Dave’s Take

Since the inception of the Internet, pop-up ads have been the bane of surfers. Reacting to their customer demands, most IPs instituted apps that precluded pop-ups from ever loading on most computers. Problem solved? Not quite. As anyone who uses the web on regular basis knows, a new form of pop-up has slowly infiltrated the net, especially on video-laden sites. What is this new source of viewer frustration? The dreaded invention known as the pre-roll video ad.

The video pre-roll ad is the latest effort to monetize the deluge of short video clips loaded millions of times daily from people around the globe. As anyone who has watched the cute piano playing cat or the evolution of dance guy knows, the pre-roll ad is mandatory and annoying. How annoying do viewers find these intrusions? According to a new study by the online analytics firm, TubeMogul, almost 16% of video viewers will abandon a site rather than sit through a thirty-second video ad. Even the shorter fifteen-second ads are turned off by almost 10% of potential viewers. Clearly, consumers do not see the value of wasting even a half a minute for the chance to see the latest darling video on the web.

Personally, I not only resent the fact that I am forced to watch a commercial for a product I may or may not ever use, but I really hate pre-rolls because the majority of them are technically unwatchable. I cannot count the number of times I have waited for a pre-roll spot to load, only to discover the final version jerky and loaded with audio that never syncs. Is this the best that top advertisers and their agencies can produce? It’s like the TV networks deciding that to increase viewership, they are going back to broadcasting in black and white.

I especially resent mandatory pre-rolls on news and magazine sites, where I have been forced to turn to other sources for information ruined by pre-rolls. Apparently, I am not alone in this belief, as the TubeMogul study discovered a full 25% of news and magazine viewers will not suffer through an imbedded spot. Apparently the beleaguered mag biz will need to keep trying other revenue streams to continue operations.

As someone who was once sued for $1 million in a ridiculous (from my point of view) non-compete suit, I fully understand the reasoning behind the somewhat paranoid behavior of issuing non-compete contracts. I understand them, but I don’t necessarily endorse them. On one hand, companies need to protect their investments in both products and personnel. On the other, slavery has been against the law with good reason since 1865 (which is how a lot of people view non-compete clauses in employment contracts). They argue that any restraint of employment is tantamount to indentured servitude. Regardless of who’s right, the number of firms using these legalized career binders is on the rise and with it, so is contract litigation.

The latest high profile case to hit the news is one involving a marketing executive from Starbucks who left for the sweeter pastures of Dunkin’ Donuts. In their suit, Starbucks alleges that former employee, Paul Twohig violated his 2004 non-compete clause by accepting a similar position with one of Starbucks’ biggest competitors. They further imply that as result of his new position, Mr. Twohig was directly or indirectly responsible for Dunkin’ Donuts increased competition with Starbucks through aggressive campaigns like the “Dunkin’ Beat Starbucks” taste-test campaign. (I guess they believe that prior to Mr. Twohigs’ arrival, no one at Dunkin’ thought to challenge the market dominance of Starbucks). Really?

As any contract lawyer will tell you, the successful enforcement of a non-compete clause depends directly upon the state in which it is filed. Starbucks is obviously aware of this reality and chose to file suit in Washington as opposed to California, where such suits have proven difficult at best to win. As I mentioned earlier, I was once sued by a previous employer in California, where thankfully, a brilliant judge dismissed it before it ever saw the light of day.

Before you may jump to the conclusion that I was a backstabbing ingrate, allow me to explain the circumstances of the suit. I held a position as Creative Director at a Los Angeles advertising/marketing agency in the 90’s. That agency specialized in direct response campaigns, moving millions of dollars in products ranging from Ginzu knives to sports and beauty merchandise via infomercials. I left their employ for a similar company in Northern California. Thirty days after my departure (which was done without any hard feelings) I was slapped with a million dollar non-compete lawsuit. At the time, my net worth was somewhere in the low four figures, so after the initial shock wore off, I laughed ‘till my sides hurt.

As the case developed, I learned the basis for the non-compete allegation was based upon my previous employer’s unreasonable belief that I used proprietary information gleaned from them for the benefit of my new company. This was confusing to me as I was unaware of any proprietary information given to me. During discovery, it was finally divulged that the info they had provided to me was how to write and produce effective television and radio campaigns. This was ludicrous, as I had been working in TV and radio for several years prior to my job with them.

Needless to say, after proving my past production experience to the court the lawsuit was thrown out. My writing and producing abilities were not company secrets. Still, it was a valuable lesson about signing any kind of a non-compete. A lawsuit started for $5,000 can end up costing the defendant $100,000 regardless of its merits. Thank goodness I was working for a firm that stood behind me and paid for my legal expenses. One can only hope Dunkin’ Donuts does the same for Mr. Twohig.

Television in the 21st century has become much more complicated and confusing than Philo T. Farnsworth ever imagined: digital versus analog; HD versus traditional resolution; LCD versus plasma; cable versus satellite, etc., etc., etc. After decades of offering only one significant improvement, (color versus black and white), today’s TV offerings are almost too much for the average Joe to handle. Just as my elderly next-door neighbor finally decided to go with a flat screen, James Cameron and his ilk have muddied the broadcast waters again with his latest marketing gimmick, 3-D TV.

Driven by the overwhelming success of Avatar, Cameron is now determined to increase his payday by licensing his proprietary 3-D technology to DirecTV, spurring a fast track launch slated for as early as June. Utilizing the buzz of the Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas, DirecTV giddily announced its intentions to bring funny colored glasses to living rooms everywhere. The satellite programmer not only publicly proclaimed its intention to broadcast in 3-D, but also disclosed its partnership with Panasonic to develop and release sets based upon its 3-D Viera hi-def platform.

Lest you think 3-D TV will suffer from lack of programming, it won’t. Already, several big name networks have jumped on the new bandwagon, including CBS, NBC, FOX Sports, ESPN, Discovery, MTV, TBS and HDNet. While sports programming is the obvious first choice for the new platform, insiders insist that one day in the near future the majority of network programming will be offered in a PPV 3-D format. Even 3-D Camcorders are ready to roll out at the eyebrow-raising price of $21,000. (But who can place a price on the next America’s Funniest Home Video’s 3-D crotch shot winners?)

All this leads me to wonder if we really need or want our idiot box content delivered in a way that will make us want to hurriedly duck under the couch to avoid a Jeter line drive to center; or to suffer from the massive anxiety a Jack Bauer water boarding session would deliver. As one of the few people left in the galaxy to have not seen Avatar, I am curious as to why 3-D television would be worth the investment. Added to the cost and confusion are the problems associated with having to wear cheesy spectacles for hours at a time. How can the coveted 18-34 demographic multitask on their laptops while squinting through colored lenses?

It will be a fascinating experiment to see how the 2010 MLB All-Star game does when it’s broadcast in 3-D on FOX this summer. God knows this useless spectacle could use some pizzazz, but I don’t know if 3-D is the answer.

Considering how much product is sold in the fourth quarter, it’s amazing to me how generally weak this year’s Christmas spots are. Maybe the majority of creative types are as burned out on the present economy as the rest of America. All I know is that 2009 holiday advertising has left little to talk about. With my disappointment clearly expressed, I now present my second part of the best and worst in holiday TV advertising.

Deserving of Santa’s Best:

1. Amazon Kindle: Great use of step frame editing. I like the playful attitude and catchy theme song. How much holiday advertising this sold-out product requires is debatable, but this campaign should help brand the product as fun and functional.

2. ESPN Sports Center: Okay, the latest amusing offering from ESPN is not technically a Christmas spot, but the sight of Arnold Palmer making an Arnold Palmer is too funny to not praise. ESPN has consistently produced funny ads. Here’s to hoping the trend continues in 2010.

3. Verizon: The accuracy of these Apple bashing spots may be up for debate, but their ability to amuse and attack at the same time is not. I especially like the broken toys spot. And judging from Apple’s response, they must be meeting their objectives.

Deserving Coal:

1. Kay Jewelers: Generally, I find the majority of jewelry ads to be mediocre at best, but the holiday Kay Jewelers ads are beyond bad. The worst one is the “Storm” ad, where a couple clutch each other as they watch a thunderstorm in their winter sweaters. First of all, a thunderstorm in December? Really? Secondly, get better copywriters and actors. The guy’s line about “I’ll always be here for you” is both melodramatic and poorly delivered. Next time, try some snow and competent talent. Why anyone would think of shopping in a Kay store after viewing this fiasco is well beyond me. (By the way, the Jared’s ads are almost as bad.)

2. AVATAR: Okay, while the reviews have been mixed on this $300 million flick, depending on whether the reviewer focused on the technology or the script, their ads need no debate – they suck. While they are running several different versions, they all feature the most over used line in the history of film, “We’re not in Kansas anymore.” No kidding? I was under the impression that the entire mid-west is infested with blue-skinned fairies shooting bows and arrows. If this movie proves to be the blockbuster it looks to be, James Cameron should be praised not for technological advances in film production, but for his ability to overcome a horrible ad campaign.

3. Pharmaceutical Ads: Whether it’s for men’s sexuality, restless legs or female bone degeneration, drug ads have got to be stopped. It’s a wonder how we all got by not knowing the brand names of drugs to ask for prior to the ruling that allowed these predatory ads to air. While most don’t feature a Christmas theme, they all need to be eliminated from the public airways. Let’s not forget, Santa is not licensed to fill our stockings with prescription drugs – bummer!

Here’s to hoping 2010 brings a stronger economy to all and better creative to holiday campaigns. Happy holidays and may your New Year bring you health and happiness.

It’s that special time of the year, when ads ranging from brilliant to horrible invade our TV viewing. In keeping with the holiday spirit, I thought I would share part one of my naughty and nice TV ads list. First, the nice ads — I find these spots both fun and effective for their clients:

1. Radio Shack: Last year, Radio Shack witnessed its stock price drop almost 60%, motivating its brain trust to fire their old agency and bring some new blood on board. Now rebranded The Shack, by Radio Shack’s new broadcast agency, Butler, Shine, Stern & Partners, their holiday TV ads are a bold change from their previous predictable offerings. With Circuit City a mere memory, The Shack thinks the retail electronics door is wide open. While I love their new ads, I don’t believe they offer enough to make them a player again. When was the last time you shopped at The Shack? Still, they are doing as much as they can with what they’ve got and I really dig the I’ve Got a Laptop spot – grade: B+

2. Target Stores: Their new holiday offerings are produced by their in-house agency based in Minnesota and are a successful blend of humor and price point branding. I think they are consistently creative with their TV campaigns and this year doesn’t disappoint — grade: A-

3. Identity Guard: While I have no real use for their service, I must admit that I find their TV ads amusing and to the point. With ads like “Sandals”, their agency, SmithGifford has combined a unique blend of humor and hysteria that gives the viewer a jaded, yet somewhat realistic view of how some online purchases can be usurped by the bad guys — grade: B+

Now, time to name a few campaigns that I find both ineffective and hard to watch:

1. Geico: Talk about schizophrenic! Geico Insurance has produced some of the most creative and at the same time, the most horrendous ad campaigns in the history of television. Since they do not employ sales agents, Geico is totally dependent upon TV ads to sell their product. What kind of research they compile that directs them to splinter their brand in so many different directions is beyond me, but apparently it must work (judging by their frequency). In any event, I find their latest effort featuring the clueless boss to be among their worst, ever. Grade: F

2. Cadillac: First, allow me to disclose that I drive a CTS, but wouldn’t have if I had to glean my desire from their latest and most frequent batch of TV ads. While their rebranding efforts have lowered the average age of a Caddy driver from their 70’s to their mid-50’s, I’ve had enough with the “we’re all so hip” spots. Not only is the message redundant, but they play so often it appears GMC has dropped all other vehicle advertising and is a now one car shop. Stop the madness now — Grade: D

3. Levis: Despite the critical acclaim given to these spots from egocentric film makers, I find the Levis’ Go Forth ads pretentious and off-target. These are the kind of ads directors win awards for and clients go broke over. The handheld MOS shots of half-dressed twenty somethings running around in bad lighting is silly at best and head splitting at worst. How they expect these inept Fellini wannabes to move jeans is beyond me. Is is too much to ask a pants ad to actually show the product? Grade: D-

These are the first part of my holiday TV ad review. If you have any favorites or haters, please feel free to forward them on to me. I’ll post my second part review next week. Until then, happy holidays and may your TV ads always be entertaining.

Despite the encouraging signs that the ad business may finally be on the uptick, the news for magazine and newspaper publishers continues to be abysmal. Many publications are fighting for their lives with no real hope on the horizon. Their business model has been undercut by the immediacy and no charge aspects of the Internet, for which few see a solution – until now. With the promised new wave of tablet computers about to hit stores, publishers may have finally found a way to make their publications relevant again.

The new tablet laptops are rumored to begin going on sale as early as January of next year, with Apple’s offerings leading the pack. Mac’s new tablet is, according to industry insiders, to be based upon its iPhone operating system. Early reports depict the Apple 10” tablet as having six times the resolution and seven times the touchable surface area as their iPhones currently offer. They will supposedly feature at least two different versions, 3G and regular.

The big news for publishers about tablets is content. Apple (among other computer makers) has created a distribution model that will allow newspaper and magazine publishers to actually make money on their content. While the details are sketchy, the plan is to license content from providers across the board. In addition to fees for editorial and news content, the new tablets will also provide a host of new features only dreamed about with previous print projects.

Sports Illustrated has jumped onboard and is so excited about the new platforms that they have created a video on their website that touts how cool their tablet content will be for readers. In addition to their printed version, S.I. interactive will offer features sure to please any sports fan. Think how much better (if it’s possible) the swimsuit issue will be when you can click on video footage of the shoot. For actual games, the sites will allow fans to interact with their teams. Pulling live game stats and checking for up to the minute injuries are just a couple of the state-of-the-art possibilities soon to be available. And while all types of applications will be available, S.I. will still remain in control of their product. “We want a hand in all that, because that’s what we think people will pay for,” said Terry McDonell, editor of the Sports Illustrated Group.

Spokespeople for other publishers including Time and Conde Nast have also voiced their optimism for the new possibilities offered by tablets. They see numerous applications that will generate profits, including interactive advertising. Editors envision ads that will allow readers the ability to download coupons and other premiums with the press of a button to shake up the malaise print ads have suffered. Subscription drop cards will become a thing of the past when all one has to do is click on an icon to receive a publication into their in-box on a regular basis.

The new wave of digital storefronts aren’t expected to really get kicking until the second half of 2010, when up to five different manufacturers are expected to release tablet type laptops. Early guesses on the Macintosh tablet put the price somewhere near the $1,200 price point, which will surely drop when the competition heats up. Not only will news and magazine publishers benefit from the new platforms in terms of revenue, but readers will also have the chance to rediscover their favorite magazines and newspapers in a whole new way. Anyway you look at it, these are just the tablets the doctor ordered.

I’ve commented before about the negligible significance of social media in society; how Facebook, Twitter and all the rest are fun diversions, but serve little purpose in daily life. But now it appears that social networking sites have evolved to the point where they can finally offer society some tangible benefits. While they might not offer a cure for cancer, they can now help the American consumer with personal issues.

Led by national retail giant Best Buy, businesses are at long last embracing the immediacy of social sites to solve problems rather than to spin corporate advertising. Best Buy started a pilot program over six months ago that empowers their employees to interact with customers directly via Twitter and Facebook in dealing with product and store service inquiries. Since its inception, the Best Buy program has grown to include over 2,200 employees who are screened and instructed on how to best assist their customers.

And the customers are utilizing the new interactive avenue to the tune of over 15,000 regular “followers”. People are beginning to understand how they can communicate via Tweets to better their shopping experience. From product availability to pricing and delivery issues, consumers can now communicate directly with a store employee who will provide answers spontaneously. The Best Buy employees can accomplish this by referring the customer to a specific section of their website, sending them to a manufacturer’s site, or point them to a demo or ad link.

These new avenues of customer communication provide several advantages to their sponsors – mainly in brand loyalty and in reinforcing media direction and placement. This valuable feedback tells retailers how effective their media message is in regards to reaching the masses in a meaningful way. Clearly, if they keep getting bombarded with price or availability questions, they know it’s time to change their message. On the other hand, if customers share service complaints, etc. they know their employee training programs need some serious revamping.

Regardless of specific issues, consumers obviously like the immediacy of the program. A recent Nielson study discovered that nearly two-thirds of Twitter brand accounts deal with some level of customer service. Big players like Southwest Airlines, Comcast and Patagonia are all jumping into the social media customer service arena. They are now beginning to realize, like the rest of us, that social networking is finally beginning to serve a purpose other than wasting our time.

On previous blogs, I’ve commented on the new FTC regulations designed to reduce false ad claims made by advertisers on broadcast and online promotional channels. While I completely support the stronger rules due to take effect in December, I questioned the part of the law that forces bloggers to disclose any compensation they receive from sponsors.

While transparency is a noble goal with all public interaction, nitpicking with writers over petty discounts or free samples seems to strain the credibility of the stated purpose of the new law. Since I have yet to read a PDF of the entire bill, I’m hoping that its final version sets some reasonable threshold for monetary compensation, say anything over $100 in actual remuneration. Previously, I’ve expressed my concerns about threatening bloggers over failure to disclose any kind of compensation or discount and how such harassment could have a chilling effect with online reporter’s/blogger’s ability to review products and services.

Online Media Daily has just published an article about the legalities of blogging and its good news for news sites and independent bloggers. According to OMD, the Citizens Media Law Project has launched a new service that will provide free legal services to small news sites and bloggers. While intended mainly for use by nonprofits, its legal team will help those who qualify (they have to be making less than $45,000 for individuals and less than $100,000 for nonprofit organizations). For profits are limited to those grossing less than $250,000. Individual online publishers can qualify on a case-by-case basis, regardless of income.

The backbone of the project is a conglomeration of First Amendment law firms, including such well-known barristers as Baker & McKenzie. A gaggle of nine firms comprise the legal force that will represent writers, reporters and journalists who write about matters of public interest from being legally harassed as a result of their stories. According to David Ardia, Director of the Citizen Media Law Project, the intended goal of the group is to protect writing and reporting with national implications, as opposed to those focused mainly on local issues. The stated motto of the program is to protect those writers that adhere to the standards of “truth, fairness and transparency”, a noble threshold indeed.

This is the type of logical, necessary program that not only helps protect our First Amendment rights, but also works to eliminate the “David vs. Goliath” type of intimidation big firm lawsuits create. As summed up by Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University, “We have taken down the barriers to participation in other ways, but one of the final barriers is legal resources—which are difficult for individual (online) providers to afford.” Amen to that, professor.

As someone who truly enjoys blogging, I was a bit surprised by the latest report issued by Mediamark Research in regards to blogging and its influence within the online community. According to MRI, only 4% of adults share their views via a blog on a regular basis. This number seems a bit more insignificant than one would expect, especially if one visits websites like blogspot, wordpress, technorati or blogarama. By sheer volume alone, it seems that half of the entire adult free world blogs to some degree, but statistics prove otherwise. While their recently released study, Spring 2009 Survey of the American Consumer shows a minority of participation by adult bloggers, it does quantify the influence of those blogs, with a full 10% of online adults reading a blog on a regular basis.

The MRI report goes on to explain the significance of  bloggers and their influence (perceived or not) on a variety of things, including the recent decision by the FTC to regulate how bloggers review products and services. Beginning in December of 2009, bloggers who write product or service reviews will be required to divulge what, if any, compensation they were given for their work. This compensation can range from actual pay per word to simply being furnished the product for free or at a reduced price. Obviously, this blanket disclosure policy leaves a lot of gray area. As someone who has blogged about the inability of the FTC and FCC to do their job, I support the stronger regulations. We need regulatory agencies who can use their congressionally mandated powers to stop predators from stealing us all blind with bogus infomericals and sketchy online banner ads. But I question how mandating blogger disclosures will help in that effort. As usual, the government has opted to use a hammer when the job called for tweezers.

Regardless of how many people write or read blogs, I fail to believe that online commentaries persuade many people to do or buy things they shouldn’t. Compared to broadcast TV, repetitive pop-ups or targeted direct mailers, bloggers are way down the food chain of scamsters. Bloggers are great at creating word of mouth recommendations. They are far removed from the deserving targets of the FTC and the government should keep that in mind when writing new laws.

As everyone in the ad biz knows, things ain’t so hot right now. Clients are cutting budgets, consumers aren’t spending and social media is eating away at the very core of the agency model. Add to this list the fact that the American economy is still in the toilet and you have the perfect storm for the end of advertising as we know it. The latest spike to the heart is the recent phenomenon known as “Crowd Sourcing.” As the name implies, this new wrinkle in promotion is based upon the belief that a product’s users know better about promoting a product than do its creators or their agencies.

Crowd sourcing in a nutshell is the method where “crowds” are allowed direct input as to how a product or service should be marketed. While still in its infancy, crowd sourcing has enjoyed a high-profile existence thanks to products like Doritos, whose promotional arm has awarded huge cash prizes for the best consumer generated TV spot for its Super Bowl buys. For the past three years, Frito-Lay’s has encouraged its customers to write, produce and upload their best ideas for promoting Doritos. They then dwindle the submissions down to a few and ask chip-eaters everywhere to vote for the best campaign. Lest you think this is an exercise for chump change, think again – last year’s winner was awarded $1 million! That’s a lot of bucks for dip, Batman.

The newest entrant to test the crowd sourcing waters is PepsiCo. The beverage giant has decided to let the masses promote its new flavors, colors and packaging for Mountain Dew. Announcing their campaign idea on social sites like Facebook and Twitter, PepsiCo is encouraging users to select which agencies’ (or customers’) 15-second spots are the best to promote their fave new flave. The best of these spots will play nationally through April of 2010, when fan votes will determine which flavors (and agencies) make the cut for final distribution. Boy, and you thought your last client review was tough! Agencies and consumers can upload their 12-second sample spots at: http://12seconds.tv/campaign/dewmocracy.

And it isn’t just PepsiCo and Frito-Lay’s that are turning to the masses for inspiration. This fall, Unilever’s Peperami brand dumped their long time agency and instead, ran a contest for new publically generated TV and print campaigns. Sensing an opportunity, two senior management ad guys recently launched Victors and Spoils, the world’s first creative agency based on crowd-sourcing principles. Regardless of their success, these are the kinds of monumental trends that will, if nothing else, change the standards for agency profitability for decades to come. As Mtn Dews’ Director of Marketing, Brett O’Brien sees it, “It’s unclear whether (crowd sourcing) will be a trend that takes hold in a universal way or whether it’s more of an experiment. In general, there’s a lot of experimenting going on in agency compensation. This fits into the context of that larger conversation.”

Apparently, crowd sourcing is catching on. Recent high profile companies announcing its inclusion in their marketing plans include Amazon, Careerbuilder, Chevrolet and HP. As someone who has worked on a campaign or two, I usually embrace new methods and technology. Crowd sourcing however, is something I can’t fully endorse. While a major element in any successful advertising campaign is keeping customers, how much interest do non-users place in an ad based upon crowd mentality?

Apart from its novelty, crowd sourcing seems to be a double-edged sword. On one hand, you are placating current customers by giving them a way to influence brands they like. But, can you really place your confidence in their ability to bring new consumers to the table? When does an idea go from an inside joke to a coherent message to the masses? Who knows? But what I do know is something I learned long ago – if you’re trying to market a beverage to America, it’s the taste, stupid. No amount of biased consumer promotion will make the taste of something better, or more saleable.