A great reader for local-direct businesses who are constantly brand challenged! It's all about consumer belief in the brands they see and how they feel about them. Philip Jay LeNoble, Ph.D.

Unlocking The Amazing Power of Belief

• by Robert Wheatley , July 15, 2024

For a brand message to have any real impact, to influence behavior and seed advocacy, requires more than awareness and publicity. It must advance a relevant higher purpose, cause or belief system that people who share your brand values can quickly resonate with. Only then will your message create any lasting marketplace advantage.

It is not the quality of your products that causes the category to tip your direction. Absent a refined brand WHY, new innovations and technologies will ultimately find themselves playing the circular, commoditizing price-and-feature game. Your competitive advantage gets real traction when you are crystal-clear about the human-relevant purpose you exist to champion.

An identifiable cohort of consumers exists who share your beliefs and then want to integrate your ideas and products into their own lives. It is their ability to understand and embrace your purpose, your WHY, that causes them to prefer your brand. Because what you make offers a tangible way to flag their purpose and priorities to the world around them.

Beliefs are powerful and can be enlisted to change the trajectory of brand growth

It’s important to remember that consumers are human -- and as such, are hardwired for attraction to brands that reinforce what they believe about the world and themselves.

• Beliefs are emotional and rise from deep within to inform decisions.
• Beliefs run underneath the analytical radar to impact feelings and actions.
• Beliefs help people understand and engage with your brand.
• Beliefs are respectful of how we’re wired (our biology) to take action.

Yet we find that belief systems are largely undernourished as business strategy because of a flawed assumption that a better mousetrap is the motivating tool to draw consumers in. Ultimately, products in any given category will be more similar than they are unique. Frankly, there isn’t any proprietary tech advantage that can be sustained over time to withstand competitive dilution. Instead, people are magnetically drawn to leader-type brands that communicate what they believe.

When brands become symbols of values, we hold close

Health, achievement, creative exploration, better relationships, education, love, serving others -- there are so many places a brand can live to inspire users and improve their well-being.

The process to explore and refine a brand’s “why” begins with the consumer and works backward from there. Here are five components of a successful “why” exploration:

1. Core beliefs that are consumer-centric and address how the brand contributes to improving users’ lives and the world around them.

2. Based on those beliefs, Why the company exists, its core mission and higher purpose.

3. How the company will fulfill its belief-driven higher purpose and mission.

4. Therefore, what business the company is truly in, and assets required to fulfill that promise.

5. The company Brand Stand (purpose) that expresses the business’ true north and becomes an embedded guide for decisions on strategy, policy, employee policy and recruitment, innovation and marketing.

An optimized purpose and mission will lead to brand advocacy and evangelism.

 

COMMENTARY

CNN Moves Further into Digital, Amid Layoffs - Will Consumers, Brands Buy In?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, July 12, 2024

CNN is still working hard to make a bit more money -- all while it looks to head back into the streaming world with more digital subscription products this year.

Profitability is also high on the list:

There will be layoffs -- of around 100 employees, which is around 3% of its total workforce. But that’s not all. 

Mark Thompson, chief executive officer of CNN, told staffers in a memo on Wednesday: “Some of our colleagues will learn today that their jobs are being eliminated or are at risk.”

The last time CNN had layoffs was in late 2022, under then-CEO Chris Licht, when “a couple of hundred” jobs were cut, according to reports.

What will the new digital products be all about? 

One main paid-digital subscription service, according to Thompson, will focus more on video rather than being "text-based."

CNN will also be developing two free, ad-supported CNN streaming businesses -- one focused on original/special programming and another a Spanish-language version.

CNN Max, a live version on sister streaming platform Max, started up in April 2023. This was a modest addition after CNN stopped its short-lived -- and in theory, expensive-to-produce -- CNN+ streaming service.

If that isn’t enough, Thompson brought up an area that is always anxiety-producing for reporters: artificial Intelligence (AI).

Jonathan Klein, former president of CNN U.S., told TV Watch many years back that AI would be able to write and produce much of what reporters do now. 

But no worries. Proponents of this would say the good news is -- as with any revolution or adaptation -- that it will free up reporters to provide more investigative journalism.

Of course, this is always the "blue sky" projection when new technology hits the ground for any business.

Overall trends are still not so good: Layoffs of journalists, editors and supporting staff -- both in the U.S. and around the world -- are continuing and on the rise.

Does this improve the health of CNN? 

For consumers, the question is whether they have even more streaming dollars to spend per month. And for advertisers, the question may be whether there are additional reasons to buy into another digital streaming upstart.

 

Physical DVD Rentals Are Really Over: Is Linear TV Next?

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, July 15, 2024

Looks like the final vestige of physical home entertainment -- by the way the DVD rental business -- is really going away. Should we have expected more? Maybe some linear TV networks are thinking: are we next?

In the wake of Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment moving into more stringent bankruptcy proceedings (Chapter 7), the company’s Redbox network of 24,000 DVD rental kiosks and its streaming services will shut down.

Chicken Soup closed a deal to buy Redbox -- an already struggling business -- in 2020. The deal was then valued at $370 million, but came with $359.9 million in debt. More than 1,000 people -- all of the company will be furloughed, with apparently no pay even for work they have already done. It's been more than two decades since the Blockbuster Video physical retail store operation closed down officially.

For many this is beyond long in coming -- apart from specialized physical rental services that remain like the Los Angeles-based Vidiots Foundation, which caters to independent movie aficionados, and also offers screenings.  

So, what’s next, as in other media platforms on the rocks? Certainly, there has been a call that linear TV networks are seeing the end of the video highway down the road. 

This comes as mid-size cable TV network groups looking to make their big CTV transition continue to struggle with digital/streaming operations.

For its part Redbox also had a streaming-online business. And looking way back Blockbuster Video also attempted to start up its own streaming service during its waning days. (It also started up its own mail DVD services to compete then with early days of Netflix as well as a growing Redbox.

After trending down starting in the early 2000s, Blockbuster Video filed for bankruptcy in 2010 after losing more than one billion dollars.

More late-to-market traditional legacy media platforms -- desperate to accelerate into new, cool technologies -- will probably be the first to go.

And, yes, this includes businesses large and small -- which is why so much attention has gone into the prospects of late-to-market premium streaming services.

Trouble is that even financial sick companies like Chicken Soup for the Soul need a lot more....

 

COMMENTARY

Ad-Free Streaming 'Stickier' With Consumers, FAST Fills 'Gaps,' Study Finds

• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, 4 hours ago

In some not-so-good news for streaming TV-video media buyers, a new study shows that more expensive ad-free streamers are “stickier” with consumers than free or low-cost ad-supported platforms, according to Hub Entertainment Research.

Eighty-five percent of respondents in the study say they "definitely/probably" will have ad-free services a year from now, compared to 74% who say they will have ad-supported services.

Looking deeper, 19% say they "might/might not" have ad-supported services a year from now versus 10% who "might/might not" have ad-free services.

“People paying extra for ad-free services consider them more valuable and are more loyal,” say the authors of the report.

While the addition and the use of FAST (free ad-supported streaming TV) services like Pluto and Tubi help consumers feel they are getting more for their money, “loyalties to those services may not be as strong.” At best, these fill in the “gaps” for consumers who are unable to spend more on streaming/TV spending.

Price and content are two issues that consumers vacillate over when it comes to the streaming purchase. The study finds that thirteen percent of respondents are concerned about the price of streaming platforms, while 9% point to access to movies that were recently in theaters, 9% also want “ad-free shows," and another 9% want at least a choice between ad-free and ad-supported options.

Consumers are “maxed out” when it comes to the overall cost of TV -- which respondents say averages $82 a month -- the study finds.

Respondents say they would pay a maximum of $87 for all TV content.

This research comes from a June 2024 survey among 1,600 U.S. TV consumers ages 16-74 with broadband.

 

Global Streaming Ad Share Grows To 28%, Subscriptions Still Dominant

• by Wayne Friedman , over 1 hour ago

While advertising will continue to be a strong and growing part of the global streaming marketplace, subscriptions will continue to dominate the business for years to come, according to global services and marketing research company PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

In four years, advertising is estimated to account for about 28% of global streaming revenues -- up from 20% in 2023. Subscription revenues are projected to have a 72% share of all global streaming business.

Statista estimates the worldwide streaming revenues will rise to $316.4 billion this year. SymphonyAI projects that this will increase to $427 billion by 2026.

PWC estimates that global subscriptions overall will slow down to a growth rate of 5% a year to 2.1 billion by 2028 up from 1.6 billion in 2023.

Over a five-year span, global average revenue per streaming video subscribers will just inch up to $67.66 in 2028 from $65.21 in 2023.

Authors of the report say while streaming usage continues to rise, the marketplace will continue to see consolidation, as well as more live sports programming and password-sharing crackdowns. It also sees continued ad-revenue growing amid industry competition.

Looking at the broader global advertising picture, PwC says revenue will grow at a compound annual rating of  6.7% through 2028.

It sees the U.S. -- the largest global advertising marketplace -- rising 4.3% through that period. Global advertising is expected to hit $1 trillion in 2026.

 

COMMENTARY

Rhetoric And Vitriol Are Too Ingrained To Tone Them Down

• by Adam Buckman , Featured Columnist, 7 hours ago

Whatever you choose to call it -- rhetoric or vitriol -- recent calls to “tone down the rhetoric” will not suddenly have everybody actually doing that.

“Can we all get along?” pleaded Rodney King in 1992.

No, we can’t. Which is why few will heed the pleas by some in the last few days to tone down the TV talk-show anger and social-media tantrums that have become a national pastime.

The operative word is “some,” which in this usage is synonymous with “few.” It is not as if the calls for peaceful discourse with our neighbors have suddenly cooled the heat that surrounds everything these days.

Why is this subject being covered in a TV Blog? Because the pleas to curb the vitriol -- and the vitriol the pleas are referring to -- play out every day on TV.

The power of TV as a great influencer cannot be denied by anyone even vaguely familiar with television. 

If the medium had no influence, the advertising business that has underpinned the whole thing for 70-plus years would make no sense.

Thus, it is not unreasonable to blame TV -- in this case, our cable news channels -- for contributing to our culture of finger-pointing, be it the middle finger or the index finger. 

The use of the word “rhetoric” is interesting here. Classically speaking, the word does not necessarily refer to “harsh criticism” or “mean tweets.” Merriam-Webster defines it first and foremost as “the art of speaking or writing effectively” and “skill in the effective use of speech.” It can also refer to “insincere or grandiloquent language.”

An end to insincerity and grandiloquence would be nice. But now “rhetoric” is being applied in reference to the recitation in public forums of half-truths and no-truths, name-calling and other forms of “vitriol.”

When I looked up “vitriol” in the dictionary, I learned it refers primarily to a caustic substance found in some metals.

Its use as a reference to angry speech evolved from that. “Something felt to resemble vitriol especially in caustic quality; virulence of feeling or of speech" is how the dictionary puts it.

So why dive into these dry definitions of “rhetoric” and “vitriol”? Some might insist that everybody knows them when they hear them, right?

But that is not the case. Who can say what the boundaries are between speech that is “rhetoric” or “vitriol” and what isn’t?

It reminds me of the old FCC’s attempts to regulate or control “obscenity” on TV and radio (mostly the latter). 

The Commission would level fines at, say, Howard Stern, and then sometime later, the company that was fined would win an appeal in which it argued that the fines were unjustified because no one was able to define what the obscenity actually was.

In the wake of the calls for toning down the negative speech following the assassination attempt on former President Trump, there seems to be some reaction in that direction on TV.

But it won’t last. Vitriol and anger are the foundations on which the cable news channels have built their businesses. 

They are not going to gut the very content that they depend on, especially right now in this hot summer of Biden vs. Trump.

Or to put it another way, if the talk shows on Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC cooled their “rhetoric” to be less “vitriolic,” no one would watch them.

It reminds me of a time back in the late 1990s (I think) when syndicated daytime talk shows were controversial. The one that consistently made the most headlines was “The Jerry Springer Show,” on which fights broke out every day. For the show’s fans, the fights were its best feature.

For a time, the fights even propelled the “Springer” show past the perennial daytime frontrunner, “Oprah Winfrey,” in the ratings.

But under pressure from the media and probably sponsors and maybe even threats from the government, the company that owned the “Springer” show vowed to do away with the fights, and did so.

But the fight ban was short-lived. Before long, the fights were back, and the “Springer” show lasted for 20 more years.

As the years went by, the world moved on and nobody seemed to get exercised anymore over the “Springer” fights. They became the norm. The same will happen on TV.

Vitriolic TV is the norm today. After this recent call for lowering the temperature of our discourse, the world will similarly move on, and the vitriol will return (if it ever left in the first place).

So sorry to all as we had disruption on the website since in mid-June

 We will also be out of office from Aug 1-5. Going to Memphis, Graceland for Donna's birthday....  

Peace!