Queen Elizabeth sent her first email in 1976 from a British Army base.
We got catching up to do.
(Source: The Official Website of the British Monarchy, ‘The Royal Family and Technology”)
We got catching up to do.
(Source: The Official Website of the British Monarchy, ‘The Royal Family and Technology”)
Posted in Uncategorized
Ynon Kreiz, CEO of the Endemol group, at the Digital Life Design conference (January 2011).
Television is not “becoming social”, it is already social. It fuels conversations around the water cooler. People gather to watch programs together, in households, in pubs, everywhere they can. However, it has become an increasingly individualised experience: 68% of Australians have two or more television screen per household in Australia and the number of channels available is increasing[1]. What happens? Australians may watch big live events with their friends and family but they will also watch the content that passionate only them by themselves… Or not exactly. A report by Nielsen stated that Australians spend a significant amount of time multitasking media: almost half of Australian Internet users multitask TV and Internet. Moreover, television and Internet multitaskers have a high level of frequency with 48% of them doing it daily or almost daily[2]. Interestingly, social networking has the highest share of Internet minutes when it comes to Australian users[3]. Australians multitask Internet and TV, and are more likely to be using Social Networking Sites when they do so. It is TV…Made even more social.
It is then no wonder that the MIT named Social TV one of the most important emerging technologies in 2010[4]. Beyond the simple idea of multitasking between a number of different screens, Social TV is an emerging technology that has multiple applications. If we concentrate on social TV on a single screen, there are three different sorts of players: Technology companies (Google, Microsoft and Apple), manufacturers such as Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, and Philips[5] as well as content providers like Boxee.
For Technology companies, integration with television could be seen as natural. After all, it is just another screen. Apple is constantly upgrading its Apple TV, a set top box which offers programs from a range of content providers and enables streaming from any connected device using iTunes. It has notably just signed a partnership to broadcast mlb.tv and NBA League Pass[6]. Microsoft announced at CES 2011 that it will launch Microsoft Television[7]; a stripped-down version of Windows made for set-top boxes and connected TVs using the Windows Media Center interface. Another heavyweight in the category, Google, launched in October 2010 Google TV, integrating Google’s Android operating system and Google Chrome browser using devices produced by Sony and Logitech. Yahoo launched Yahoo’s Connected TV as well, whose primary interest resides in the fact that it is a relatively open API/SDK that allows developers to create their own widgets/apps.
As per manufacturers, connected TVs are becoming the norm and almost all new models are Internet enabled, some even includes pre-installed features. Panasonic launched VIErA Cast enabled VIErA TVs that are connected to a broadband connection with which users can access their existing Twitter account and send tweets from a pre-installed widget[8].
There are a few content providers who can be considered as the Pure Players of the category. Boxee is one of them. It has all the features of a product like Apple TV without being restricted to a particular multimedia player like iTunes. The service is heavily based on taking advantage of the viewer’s social network and using cross recommendation. It is an open-source model which gives it room for improvement[9]. Then there are the apps, but that is another whole new world of mobile & TV interaction (but one with future given Yahoo just bought Into Now, maybe in another post…).
There are many different players and many challenges facing Social TV – on issues ranging from technological standards to platforms, including the upcoming battle between content providers, format creators and the broadcasting industry itself. Added to these issues, general questions regarding digital content such as monetisation and intellectual property rights needs to be answered as well. The question of single screen VS. multi screens is probably the most important when it comes to social television. A great number of apps and websites already tend to the social side of television. The conversation happens but is not visually interfering with what happens on the big screen. The main issue is in divided attention. Social TV on the main screen is possible but are users really going to enjoy it?
[2] Nielsen, The Australian Internet and Technology Report, February 2010
[3] ComScore, The State of the Internet Australia, February 2011
[4] MIT Technology Review, http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/25084/?a=f
Posted in Exploring Digital Cultures, Media
In an increasingly cluttered media environment, finding the best way to be heard is an everyday struggle for advertisers and marketers. It requires great engaging ads across all possible channels, a perfectly tailored online environment to accompany it, an animated conversation on social media platforms and a powerful (therefore expensive) media plan… Amongst other cleverly though schemes.
One of these other cleverly thought schemes is creating branded content. It is not an ad, or an advertorial of any kind, it is purely content but produced by a brand. Some define it as narrowly as product placement. Brands pay for content that are not ads but which will display their products. The simpler way of seeing branded content is by just considering it as quality content, paid for by brands. Sometimes, there will be product placement, but it can also be where the content is hosted (website or branded YouTube channel for example) or who is it attributed to in the credits (“Presented By”).
Take American Family Insurance for example; it is exactly what it sounds like: an American company selling insurance to people. In an effort to create a “multichannel campaign”, they decided to produce a web series named “In Gayle We Trust”. A web series that worked so well, they are actually broadcasting season two as we speak. Why does it work? Well, I don’t have any insider information on the project but it might be because it is produced by NBC Digital, written by Brent Forrester (who wrote episodes for The Simpsons and The Office) and starring Elisa Donovan (“Clueless,” “Beverly Hills, 90210,” “Sabrina The Teenage Witch”). But it could also be simply because the episodes were entertaining and people could relate with the content. “In Gayle We Trust” narrates the tribulations of insurance agent Gayle Evans trying to advise the idiosyncratic residents of made-up town Maple Grove. This could be a surprising posture for a brand like American Family Insurance but it worked because they respected all the golden rules of branded content.
Of course not everyone is going as far as American Family Insurance but the thought process is similar, from a small product placement to creating entire seasons of a show. There seems to be one product people seem to remember easily from the show House M.D., because it is perfectly on brand. Can you tell what brand of computer Gregory House uses? Do you remember any other brand he seems to be regularly consuming?
How to do it well?
Firstly, you need to be on brand. Exactly like anything you do in advertising. The key to producing effective brand content is to have the story perfectly in line with the strategy. Just like any other marketing effort, if the positioning is well defined and the content produced is coherent with the brand identity, you are on the road to success. If you don’t do that, however good the content is, it is not going to serve your brand. How many times have we seen great content but are not able to remember which brand was behind it.
There is another effort to make. The problem is this is not just advertising, it is content. So there is one more layer to your strategy: You also need to connect with your audience and give a convincing and compelling point of view about the world. The content needs to be of quality and relevant to your audience.
Finally, behind content, there is a media plan. If it is product placement, you don’t have to worry about it but if you are co-producing content that you will own as a brand then you need to make it easily accessible for your audience. That issue is critical and all channels’ strengths and weaknesses have to be carefully evaluated. It can range from a short time slot on national TV to a YouTube channel or a free downloadable program from your own website or content platforms (like iTunes).
You need all four aspects of your strategy switched on: It is about being “on brand”, “on target”, “on trend” and “on air”!
Why do we bother with branded content? It has a bright future, because the lines between editorial and advertising have been blurring. Brands are becoming publishers because people don’t want to see as many ads anymore and brands still want to be seen. The hope I have is that it could lead to a good economic model that could help the content industry: We download a lot of media and we don’t seem to really want to pay for content. Brands want to communicate in other ways than advertising and are willing to pay for it. Brand sponsorship could be a good way to make everyone financially “viable”.
Note: For people who are not viewers of House M.D., Gregory House uses an Apple laptop. “Think Different”, right?
This is an ad for Guide dogs in Australia.
I like it. I have nothing to add, I guess. It is just plain simple, well executed and carries the message very well.
Credits: client Guide Dogs, agency Three Drunk Monkeys, executive creative director Justin Drape/Scott Nowell, creative director Noah Regan, copywriter Henry Kember, art director Becky Alperstein, production company Curious Film, director Paola Morabito, editor Dan Lee, post production The Editors, recording studio Song Zu
Posted in Advertising
Nice little video about Facebook. I don’t who, when, where as I am not sure my Youtube source is the author… In any case, this is how you can get the full story of a man’s life, for free, out of an social networking website. It is scary the amount of information we give away.
It is another one of these videos/articles/interviews that makes me realise we really need to reevaluate the concept of privacy today. Why do we give away so much? Does these informations matter to us as much as they use to, or has our entire idea of privacy changed completely? There is that incredible gap between our Internet usage and our outcry for privacy. Everywhere I hear or read “Oh my god, marketing companies get our data? They use it? They make money out of it? I want my privacy back, leave me alone and anonymous”… All this usually written on a Facebook status, tweet, blog post… Choose your medium.
This is one survey I’d like to take on!
Video found whilst reading http://www.adverblog.com/ (Props to them)
Bob Thacker, senior VP-marketing and advertising at OfficeMax
Posted in Advertising
Wooo! I am going to need to see this. I am going to like seeing this.
Influencers: a short documentary whose trailer caught my attention. I cannot write a full blog post, I haven’t seen the thing. But in the meantime, I give you the trailer, I am pasting the description and I am looking for it, actively…
More on the subject when I have seen it.
“INFLUENCERS is a short documentary that explores what it means to be an influencer and how trends and creativity become contagious today in music, fashion and entertainment.
The film attempts to understand the essence of influence, what makes a person influential without taking a statistical or metric approach.
Written and Directed by Paul Rojanathara and Davis Johnson, the film is a Polaroid snapshot of New York influential creatives (advertising, design, fashion and entertainment) who are shaping today’s pop culture.
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/influencersfilm“