COMMENTARY

Our Mental Health Is Deteriorating. How Brands Can Help

• by Whitney Fishman Zember , August 21, 2020

In a matter of months, the world and our behaviors have dramatically changed. In the midst of a pandemic and protests in our streets, our physical and mental health is a top priority: maintaining it, protecting it and (for the physically infected and emotionally affected) rebuilding it.

The restrictions, isolation and emotional turmoil bring the potential for those already struggling with mental health issues to have an even harder time — while also impacting those who previously have not suffered from mental health issues.

While true that mental health is an ongoing struggle and not a one-size-fits all-solution, marketers have an opportunity to provide  offerings to support those in need during this time. Still, marketers wading into these waters need to understand what mental health is and the ways in which brands can provide meaningful support beyond virtue signaling.

Provide utility.  It doesn’t matter what type of product you are; every brand is now, or needs to be, a service offering. We are now, as marketers, all in the service industry when it comes to what we deliver to consumers via our marketing and media tactics.

Join the conversation, but enlist experts to help. Mental health is no longer an untouchable topic, and brands can be a part of the conversation. The more that we talk about mental health and wellness, the more comfortable these conversations become.

While nobody expects brands to be mental health experts, they will expect brands to enlist those experts who offer proper understanding of the nuances and range of needs, and the spectrum of coping mechanisms. Enlisting the right partner to help navigate these difficult conversations is the core of any successful strategy.

Educate and inspire. By embracing emotional intelligence -- the ability to understand, manage and use emotions in positive, forward-moving ways -- brands can help educate and empower people who struggle to find proactive, productive ways of managing their mental health.

For example, to support those in need of mental and emotional release during this tough time, LooksLikeYouNeedIceland.com lets site visitors release their pandemic-driven screams -- and then broadcasts those screams from speakers into the picturesque Icelandic wilderness, keeping the country top of mind while providing a fresh outlet.

Jansport, known for its backpacks, launched #LightenTheLoad, a Gen Z-focused campaign providing critical resources to manage the impact COVID-19 has had on their lives, with a focus on mental health support.

Sesame Workshop partnered with meditation app Headspace to launch Monster Meditations, a YouTube series featuring “Sesame Street” characters learning how to deal with stressful situations to help kids learn how to recognize and manage feelings.

Start by actively listening and applying consumer feedback to your marketing initiatives and campaigns. And, most importantly, commit to supporting your consumers throughout their struggles and providing tangible support and solutions to help them live better, healthier lives.

 

How Curbside Pickup Became Retail’s Lifeline in the Era of COVID-19

By Hilary George-Parkin

HILARY GEORGE-PARKIN

MORE STORIES BY HILARY

• How Curbside Pickup Became Retail’s Lifeline in the Era of COVID-19
• Why a Retail Stocks Rebound Hinges On Vaccine Approval
• A Heat Wave Sweeping the Western U.S. Has Become a Saving Grace For Sandal Sales

VIEW ALL

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Tumblr
• Pin It
• Reddit
• Show more sharing options
• LinkedIn
• WhatsApp
• Email
• Print

Sign advertising Contactless Curbside Pickup at retail store parking lot

CREDIT: F ARMSTRONG PHOTO - STOCK.ADOBE.

In just a few months, COVID-19 has transformed curbside pickup from a nice-to-have service to an essential survival tool for retailers.

With many shoppers still reluctant to go into physical stores — and with social distancing protocols limiting the number of those inside at any given time — click-and-collect has emerged as a lifeline. Consumers’ growing interest in the channel has accelerated adoption among retailers who didn’t previously offer the service, or who were still testing it in limited markets.

According to an August 2020 analysis by Coresight Research, 38 of the top 50 store-based U.S. retailers now offer a curbside pickup option, and the advisory firm expects this share to continue to grow. Depending on the course the virus takes in the coming months, analysts say curbside is likely to be a key channel for holiday shopping, given that consumers are now accustomed to using it and have generally been impressed by its efficiency.

In a spring survey by the National Retail Federation, over 90 percent of respondents who had tried curbside said it was convenient. An Adobe survey in early June found that 23% of U.S. online shoppers reported preferring curbside or buy online, pick-up in store (BOPIS) over delivery.

Watch on FN

Volume 0%

Among the retailers to implement a curbside offering was DSW, which rolled out the service first to select locations in March and then across all of its 550 stores the following month. It had previously beta tested curbside in a single location, but rushed to make it accessible to all customers when it was forced to temporarily close stores.

“Within weeks we got things up and running because we were able to get focused,” Designer Brands CEO Roger Rawlins told FN. “We were able to leverage a very small team on a few very important initiatives and turn things around in an [accelerated] time period [so] that what used to take months got done in days.”

Target, an early adopter of curbside, said in an earnings call last week that its Drive Up parking-lot pickup service grew 730% year-over-year last quarter. The expansion was driven in part by the retailer’s decision to add fresh and frozen grocery items to its curbside offerings at 1,500 stores. This fall, it plans to bolster the service by handing out surprise school bags to Drive Up customers, and expanding grocery and alcohol offerings in hundreds of locations

 

Pay TV Losses Continue In Q2, Amid Dramatic 20%-25% Advertising Declines

• by Wayne Friedman , 5 hours ago

While TV network group executives may see dramatic 20% to 25% advertising revenue declines due to COVID-19 pandemic issues as temporary, pay TV network subscriber losses continue their chronic decline.

Pivotal Research Group estimates the pay TV industry lost two million subscribers in the second quarter -- a 10% increase in the loss of subscribers from a year ago.

While including new virtual/digital pay TV subscribers, this decline is at 1.6 million -- about the same as a year ago. 

“We have never viewed vMVPD’s as particularly innovative and when factoring in higher standalone data pricing -- basically offering consumers fewer channels at roughly the same price without the quality of service,” writes Jeff Wlodarczak, media analyst for Pivotal Research Group. “The moment vMVPD’s try to normalize their prices they unsurprisingly bleed subs.” 

At the same time, Wlodarczak adds, the pandemic has resulted in some help for troubled and economically challenged households keep some services. “Our view is that consumers stuck at home were temporarily less likely to churn off Pay TV boosted by government stimulus payments.”

Pivotal estimates that pay TV occupied household penetration was 61.0% -- down 2.7% from the first quarter. Adding in virtual pay TV services brings this number to 66% -- down 2.5% from the previous quarter.

Another loss of two million subscribers is expected next quarter.

Macquarie Research estimates pay TV losses across the top six publicly traded U.S. media companies -- AMC Networks, NBCUniversal, Walt Disney, ViacomCBS, Discovery, and Fox Corp.-- were down 8.5%. Related affiliate fee revenues fell an average of 2%.

 

COMMENTARY

TV Paid Ads More Important In No-Rally Presidential Election Year

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, August 5, 2020

With the prospect of few-to-no live political events, TV and digital media advertising could mean lots more to presidential and other political campaigns this year.

Joe Biden’s presidential campaign intends to spend $280 million in advertising across 15 states this fall. For its part, the Trump campaign has committed -- so far -- to more than $145 million in TV and radio ads starting after Labor Day, according to Advertising Analytics.

Those dollars will need to go a long way to carrying marketing messaging. Political rallies, carried on TV networks in part or whole -- so-called “earned media,” which adds to marketing awareness -- will now have a much smaller effect. That isn’t good news for Trump, who counts on this to produce real-life excitement for his supporters -- especially as his approval numbers remain weak.

Add to this reduced on-the-ground, door-to-door campaigning and get-out-the-vote efforts, and this means a big shift in this year’s elections.

In the past, this direct-marketing stuff, typically ramping up the fall, started with the two big parties' national conventions in summer. Now, both are cancelled.

That said, Trump continues to have his key direct media areas for exposure -- including, but not exclusively, Fox News Channel and Twitter.

One big question mark remains: the debates. 

In the past, those aired TV events have had a studio audience with live TV anchors and reporters asking questions -- also getting major TV viewer Nielsen numbers. Some analysts wonder whether Biden, who currently has a sizable lead in many key states and overall, might just decline to participate.

Even with more potential advertising coming their way, TV stations might feel some pressure to accommodate a bigger and rapidly changing presidential advertising campaign.

Collateral damage might also include higher preemptions for core TV advertiser that buy local TV advertising time.

The end game here is how paid-advertising media planning, in targeting key viewers/voters in specific states, will change on all media channels -- TV, digital, radio, and otherwise -- in the next 90 days.

And, of course, consider the less predictable stuff: Bad media-buying actors are still lurking around -- on social media and other places -- looking to put their foot on the scale. 

 

COMMENTARY

The Media Kitchen's Samantha Stockman On OTT, CTV And The NewFronts

• by Karlene Lukovitz  @KLmarketdaily, July 10, 2020

This year’s NewFronts, and UpFronts, were unprecedented not only for their virtual formats, but for the extraordinary context, as world events required scrambling to adjust marketing strategies and budgets on the fly. We asked Samantha Stockman, group director for The Media Kitchen, to weigh in on what’s transpired since March and what may be ahead as adaptation to this strange new world continues.

What are your key takeaways from this year’s NewFronts, particularly particularly regarding OTT and CTV?

Stockman: It's no new news that video streaming is on the rise, but continued growth in cordless households and time spent streaming — among all age groups — have definitely been front and center. The added layer this year, of course, was that COVID-19 and shelter-in-place orders greatly accelerated that growth, as many more people found themselves looking for entertainment at home.

Media partners’ creativity quotient was/is another key consideration. From a content perspective, as the subscription options stack up, there’s even greater stress on the importance of originals and exclusive libraries in drawing in consumers and creating a “must-have” perception for specific streaming services.

From an advertising perspective, we’re looking for unique ad opportunities that put the viewer experience first — formats that are engaging and non-intrusive, like pause ads.

In measurement, the ability to control reach, frequency and duplication across buys — whether by integrating directly with DSPs or owning a solution, like Roku's OneView and Disney’s Hulu XP — continues to be a major theme.

Regarding attribution, from Roku's Kroger data integration to Hulu's Gateway Go unit, it's clear that CTV partners are identifying ways to show how a traditionally more “leaned back” experience can be engaging and reach conversion goals.

Are these the trends and factors that will continue to dominate in the months ahead?  

Stockman: CTV is starting to mature, and providers are listening to viewers and advertisers alike to improve platform experiences. At some point, consumers will hit a point of subscription fatigue, and the AVOD platforms with the best content, diverse voices telling stories, and non-disruptive, engaging ad experiences will win. To stay at the top, CTV providers will also need to continue to innovate measurement solutions. So yes, I see all of these continuing to develop in the future.

What about pricing and negotiation points?

Stockman: Flexibility is paramount now. It’s no secret that for many advertisers, the last few months’ events have resulted in strategy changes, messaging shifts and budget cuts. The ability to cancel a buy, shift the line of business supported within a buy, and be nimble with messaging switches is extremely important.

Because many brands are asking for more flexibility and better cancellation terms amid budget uncertainty, we may see upfront pricing become more favorable as supply exceeds demand. Most CTV providers we speak to already offer reasonable cancellation terms for standard video commercial inventory, but tend to lock in more integrated partnerships that involve additional production fees. 

What are the key remaining challenges and next steps for CTV measurement and attribution? Why do we hear some buying pros extol CTV’s superior measurability, and others stress that there’s still a long way to go on this front?  

It all depends on a brand's objectives. For a branding message, most CTV providers we speak to go beyond reach and frequency, views and completion rates, and are able to offer third-party brand lift studies — pending statistical significance — to understand a campaign's impact on awareness, favorability, purchase intent, etc. 

For conversions, the industry is making strides, but still has a long way to go. CTV remains a largely passive viewing experience. Many CTV ads are not clickable. And for those with interactive functionality built in, it's not habit for viewers to scan a QR code on their TV or use their remotes to enter their phone number to receive further communication from a brand. So for any attribution solution relying on last click, CTV remains a gap.

What opportunities and challenges have the events surrounding the pandemic created for OTT and CTV, specifically? 

Stockman: The increased viewership during shelter-in-place has provided the opportunity to test engaging consumers beyond traditional 15- and 30-second spots, particularly from a creative perspective. We're in a unique time. A lot of people across the world can relate to one another in a way they couldn't before —whether it's about adjusting to working from home, juggling childcare with work responsibilities, or finding ways to stay active — and can share messages that resonate with others. The challenge for brands is to have a memorable message that stands out and sticks during this time when "we're all in this together."

Would you be in favor of combining the NewFronts and UpFronts? 

Stockman: Yes. The line between linear TV and CTV continues to blur, both from the operational perspective of who is responsible for planning and buying video, and in the eyes of the consumer. TV is TV, whether it's live, on demand, or through a smart TV, connected device, or cable box. Combining Newfronts and Upfronts would give advertisers more transparency in terms of price, placements, reach and duplication across the entire video buy.

 

With Sports Back On TV, Should Advertisers Rejoice?

• by Maarten Albarda , Featured Contributor, 2 hours ago

It’s well-known that live sports are one of the last strong audience pillars of linear TV. All broadcasters have felt the loss of ad revenues as a result of the absence of sports.  Thank God for the election dollars (although, as a viewer, I am already sick and tired of all the political attack ads).

Now live sports are coming back to TV. That means those advertisers traditionally associated with sports are going to be back too, right?  

I believe the better question is “Should they be back?”

Over the last few weeks, we have seen how some sports have staged themselves in the current COVID environment. 

There are no crowds. The spontaneous celebrations and on-and-off-pitch shenanigans have been reduced to awkward, facemask-covered interactions. 

Some sports have added fake audience sounds to their televised feeds. Others have created colorful seat coverings (or robot audiences) to create a less dreary-looking stadium environment. 

On-air coverage has kind of looked the same, but is also very much not the same. Especially since all the pundits cannot help themselves from stating the obvious, pointing out ad nauseam that there are no crowds and that the celebrations and other shenanigans are clearly not how they used to be.

Add to that the uncertainty about anything going ahead as planned. Despite bubbles and isolation, team members, staff members and even reporters have been infected and subsequently quarantined. Games are postponed or cancelled. International event values are further diminished because athletes from other countries think the risk of traveling to, and participating in, events in our country is too high (Can you say “US Open Tennis”?).

So what is a traditional sports advertiser to do?

Is there value in advertising around dressed-down, less than ideal live TV sports content? Does it make sense to advertise beer around sports when the only place where you can drink is at home? Does it make sense to advertise cars when it looks like work from home is here to stay for at least another six months? 

Other categories might still “work” in a sports environment, like takeout and delivery of (fast) food. And if you are Nike (and Wieden+Kennedy), you should be revered for having your fingers on the pulse and showing all other advertisers how it is done.

But my question is not so much about whether or not an ad makes sense in the sports category. I also do not question the current live TV ratings generated by sports-starved TV viewers. My question is: Is the value transfer of a dressed-down, therefore less attractive, uncertain-if-it-will-be-on sports environment worth the advertisers’ budget? 

My assessment is that the “new-normal” sports environment value has been significantly devalued for the reasons outlined above.  I would expect significantly lower costs to advertise or sponsor in and around live sports TV, and that each buy, like airline tickets, should come with a lot of flexibility to rebook or refund. 

If there’s one thing sports advertising is teaching us, it’s that we need to continue to be nimble on all sides of the advertising ecosystem. We are living in a VUCA* world, and that will likely continue to apply to most of the 2020-2021 sports season as well.

*volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.