"Honey, I Screwed The Brand!"

Your Brand Is Not A Commodity So Don't Act Like One In Media Buying

By David Miranda

Disclaimer: The author has no financial interest or affiliation with any of the media properties in this article.

I have a good friend who prides himself in getting anything and everything on the cheap. I met him the other day for lunch. He was quick to tell me that his new haircut cost him only $9; his new suit cost him only $99; and his new cell phone service cost him only $15/month. So as I sat there in the cheap restaurant he proudly recommended looking at his bad haircut wearing his ill-fitting suit trying unsuccessfully to make an out-going call on his new cell phone, it gave me time to think. My friend, by the way, plans and buys media for a "bottom feeder".

There are media people (and companies) out there that pride themselves on getting you "something on the cheap". It's called "bottom feeding" by selling "remnant" inventory. These people (and firms) have little or no vested interest other than selling you anything and have little interest in your brand's best interest. Bean counters love this kind of media buy. They can tout their buying savvy and negotiating skills.

Let's put this into a different perspective.

Let's say you are looking for a surgeon, an auto mechanic, an architect, an electrician or a babysitter for your kids. Would you seek the cheapest provider to operate on you, fix your car, build your house, wire your home, or watch the kids? Chances are, not likely.

Now, let's be clear. Is it good business to get the best value for your dollar? Of course, but it is more likely you will get the best value for the dollar (and your brand) by dealing with media brands that empathize with your marketing objectives rather than just trying to sell you something.

Such is the case with iconic media brands. Time, for example, is such a brand. It understands and communicates integrity, trust, and credibility in the marketplace. An advertser is well served in aligning itself with the Time brand benefitting from the halo effect that Time provides. Is it cheap? No. Does a brand advertising in Time (or Time.com) benefit from the relationship? Yes. Is there a strong price/value return on investment? Yes. The advertisers in Time media properties benefit directly from its iconic brand equity. Time has a long history of working with advertisers and, therefore, understands the implied covenant to its brand advertisers. Advertisers in Time media properties understand that it is a respected media environment.

Although I have used Time in this example, the same case can be made for other media icons such as the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Harvard Business Review, National Geographic, Financial Times, etc. Advertising in iconic media properties is not cheap, but it is valuable in building and promoting a brand.

Bottom feeders that sell on the cheap have little empathy for the advertisers they sell to. It is only regarded as a transaction.

In a world of uber-media diversity (with new entrants, literally, coming on the scene every day), I beg you to think about your brand and the "company" it keeps.

My suggestions?

• work with iconic brands directly. They are professionals and know what the're doing.


• avoid the cheap. Go with the best price/value in planning and buying media.
  
• appreciate the difference between buying "quality" impressions versus "gross" impressions.

In summary, don't let your brand get a "bad haircut" in media buying.

(ME)dia - The Age Of Personalized Media Consumption

Do-It-Yourself, On-Demand Programming Shifts Power To The Consumer

By David Miranda

Today everybody is their own personal media mogul. We are all our own managing editor for our news (myCNN, myYahoo), TV programmers (Tivo), personalized music labels (iPods) and film festivals (YouTube), media distribution channels (MySpace) and commentators (blogs). We can even create our own virtual reality (Second Life).

Media consumption, which used to be time and device specific, is now time and device agnostic, i.e. consume anything, anytime, anywhere, on any device.

It is the age of (ME)dia.

This has made the lives of marketers miserable. How do you market to millions of MEs each with their own personalized media consumption patterns across many channels? The answer is not easily. Like scientists searching for a cure to a major epidemic, experiments on various cures to the problem are many but with mixed results. Each experiment is given its own name, i.e. behavioral targeting, search engine optimization, engagement, one-to-one and integrated marketing, etc., etc.

The findings - promising results, hopeful outcomes, no cure.

Why? Many times in the past, the problem in dealing with the new is trying to solve it with the old. When television was in its infancy, early programming was former radio shows in front of a camera. Why? Radio executives owned the new television networks. TV eventually found the right formula and prospered. There have been some examples in more recent history. AOL missed its chance to dominate the Internet and become eBay, MySpace, YouTube, and Google all wrapped into one. At its zenith, it had over 32 million subscribers.

The age of (ME)dia requires new thinking for new times. Past success is not an indicator of future success. Ask executives at broadcast television networks, local newspapers, yellow page directories, terrestial radio stations, retail books and record stores, etc.

The lesson is this - (ME)dia is here to stay. The consumer of media is in the driver's seat. Find new solutions not retreaded ones. Ambush marketing does not work anymore. More does not work anymore.

What does work? Get to know your target audience from the bottom up - not top down. Find your audience. Observe how they naturally aggregate.

(ME)dia-ize your strategy.

Are You Covering All The Media Bases With Your Brand?

The New Media Continuum - Extending The Brand Horizontally

By David Miranda

Not long ago, the media landscape was much simpler. People woke up to the radio alarm tuned to their favorite AM/FM station; read the local newspaper; turned on the television as they sipped their morning coffee. On their way to work, they listened to the car radio including traffic reports and passed countless outdoor advertising. Sure there are still many that follow the same routine, but the media landscape has changed for many American households.

Today, people may still wake up to an alarm, not necessarily the radio. Then they might check their cell phone for calls or text messages or their Blackberry for emails. Instead of the morning newspaper, many go online to read the latest news or check email. More consumers are less likely to have home delivery of the local daily. Off to work, instead of the radio, they may be making cell calls or listening to their iPods.

And so the day goes. New media channels spawning new consumer behavior.

Of course, there is no typical consumer and no typical behavior, but make no mistake about it. The media landscape is morphing and marketers must insure brands are extended horizontally across this new landscape. The chart below reflects a sampling of the new 24/7 media world. How often does your brand touch people during a typical day?

I

It is important to analyze how effective your media plan is in reaching consumers across an entire day including individual day parts, particularly mobile and the Internet since these allow consumer access anytime, anywhere, anytime.

Recognition Marketing - Put Marketing Strategy First, Everything Else Next

Getting It Backwards Is Dounright Stupid

By David Miranda

All too often, firms get their order of priorities wrong with dangerous consequences for the business driven by budgets instead of strategy.

Let's use a travel example. Say you have a airfare budget of $1,000 for a weekend getaway so you go to the airport and say to the ticket agent, "I have $1,000. How far can I go for that?"

This is exactly what many firms do. They have a budget and say to their agency, "How far (or how much) will this get us?" Without a marketing plan and clear strategy, this is called stupid.

It is the marketing strategy that dictates (or should dictate) everything. The budget should be developed and allocated to implement the strategy. This approach assures that marketing dollars are wisely invested and prioritized. And if the budget is small, all the more reason for marketing strategy to lead the process.

Firms make two major mistakes without a strategy - they spend based on what has worked historically (driving using the rear view mirror) or they "me-too" spend (watching what everyone else is doing and follow suit).

If you are committing marketing dollars without a marketing plan and strategy, you are wasting your time and squandering your money.

Put marketing strategy first, everything else is next.

Media Spam - "Give A Hoot, Don't Pollute"

Stop Buying Media From "Purchasing Agents"

By David Miranda

I was watching the film, "The Family Man" the other night on NBC. Actually, I was watching ads and promos interrupted periodically by "The Family Man". I thought it was just my imagination that after, literally, every ten minutes of the film (edited for television to fit the time slot), I was exposed to roughly six ads and two promos over the course of the film. How do I know that? I decided to keep a log. It went something like this - 10 minutes of the movie-ad-ad-ad-ad-ad-ad-promo-promo-ten minutes of the movie-ad-ad-ad-promo-promo-ad-ad-ad, etc, etc.

What media planner/buyer in their right mind or advertiser in their right mind thinks that this is a smart way to engage a viewer? Sure NBC and the local affiliate got their dough, but only because the people placing the media buy and their accomplices in this stupidity, the advertiser, never thought about the viewer experience and the dilution of the message in the clutter.

This example is a great value proposition for Tivo. Is there any wonder why audiences are eroding. What person in their right mind is going to sit through six to eight ads and promos - every 10 to 12 minutes? How effective could these ads and promos be?

Here is the problem. Media planning and buying pros are negotiating "efficient" buys and networks and their affiliates are slicing the programming pie in more and more pieces to accommodate. The only people winning in this mad, mad world are the media buying people and the media properties themselves. Neither the advertiser nor the audience is well-served.

It's sheer madness and it's not just television - media pollution is everywhere.

Consumers need a "media environmental protection agency" to stop this pollution and we are almost at that point. Think Tivo, do-not-call lists, spam blockers, pop-up ad filters, iPods, etc. All are tools to help consumers "tune out and tune off" the media pollution. Is it any wonder that consumers today are harder to reach than ever before?

The solution lies in advertisers using common sense. They should not be "pied-pipered" by media planners/buyers or media companies into just getting "the most efficient media buy". How about the most effective media buy that showcases effective and compelling creative? Creative that is not shoe-horned in a media slot like sardines.

If your media planner/buyer touts the cheapness of the buy, like a purchasing agent of commodities, over the effectiveness of the buy, do yourself a favor - dump him or her. Find someone who considers the experience of your audience first.

To borrow from a wise old owl - "Give a hoot, don't pollute".

Content Noshing - New Marketing In Bits And Bytes

Smaller Portions Needed For Media "Snacking" By A.D.D. Consumers

By David Miranda

Pop culture is consumed today in smaller and smaller "portions" by multi-tasking consumers. They scan print, channel surf the TV and radio, browse the Internet, and sample short videos. They live in a world of sound bites and video clips. In short, consumers have made the "noshing" of content the rule rather than the exception. Sure we still read books and in-depth articles; sit through a movie, sitcom, drama, reality program, sporting event, news program, concert, or Broadway play; but we are spending more and more time media "noshing".

It is this pop culture "noshing" that is driving marketers mad. All these eyeballs represent an exploitable marketing opportunity, but how to exploit it is the big challenge. To date, marketers have tried, in vain, to use old methods to exploit new opportunities.

Take the :30 second ad, once the gold standard of advertising. It was appropriate when content consumption was the hour or half-hour program, but what happens when the programming or content is only one to two minutes, such as the case on YouTube? Do we expect consumers to watch a :30 second ad before or after a one to two minute video? Would you watch a half hour commercial before or after a half hour program on television? Doubt it.

As consumers have embraced media consumption in smaller portions, marketers must adapt with smaller ad portions, as well. Marketers must learn to engage the A.D.D. consumer. Why say in 30 seconds what you can say in 5? Of course, there will be a period of trial and error, but one thing is certain.

Pop culture content noshing is here to stay. Get used to it.

Put out a new media menu with smaller portions.