One of the things that I subtly pointed out on the update was the jump in close to 100,000 views of the brand’s Pizza Turnaround YouTube video as a result of the campaign’s paid media kicking in.
Above are some stats from YouTube that clearly show the harmony that takes place when social media is coupled with paid/mass media and underscores the benefit of cross-channel, integrated media design. It puts a smile on my face going into the new year and new decade ;-) Great job to Domino's and their Agency(s). Happy 2010 everyone!
Hat Tip to @scheuguy for sending out a link to the Domino's video on Monday.
Being a heavy user of “newer” forms of media and obsessed with web/TV convergence, it’s easy to get caught up in consumption statistics that are consistently in the double digits. Take the fact that in comparison to last year:
[99% of video consumption in the U.S. is done via traditional TV]
By traditional TV, that means not DVR and not online video. So just because I may be using my DVR to fast-forward commercials, most “video” viewers, at the moment, are not -- That’s significant.
Do a Google Real Time search for commercial and see that people, indeed, still see (and comment) on them in while they watch which also demonstrates Nielsen’s other stat that 57% of TV viewers simultaneously use the web.
I’m far from advocating that marketing remain status quo but I do strongly believe that it’s not an “either/or” decision.
[We cannot discount the power that mass media still has.]
Brands must design its media in such a way so that channels work harmonically together – making them greater than the sum of their parts. That’s when big things happen and people take notice.
The next time you’re watching live TV, pay attention to the ending of commercials. What you’ll find are an increasing number of them tagged with a URL, or even better, a URL with voice-over to go online.
There’s a reason for this as smart marketers understand the natural human behavior to go online for more info in response to an offline ad. They also embrace the fact that many people are sitting on their couches watching TV with their laptops in front of them.
One of the most common reasons I’ve heard that brands do not include URLs on their TV spots is:
["We want to drive people in-store. We don’t want to confuse the message by driving them to the web." ]
But how will making it easy for someone with piqued interest to learn more about and engage with your message/brand confuse them? I don’t know of many people upon seeing a TV ad who’ll stop what they’re doing , get right up from their couch, and head into a store/restaurant/business to make a purchase on the spot.
[Instead, why not harness the momentum of their interest, reinforce and build upon your message online to help tip their consideration to act/purchase?]
If that’s not enough, then consider the fact that:
You can only do so much within the constraints of a 30-second TV spot
Driving to the web from TV can only help to reinforce your message and, if done well, marry TV and web in a way that’s greater than the sum of their individual parts. It’s the 1+1=3 effect in action. This is only the beginning as TV and web continue to converge. Just ask TiVo, Verizon Fios, IBM, and Cablevision.
There’s a lot of talk about an impending death of “traditional media” but The Nielsen Company just released a report that shows otherwise. In order to predict the future, Nielsen looked at those who are our future adults: Teenagers. And in addition to finding that Teens are watching more TV than ever before, their use of the web is not what we, as marketers, might have suspected.
Because of the fact that Teens spend most of their days in the classroom, extracurricular activities, weekend sports, etc., they are simply not in front of computers like adults in their offices – So their time spent surfing the web is actually considerably less than adults (about 50% less).
The gem in the report is the affirmation that one of the best ways for marketers to reach the teen demographic is through mobile/portable content. Some interesting insights:
77% of teens directly own a mobile phone
Teen texting over the past 2 years increased 566%.
66% of teens prefer texting over talking on their phone
Teens send/receive an average of 2899 texts/month
Teens ARE they early adopters of all mobile media
Teens watch more mobile video than the average user
#1 source of video content is music-related
I’ll often quote digital marketer Mitch Joel when he talks about the choice of new/emerging media versus traditional media in that “it’s not either/or, it’s in addition to.” And Nielson clearly agrees, “Teens embrace new media not at the cost of traditional media, but in supplement to it.”
I continue to believe when looking at the future of media, that it’s not so much whether certain kinds of media are dying off but how they’re evolving/adapting given the fundamental changes and options for distribution. And it’s no secret that I very much see a “media converged” future where Web and TV are one in the same and our “mobile device” will harmoniously extend our content consumption/interaction in a portable format – and in the end, content is content regardless of what mechanism we use to consume it.
What also ran through my head is that while we all seem to get giddy about social media going “mainstream”, view participation in live programs has happened for many years via the telephone (remember that thing?). Larry King is a great example of this. The difference (and where the “social factor” comes in) is that unlike the “call queue”, everyone can see (and reply) to viewers commenting on Twitter in real time – and that’s where the conversation really takes shape.
A decent first step by ABC despite it being a bit clumsy and awkward. I would like to see much more interaction with the various Tweets (it seems that only a few are referenced during the 30 minute show which is billed as a “Twitter Web Show”).
In his book Meatball Sundae, Seth Godin says, “Human nature hasn’t changed a bit. What has changed is the environment we live in.” and in Groundswell, Charlene li and Josh Bernoff say, “People have always depended on each other and drawn strength from each other.”
The fact is, people have opinions and need to share. The hype about social networking is due to the fact that it’s something that resonates with the very core of who we are in our ever constant “escape from aloneness.” Social media represents a perfect harmonic marriage between communications technology (the changed environment) and our fundamental, simple, and very natural instincts (human nature).
Everyone’s got an opinion. And with the exception of paid blog posts or paid tweets (which you already know my thoughts on), I LOVE the real-time, unaided consumer reactions/intelligence one can get on pretty much anything by just doing a simple Twitter search.
One of the great things about working in Advertising/Marketing these days is having the ability to hear raw, near real-time feedback as to what people think about your execution as they experience it – especially broadcast spots (TV Commercials). People are a lot more uninhibited in the comfort of their own home hidden behind the security of their computer.
Let’s take “Pepsi Throwback” as an example. The company at their very moment has instant access to the very latest consumer sentiment about the product – and without paying a cent for the intelligence. Some of the reactions are very positive and some are negative. But in general there seems to be an overall positive vibe to the new (or, more accurately, old) Pepsi product and some people want it to stick around beyond its limited 8-week lifespan.
The big question, as a colleague pointed out to me, is how much weight should Twitter or the greater social web hold in terms of making business decisions? To what degree should companies/brands rely more on social media intelligence versus the comfort of more traditional consumer research & testing methods?
I think both have their place in the marketing world but if brands/agencies are only employing traditional methods to produce consumer insights, they’re missing out big time on a goldmine of useful data.
There’s a lot of talk about celebrities being on Twitter and what that means to the service and the social media thought leaders that once dominated the channel. Jeremiah Owyang tweeted the question yesterday, “Do you think Twitter has hit a tipping point this last week?”
I’m not sure about a tipping point yet, but one thing is certain is that Twitter has abruptly burst out of the “social media bubble” and after watching last Friday’s Larry King Live, I think it’s a great thing.
Yes there’s a celebrity ego play (as with most people on Twitter) but what Ashton and Pdiddy are doing is reaffirming the fundamentals of what social media is:
"It cuts out the middle man – the middle man has been the media. It’s given me a chance for people to get to know the real me."
"You can have 1million followers or 10 followers – it’s the same amount of energy and power to build your own community"
"It’s the truest definition of viral – everything happens in real time"
But as Jimmy Fallon mentioned (who uses twitter actively on his late night show): “I still think the majority of people don’t really know what the hell Twitter is – they have no idea what it is and what to do with it.”
But I think we’re all feeling that that’s going to quickly change. Talk about media convergence!
I’ve now had several moments over the past few weeks where I’ve had to make sure I didn’t log into Facebook or Twitter for fear of getting spoilers to something I was watching (or about to watch) on TV. Since most of what I watch is DVR’d (TiVo), my life (at that moment) is somewhat “time-phased” (thanks Mitch Joel) – it’s out of sync with those who watched the show when it actually aired.
Most people know that I’m an American Idol fan and usually when I’m in front of the TV, my laptop is right there with me. But not just now as I watched tonight’s AI results show – I was afraid I might see that random “tweet” from someone announcing who got voted off – or one of my Facebook Friends updating their status agreeing or disagreeing with the results.
Social media is making television a much more interactive and connected experience. Just watch CNN as its news programming have been seemingly taken over by real-time twittering, facebook “chats”, and blog commenting.
The question is: Is social media compelling people to watch more things live for fear of feeling “left out” or, in my case, having “my show” get spoiled?
Checking out video site Jaman’s live Facebook chat of the Oscars (similar to CNN’s during the inauguration) amplifies the fact that not only are we not alone but that for any situation there exist extreme polar opposite opinions plus everything in between. As the community’s one-liners flash over my laptop screen as I watch the Oscars I see expressions of:
Those that cried seeing the late Heath Ledger’s family accept the Oscar on his behalf versus those who said drug abuse should not be celebrated.
Those who were moved by Milk screen writer Dustin Lance Black’s words about equal rights versus those who wanted to move the show along to the next presentation.
Those who loved each time host Hugh Jackman came on screen versus those that wished Ellen back next year.
What is a yet another harmonic convergence of media, the emerging trend of live synced facebook chat streams poignantly illustrate the very diverged opinions in a community microcosm’s near stream-of-consciousness. And that’s what makes it so fascinating: We are not alone – we’re also not the same.
