Friday, November 20, 2020

The Social (Advertising) Dilemma(s)

 

COMMENTARY

The Social (Advertising) Dilemma(s)

In this, the year of COVID, there are many shared experiences for humanity.  One of these shared experiences revolves around media and binge-worthy programming on TV.  We may be missing the proverbial water cooler, but we still have things to talk about.  From “The Tiger King” to “The Mandalorian” (which is awesome), people are finding common ground to engage with that thankfully does not include politics (at least for a moment).  

Then there’s the Netflix documentary “The Social Dilemma.”  This documentary deals with our collective addiction to social media and the resulting negative impact it has on our well-being and mental health. 

If you’ve seen the doc, you may fall into one of two camps: either you now hate social media, or you hate social media and are removing it from your life.  Nobody watches this film and says to themselves, “I’m cool with this.” 

Of course social media is also a massive area for advertisers and has only grown in importance the last eight months as people flock to these platforms.  

Social media does provide value to advertisers.  I have personally run campaigns on social, and they deliver results — in one, social media was our second most efficient vehicle for customer acquisition.  Social media users click on ads, and they engage with them.  I bought my only pair of AllBirds from a Facebook ad.  I have recommended gifts because of ads on Instagram.  Everyone I know has as well.  

Social media also delivers a good volume of highly engaged impressions, and has become as core a component to most ad campaigns as search.  All of this is a direct result of the addiction we all demonstrate when it comes to social media.  

I cannot sit on a high horse and say I’m above the fray.  I find myself on social media one to two times a day, scrolling endlessly to find nothing is there and that I wasted 30 minutes (or more) of my life. 

I wonder what the near future holds.  Will advertisers continue to support a medium that has been proven detrimental to the mental health of their target audience?  Should I, as an advertiser myself, be taking a stand and saying I won’t spend ad dollars on a platform that I know is poor in terms of health and free speech considerations, and more?

Earlier this year there was a Facebook boycott, but that boycott ended, and many of those advertisers are back on Facebook.  Should advertisers be rethinking that decision, or is it OK to separate ad campaign methodologies from general public health concerns?

I ask the question, but I know the answer:  Everything should be taken into account.  Social media platforms need to continue to find ways to be responsible.  I think social media platforms should come up with their own way to self-regulate and remind their users of the real world around them.  Maybe Facebook can put up an alert if you’ve been scrolling without actually engaging in content for more than 30 minutes?  

Maybe a “social media alarm” would be a good thing.  Apple installed screen time management software on its phones, knowing that people spend too much time there, and that’s considered a good step forward for the phone manufacturer.  Could social media police itself in a similar fashion?

Social media is here to stay because it does provide value.  It does provide connection.  If we, as users, can’t be counted on to temper our engagement, maybe the platforms themselves can help us and we can find a good middle ground.  Then, I as an advertiser, would feel better about using those platforms to reach a target audience in the future.  

In the interim, it does allow me to ask the question of what is best for my target audience.

TV Must Retool Now: Lessons Not Learned By U.S. Automakers In '70s

 

COMMENTARY

TV Must Retool Now: Lessons Not Learned By U.S. Automakers In '70s

The ‘70s were a turbulent time in the U.S.: The war in Vietnam, Watergate, inflation, unemployment. 

Then there was the oil embargo that precipitated the “energy crisis” and a massive run-up in oil prices around the world in the early 1970s that would come back around again in 1979.

The U.S. car market at that time was dominated by American-made vehicles, a fact well known to me since my family’s tiny yellow 1972 Datsun station wagon very much stood out in Clearfield, the small, western Pennsylvania coal town where I grew up. It had replaced our big old Ford-manufactured, much more normal-looking, maroon station wagon, where half of the neighborhood kids could fit in back. Yes, this was pre-kids’ car seats.

Of course, our little Datsun got three times as many miles to the gallon of gas as our old big Ford did, which mattered an awful lot with gas prices where they were, Plus, the Datsun had all sorts of neat little innovations, like buzzers that sounded if you didn’t buckle your seatbelts.

By the end of the decade, the high gasoline prices and economic “stagflation” had devastated the U.S. auto industry. Domestic car sales were way down. Imports were up. 

Importantly, Americans had discovered that the imported cars didn’t just get more miles to the gallon, but that they rusted out a lot less, had a lot of innovative features, cost less — and, incredibly, were built better and with a nicer fit than their legacy competitors.

The rest you know well. Car brands like Volkswagen, Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan (maker of Datsun) and Subaru took a massive share of the U.S. auto and small truck market, building better cars, getting better mileage at better prices. 

The hit on the U.S. automakers helped accelerate the collapse of the even-less-efficient U.S. steel industry that was making the fast-to-rust bodies for U.S. cars in open hearth steel furnaces, using labor-intensive technologies and methods that they had perfected in the early 1900s.

Towns like mine were devastated and have continued to decline from those pre-1970s levels of employment, opportunity and optimism. Clearfield County’s two industries were coal mining — mining sulfur-heavy coal that was converted into coke to fire the Pittsburgh steel furnaces — and brick-making. Our refractories made millions of fire bricks every year to line those open-hearth furnaces. Fortunately for the brickmakers, open-hearth furnaces burned through their brick liners twice a year, so the replacement business was very good. Ironically, not dissimilar from the business model for U.S.-made cars.

This is TV’s energy crisis moment. Too much of what drives the TV industry today happens because it has happened that way year in and year out since those same 1970s, the era of the color TV, three big broadcast networks and “Happy Days,” “M*A*S*H” and “ABC’s Wide World of Sports.” 

This terrible global health crisis is putting a pause on many of the industry’s key economic pillars: live sports, a fall prime-time schedule anchored in new, highly anticipated releases, upfront-sold advertising — and, most importantly, a near monopoly on high quality video programming that attracts the attention and engagement of massive home audiences all day, day in and day out.

This crisis is putting a punctuation mark on the fact that the TV industry’s premium video monopoly is over. In fact, it has been over for years now. Cable unbundling, streaming services and precision, audience-based video advertising over-the-top are a decade old. 

But, just as it took the energy crisis for U.S. consumers to wake up to the better value proposition offered by foreign-made cars at real scale, so too will this crisis cause consumers to  entirely reconsider and reconfigure the way they watch video programming, and who and how they pay for it.

U.S. automakers never returned to the kind of market share and customer loyalty that they had pre-1970. Why? Because they were so in love with their own products, they had long since stopped worrying about their customers’ problems: boring cars that were expensive to drive, rusted out, broke down and needed to be replaced every three to five years. 

It took bankruptcies, the losses of millions of jobs and enormous customer defection until automakers grudgingly retooled, created new products, adopted true quality-controlled production and global supply chains.

Of course, it wasn’t just their love of their own products and ancient ways of doing things that held U.S. automakers back. As auto industry legend Bob Lutz told all who would listen, U.S. car companies ultimately put short-term cost accounting in charge of their businesses, not product innovation, not customer satisfaction and certainly not long-term market development. Sound familiar?

The TV industry — its advertising business especially — must retool, and do it now, Here’s what I think it means to retool:

Reform core TV ad products. The TV industry needs to stop making the sale of gross rating points against sex/age by day and daypart as your core product. That does not solve marketers’ problems. That product is what commodity traders and intermediaries want, just as 1970s car dealers wanted to keep car buyers in the dark about vehicle economics to protect their margins, and cared way too little about selling and servicing better cars.

Marketers want TV advertising to help them grow their businesses. They want hearts and minds by the millions. They want sales. They want to reach specific audiences with specific message, and measurement that helps them understand how audiences received and reacted to those messages.

Reform core TV ad processes. Everything in the world of marketing and advertising is dynamic now. Recognize that fact and cater to it. Clients want to know how their ads are doing in real time. They want to get their campaigns up fast. They want to optimize them early and often. They want to get them down fast.

Media plans should be able to be converted instantaneously into TV media buys. This is the time to put software at the center of your business, not create tools to optimize with around the edges of the business. Real automation is needed to replace the daisy chains of dozens of folks that need to touch every plan, order, negotiation, spot and report to make it happen, or unhappen.

Fix TV ad measurement and reporting. This is the time for TV ad sellers to measure and report on what marketers and their bosses really care about most. They want to see campaign delivery in real time, updated regularly, across channels, de-duplicated by audiences and linked to actual performance like target reached. They want frequency de-averaged at the person and impression level. They want reporting on business outcomes, not just media outputs. They want to know attribution to their key performance indicators, like web visits, leads and conversions.

TV can win the fight on both media effectiveness and efficiency for many marketers against most other media, but only if it competes with digital head to head and apples to apples. 

Staying in its solitary measurement silo gave TV an extra decade or so of protection from other media, but it also prevented the industry from building the muscles it needs to emerge from this crisis in a state that it can not only survive, but truly thrive.

This is the TV ad industry’s energy crisis. Just as automakers were then, they are at risk of losing massive market positions from a failure to change legacy products, processes and business models that weren’t so badly broken that they had to be fixed. 

U.S. automakers didn’t fare well after the energy crises of the 1970s. Will TV advertising face down this crisis better?

Cord-Cutting Slows In Q3, Boosted By Sports TV, Political News

 

Cord-Cutting Slows In Q3, Boosted By Sports TV, Political News

Cord-cutting in the U.S. slowed down in the third quarter for traditional and virtual pay TV providers to a 4.6% decline, totaling 89.6 million U.S. subscribers. But this may be only temporary -- steeper declines could resume in future periods. 

This was a slight improvement from a decline of 5.2% in the second quarter and a 5.1% drop in the first quarter of this year, says MoffettNathanson Research. The last two quarters of 2019 saw 2.9% and 3.7% declines.

Pay TV subscribers for the most part remained with their cable, satellite, telco, or virtual pay services due to the return of major live TV sports programming -- Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL -- in July through September, delayed by COVID-19 pandemic issues.

In addition, consumers also watched live TV news in big numbers, with heightened interest in cable and broadcast TV political and election coverage.

The only growth came from virtual pay TV subscribers -- up 21% in the period to a total of 11.5 million subscribers. Cable TV subscribers were down 4.1% to 47.5 million; while satellite subscribers were 14% lower to 22.6 million and telco subscribers were down 7.3% to 7.9 million.

Over the last ten years, pay TV penetration of homes has fallen to 61% of U.S households in 2020 -- down from 88% in 2010 due to cord-cutting.

Craig Moffett, senior media analyst of MoffettNathanson Research, writes: “What is left is stickier, skewing to sports fans with few credible alternatives. SVOD [subscription video on demand platforms] and AVOD [advertising video on demand] don’t help sports and news fans.”
He adds that rural households have fewer alternatives.

One silver lining is that the pay TV business could bottom out at around 80 million subscribers.

Moffett says: “We might be getting closer to a “floor” of hardcore sports and news junkies. Whether that core ends up being served by traditional or virtual MVPDs remains to be seen.”

He says: “It’s not unreasonable to think that the glide path to get there could be shallower than the peak rates of decline we’ve seen over the past year.”

Friday, November 13, 2020

Media Changes Its Role In Politics -- Immediately

 

COMMENTARY

Media Changes Its Role In Politics -- Immediately

The last week has been an interesting one, to say the least.  The announcement of Joe Biden’s win took a while, but the impact in media was felt almost immediately, as the tone and tenor of the press changed dramatically in just a matter of hours.  

The media have been hyper-attentive the last few years, hinging their news cycles on what the current President would say or tweet publicly.  It was clearly exhausting.  

This past weekend we witnessed a collective exhalation of exhaustion.  We saw news anchors break down in tears on national television.  We saw visible signs of weights being lifted off the shoulders of people in the press corps. The collective feeling in the media was that we could all take a breath, even if only for a moment.  

Of course, that breath is short-lived as we now will soon enter a new news cycle built on the future and on the promise of well thought-out decision-making rather than off-the-cuff statements and hyperbole.

The press has a role here to play that cannot be overstated.  While Biden won the election with the most votes in election history, his predecessor lost the election with the second most votes in election history.  That means the press must acknowledge that 70 million people are not happy, and need to be brought back into the conversation. 

I have written repeatedly that I wish for a fair and balanced media again.  I will be honest -- I am very happy with the outcome of the election, but the hard work begins now as the media plays a role in trying to help heal a divided country.  The incoming administration stated they will respond to the needs of all Americans and not just the ones who voted for them.  

The media is going to have to do the same thing.

The next four years have a unique opportunity to bring the country together.  To do so, the opinions of all Americans will have to be heard.  The good news is that with measured thinking and decision-making, the news cycle should be slower, and the press will have a moment to debrief, analyze and present topics in a clear and structured manner.  They were not afforded the opportunity to do so the last four years because things were always on edge.  They were always reacting. 

The reality TV of politics may get a little more boring, but no less impactful.  The only loser in all this is Twitter, as the average American citizen will probably not be waking up and immediately heading to the platform to find out what was said overnight.  There will be less morning anxiety to deal with. 

I wrote recently that media should serve the people, not convert them.  I still believe that, but maybe “convert” was the wrong word.  Media should influence people by being the conduit for the thoughts and beliefs of everyday Americans, so we all have the same information with which to work.  Media should help in the development of critical thinking.  It should help be the check and balance of the public figures we look toward for guidance.  I think it can, especially when given the time and opportunity to do so.  

To all my friends in the press and media, I hope you got some rest this past weekend.  I hope you were able to go to bed with your phone out of arm’s reach for a couple of nights.  I want to thank you for your hard work and dedication these last four years, and I sincerely hope you can get in a little vacation over the next few months.  Your services will still be needed as we dive into 2021, albeit in a calmer and more measured fashion.  A fashion we can ALL look forward to, no matter who we voted for and how happy we are with the outcome.

Nurx Looks Beyond The TeleHealth Boom

 Below, you'll find a great article to share with your direct medical clients, from dentists to psychologists and new practices. Philip Jay LeNoble, PhD

COMMENTARY

Nurx Looks Beyond The TeleHealth Boom

How much of the digital business surge this year is the result of temporary lockdown culture and how much is attributable to your native marketing genius? Granted, this is a first world problem, but many marketers are starting to think about how best to retain the business that dropped in their lap since March. The path back to real life interaction is unpredictable in most categories, but is especially acute for the telemedicine sector where the hands-on doctor/patient experience is as old as Hippocrates and the days when Shamans made cave calls. Nurx CMO Katelyn Watson has been thinking ahead and is already calibrating her media buys and content with the expectation the wave of telehealth activity will ebb and diffuse eventually. Nurx is a vertical telehealth provider, offering patients online connections with their own doctors as well as prescriptions, ordering, delivery and follow-up. She is a veteran of startup marketing, with previous marketing roles at IfOnly and Kabbage. You can listen to the entire podcast here.


MediaPost:  But there are a number of players in the space. What key value propositions does Nurx bring to market, and how do you really differentiate yourself? 

Katelyn Watson: A couple different ways. So we're really end-to-end health care, primarily for women. We’re very female-centric. And we focus on the full journey of healthcare. You get to chat with our providers, getting your prescription, if appropriate, getting that delivered in very discreet packaging directly to your home, processing your insurance as well. And then being there for you when you have questions, whether it's migraines or birth control or testing. A lot of people will have side effects or questions after they get their medication and they're able to come back to our providers for an entire year to ask any types of questions.

MP: Is that highly verticalized structure the direction telemedicine brands are taking? Convenience-directed? 

Watson: We make it a point to accept insurance for all of our services. Just within the last couple of years we've added testing, herpes treatment, migraine treatment within the last two months. And we accept insurance for all of these services, which is highly complicated but very important to us as being a real healthcare company. So that is a core differentiator. And I think a lot of companies want to do that, but it is very time, resource, policy, legal, etc. the list goes on, intensive. That's why a lot of companies have chosen to go cash only. So I think that going cash only is empowering as well because getting to scale and keeping cash prices low is important. But the reality is that patients who have insurance, want to use it. 

MP: Since you mentioned performance marketing, are you following the typical DTC playbook, or are you leaning into different channels? 

Watson: We've been surprised by some channels that are a little more app based. We aren't necessarily app-first. But some people like to make their requests through the app and do their chatting through the app. So we've seen some of the app acquisition-based channels perform better than they have, for me at least in other different types of retail and other companies. We've leaned into TV pretty heavily, a combination of linear, as well as OTT. That really ramped during the pandemic. We had the perfect storm of really cheap media, customers that were kind of ready to go, and people were also paying attention. So TV kind of came in as a bigger channel for us during the pandemic and has continued throughout. 

We're starting to go into more conditions- based areas like migraines. Birth control is sort of relevant to most women within a certain age group. So we can use performance marketing or actually go into pretty untargeted media and do pretty well in those areas with optimizing creative and all of that. But some of the newer channels that are more focused on conditions really bring in the data aspects of people who've said they have a certain condition. But also things like herpes, things like migraines, areas that are very community based. So I won't specifically call out the channels, but different channels where people are asking questions and going back and forth within a community about their conditions are areas that we've been experimenting with that maybe didn't work as well for broader base subjects. Once the subject matter gets a little tighter on a specific condition, it has a lot more promise

As Online Window Shopping Soars, How Can Retailers Reel Shoppers In?

MediaPost

SPONSORED BY Honey

As Online Window Shopping Soars, How Can Retailers Reel Shoppers In?

At this very moment, in home offices, kitchens, and living rooms all over the country, millions of Americans are on their computers, tablets, and cellphones engaging in a favorite pastime: window shopping. Online window shopping is hardly new, notes Celiena Adcock, head of GTM and Global Business Marketing at Honey, an online shopping platform that saves consumers time and money through loyalty and deal finding. “My friends do it all the time,” she says. “They’re looking to get a sense of what’s out there. They’re window shopping to get inspired.”


“Window shopping has become so important for consumers that 15% said that this is how they start each day.”


But window shopping has changed since COVID-19. As consumers work remotely and teach their kids at home, window shopping has become a source of escapism and comfort in a difficult time. In fact, according to a survey* of more than 2,000 American consumers conducted by 4Media Research in September, 58% of respondents now define themselves as window shoppers, with 41% saying they are spending their time window shopping to “take my mind off things,” and 30% explaining that window shopping helps them pass the time when they’re feeling bored. Window shopping has become so important for these consumers that 15% said that this is how they start each day.

But Are They Buying?

But are they browsing—or are they buying? For some merchants, especially those selling groceries and other utilitarian goods, sales “have skyrocketed since COVID,” notes Adcock. However, she wonders, “When was the last time you bought yourself a new pair of pants or shoes? It’s harder now because of the economic uncertainty. Plus, when are we going to go outside to work or school? When will we actually need those things? People are wary of making purchases that might seem indulgent.”

Still, survey results show that window shopping is not necessarily a day-dreaming activity. Ninety-one percent of respondents said they’ve purchased at least one item while window shopping, and more than a quarter of respondents said they made more than five purchases during their window-shopping expeditions. Just as importantly, nearly half of window shoppers said that when they’re window shopping, they are also actively making lists for future purchases, and 37% are taking screen shots of items they intend to purchase at a later date.

So, the question, Adcock says, is “how do we get their attention and show them that this is the right thing to buy—and the right time to buy it?”

Why Deals Work


“Half of all survey respondents said that a good deal would stop them in their tracks, while only 20% said that social influencers had the same impact.”


The answer, she explains, is deals. Half of all survey respondents said that a good deal would stop them in their tracks, while only 20% said that social influencers had the same impact. It’s clear, Adcock says, that a retailer that offers these shoppers a promo code or a coupon or tells them about a price reduction not only sets itself apart from the competition (and 92% of respondents said they’re shopping multiple online retailers at any one time), but also goes a long way toward convincing the browsing shopper that the time to buy is now.

The time-bound offer, adds Adcock, is especially effective. “It allows the shopper to say, ‘Hey, I’m getting a good deal. I can get this now!” With an incentive to take immediate action, the offer not only makes the consumer feel like a “savvy shopper,” she says, but it also allows them to “feel less guilty about purchasing.”

At Honey, which was acquired by PayPal earlier this year, Adcock explains that while her team generally focuses its marketing efforts on a younger, relatively affluent demographic, its recent success and the increasing word of mouth about its offers have not only enlarged but also broadened its audience tremendously.

The goal of all of Honey’s offerings is to help online shoppers, as Adcock puts it, “convert with confidence.” The company’s Savings Finder is a utilitarian tool that “lets people know they can convert from browsing to buying on the website on which they happen to be shopping. The tool aims to prevent shoppers from having to scour the internet for coupons and give them confidence that they're getting a great deal, whether or not a coupon is available. Its Honey Gold** loyalty program provides shoppers with a reward they can use at a later date each time they buy from a retailer that offers Honey Gold. And Honey Offers, which are time-bound deals, serve to tie shoppers to the website they’re shopping on. And that strategy appears to be working: The company has witnessed a 12% reduction in cross-site comparisons among shoppers who have seen a Honey Offer***.

The Additive Effect

Though Honey works with specific retailers, it sees itself as what Adcock calls “an additive” to the shopping experience that merchants develop on their own sites. “We’re like a trust builder between the shopper and the merchants,” she explains. “The retailers are doing their work to keep you online, and then we’re the trusted third party that tries to find you some of the best deals. And because we aren’t necessarily tied to one brand, we can provide a broader benefit. We know that, in the process, we’re giving shoppers a joyful feeling.”

While stopping online window shoppers in their tracks with coupons, offers, and loyalty programs might inspire those shoppers to take the leap and fill their shopping cart, it doesn’t necessarily get them past check out. As Adcock notes, “shopping cart abandonment is a crisis.”

Next week, we’ll look at why so many shopping carts are being abandoned and what merchants can do to not only counter this trend but reverse it.  

* An online study commissioned by Honey, a part of the PayPal offering, conducted by 4Media Research in September 2020. The study researched 2,010 adults in the U.S (general population representative) via on online survey. The overall margin of error of the overall sample is +/- 2 percentage points with a confidence interval of 95 percent. The field work took place between September 14th and September 18th, 2020. 4Media is an independent market creative research agency.  

** Honey Golder Terms Apply joinhoney.com/terms

*** According to Honey Internal Data as of Q3 2020

 

With Upfront Fallout, Questions About Connected TV, Cancellations Remain

 

COMMENTARY

With Upfront Fallout, Questions About Connected TV, Cancellations Remain

The TV upfront market this year is still a mystery -- and not just in terms of where new expected media dollars in the calendar year budget land. We would like to know exactly where specific connected TV spending landed.

Answers are tough to find.

TV's advertising upfront market for the 2020-2021 TV season has taken a tumble -- so far -- down 15% to $18.6 billion from $21.9 billion in the previous market for the 2019-2020 season, according to Media Dynamics.

We are not factoring in cancellations/option considerations as yet because we don’t know what’s coming.

Media Dynamics estimates massive cancellations for the 2019-2020 TV season of $2.9 billion, impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic -- roughly 13% of that year’s total upfront take. (Typical seasonal cancellations can amount to roughly 1% to 2%.)

Much has been made over CTV advertising dollars shifting out of live, linear upfront TV spending -- especially considering the reported gains by The Trade Desk, the big demand-side platform and Roku, perhaps the biggest connected TV supply-side platform.

(Also, we don’t yet know where Roku-competitor Amazon Fire TV is with regard to connected national TV advertising dollars.)

Still, let’s take a swing: Have big brand advertisers made up some ground contributing 3%, 7% of 10% of their advertising dollars to new CTV/OTT? Analysts speculate roughly; it's even harder to determine with lower ad inventory CTV and OTT platform loads.

One estimate overarching projection made by eMarketer had ad revenue on CTV rising to $8.88 billion. Perhaps 10% to 20% of that might have made its way into the upfront TV media deal-making. At best, around $1.8 billion?

More fuzzy math: Cancellation options surely might be different on new platforms versus buying on live, linear TV networks. And what about possible premium priced OTT/CTV deals? Factored into any price consideration, would need to be strong business outcome attributions.

Ultimately, placing multimillion-dollar TV advertising schedules months in advance of airing that messaging -- what the traditional TV upfront offers -- is definitely more old-school than new.

Before we move to connected TV, the learning will continue: Fresh -- and refresher -- courses are needed.