Lies, Damned Lies and “Statistics”

Image: Nutdanai Apikhomboonwaroot FreeDigitalPhotos.net

It’s a famous quote from the famous and quotable American author, Mark Twain.  It’s also true.  In advertising and marketing, we call it “research”.

I’ve used research as both a buyer and a seller of advertising media.  One thing I learned early on is that figures can be manipulated to highlight what the seller wants and to hide what they perhaps don’t highlighted.  I don’t blame the sellers, they need to showcase their product in the most positive possible light.  In fact when I was a seller of advertising in national magazines, we met after the research was released twice yearly to review our numbers and also the numbers of the competing titles in the category to determine our strengths and weaknesses and the strengths and weaknesses of the other titles and how best we could showcase our strengths and how to address any concerns buyers may have over our weaknesses.

I don’t mean to imply that all research is bad or that it is biased.  I mean it needs to be interpreted with caution and with a keen and skeptical eye toward the source and what it purports to prove.

The first thing I look at when I evaluate a piece of research is to look at the source.  If it’s championed by a major industry trade organization, I won’t say I discount it completely, but I do look carefully at what it says and seek 3^rd party source to corroborate it.

Image Credit:  Nutdanai Apikhomboonwaroot / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Stop Online Censorship

Click the image above to tell Congress to end SOPA and PIPA now.

Would You Watch An Ad To Avoid An ATM Fee?

Image: Simon Howden / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

A recent story on CNN featured a new company, Free ATMs NYC offering non-bank ATM services without fees.  In exchange, customers view ads during the transaction and receive a reminder ad printed on the receipt.  The story generated considerable buzz in New York with mentions in “New York Magazine”, “The Village Voice”, “The New York Observer”, and “The Gothamist”.

The marketer and Media Buyer/Planner in me says, “Wow! Why didn’t I think of that?”  What’s not to like?  I have a captive audience for my message combined with a trackable offer printed on the receipt.  The urban ATM customer in me says, “Are you [random expletive] NUTS?”

I did some crowd sourcing across my Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook networks to provide a wider variety of life experience and points of view.

The results are not scientific, but they do provide a good insight to the willingness to submit to advertising in exchange for a fee for use. They also echo the opinion of “The New York Observer” and “The Gothamist” in their concerns about long and short term wisdom of this endeavor.  Unfortunately, I can’t post all the responses, so I’ll post a representative one from each choice – “Yes”, “No”, “Maybe”.

Not surprisingly, the majority would not watch an ad to have a fee waived, but the reasons varied greatly.

• Safety concerns involving situational awareness
• Too many ads in the world now
• Ads get lost in the noise machine
• Don’t use ATM’s
• Use Store POP/Credit Union machine
• Takes too long when others are in line
• Just emphatically NO!

“Ugh No. I live in NY and why would I want to give a potential mugger 30 MORE Seconds to rob me. BAD IDEA.  Also, what about the person behind you.  Secondly, What about ATM’s accessed by cars?” – Vincent, New York City

For those who answered “Maybe”, the common qualifier was the length of the ad.

“A short clip might work – 10-15 seconds – How about audio while you conduct your transaction? – captive audience” – Craig, Springfield, Massachusetts

As with video pre-roll on websites, there is a threshold of pain and it seems to be about 10 to 15 seconds.  Any longer and you risk losing your audience and maybe driving them from your brand, website or ATM entirely.

The “Yes” category is more difficult to judge due to the small sample size and the absence of reason given.  It also produced the best answer in my opinion for raw honesty.

“I sometimes spend more than $2 on Gas to avoid a $2 fee, so Yes.” – Ed, Tampa, Florida

Thanks for reading and please take a moment to answer the poll.  Please post your reason in the “Comments” section.  I look forward to expanding my research and if I receive enough results, I’ll republish the article with the updated data.

Image: Simon Howden / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Why the New Facebook “Timeline” is like George Orwell’s “1984″

Image: pal2iyawit / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

For months, Facebook has threatened to introduce their new “Timeline” feature giving anyone with access to your posts a handy way to paw back through everything you have ever posted.  I finally succumbed to the inevitable and got the new Facebook “Timeline”.  I’ve been avoiding it as long as possible but Facebook hath decreed that December 22 shall be the day when we have it whether we want it or not.

I’m fortunate that I pretty carefully control my Facebook presence, and used Facebook lists to limit content distribution long before Facebook actually implemented them.  But let’s face it, we’ve all put things on our Facebook wall that in hindsight maybe weren’t that good an idea.

So I started playing around with the new toy that is the Facebook “Timeline” and discovered that in one way, it’s a lot like George Orwell’s “1984“.  I’m not referring to the crappy movie with Richard Burton.  I’m referring to George Orwell’s 1948 novel “1984“.  For me one of the scariest revelations in that novel was the realization of what exactly the “Records Department” in the Ministry or Truth actually did.  They re wrote history to conform to the beliefs and position of the Party.  They deleted stories.  They added stories to make them say what the Party now believed when it differed from the previous belief.

Facebook’s new “Timeline” feature makes it possible to do the same thing – go back in your timeline and say what you wish you had said.

Changing history is now possible...at least on Facebook

I’ll leave it to you to determine if this is good, bad or creepy.

Photo Credit: pal2iyawit / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Could Media Planning Have Prevented the Lowe’s “All American Muslim” Meltdown?

Image: Michal Marcol / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Lowe’s the big box home improvement retailer has been all over the news this week and not in a good way.  The media is questioning endlessly and pontificating verbosely about whether this was the right decision for Lowe’s.  Unfortunately, this is not the right question.  The real question is not whether they should have pulled their advertising from the TLC Network program “An American Muslim”, no; the real question is “Why did their agency put their ads in the program in the first place?”

I don’t want to get too political, but unfortunately, in the current environment, everything seems to have been politicized.  A glaring red flag is in this survey from YouGov BrandIndex outlining some of the top brands among liberal, conservative and independent voters.  It’s telling that there is little ideology when it comes to bleach (Clorox), home health products (Johnson&Johnson) or breakfast cereal (Cheerios).  When we get to home improvement, Lowe’s stands out as a solid Republican brand.  TLC is a solid brand for women’s programming and Lowe’s more so than other home improvement retailers targets women.  The problem came when Lowe’s ads appeared in a program with content likely to inflame and enrage their customer base.  What was their media agency thinking?  Why did Lowe’s not review the media plan from their agency with more scrutiny?

When I started as a media buyer, there wasn’t as much to media buying. Basically, a GRP was a GRP was a GRP.  There were only 3 networks and only larger markets had an independent station.  Programming was mostly innocuous pablum aimed at the lowest common denominator.  (OK, so some of the game shows that infest network prime time still are.)  “Cable” was HBO, ESPN, CNN and MTV which still actually played music.  “Research” was the Nielsen or Arbitron (yes they were in the TV ratings business too) book and a ruler to read the pages of eye glazingly small numbers.  Today, so much contextual and psychographic research is available to hone and target a media buy.

In planning for clients, I try to consider client and audience sensibilities in matching audiences, clients and programming.  For example, I didn’t place spots for a family attraction in a controversial morning radio program.  Although the raw audience numbers matched the age for parents of young children, the content was not consistent with the client’s brand.  Conversely, for another client, a dealer in pre-owned trucks, the same program was key to our media strategy.  It was simple, the station wasn’t wrong and the programming wasn’t wrong.  It was a matter of matching clients with content.

As an advertiser in this program, one thing would have me looking for the door, and it has nothing to do with the program’s content – it’s the ratings, or rather the increasing lack of them since the premier.

Source: TV By the Numbers

Anytime you lose 32% of your total audience and 44% of your demo audience between the premier and second episode, your series just might be in trouble.  When the audience continues to drop and is less than half that of a marginal lead in, you have a problem.  I only have the first 3 weeks because the program has dropped below the radar.  I don’t know what audience delivery was promised by TLC or what CPM the advertisers paid, but there is a good possibility that if I were an advertiser in the program, I’d be in serious discussions about make goods.

Photo Credit:  Michal Marcol / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Social Media Doesn’t Make Us Miserable. Being Miserable Makes Us Miserable

Within minutes, these two tweets came through my timeline.  Both suggest that Twitter and Facebook in themselves somehow conspire to make us less happy.  Really?  If anyone is able to make sense of the infographic, in the article

“Have Tweets Proved People Are Getting Unhappier?“, you are much smarter than I.

I do know these things:

1.  When I first started commenting regularly on news websites in        2008, I noticed immediately there was a lot of angry noise.
2.  I watched a cable news until I discovered it was day after day of      angry noise.
3.  When I joined Twitter in march of 2009, I noticed at once there        was a lot of angry noise.
4.  I have no patience for angry noise.

Soultion: I don’t watch cable news, pay much attention to comments threads on news sites or follow negative angry people on Twitter.

My Twitter experience is as happy as I make it.  This week I unfollowed someone I had followed since I first joined Twitter.  They had always been a somewhat cynical and snarky person which is probably one of the reasons I was drawn to them in the first place – not that I would know anything about cynical or snarky.  Lately, however, it had become shrill and harpy.  I’m not a ball of sunshine all the time either, but there has to be a balance.

The article in the Harvard Business Review about how “Facebook Is Making Us Miserable” is easier to understand, but just as hard to grasp the concept of.  I realize the author is pimping his new book, “Passion & Purpose“, but this quote really stunned me.

“As I went about my research, it became clear that behind all the liking, commenting, sharing, and posting, there were strong hints of jealousy, anxiety, and, in one case, depression.  Said one interviewee about a Facebook friend, ‘Although he’s my best friend, I kind-of despise his updates.’ ”

What?  Kids, it’s Facebook.  It’s not life and death.  It’s sure not what I see in my Facebook timeline.  I didn’t think my friends were all that well adjusted, after all, they are friends with me, but I don’t see the pompous sharing jealousy or all that much complaining.  What I do see is my friends who are generally happy people post happy things, those that are less happy don’t always post happy things.  I’ve known them a long time.  Facebook didn’t make them any more or less happy than they were.

It’s the same with myself – my life is about 10% what happens to me and about 90% how I choose to deal with it.  As someone who has in the past fallen prey to some of the traits described, I offer this experience.

1.  Comparing myself to others only makes me crazy.  They don’t          care.

2.  It’s none of my business what you think of me.

3.  I’m not in this world to live up to the expectations of others.

4.  If you want drama, I’ll make popcorn and sit in the front, but I          won’t get on stage with you.

Social Media doesn’t make us more or less social than we were and it doesn’t make us any more or less miserable, It merely amplifies the social traits already there.

5 Reasons TV’s “Death” is Not Imminent

Image: seaskylab / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I love know-it-all media pundits, especially those with an agenda to promote.

You know the kind I mean:

______ will be the death of _____.  It will be gone in five years.

We’ve been hearing this for years.  In the 1950′s, television signaled the death of movies, yet today, Hollywood’s income is strong.  Cable was supposed to be the death of the big 3 networks (Fox hadn’t been envisioned yet).  Granted, cable has considerably eroded the share of the now 4 major networks, but only a handful of cable programs reach into network territory in terms of audience size.  Usually, these memes are perpetuated by those with the most to gain by the actualization of the meme.

Recently, a Credit Suisse analyst was quoted in Ad Age Magazine about how a soft economy has put pressure on the cable industry, was somehow turned into this wailing, moaning and gnashing of teeth rant about the death of  TV within five years.  A little melodramatic to be sure, but it has been endlessly shared in my timelines on Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+.  The article draws the false equivalency that since customers have cut the cord on landline phone service, they will do likewise with their cable and satellite TV subscriptions.  Really?

1.  Some programs don’t translate well to time shifting

Sports just don’t translate to time shifting.  Even in the days of VCR’s, far fewer cable networks and no Twitter or Facebook, it was difficult at best to avoid spoilers when you taped the big game.  Today?  Fugeddaboutit!  Live is still the only way to watch some programs.

2.  Some programs don’t translate to a small screen

See the previous section.  I have a 52 inch plasma screen TV with surround sound for a reason.  Hint: it’s not so I can watch sports or a movie on a 22 inch computer monitor or an iPad or my damn phone.

3.  The bandwidth just isn’t there

In my real life, I’m a rabid sports car racing fan.  In 2011, the American LeMans Series decided a television contract built around live streaming on ESPN3 combined with a race highlights program the next day on either ABC, ESPN or ESPN2 would be a good idea.  Ummmmm.  That would be, NO!  Look no further than my Twitter “Racing” list on a race day.  It’s a festival of tweets about a frozen, pixelated, jumpy stream.  It’s not just my internet connection.  If it’s that bad on a small screen, I don’t want to consider trying to watch it on my big TV.

4.  The content isn’t as widely available as the pundits want us to believe

Those who espouse cutting the cable cord will have us believe all content is available online.  Not so much.  I realize I sometimes seem to be leading the rant that I have 300+ channels on cable and still can’t find a damn thing worth watching, but it’s not a panacea on the web either.  Granted, I can watch full streaming episodes of network and cable shows…on some network websites…a month after they air.

5.  Even when you do “cut the cord”, do you think the content will still be free?

Netflix and Hulu charge subscription fees, Fox, USA, CBS and others air short commercials in their full episode streams.  ESPN3 and Speed2 are available only to subscribers of their cable product.  Nothing is free, and if you’re not the customer, you’re the product.

Even though, what’s on TV is frequently cringe inducing, I just don’t see the single most advertising medium going away as quickly as many want us to believe.

Photo Credit:  seaskylab / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Why It Would Be Good To Have Arbitron Back in the TV Ratings Game

Image: graur razvan ionut / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Those of us in the world of media buying have long railed about the seemingly arbitrary nature of television ratings, so when I read Arbitron COO Sean Creamer suggests using his company’s “Personal People Meters” as a tool for measuring television audience, my interest was piqued to say the least.

Competition is always a good thing

When I first started in advertising, Arbitron and Nielsen competed aggressively in the television ratings arena.  There were Nielsen Agencies and Arbitron Agencies and some which subscribed to both.  It was always good to be able to compare the audience for a given program in both the services.  Imperfect as the then “diary method” was, having a comparison made both services more accountable to the television stations, networks and advertising agencies.

A larger sample size will always return more accurate results

As a consumer of audience research data, I and others in the field have long questioned the accuracy of  data based on a remarkably small cross section of the population.  For that reason, I have frequently tried to compare data from multiple sources.  At times, the disparity between two surveys is frightening.  Currently, Nielsen ratings based on a national panel of about 20,000 homes.  Arbitron would more than triple that sample size.  A larger sample base will almost certainly improve the accuracy of the ratings.  It won’t be perfect, research never will be, but it will vastly improve the current model.

Opportunities to include viewing outside your own home

One of the drawbacks to the Nielsen model is that it includes only viewing by your household in your house.  Since Arbitron’s “Personal People Meter” goes with you, it can conceivably record when you watch the game at your friend’s house.  Naturally, there are some issues to work through here including bars, restaurants, waiting rooms, etc., but it opens the door to measurement of a more real world scenario of how media is consumed.

For those of us in the media buying world, competition and greater accuracy would be most welcome.

Photo Credit: graur razvan ionut / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Controlling Your Facebook Destiny to Avoid “Over Share”

Facebook privacy has been a concern for some time, but this tweet took it to a new level.

I understand the frustration, but abandoning a Social Media channel over such an easily worked around issue seems a bit extreme.

The author of the original blog post, “Is Facebook Heading Towards An Overdose Of Sharing?”, raises some valid issues.  In the end, it’s not really about Facebook forcing myself or any other user to “over share”.  It’s about the situational awareness to know what I’m sharing, how I’m sharing it and to whom it is visible.

I too am a fairly private person and since I work in the advertising industry, am aware of my internet footprint.  That’s not to say I’m paranoid about what I post, but I do stop and think before hitting “send”…most of the time.  I already have my Facebook privacy settings pretty high.  Unless you are my friend, you don’t get to see much other than where I went to high school and college.  Those after all are the friends I want to be able to find me.  Even so there are some posts I don’t share with all my friends.

Facebook actually builds in pretty good privacy settings, and has for a long time.  They don’t publicize it, nor do they always make it easy.  After all, we’re the product to Facebook.  Not us per se, but the data they can mine from us about what we like and read and do and where we go and with whom, all so they can sell our information to companies to try and sell us stuff.

I’ll show a few popular “insta share” apps and how to control the sharing.

Spotify

I love spotify, but I don’t share all my activity there for two reasons

1.  I don’t want to spam up my friends’ walls with what I’m listening to at any given moment.
2.  I don’t want to make a public spectacle of my occasionally dubious taste in music.

That’s not to say I don’t occasionally share something I find particularly cool, because I do.  I just choose to keep my guilty pleasure for ’80′s hair bands to myself.

It’s easy to do.  Spotify has a setting called “Private Session”.

Problem solved.  I can listen to my guilty pleasures in peace and not fill my friends’ walls with twaddle.

If I find something particularly worthwhile, it’s easy to share as I go.

Facebook News Apps - Huffington Post, Washington Post Social Reader and Yahoo News

These are a little more tricky.  Facebook doesn’t always make it easy to opt out of anything, but it is possible.  Like all things Facebook, start with the “Privacy Settings”.

As with so many things Facebook, there is no way to totally remove the post, but you can make it as invisible as possible by making it visible only to yourself.

Fortunately, the “Washington Post Social Reader” is a little more mindful of user privacy by offering workable privacy options, even if they do make you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to find it.

Once there, they are very clear about their policies and opt out procedure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/social-reader/privacy-policy

The “Mark as Unread” feature is unique and useful.

Sites like Facebook want us to share our whole life.  Mining that data and selling it to marketers to target advertising is how they make their money.  Concern about what we share is natural and prudent, but it’s not cause for abandoning a social network.  It’s merely an opportunity to learn how privacy settings work, and implementing them.

Buzz Gets Attention, But Does It Sell Clothes?

Personal confession: I’ve always loved Benetton’s advertising.  When they burst on the scene in the 1980′s, I worked for an firm that represented several of the Condé Nast magazine titles.  Their ads virtually littered the pages of GQ, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker.  Whatever their ads conveyed, they were certainly memorable.

Now they’re up with a new set of ads portraying world leaders kissing with the headline “UNHATE“.  It’s unlikely any of these ads will ever see publication.

Steve Herman reports for the Voice of America

No matter, Twitter and Facebook today are ablaze with angry posts, WTF posts, how dare they posts, LOL posts about the new campaigh.  The Vatican went so far as to threaten “threatened legal action to protect the pope’s image“.  The White House stopped short of legal action, but made clear it’s displeasure over having the President’s image used for commercial purpose.

I applaud Benetton.  Their creative has always been brilliant and attention grabbing.  I applaud their gaming of the media.  I’m sure they never intended this campaign to see publication in any paid media.  Why would they?  They can get newspapers and bloggers and Facebookers and TV entities worldwide to do it for them.  Everyone is frothing in faux outrage about Benetton.  To be honest, I hadn’t given a thought to the brand in years until this campaign popped up.  Apparently I’m not alone as a comment on the local ABC affiliate page on Facebook was along the lines of “who is Benneton?”  All the millions of dollars they used to spend on glossy glamour ads in slick magazines is now replaced by the judicious use of a little Photoshop and letting the interwebs have at it.

It definitely got the brand back to top of mind awareness just in time for the holiday shopping season.  The question is, how many clothes will it sell.  If the answer is “lots”, it may be the best few hours hours of a production artist’s time ever.  If not, would they have been better served by more of those paid glamour ads touting their fashions?