Fox Sports: 80% Of Super Bowl Spots Sold, At Record Prices

• by Karlene Lukovitz  @KLmarketdaily, November 15, 2019

Fox Sports has sold 80% of its ad availabilities for the Super Bowl LIV telecast, at record prices, according to Seth Winter, executive vice president for sports sales at Fox Sports.

The network has sold 60 of the 77 available spots, and “pacing well ahead” of where it thought it would be at this point in the process, Winter told Bloomberg.

Advertisers that buy two 30-second ads in the 2020 game, to be played in Miami, are paying $5.5 million, and those that buy one 30-second ad are paying $5.6 million — both record prices he said.
Last year, CBS sold Super Bowl ads for between $5.1 million and $5.3 million.

Winter also reported that 25 advertisers are vying, in “musical chairs” fashion, for the remaining 17 ad availabilities — and that the price could rise for the “last handful” of slots, though Fox hasn’t discussed going over $6 million.

The pace of sales/heightened demand and elevated prices reflect fewer commercial breaks available in the 2020 Super Bowl (four per quarter, versus five in previous years) as a result of a Fox-NFL agreement aimed at creating a more “free-flowing” viewer experience, Winter told Bloomberg.
Only Fox’s telecast of the 2014 Super Bowl in New York outpaced the sales performance for 2020’s game, he added.

COMMENTARY

More People Watch TV Ads With Their Ears Than Their Eyes

• by Rob DeMars , Columnist, Yesterday

Growing up, I loved me some TV. "Fantasy Island." "Love Boat." "90210." Who had time for a social life when you could hang out with MacGyver and a six-pack of Jolt? As the prophet Homer Simpson once asked: "How can one little insulated wire bring so much happiness?"

In fact, I loved TV so much, I dedicated my life to it. Well, at least the part of TV that happens in between shows: the commercials. But like all great love affairs, with time, relationships change.  The way people consume TV shows today has fundamentally changed from my days riding shotgun with "Knight Rider." So has the way people watch TV commercials. A recent eye-tracking study revealed that 60% of participants look away during commercial breaks.

This shouldn't surprise anyone in today's second-screen world. After all, there's a Facebook feed hungry to be fed and tweets to Twitter. If the way people consume TV ads has changed, then so shouldn't the way agencies create them?

TV marketers need to take a serious look at the sound of their brand.

While more than half of viewers are turning their eyeballs to their mobile phones during commercial breaks, TV still controls the audio experience of any family room. So when was the last time you watched your TV campaign with your eyes closed? Is your value proposition still clear, even though there are no pictures? Was the name of your product or service even spoken? Does the voice, music and sound design represent your brand in a way that's ownable to you?

The buzz around sonic branding.

Sonic branding is a hot topic these days. And for good reason. There are more ways for a brand to engage with consumers through audio. Podcasts. Music streaming. In-store. In-app. Hold messaging. Smart speakers. And more are on their way. Forward-thinking brands are staying ahead of this trend by creating brand standards specifically for audio. For example, Pandora recently unveiled their "sonic logo."

TV should champion your audio brand. But the fact still remains − with all the different ways audio is being used in branding, TV still reigns as a supreme force in reaching your customers’ ears. And given more people are listening to TV commercials than watching, it's more critical than ever to ensure you're getting the most value from the ads you broadcast.

Putting audio into action.

So the next time you're about to launch a new TV campaign, don't just put a critical eye on the final cut. More importantly, apply a critical ear. Be sure you're testing and refining all aspects of your television audio, from music to mnemonics to voiceovers.

All these elements are critical to driving measurable performance gains. Then be sure to push all these audio elements beyond TV into the DNA of your brand's audio ecosystem.

COMMENTARY

Brave New World: How Subscription Streaming Will Impact TV

• by Adam Buckman , Featured Columnist, 11 hours ago

How shall we compose the lead sentence for this TV Blog that will attempt to at least make a start at analyzing how the just-beginning subscription streaming wars will change or otherwise impact TV?

How about: So much television, so little time. No, that’s not quite it. Perhaps it is more accurate (but not quite as catchy) to say: Too much television, and not enough time -- something like that.

This is what I keep coming back to whenever I contemplate the sheer tonnage of video content that is now available to watch -- whether for free or by subscription -- online and on television. And that is just at the present time. There are two more majors yet to launch: Comcast/NBCU (Peacock TV) and WarnerMedia (HBO Max) -- both coming next year.

Thus, you have a situation where the volume of available TV content to watch has been exploding for roughly a decade or more already, and now it is starting to explode even more with the launch of Disney+ this week (featuring “The Mandalorian,” pictured above) and the other two mentioned above waiting in the wings.

And yet, to state the obvious, the hours in each calendar day remain constant at 24 hours -- one-quarter to a third of which is spent sleeping, and perhaps another third is spent working (or faking it). So much television, not enough time.

So if the hours in a day remain constant, and the amount of video content to watch in those hours (or at least the waking and non-working hours) has multiplied over and over again for years, then wouldn't this represent a glut on the marketplace?

Astute readers may have already guessed this, but your TV Blogger is not an economist. And yet, I am willing to hazard an educated guess that the answer to the glut question above would be yes.

The result will be diminished audiences for everything -- a phenomenon that has already long been at work in advertiser-supported broadcast and basic-cable television.

The more there is to watch, the more it is spread out over so many channels and platforms that nothing today short of the Super Bowl attracts anything close to what was once known as a mass audience.

Ergo, if we are now to have even more tons of content available, then the audience “pie” has the potential to be whittled down in a process by which mere crumbs of viewership are apportioned to literally hundreds of TV shows.

Truth be told, it might be high time to drop the “pie” analogy that has been in use for a decade or two when talking about the fragmentation of TV audiences. The idea of audience “slices” is outmoded. “Crumbs” sounds more like it.

It is reasonable to assume that the giant media companies launching these streaming services are not doing so to lose money. Therefore, they must assume (or are at least gambling) that they can justify the considerable costs involved in mounting these new services by pricing their subscriptions accordingly.

For a period of time, the subscription streaming option will exist alongside legacy options (i.e., regular TV) for watching video content. These choices already exist.

But it is not unreasonable to foresee a day when all TV will be consumed in a subscription, online way. And if that is the case, what will happen to the kind of TV in which commercial time is sold?

Perhaps in a way similar to the way cable TV began years ago with subscription fees providing the only revenue stream, and later added advertising as a second revenue source, the subscription streaming services will also start out depending solely on subscriptions to earn their money.

Here is a prediction: At some point, sooner or later, once the streamers are well-established, advertising will elbow its way into the streaming content too.

Abandon Dead-End Thinking: Best Practices for Working Leads

Abandon Dead-End Thinking: Best Practices for Working Leads

Wed, 11/06/2019 - 06:47

Author: 

Rachel Krug

Leads are the lifeblood of your business, yet, more often than not, leads fall outside the category of “sales ready” opportunities. As a result, reps often dismiss these as a dead end. But, as Orrin Woodward said, “There are no dead ends in life, only dead-end thinking.”

Rather than shelve these so-called “dead-end leads,” reps must commit themselves to find what may be hiding in plain sight. There is likely a subgroup of leads that are sales qualified. They may not have the budget yet, or require more research or reps may not even fully understand their options. However, they’re just the right size or their industry is an ideal fit for you. If so, one day these leads will become excellent clients for your business. They just need a little nurturing before the deal is closed. 

According to SalesForce, nurturing leads generates a 20% increase in sales opportunities and takes as little as 15 minutes per day. When faced with a dead-end lead, reps need to  take a step back. Ask some qualifying questions to better understand where the lead may be in their journey to discover which are high-potential leads, and align yourself with the lead’s timeline. Offering relevant and valuable content cannot only help keep the conversation going and your company top of mind, but position the rep as a trusted resource so when the lead is finally ready to buy, they will turn to that person first. 

Admittedly, nurturing a lead takes consistent time and energy to yield successful results. But in doing so, reps will gain an edge on the competition. A whopping 44% of sales reps give up after one failed follow-up, according to SalesForce. To support sales reps’ efforts, I’ve outlined best practices for successfully nurturing leads through the funnel and reap the benefits of dedication.

Speed Wins

While not all leads convert into a sale, quick response is critical. Research by the Harvard Business Review shows what happens when online leads get a response within the hour. The seller is seven times more likely to qualify the lead than those who waited an hour or more. Fast responders are 60 times more likely to qualify the lead as those who wait 24 hours or more.

Expect Many Touches

It can take multiple attempts over several weeks before connecting, so perfecting the message for first contact is critical. Successful sales executives always begin with the end in mind. Scripts and templates help reps create and polish their qualification questions, which are essential to establishing a connection and initiating the nurturing process.

Maintain Empathy and Respect Their Buyer’s Journey

Persistence is admirable, but not when a rep’s goals are out of sync with the prospect’s. If a prospect doesn’t have the budget, can’t begin the project yet, or hasn’t hired the seasonal help, repeated attempts to deliver a pitch is viewed as a waste of their time and adds unwanted pressure. Respect their journey. Don’t go overboard on touchpoints; focus on building the relationship. Reps need to add value to what the prospect is interested in now, and set the stage for the future. Remember people do business with people they know, like and trust.

Keep It Going After the Lead ‘Goes Dark’

If a sales-qualified lead isn’t ready to buy yet, having a library of timely, helpful content adds value in the interim. When firms deploy content marketing to generate leads and nurture prospects, they see six times higher conversion rates than firms that use other methods, according to the Content Marketing Institute.

When a prospect is ready to buy, they are doing their homework. Offering relevant content to help connect the dots, keeps your company at the top of the list. Content also gives purpose to the nurturing process because the prospect receives something in return. Collaborate with your marketing team to develop blogs, whitepapers, byline articles in industry publications and/or newsletters, and focus on the various problem/solution scenarios your leads may face to create thought-provoking content assets.

Let Your Customers Be Your Advocate

Encourage your customers to tout your value with online reviews, testimonials and case studies. Positive online reviews help boost your reputation and send a strong message to prospects. In fact, 92% of B2B respondents said they’re more likely to purchase after reading a review from a trusted (named) source.

While not every lead initiates contact with an intention to talk about closing a deal, sales reps must lose the dead-end thinking. Mastery of lead-nurturing techniques can help identify high-potential clients who may be hiding in plain sight. Understanding where they are in the buyer’s journey will ensure that reps deliver the right message at the right time. Just as important, taking the time to build a relationship and become a trusted resource is essential to the nurturing process, and can make a significant impact on the long-term success of your business.

Rachel Krug is director of Growth Operations at business.com.

Commentary

NFL Must Approve Energy Drink Ads

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, Yesterday

The NFL has been so concerned about energy-drink marketers — in regards to those products' performance-enhancing association — that the league has banned those products from being advertised on TV networks.

But aren’t we talking energy drinks here -- not opiods?

The perception is these drinks could contain some strange elixir of ingredients. Further, they could give the appearance of the NFL’s approval of products -- thus extending the association to its football players, and perhaps an unfair performance boost on the field.

Mind you, the NFL has no problems allowing other marketers to make other references -- like liquor and casino advertising. Surely, no one wants to believe players on the sidelines are playing Texas hold 'em while knocking back single-malt whiskeys.

Going forward, the NFL must approve energy-drinks advertising in advance and cannot imply improved athletic performance or, in a strange turn, promote mixing those products with alcohol.
Here are some typical energy brands that have been airing in non-NFL TV schedules recently over the last month: Red Bull, 5-Hour Energy, NOS and Recover 180.

Those brands buy time on lots of sports, including the “2019 World Series,” college football and NBA Basketball. One noted exception: Many brands have bought pre-game NFL programming, such as “NFL Live” and “Fox NFL Sunday.” Non-sports shows include “Family Guy” and “South Park.”
One quasi-performance drink, Gatorade, bought some TV time on NFL game programming recently. Gatorade, a performance drink that has been around for decades, eschews some modern energy-drink ingredients, including the stimulant caffeine.

While hyper-performers touting energy drinks in TV commercials may now appear on TV networks airing NFL games -- NBC, Fox, CBS, ESPN and NFL Network -- those companies will still be banned as official NFL league marketing partners.

But even that might change. If energy-drink marketers can claim improved nutritional benefits -- especially for all those NFL viewers consuming healthy food choices, like wings, pizza, chips and beer, then perhaps there will be an expansion of Sunday afternoon’s tony dining choices.