IN THIS ISSUE:
BORRELL: IN ONLINE ADVERTISING, LOCAL IS THE NEW BLACK
MEDIA 2.0 101: A COMPREHENSIVE BLOG STRATEGY
THE MMJ REVOLUTION - GETTING IT ALL DONE
THE LACK OF FAME KILLED AVATAR'S BID
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
BORRELL: IN ONLINE ADVERTISING, LOCAL IS THE NEW BLACK
by Terry Heaton
The essential digital problem for any media company with multiple properties is the inherent conflict between that which is centralized and that which is decentralized. I've yet to encounter anybody who does it perfectly, so perhaps there is no perfect solution. But the problem is becoming more acute, because the trend in online advertising is to that which is local, and it's very difficult to compete locally without control of the mechanism through which advertising is served.
The research company Outsell released new data this week revealing that U.S. advertisers are spending more this year on digital media than on print. According to an article in Forbes on the research, "this Madison Avenue milestone has finally arrived thanks to a 9.6% boom in digital advertising in 2010."
Of the $368 billion marketers plan to spend this year, 32.5% will go toward digital; 30.3% to print. Digital spending includes e-mail, video advertising, display ads and search marketing. "It's a watershed moment," says the study's lead author, Outsell vice president Chuck Richard.
Many saw this milestone as inevitable, but an examination of the market itself reveals there's more to the story. There's no disputing that, as Gordon Borrell puts it, "local is the new black," but the extent to which the overall ad picture is shifting to the local marketplace is obscured by overall numbers, such as reported by Outsell. Advertising of all forms, in general, is roughly 50% local and 50% national, but the online marketplace has been largely national since the beginning. That has changed over the last couple of years and continues to change. Here's a chart from Borrell's annual estimates based on 2009 Q4 Data that documents the shift.
Take a look at that graph. Our efforts to generate revenue in the mid 2000's were based on the very real data that national advertising was where it was at. As the shift to local began, however, you can see that a national-driven strategy only partially addresses the market, and that's why local is such a challenge.
Borrell told me via email that evidence of the shift is everywhere.
That's why we're seeing companies like Reachlocal and Reply.com going to IPO this year, and probably Yodle, too, within a year. The geotargeting capabilities--now down to 100 meters with GPS-enbled mobile devices, trump the less efficient capabilities of mass-local or regional buys in legacy media. So some national is becoming local....and of course a lot of local is still yet to be tapped online. Less than 14 percent of the $93 billion spent on local advertising last year went to online media. Its still way behind newspapers' local ad revenue, as well as broadcast. I strongly suspect that it will hit 20 percent within five years and trump all other media buys.
The convergence of demographics is vitally important in this, according to Borrell, so it's not just geo that's getting attention.
Oil of Olay's product manager doesn't just want to drop a coupon or run a 30-second spot in Tucson. She wants to hit women of a certain age in Tucson with an offer that can be immediately measured, like a hyperlink, and drive immediate value, like collecting their mailing addresses for a free sample and valuable coupon. National branding is great, but the end result happens in a local store 90 percent of the time.
And as the money shifts to local, media companies who've been primarily serving ads across a network of station.com or newspaper.com sites from a centralized location are suddenly faced with important new challenges, for the ability to maintain and control ad-serving at the local level — and along with it the database of user data — can make or break the success of sophisticated local campaigns. Adds Borrell, "I'd say it's probably as, if not more, important than controlling the content."
It goes beyond technology, too, for the knowledge of how to run sophisticated ad programs is more often with the brain trust at the corporate level than at the property level. This has to change, if we're to be competitive in a world where our real competition (the pureplays, not the guy across the street with another antenna) know much more about this than we do.
If the flexibility for revenue is at the local level — and it sure looks like it is — then the technological and knowledge flexibility has to be at the local level as well. This will not be easy, but do it we must. <Link>
<<< >>>
MEDIA 2.0 101: A COMPREHENSIVE BLOG STRATEGY
by Terry Heaton
When Young Broadcasting shut down Nashville is Talking a couple of weeks ago, WKRN-TV General Manager Gwen Kinsey made a statement about blogs suggesting that we've moved past them in efforts to communicate with the public. Kinsey told Broadcasting & Cable that Nashville is Talking was a bold statement "way back when."
"I say way back when because if digital technology is teaching us anything it is that specific platforms, unique technologies and the next cool thing all are born, reach maturity and fade or evolve in what feels like a nanosecond of time."
Kinsey says the station—and its viewers—are using Twitter, Facebook and live streaming to connect "in ways that blogs do less and less."
B&C writer David Tanklefsky then added, "Generally speaking, stations' forays into the blogosphere have been inauspicious, with GMs and talent often showing waning interest in maintaining blogs."
Unfortunately, I think this is the consensus of thought, but it's not only dead wrong; it's dangerous in the counterintuitive world of the Web. I would argue that traditional media has never "gotten" the blogosphere, and this is a shame, so let me attempt to explain why.
Ms. Kinsey's statements are spot on — if the purpose of station blogs is to "broadcast" news and information or information about the news to a wide audience. That is much more efficiently done via Twitter and Facebook, although I'd argue that the "notification" aspect of either is a misuse of those two platforms as well. It's all about listening to a community that wants to participate — feels it has a right to participate — in the news that impacts their world. So what I tell clients is that Twitter, for example, is more about listening than broadcasting, but I digress.
Ms. Kinsey also states that viewers are using Twitter, Facebook and "live streaming" to connect in ways that blogs do less and less. First of all, blogs never were and aren't generally regarded to be a form of social media, so connectivity, while certainly an aspect of any blogging, isn't the main purpose of a comprehensive blog strategy by a traditional media company. Secondly, if connecting with "viewers" is the sole purpose of what we do online, we'll never reach our potential as local media companies, for we'll always be limited to our (competitive) brands. An advantage of having a TV station promote your station.com site is that, well, you have an 800-pound gorilla helping you. The disadvantage is that you can't grow beyond your favorite station status online, because, well, those other TV stations have their viewers, too. Rather than talk about connecting to "viewers," I think we need to be talking about connecting to Web users and, perhaps, using the Web to give people reasons to watch our newscasts. Different approach completely.
But there are three big reasons traditional media companies need to be into the business of blogging. One, blogs and blogging are a key element in the new news ecosystem that those of us in the mainstream need to be including in covering the news of the day. The model created by Jeff Jarvis and his students at CUNY identifies the "new news organization" (NNO) that will curate the input from many players locally. Now, that certainly will include Twitter and Facebook, but the people who are serious about participating in "the news" are the bloggers. We tend to forget that "blog" refers primarily to the software that these people use, but from a content perspective, they're doing the news. Nashville is Talking was a unique aggregation vehicle for what is a very vibrant blogging community in Nashville, but even absent that kind of application, blogging by station personnel puts the company in the midst of this new news ecosystem, and that has value to the company.
Two — and this is perhaps even more important — those employees who work for a media company and blog are advancing their personal brands and competing in the world of personal media, where an institutional press entity cannot. I can't possibly overstate how important this is to the people who work for traditional media companies and, by proxy, the media companies themselves. It's so important that I teach they should be doing this on their own time, although I believe the company win is so big that it ought to pay for the hosting, etc.
How does the company win? Here's the third reason media companies need a comprehensive blogging strategy: these sites are a natural way to grow our local ad networks, and that, my friends, is the $100-million solution that media companies have been seeking. We want the local blogosphere to participate with us in this venture, and, well, it's just easier if we're involved in the blogosphere ourselves. Companies like GrowthSpur are being funded by Venture Capital to create ad networks for bloggers. Are we going to sit back and let that happen in our markets? If we do, shame on us.
So when I read comments from traditional media executives suggesting that blogs have gone the way of the Mammoth, I cringe, because along with such statements I sense a sigh of relief that "the fad" has passed. That is, after all, what all of these things really are anyway, aren't it? Fads? Right? Agree? <Link>
<<< >>>
MMJ REVOLUTION: "IT'S AVATAR, DUDE, NOTHING WORKS THE FIRST TIME"
by Bob Kaplitz
"It's Avatar, dude, nothing works the first time," read a whiteboard in the spare Los Angeles warehouse that served as the sci-fi film's motion capture soundstage.
Director James Cameron managed his 3,000 person crew with that rule in mind, creating the movie that has grossed more than $2.5 billion worldwide, shattering box office records. "We're out in the wilderness working far beyond the borders of the known," Cameron says.
While you as a multimedia journalist aren't pioneering at the Avatar scale, you are pioneering. And the reality that nothing works the first time can easily apply to your first shoots or new approaches. We've seen MMJs in their first week near tears when they saw a blue tint on their video or heard a hum on the audio.
Top 3 recommendations:
Consider your first mistake a learning experience. Think "Nothing works the first time."
Double check your video and audio next time before you leave the scene when possible.
Master multimedia journalism 101 before experimenting with 102 approaches.
Once you've mastered the fundamentals, then raise the bar to deliver even more compelling storytelling. you'll make mistakes, but they'll be new mistakes. As you master them, you will have moved up to a more advanced level.
One example of that is the work of KEPR-TV’s Molly Kelleher:
Multimedia Minutes: Clever Production Effects for Stand-Up
Molly is one example of many who realized James Cameron was right about nothing working the first time — all the reason to get mistakes out of the way as soon as possible. <Link>
<<< >>>
THE LACK OF FAME KILLED AVATAR'S BID
by Terry Heaton
Speaking of "Avatar"...
While it's hard to pick on "The Academy's" choice Sunday night, I find it rather incredible that "Avatar" didn't win for Best Picture. It was a remarkable film, one that so completely knocked my socks off that I just knew it would win. After all, "Avatar" broke new ground in film-making, ground that many believe is a new beginning in film-making.
I published a blog post on the future of fame Saturday morning, and I think that the lack of fame associated with the movie is the number one reason it didn't win. Think about it for a minute. The only name that most people can cite in referring to the film is James Cameron, its creator. Why is that? Because the characters in the movie were mostly synthetic, so no "performance" could be recognized. In fact, with the exception of Sigourney Weaver, it's unlikely most readers here can even name one of the film's stars. And even if you could name them, it's unlikely you'd recognize them if they walked up and introduced themselves.
Why is that such an issue with "The Academy?" Well, it's members are largely, you guessed it, actors, people who get into the business, at least in part, for the recognition it brings them - the fame. Fame, after all, leads to bigger paychecks, and, well, we can't have actors taken over by artificial forms, now can we?
So human nature beat "Avatar" in the voting, and while I can understand that, it's hard for me to think that "The Hurt Locker" was actually more deserving. But then, I felt that way when "Annie Hall" beat "Star Wars," so I guess I'm just into fantasy escapism. <Link>
<<< >>>
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
These days our homes and offices are cluttered with the latest electronic devices. It is easy to be dazzled by this new technology. But the bright and shiny wonders that technology gives us can be like the desert sun — they can blind us to what is real and valuable. Amid the digital dazzle, we risk missing the magic: the creative content that brings these devices to life. Rupert Murdoch.
