The Future of Media in 100 Words.

My friend / Draftfcb compatriot Andrew Eifler has been doing some thinking around the future of media, gathering short-form thoughts from media professionals with the aim to publish as a collaborative post on several forums. When he approached me about contributing to his project, The Future of Media in 100 Words, I was more than happy to throw some thoughts his way, for three main reasons:

1. It seems to me that the media community is largely underrepresented in the social sphere. I'm not talking about "social media experts." I'm talking about media folks: spreadsheet-making, calculator-touting, hardcore-negotiating, rep-hobnobbing media planners. For whatever reason we don't seem to be a big blogging bunch, so it will be nice to hear from a few people in my line of work.
   
2. Cross-publishing is fun. I did a cross-publishing project with Adam Kmiec (also the DFCB blog) a while back, and it was awesome. Cool to get perspective from commenters that don't normally read my pith. Collaboration! Sharing of ideas! America!
3. 100 words = yes. Appreciate the effort to keep things concise. Good thinking.

Andrew kicked things off yesterday with his 100-word thesis, below. It's exactly 100 words, which is awesome. Count 'em.

Five years from now – Data will be King.

New complex tracking and data capture techniques will allow for all advertising, regardless of media channel, to be purchased based on audience demographics and lifestyle variables. Reach, Average Frequency, and GRPs will give way to much more precise metrics and – not without a touch of irony – the media industry will no longer find importance in the channel of media distribution, there will only be content and audience.

The kind of data-driven quantitative analysis that has revolutionized Wall Street over the past 10 years will soon make its way uptown to Madison Ave.

Here are my thoughts. Not to be outdone, this is, of course, exactly 100 words.

Five years from now, I’m hoping we’ll be of the mindset that providing relevant information to information-seekers yields greater returns than screaming our messages at the masses.

I’m sure we’ll still be buying SuperBowl spots and wallpapering Times Square with glittering, high-def awareness messaging. I hope we’ll also be continuing to use the internet to do more refined listening to consumers, to active information-seekers, and carefully and respectfully distributing relevant content as such. With major media channels becoming less passive, we need to proactively step away from old-timey objectives and instead provide interested consumers with the information they actually need.

I think we're kind of saying the same thing, which is interesting.

Andrew and I have a list of DFCBers that we'd like to contribute to the project, but if you're a media assistant / planner / supervisor / director / guru out there in the interwebs and would like to contribute your two cents, drop a line in the comments and we'll be happy to add you to the list. And, tune in to Andrew's blog and the DRAFTFCBlog for updates.

Happy reading!

Lady-targeted man-items.

I've always thought that the idea of targeting women for man-items was a bit chauvinistic, stereotypical, what-have-you. Kind of a, men can't fend for themselves, women do the shopping and the homemaking sort of mentality. I have to say, as a media planner with experience on CPG brands, stereotypes exist for a reason. There generally/usually/almost always exists sales data, if not behavioral data, to support the stereotype, or no-one would keep targeting as such. But, I'm still not a huge fan.

I am going to give the below Old Spice ad a Get Out of Jail Free card, because it is absolutely hysterical. And, while it speaks to a woman, it plays up male humor. Win-win. I would love to see the programming list on this one - overtly female? Male? Both? I'm curious. Anyone work on Old Spice, care to comment?

Enjoy.

A Media Planner's Guide to the Super Bowl.

Disclaimer: I did not work on any Super Bowl media plans this year, nor do I have any insider information about the Super Bowl plans of any Draftfcb clients.

Now a good 21 hours post-event, I feel the dust of disappointment over Super Bowl Sunday begin to settle a bit over my network of ad geeks. The disappointed (not creative enough! not funny enough! not integrated enough! not enough monkeys!) rabble of comments are beginning to fade into more of a discontented sigh as we return our noses to the grindstone and wait for next year's batch. I am going to take this moment of pause to talk Super Bowl media.

Super Bowl media is a HUGE topic that I've not really seen discussed much at all this year, in a year when the  media layout of the game struck me as particularly odd. It seems that media planners are underrepresented in my social circle. Maybe we tend to keep to ourselves? Maybe I avoid my own kind? No idea. Either way, I've not seen anyone touch on the topic of Super Bowl as it relates to media, so here goes.

The Super Bowl is an awesome platform - quite literally, traditional media's largest stage. In the days of mass mass mass!, the Super Bowl was the holy grail of media buys, the most efficient eyeballs for your dollar, hands down. And, despite the fact that the focus has shifted toward niche, targeted media, the Super Bowl is still probably your best bet for large-format awareness. As such, there's a delicate dance to be done around the planning and buying of Super Bowl spots, by the agencies and by the network. You can't just be throwing ads into pods all willy-nilly! No offense to my comrades out there, but this year, it seemed as though the media aspect of this grand media event was woefully overlooked.

Several things struck me as odd about this year's Super Bowl media layout:

1. It was front-heavy. 
It seemed as though all the real Super Bowl-y ads, the Anheuser-Busch and Doritos spots that exhibited strong fresh creative geared for a Super Bowl crowd, were exhausted in the first half of the game. Poor Denny's, Google and one random Miller High Life ad were left to claw for remaining awareness in the back half. Granted, the game did get interesting in the back half, but you can't always count on a battle of titans to be high-scoring, so this, to me, was a surprising move. Which is better, a barrage of high-impact spots in the beginning of the game, or awareness and reminder messaging throughout? In my humblest of opinions, I feel that Bud/Doritos would have done well to increase their presence in the second half. If you come in with a bang, I expect you to keep it up. You've got four quarters worth of time on your hands, and plenty of spots to choose from. The opportunity was there to lay this thing out beautifully, and it seems like the buyers and CBS just... didn't. But, that's just me.

2. It was dull.
A clever media buy enhances clever creative and makes for clever campaigns. It would have been inspiring to see some clever media buys at play here, but alas, no dice. No creative pod formatting, very few stories told in succession (GoDaddy? Denny's, kind of? can't think of any others), just straight-up ads plopped into pods. One of my favorite media tricks, bookending spots in a pod per creative message, went totally by the wayside. My friend Bud pointed out that nobody really used the captive audience as an opportunity to try a call to action, to integrate with other media forces at play. Coke: this was a real opportunity to be interactive, given your competitor has very publicly denounced Super Bowl spending to do so. Put up a fight, Coke! The only spot that capitalized on the content at hand was the Oprah/Letterman spot. Come on, people! You've already plunked down the money; this is an opportunity to use the largest traditional platform as a media playground, and no-one did in a way that blew me away. I may be totally out of line with this critique, as I am unsure of how Super Bowl media is bought - regulations could be totally different from a normal network buy. But it seems the buyers and the network waved the white flag on this one, and rolled over and died of normalcy. Sad day.

3. It was sloppy.
The Careerbuilder.com and Dockers ads, both touting "no pants" as their creative gimmick, were run back to back. Give. Me. A break. This is the Super Bowl. People are watching. Pre-screen your ads, CBS! These two spots blurred together for me. Some friends of mine argued that this boosted awareness for both spots, but I remain unconvinced. I hope both advertisers are demanding hefty make-goods here.

I'm not generally one to criticize, so I hope I haven't turned off any readers with this little rant. As an eager little media planner, I guess I was hoping for some greatness, some real media cartwheels and loop-de-loops. Or at least a brilliant, clean execution of media on what may be the largest advertising day of the year. Maybe next year.

If you have any insight into the Super Bowl media strategy, I would love to hear from you, if you please.

Four reasons why people hate Foursquare, and why they're wrong.

Note: This post was originally written as a guest-post on Adam Kmiec's blog; you can find it here, and also on the DRAFTFCBlog, here.

I love the internet. I really do. Truly, madly, deeply.

I love it for its quiet brilliance. I mean, after LOLcats, of course.

As a self-proclaimed digital kid, I am perhaps more inclined than the average bear to jump on internet bandwagons, due partly to my age, and partly to the fact that I’m such a savvy so-and-so (I kid). As such, I often find myself defending web ideas to my suspicious circle of colleagues and friends, and am always a bit surprised to have to do so. The things I find so incredible in their simplicity tend to strike my skeptical cohorts as stalker-esque, creepy fads. Can all my Foursquare haters please stand up?

For anyone who’s unaware, Foursquare is a location-based social networking community that allows users to state their coordinates and offer helpful tips to friends and other users who might also frequent that venue. Check off items on your to-do list, earn points, win badges, and become mayor of your favorite spots by checking in there more than any other patron. Fun, right?

This weekend, I found myself arguing on Foursquare’s behalf on two separate occasions. I know. I need to get a life. Anyway, both scenarios involved individuals in the advertising community, and both conversations, despite my fervent outpouring of Foursquare love, resulted only in blank stares and/or furrowed brows. What. Is up. With that.

Let’s all stop hating for a moment and contemplate what it is about Foursquare that launches it to the top of my list of quietly brilliant web innovations.

Here are the top reasons to hate on Foursquare that I’ve heard from the hater community. And, of course, the reasons I beg to differ.

1. It’s creepy.

Yes, there’s an element of weirdness to having a location feed available on the web for the masses, especially as a single female in a big city. I’m not stupid; I get that. Perhaps I will get kidnapped on the way home from my current location, and you can all have a good laugh about it (jerks). You know what? Life is creepy sometimes. And dangerous, always. This is one of those cases where I feel like the benefits outweigh the risks, so long as you’re smart about the information you share. Keep reading for more on that.

2. It’s annoying.

It's not annoying, it's information. Foursquare is a gold mine for consumer data. I really can’t believe that I would need to argue this to people in the industry. All pings, badges and tomfoolery aside, what Foursquare does, essentially, is give businesses a free list (a list! for free!) of digital-savvy consumers who love you enough to want to broadcast to their web community that they are a patron. These are people who carry a certain amount of digital clout that want to spread the word about you, and they are going to do it for free. And, you now have access to a list of them, what they think are the best parts about your business, and even some information about them (their Twitter handles, phone numbers, and so on). It’s a CRM-lover’s dream. How are you not excited about this?

3. Who cares?

You care! Especially all those ‘yous’ out there who are in the biz. Or, the business-owning ‘yous.’ Our job as marketers is to care. You care (a) what people do with their time (b) what they choose to tell their people they're doing with their time and (c) when you can put your brand in front of them at the right moment in time. Not to pontificate, but if the internet is spitting out free applications that help us to gather the data that provides a foundation for our profession, it is our responsibility to care.

[A caveat: this is not to say that no-one cares. I have seen a few cool case studies of businesses that have jumped on the Foursquare train, and are riding it to Consumer-Love Station. This post about the Pit BBQ in Raleigh, for example, truly warms my heart. Kudos to you, Pit BBQ management. Consumer interaction: you’re doing it right.]


4. Why would I want to do that?

Well, this one is really up to you. I like it because it’s a game, it’s fun to do, and it gives me a tool to coordinate nights out with friends. I also like the idea of creating a database of my existence, which is why you can find me tucking seemingly trivial information into many different data-ports around the web. It seems to matter to me. Personal preference of the digital kid, I imagine. But, fun for everyone who chooses to participate, I find.

Like I said, my romantic feelings for the internet lie mainly in its outpouring of tools that unabashedly display simple, beautiful, quiet brilliance. If nothing else, I love that I’ve been able to use applications like Foursquare to build out a community of web-adoring geeks such as myself. I simply cannot wait to see what awesomeness lies ahead for those businesses that have us geeks heading up their marketing initiatives.

For all those out there who choose to remain creeped out, annoyed, apathetic and non-participating, I apologize for wasting a moment of your time.

Thanks go to my editor, Clay, for helping to un-muddle my thoughts on this one. Virtual high-five. Thanks also to Adam, for asking me to guest-post. I'm flattered, and honored.

Twitter Preso Fabulocity

I was super excited today to give a presentation on Twitter basics to my media team here at DFCB. Also, to finally have some fodder worthy of Slideshare.

All things considered, I think it went really well. Please check it out, below. I am presenting this to our agency this week Thursday, so if you have any comments for me before then, please speak up.

Working on committing to the preso mantra - if it's not essential, kill it. Less is more. Easier said than done.

Thanks so much to Michael for contributing content, and Russ and Clay for helping me edit!

Anyone who can let me know what to do about the black boxes and weirdo formatting gets a high-five.

Twitter 101

View more presentations from Jennifer Beio.

Let them eat cake, and read it, too.

Flipping through the glossy pages of my hot-off-the-press, brand spankin' new copies of Food Network Magazine, I have to admire the moxie on display by Hearst and the Food Network empire. Really, Hearst? Putting out a new title while the economy continues to wilt and, almost every time I turn around, another magazine bites the proverbial dust? Really? Have you checked out Magazine Death Watch recently? Or, more grassroots, Mag Death Pool? Eager to add your brand to the list?

Something tells me they aren't too concerned. A closer look at the logic behind the launch reveals that the smart cookies over at Food Network are merely another case for the potential of smart marketing.

In the old, musty, ivy-covered lecture halls where I spent the better part of my college years, they warned me to pay attention, that, one day, I would need to know this stuff. Although I found it hard to believe at the time, every once in a while, one of those college-y nuggets of wisdom comes in handy - in this case, the very basics of marketing theory.

Marketing, as a function of business economics, is most successful when the object or idea in question fulfills a need, yes? In theory (there are some exceptions; anything Billy Mays decides to yell about, for example), not even the most brilliant application of the four Ps can create a lasting, successful business out of something that nobody needs. As consumer needs change, your business had better adapt, or before you know it, no one needs your wares, your bottom line doesn't pay the bills, and you're next in line to crumble. Basic marketing theory: listen to the needs of your audience, and find a way to fulfill those needs better than anyone else. Don't move on to the next thing until you've done the first thing correctly. And never stop listening.

(Disclaimer: I know very little, if anything, about businesses and finance and the like. This is just how I see it going down.)

***I Digress***

So-- back to media. It's painfully obvious that the economic crisis did not spare advertising agencies and their vendors. And as people progress and find new ways to get their news, entertainment, and so on, yes - media vehicles can become less relevant. Plenty of whisperings of media vehicles (not just properties) becoming obsolete, and the media world turning on its end, armageddon, etcetera. And, do we give up? Do we throw in the towel, and watch our media properties, along with the rest of the economy, go down the toilet?

No! Marketing 101: we turn our ears to the needs of our audience. We find a way to become relevant, and we do it better than anyone else.

Step 1: Listen to the needs of your audience.
Food Network was born out of an audience want for programming that covered all the food bases: from easy home cooking to restaurant management, from exciting competition to fine culinary education. And their content has adapted to reflect the times. Shows that teach how to make delicious food in a way that fits a busy lifestyle. Shows that teach how to stretch a dollar further without compromising taste or nutrition. You get the picture - this is an empire that was born out of a consumer need, and has kept consumer wants at the heart of its business development.

Step 2: Do one thing, and improve upon it until you do it better than anyone else.
There has almost always been some sort of food programming on television, but never before had there been one channel that delivered 110% of the time on so many aspects of of the food industry. Even with the rise of high-performing dramas such as Top Chef, I don't think there is any question as to which network is providing the best food content. Food Network has been developing carefully as a network for some time now; shaping brilliant and charismatic chefs into legitimate television stars, crafting content for consumer lifestyles, and entertaining audiences while educating. I'm pretty sure I would melt into a puddle of mush if Bobby Flay ever showed up to challenge me to a throwdown, eh?

Step 3: Move on to the next thing, and do that better than anyone else.
The online space was a natural extension for Food Network - people wanted access to the recipes they saw on their favorite shows. Online was the most efficient way for Food Network to repurpose their content and expand their foothold. The site, which houses not only recipe content, but video and original content, continues to serve audience needs and creates a stronger bond between the audience and the stars and shows they love. They are doing food online better than anyone else, and they are using that success to continue to strengthen their flagship property.

Step 4: Lather, rinse, and repeat step 3.
With Food Network as the strongest food entity in cable, and FoodNetwork.com the most-trafficked food site on the internet (comScore), why not continue to bulldoze the competition? Food Network and Hearst weren't carelessly throwing money into magazine at a time when magazines are declining. They were expanding into a new arena at the request of their audience. The magazine is incredibly well-done, with beautiful original photography, all-new recipes tested by the Food Network test kitchens, and edit contributions by 20-30 much-loved Food Network stars in each issue. It has the leverage of a couple of blockbuster properties and a raving fan base as a foundation. There have been two issues on newsstand thus far, and already full-price subscriptions are far over-delivering on projections. The strategic progression from television to online to print would suggest that this is a brand that understands marketing, business, consumerism, and the like. I don't see them waving the white flag anytime soon.

Not to say there aren't plenty of media enterprises doin' it and doin' it and doin' it well. Our dear friend Oprah, for example. Or, how about Martha Stewart? There is no quick fix for the economic crises that are gripping media vendors by the throat. But case studies like Food Network's foray into print tell us that there is still room in this waning economy for strategic marketing. With a little moxie, it still works, when you do it right. Really.