How exciting was it when the Dodgers were so hot at the end of the season to head into the MLB Post Season? For many in Los Angeles, just the thought that they will actually be able to watch the games on their television was enough to bring joy. Unfortunately, too many fans were unable to participate in the age-old ritual of being able to watch nearly any game on television because they didn’t have Time Warner Cable. For those who have sports superstitions (like I do), could it be too easy to blame the collapse on the very fact that many who couldn’t watch games when the Dodgers were playing lights-out could suddenly view every moment and, therefore, break the sports-win continuum? Naah! You can’t blame it on that. But the frustration the team felt with their post-season performance and the fans felt in not being able to watch as many games could possibly have been lessened if the Dodgers (and MLB) didn’t miss a golden opportunity to engage fans with original content production off the field.
The blown opportunity – like the blown mid-inning pitching and saves on the field – can be found in what the Dodgers didn’t do as much as what they did do. Granted, Clayton Kershaw had a mind-blowing year – leading to unending national coverage – and Yasiel Puig could fill crazy amounts of columns and blogs with those who love him and those who hate him, but what about the other players? What about the opportunities to reach those who don’t care as much about the game, but the nuances and personalities of the players?
Looking at a key component of Olympic coverage provides a model for how the Dodgers can be even more compelling and attractive to fans. Every four years, people around the world start cheering for sports that they might have not cared about in the preceding three years and 50 weeks. They might be cheering for their countries, but lately, they’ve become more invested in the individual athletes due to the featurettes and clip packages conveying their journey. Without being able to watch the Dodger players and hear the legendary Vin Scully talk about them during the games on TV, the Dodger fans (existing and potential) have very little opportunity to be “up close” and derive a more intimate interest and fandom.
The Dodgers (and by Dodgers, I may mean MLB as I believe MLB manages much of what the individual teams do) do a decent job of capturing the experience for fans and players with the Cut4 series of videos on their site, but the vast majority seem to be little more than PR pieces – as opposed to warm embraces between the players and the fans. it’s all too much on the surface.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe that a team needs to post videos depicting the harrowing sequence of events Yasiel Puig endured to get from his hometown to Chavez Ravine. There’s a lot of great stories in the clubhouse about how the players got to this place in their careers. All of this leads to deeper engagement with the core fans as well as inviting more into the fold – both physically and digitally.
Much like a motion picture based on a comic book needs to engage people beyond the hard core fans, so too do the Dodgers and all other sports teams. For every Kershaw, Puig and other established players like Andre Ethier, Josh Beckett or Carl Crawford, there’s a Paco Rodriguez, Drew Butera or Joc Pederson with a story that’s ripe for original content to engage and broaden the fan base.
Posted in Core
Tagged Andre Ethier, Carl Crawfor, Clayton Kershaw, Cut4, Drew Butera, Engagement, Fans, Featurettes, Frustration, Joc Pederson, Josh Beckett, LA Dodgers, MLB, Olympics, Original Content, Paco Rodriguez, Time Warner, Time Warner Cable, Video, Vin Scully, Yasiel Puig
At the end of last week, Google’s future plans for music video subscriptions on YouTube were made more generally known. The coverage in SFGate lays out the details and concerns quite nicely. I’m certainly not the only one who has been touting for a while that fee based content is where the internet needs to be headed in order to sustain itself – but it will take the larger players (beyond news sites like the NY Times and Washington Post) to fast track the shift. In music, there’s already numerous digital subscription and purchase models. But, even including Apple, there’s no huge previously-free internet platform that has made the transition in the music space to turn us toward the end of the free internet highway. That is until now – if Google moves forward with their plans.
I think YouTube will run into many of the issues they currently have with their subscription business from a consumer perspective because so many are already used to that platform’s free offerings. I do find it interesting that they are putting the squeeze on content providers by making it that they are either all in or completely out – and I have no idea how favorable or unfavorable those terms are. Either way, it seems like they are trying to play hardball with the music industry in the same way Amazon is. Amazon pounds away for favorable terms on disc or download sales and then comes back every 10-12 months pounding away for more.
Whether it’s about bandwidth or subscription, the days of the internet being “free” are numbered. On another side of the online content play – but completely related - I’m bothered that Reed Hastings is complaining about bandwidth issues and then going around and paying everyone to enable Netflix to come through unfettered, I get his business perspective in that he’ll be able to charge more down the line while “claiming” that he “fought” it all along.
With that model, I do see a time in the not so distant future that Google products like YT, or dare I say even search, will start charging for a fast lane or specific content…
Posted in Ruminations
Tagged Advertising, Amazon, Bandwidth, Free, Google, Internet, internet platform, Music Video, Netflix, Paid Search, Reed Hastings, SFGate, Subscription, YouTube
FX launched their new series THE STRAIN last night to solid critical response and viewer numbers. With a creative force behind the basic cable series of Guillermo del Toro and Carlton Cuse, it certainly deserves a look. Unfortunately, at least in Los Angeles and New York, that look was forced upon us in the guise of a disgusting worm coming out of an eyeball in large outdoor displays. As has been seen over numerous posts in this blog, outdoor advertising is something to be celebrated when used correctly, but I wish there had been some restraint with this campaign.
Beyond the unsettling nature of the image – and unsettling isn’t always a bad thing when trying to enter the cluttered fray of advertising – the placements were far too many when considering not everyone wants to see something graphic like this. It hit home for me when my five year-old daughter started questioning why a worm would be coming out of an eyeball. While we’re able to control what our children see on TV and online, it’s not easy when driving around our neighborhoods. And, parents shouldn’t have to be concerned about where they drive to steer clear of disturbing advertising.
A blog entry on MoviePilot was published on the 30th of June stating that FX had called a mea-culpa and was going to take down the advertisements, but as of today (two weeks later) there hasn’t been a noticeable reduction in the outdoor impressions around Los Angeles. The reason probably had a bit to do with cost, but more so with the buzz that was being created and wanting to keep the awareness up until the series premiere. From a business perspective that could be well and good, but from a responsibility one, does it?
Certainly, advertising falls under freedom of speech and there shouldn’t be any censorship of what is displayed and what isn’t. The problem is, if we as an industry don’t take responsibility or show restraint, others will come in and attempt to do it for us. If the trend keeps moving toward disturbing outdoor advertising and more parents start complaining about having to explain things to their kids before the time that it is reasonable to do so, there will be additional strains that curb creativity and revenue generation.
Posted in Core
Tagged Advertising, Carlton Cuse, Complaints, FX, Guillermo del Toro, JabberTalky, Marketing Ethics, MoviePilot, OOH, Out Of Home, outdoor advertising, Responsibility, Revenue, The Strain
It is easy to get caught up in the fervor of the World Cup as hundreds of millions root for teams from around the globe. Many of those viewers may be seeing ad styles that they’re not used to seeing if they are not already watchers of Soccer/Futbol – with no breaks other than half-time. With that being said, it’s interesting to see the quality of the futbol-themed ads and the alternative viewing data that’s revealing itself in this first week of competition. Tubefilter reports that 1.2 Billion minutes of World Cup adverts have been watched on YouTube alone in the first week. What was refreshing beyond the numbers was the opportunity to see some great spots in a language I don’t fully understand when watching games on Univision – where the advertisers have really score in producing strong ads with emotional strings that defy language.
While there are many good spots that capture the great skill of the sport in a technical sense as a solid celebration of the game, the strongest visceral response I had was to McDonald’s “House Divided” spot in Spanish. Honestly, I even had a little letdown when I saw it in English as it changed the resonance somewhat.
What does seem to be the case is that the general public gets an opportunity to see ad creative surrounding the Beautiful Game that they otherwise might not get a chance to see. In the case of McDonald’s, they’ve gone to an agency they’ve had strong history with from an emotional perspective tied to futbol the Alma agency based in Miami. Alma created another futbol-based winner for the golden arches in February of ’13 with their Ancha spot.
World events like this have that great by-product – love ‘em or hate ‘em – of TV ads that can truly connect emotionally. Even with the limited opportunities for running within the matches themselves, their strength and emotion reign supreme during this Beautiful Tournament for the Beautiful Game..
Posted in Ruminations
Tagged Advertising, Alma, Ancha, Creative, Emotion, Futbol, House Divided, McDonald's, Soccer, Storytelling, Tubefilter, TV Spots, Univision, Video, World Cup, YouTube
There have been many companies that have launched and succeeded (or failed) who would have dreamed of their company name or product becoming a commonly used noun, or even better, a verb. People refer to facial tissues as Kleenex, soda pop as Coke and, within the past decade, taken on Google as a verb meaning “to search.” Google can have a hard time coming to grips with the use of their product as a verb – as shown in this Google blog entry from 2006 – but becoming the next verb is the Taj Mahal and driving force within many start-ups. The problem is, most don’t realize the factors necessary to make the transition from Idea to Verb a reality.
In the case of Google, they came to be when there were numerous search engines and within a few years, the others had fallen by the wayside due to Google’s solid product. Bing is now the only one close and a lot of the reasons for their still being around is marketing and integration with the operating system that is most prevalent around the world. As seen in the blog entry, Google itself was not so keen on becoming a verb unless it was specifically about the use of the product itself. Either way, pre-verb, the seemingly most important thing to Google was to become the single best service available and that is the thing that most people who strive to be a verb overlook.
Striving to be included in Websters or some other dictionary means that you’re missing the point. Certainly, such an inclusion would mean you’ve done something right, but it shouldn’t be the goal. Whenever a client asks for this, I have the same response as we’ve all had when asked by someone to create something viral. In both cases, the importance should be placed on creating the best product possible and hoping that the winds blow the right way to create the perfect storm that allows your creation to become viral – or a verb. If the expectation that largess and notoriety will come from a strong marketing or publicity campaign, then there must be consideration for the fact that audiences have changed over the years. The main change in the audience is that they expect delivery on promise. If they don’t get it, they will run. If a company pushes to become anything more than a solid product, people will run.
Much of the navigation between the time of the idea and the possibility of becoming a verb requires a lot of smart, strategic thinking and damn fine product development. Without those actions, you’re destined to be lost in space.
With the brewing storm of excitement/dismay/wonder surrounding Facebook’s acquisition of What’s App, the disconnect between expectations for – or public perception about – large conglomerates and new technology business seems to have widened. Much has been discussed about melding What’s App into Facebook’s interface or bringing advertising into What’s App’s in or just a Big Data play. Perhaps it’s much simpler than that and has nothing to do with UX or building up the Facebook product. Perhaps it has to do more with smart business and diversifying offerings. It just seems funny that the initial response is narrow-minded in relating the technology as merely an opportunity to bolster a company’s product.
Perhaps a lot of the thinking is related to Facebook’s relatively recent acquisition of Instagram. Almost immediately, the photo service seemed fully integrated into Facebook. But, to be fair, it was already there and there is still easy integration with other platforms that Facebook doesn’t own.
The thing is, would anyone question if Unilever or Nestle or some other company that owns a diversified group of products were to buy another relative upstart – especially if they had so much cash lying around? The only concern people could or should have is the valuation placed on What’s App. That too can come back to the consideration of development resources and user base. What’s App might not have been hugely known in the U.S. but it is around the world and by anyone who has family, friends in colleagues in other countries.
In this connected world, we can no longer just focus on what’s happening in North America. Whether people realize it or not, most web-enabled products (websites, apps, software, etc.) have no borders. The use-cases might be different from market to market, but they each gain hold for very real business reasons. In the case of What’s App, one direct reason that folks in the States don’t realize the value is that all-you-can-eat data and mobile packages are not commonplace around the world. It can be quite cost-prohibitive to send texts to your friend down the street, let alone around the world.
Another key piece is the fact that What’s App has moved into the subscription realm. As more offerings move behind a paywall, the lessons that can be learned from What’s App success in subscription could prove invaluable to its owners. The data is certainly not available to those who are not and if subscription-based usage come further into the market, those with real data are in the driver’s seat.
While Google has huge development teams working on disparate products and they still go out and acquire business that fit their portfolio, it should come as no surprise that others shouldn’t do the same. Google has long been less defined by their search product than their suite of technologies that assist in many parts of consumers’ lives. Facebook should not be any different.
The great thing about technology development (or any business development, really) is that code and process can be duplicated in other areas – if done correctly. Just because someone makes it big with an app or single product doesn’t mean that should be the end-all – no matter how successful it is. There is no such thing as growth while remaining flat. Any company with flat growth is actually shrinking. Once the business survives its start-up phase, growth is the hardest part. It doesn’t matter who you are or what technology you created. Sometimes you just have to grow by acquisition.
Who knows if the $19B is too much for What’s App. Looking at the $10B value associated with Instagram after Facebook paid a “measly” $1B for it, we can’t underestimate Facebook. There’s a clear reason why What’s App’s investor, Sequoia Capital thought it was worth it. The reality is that new technology companies and the products they launched with have matured more quickly, perhaps, than any other businesses in the world. We’ve got to stop being narrow-minded in our judgement of why they should be any different from any other traditional business.
Posted in Ruminations
Tagged Acquisitions, Advertising, Big Data, Business, Code, Facebook, Google, Instagram, Investment, M&A, Mergers, Mobile, Nestle, Portfolio, Revenue, Sequoia Capital, Subscription, Technology, Unilever, UX, Valuation, What's App