 |
|
IMARKETING REPORT 07.16.02:
Internet Cable; Chatting; Pricing Media; Measuring Brands
>> Did you authorize ONLY $25 million on marketing a minority artist recently?
Yes!? You're racist.
Good morning execs,
It is my pleasure to announce that next
week (to the day) marks the one year
anniversary of this newsletter. It's had
many tweaks to make it look like it does
today, but you've stuck with me since.
Thanks. Originally started as a ranting
column about other marketing, and to hi-lite
iMarketing, it has evolved into a more
serious publication, that you can hopefully
use as a resource. For those of you still
trying to figure out what the editorial
direction of this thing is - it's about brand-
ing, the consumer, media, and how to
manage it all, with a skew towards the
internet and interactivity. If you've had
any questions, or just want free advice,
take advantage of my nostalgia and send
me an email with your questions. I'll be
more than happy to wrap up any loose
ends that may have lingered as a result
of anything I've published this year. And
if you just want to see how we started,
check out the archives at urbanismz.com.
Why urbanismz.com? I bought this URL
for someone, and they never used it. So
rather than let it go to waste...
CONTENTS:
1. BRANDS&INSIGHTS: Remember Why Cable Started? The Internet's
Next.
2. CONSUMERFOCUS: You're Not Reaching Consumers 7.2
billion Minutes per Month
3. MEDIA&CONTENT: Dynamic Pricing of Media Ad Inventory?
4. MGMT&OPS: Wow, Baby, Your "Brand" is So Big...
SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION, Don't be greedy, pass this REPORT on.
UNSUBSCRIBE, by replying with "Remove".
ARCHIVES, http://www.urbanismz.com.
HIRE us, email al@alberrios.com.
top
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>
1. BRANDS&INSIGHTS: Remember Why Cable Started? The
Internet's Next.
StarMedia, the Spanish-Portuguese super
portal that supposedly dominated Latin
American internet experience has recent-
ly sold off it's assets, retaining only capa-
bilities to service consumers wirelessly.
So what? Companies like 24/7
Real
Media, Interrep, and Burst Media will also
admit to their being no interest whatsoever
in advertising to Latin American consumers
on the internet. What's going on, here?
Did we miss something? Latino Ameri-
cans represent 12% of the US pop, but
when it comes to the internet, very few
publishers are willing to reach them. The
few that have survived to cater to this aud
remain unattractive to large, national
advertisers. While Univision is loose free
to buy up all Spanish-language broadcast
media, and become the most powerful gate-
keeper to this community, the internet re-
mains a relatively untapped way for com-
panies to reach Latinos. So, where do La-
tinos go online? Sure Yahoo! and AOL
have Spanish-Language offerings, but the
broader picture is that all 35 million Latinos
in the US don't go online, preferring to spend
their money on cell phones and DVDs. So
when will it be profitable to reach Latinos,
or any consumer sub-segment, online?
BOTTOM LINE: Remember back in the
70s, when cable was first being launched?
It was a radical concept, but one that made
consumers aware of their most powerful
weapon: choice. It was the beginning of a
revolution in the way consumers saw the
world. No longer were the networks their
only source of TV viewing. Now they could
have broader selections. As cable evolved,
niche-strategies developed. And although
niche is the thing to do now, it won't take 20
years for Yahoo and AOL to become the
"networks", and smaller, leaner, niche com-
panies begin to service incredibly fragmented
and overly picky consumer sub-segments.
Yahoo! and AOL will continue to adjust,
to remain fresher, but until they figure out
a way to control the human desire to try
new things and enjoy using their "weapon",
chances are, we haven't even begun to see
what the internet of the future will look like.
READ MORE:
http://www.internetnews.com/IAR/article.php/10789_1381741
top
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>
2. CONSUMERFOCUS: You're Not Reaching Consumers
7.2 billion Minutes per Month
Chatting. When consumers think of it,
they think of meeting new people and
finding a solution to their boredom.
(Observation: with over 600 channels on
TV, not including pay-per-view, renting
movies, and with thousands of radio
stations, magazines, and newspapers to
choose from, its interesting how some
people that are bored, would prefer to log
on. Anyway...) When marketers think of
it for use on their campaigns, they think
of "guerrilla marketing" or "spamming &
seeding" consumers. (Observation #2:
what's funny here is that some marketers
have teens that chat all day, and yet, don't
think of it as an effective form of marketing.)
Guess what? There were 16.9 mm chatters
at work chatting 7.2 billion minutes in April,
and there was only one way to reach
them during this time they spent chatting.
Honestly, do you pay attention to the AOL/
MSN/Yahoo! control panel advertisements?
7.2 billion minutes is a long time consumers
are spending away from TV, radio, OOH,
& print. And, if you've been following
this publication, you know that number
will grow, since the internet is all about
people interacting with each other, over
any other function you may have dreamt
the internet to be for.
BOTTOM LINE: For almost three years,
I've been trying to convince companies that
using chat rooms is not some half-a$$,
guerrilla attempt to get attention for your
brand. It's a delicate conversation that has
to be well thought out, well planned, and well
executed in order for it to work. Too many
young marketers have simply resulted to
bombarding consumers with emails, rather
than taking advantage of the internet's most
powerful tool: real-time, one on one, com-
munication with their consumers. Anyone
can do it, but do you really have the time
to talk with 50,000 consumers weekly?
Notice I didn't use "talk at", like you do when
you advertise using other one-way media.
I meant "talk with". I don't have to ask you
to "imagine a world...", because everything
you've read about here (a whole year's worth)
is a result of interactions with your consumers
conducted by specially trained iMarketers.
Everything you can do offline, you can do
online, from gathering insight to generating
awareness. But the key is in the way you
use what the internet has to offer.
READ MORE:
Unfortunately, I forgot to get the reference
where I got my figures from, but take my
word for it, it's out there and it's true.
top
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>
3. MEDIA&CONTENT: Dynamic Pricing of Media Ad Inventory?
Should consumers pay to view ads?
This has been a very heated debate
brought on by the development of tech-
nology that skips/blocks ads. One of
the biggest advocates for making consu-
mers pay to see ads is Jamie Kellner,
Turner Broadcasting chief. He claims
using PVRs to skip ads on his properties
is as good as stealing
money from him.
His view is not entirely out-of-whack.
He claims that if these devices become
more widely used, channels we normally
get for free, we may have to pay as much
as $250 in addition to our regular cable
bill just to see. But his solution is not
something consumers are ready for.
But here's something that perhaps should
be considered: Charging companies to
advertise per unit? Dynamic pricing
of ad inventory? The challenge would
obviously be measuring the value of
each unit of time and space. Well,
what about "the eBay way"? Have
media buyers buy media on an massive,
all-media, auction platform where both
parties get what they want. Obviously,
there'd have to be like two platforms:
time-based media, space-based media,
but because media would then be com-
moditized, all that would remain would
be getting it for the best price, and coming
up with the best way of using it. I know
no one would like to commoditize media,
after all, there's a big difference in the
value of the TIME magazine name and
any other smaller publication. However,
let the market decide how much your media
is worth, not your ego. Enron attempted
to do something like this. It failed. But
the idea is sound.
BOTTOM LINE: Everything about the
way media operates is outdated, from the way
they determine their rates, to the way they
measure their audience (Arbitron, Nielsen
uses old technology and "panels" that don't
truly represent the US pop anymore) to the
way content and programming is delivered
(on a schedule that no longer represents the
typical American family daily schedule) to
how they cater to the tastes of a new ge-
neration of consumers (people want niche.
Don't give 'em stuff they don't like, 'cause
they actually have a choice now.) If you,
the marketer, are still using media like it's the
70s or 80s, it's time for a re-evaluation as to
how you can more effectively talk with your
consumer and at what price.
READ MORE:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020712/ap_on_en_tv/free_tv_1
IMARKETING REPORT 04.15.02: 1.BRANDS&INSIGHTS: Imagine
a BRANDAQ
top
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>
4. MGMT&OPS: Wow, Baby, Your "Brand" is So
Big...
How much is your brand worth? How
much is it contributing to your bottom line?
Huh? There seems to be no set way to
pinpoint the exact value of your brand.
It's pretty much determined to how much
you spend on promoting it. Firms have
tried, but there have been too many variables.
But why would you even care and who
should take responsibility for the company
brand as an asset?
BOTTOM LINE: The value of your brand
is directly tied into your company's market
capitalization, meaning if your brand is worth
like "$59.6 billion" bucks, wouldn't you like to know
that this "brand equity accounts for 18.3% of your
market cap"? Just think about the implications
of a knowledge like this? A carefully planned
strategy, and incremental investments can
make your brand worth billions, even if it
doesn't even sell anything (eBay, Cherokee,
Jack Welsh). So are you making this invest-
ment, and if so, is it strategically planned to
increase the value of your brand?
READ MORE:
http://www.btobonline.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=9433
http://www.forbes.com/global/2002/0610/034.html
top
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>
Disclaimer:
The recommendations, commentary and opinions published herein are based on public
information sometimes referenced via hyperlinks. Any similarities or likeness
to any ideas or commentary from any other sources not referenced is purely coincidental.
al berrios & co. cannot control any results occurring from advice obtained
from this publication nor any opinion(s) conveyed by any reader of this publication.
(c) 2001-2005. All Rights Reserved. al berrios & company, inc. Published
by al berrios & co. This Report may not be reproduced or redistributed in
any form without written permission from al berrios & co., subject to penalty.