Category Archives: television

Ad recall?

Posted on by

Greg Stene, who’s an ad guy and a professor specializing in creativity (and one of the smartest people in general that I’ve ever met) has some interesting thoughts on advertising recall (or the lack thereof) in a new post over at Scholars & Rogues. A snippet:

Secondly, simply because one can recall an ad, doesn’t mean it has had a positive influence in brand preference. Certainly, there is the facile argument that you can’t choose a product if can’t you remember the ad – but that is so disingenuous in its suggestion that the rest of the world (friends’ recommendations, past experience, competing ads we may remember, etc.) has no greater profound effect on our product choice.

A good read from one of the brighter (if lesser known, so far) minds in the world of advertising.

Quarterlife crashes and burns: what does it mean?

Posted on by

Opening night for NBC’s new Millennial-targeted series, Quarterlife, was an unparalleled disaster.

The drama series which made headlines about its transition from internet to TV, “Quarterlife,” succeeded in being a flop in its NBC debut Tuesday night, having the worst ratings in at least 20 years, according to Nielsen Media Research.

The brazilian-dollar question now becomes: what happened? Continue reading →

The Internet is dead! Long live … television?

Posted on by

So says Mark Cuban. Now, I’m typically a big Cuban fan. But I’m looking at an AdAge report on his remarks from yesterday’s Cable Telecommunications Association for Marketing (CTAM) Summit, and I’m a little puzzled.

Speaking at the Cable Telecommunications Association for Marketing (CTAM) Summit in Washington yesterday, Mr. Cuban declared “the Internet is dead” in an otherwise subdued panel that included executives such as ESPN President George Bodenheimer and Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt.The real growth medium is the “intranet,” otherwise defined as the on-demand and digital video-recording platforms provided by cable companies. “There’s less restriction on the intranet, it’s like your own corporate network for all the cable networks and even wireless,” he elaborated in an interview after the panel. “It’s all locally driven anyways. It has a true neighborhood feel. If I’m in Dallas and I’m on Time Warner Cable, I want localized content.” 

Mr. Cuban views the TV as the real computer, citing the decline in sales of desktop computers as a direct result of where media consumption is moving. “All that [content] is moving to the TV. What’s the difference between a PC and a TV? Nothing.” Social networking and user-generated content are all the rage for Web 2.0, but there’s “nothing on the horizon” from a content perspective, he said (apparently glossing over the looming launches of NBC and News Corp.’s NewCo web-video venture and Joost). Broadband video, according to Mr. Cuban, has “stopped growing.”

There’s a lot to try and parse here, and I wonder if his views would be clearer if I’d heard the entirety of his remarks.

In any case, his concept of “intranet” seems to refer to a proprietary content dump where there’s not much community or interaction. Continue reading →

Need some TV time?

Posted on by

So, you look at the situation and realize that you need to make a short-term TV buy (or up the frequency of an existing buy). To quote one of my favorite cartoon dogs, “Ruh-roh.”

As Dr. Denny notes over at 5th Estate, thanks to an election that’s mounting in importance to both parties, there isn’t any air time to be purchased.

According to a report from Broadcasting & Cable:

[The $1.6 billion] exceeds initial forecasts of $1.4 billion and approaches the $1.61 billion spent in 2004, a presidential-election year. “Candidates may have more money to spend than there is time to buy,” says Evan Tracey, COO of CMAG. [emphasis added]

Wow. Good news for broadcasters, bad news for those who didn’t plan ahead.

Of course, this is only likely to effect smaller, local marketers, but there are possible implications to be considered past the 2006 election cycle:

  • Broadcast outlets have to take the political money, regardless of whatever impact it might have on their customers. This is especially true in an environment where multiple factors are undercutting the value (real and perceived) of traditional media as a marketing tool. It’s always dangerous when you have to say no to those who pay your bills on a regular basis, though.
  • There’s a lesson here for the big national advertisers, too. This is likely nothing compared to the frenzy we’re going to see around the 2008 elections. They might want to think about pushing out their planning and buying even further than usual, because by April of that year there might be no time left. Hard to say at this point, but if I’m in charge of the planning process, I’m going to assume the worst, and then add three months additional lead time on top of that.
  • Finally, if you’ll indulge the social/political/media analyst in me for a second, what might this all mean for the news coverage emanating from the broadcast outlets? Mass media facing eroding credibility as marketing channel – check. Political spending a reliable and lucrative source of income – check. Political controversy drives the urgency to spend – check.

Hmmm.