Archive for June, 2009

Do Mets Need a Brand-Boost at Citi Field?

Branding, Marketing | Posted by Larry Greenberg
Jun 17 2009

How many disgruntled fans swear off their team after a devastating loss, only to return as vociferous advocates the very next day? How many brands in other industries could withstand repeated bad customer experiences with a product and have those same customers remain steadfastly loyal?

Sports franchises represent the ultimate in brand engagement. Most fans may not think of it in these terms, but they believe they own the team brand; they worship the team brand. They will object strenuously when management doesn’t take great care in planning for the brand’s future, attending to its present and, most importantly, honoring its past.

Case in point: The recent debate about the New York Mets new ballpark, Citi Field, and the underwhelming presence of the Mets brand itself.

There is plenty of branding at the beautiful stadium; it’s just that most of it isn’t Mets branding. Banners of past Met greats adorn the outside of the stadium on the left and right field sides. Inside, however, the team’s branding – i.e., placement of Mets’ signage and logos, spaces dedicated to Mets nostalgia– is not readily apparent.

There is also the $400-million naming of Citi Field itself. Yes, this is an old subject now, and the Mets aren’t the first team to sell naming rights to their home field. Others include the Phillies’ Citizens Bank Park, the Astros’ Minute Maid Park and the Giants’ AT&T Park. But should the Mets do more to boost their brand presence at Citi Field?

A baseball brand is a shared emotional history that transcends commerce in the mind of the consumer (although its chief purpose is to drive commerce); fans expect the home park to be a shrine that reinforces that bond. Although Citi Field’s construction, design and features pays homage to New York’s former National League brands – the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants – the new stadium fails, at least in the mind of some fans, to pay proper tribute to the Mets own nearly half-century legacy.

In response to a fan outcry about management’s attempt to erase a Dwight Gooden-autographed brick inside the Ebbets Club, owner Fred Wilpon has promised to build a Mets Hall of Fame in the stadium. Such a tribute was never an afterthought for the cross-town rival Yankees.

The old Yankees Monument Park was transferred to the new stadium, itself a cathedral reinforcing the brand. The Yankees name is an imposing presence on the stadium’s front. The building also features the famous façade circling the stadium top, the “Great Hall” showcasing players past, and countless other reminders of Yankee heritage.

The Yankees are arguably the best known sports brand in the world. Having the most world championships, 26, will do that for a team. But the team owners are also careful to reinforce the brand – that shared emotional history – at important consumer touch-points, including most notably the stadium itself.

According to a recent poll, in New York City, the Yankees were ranked more popular than the Mets. Could the Mets benefit from a brand-boost at Citi Field? Or was Vince Lombardi correct? “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.”

MySpace and Facebook: The Ups and Downs of Social Media Companies

Branding, Internet, Social Media | Posted by Larry Greenberg
Jun 12 2009

In 2005, Rupert Murdoch was regarded as a genius for scooping up MySpace for $580 million, besting media rival Sumner Redstone in the process.  Murdoch is now being second-guessed. This week the social media giant announced plans to cut about 420 employees – about 30% – of its U.S. staff and 450 employees – about two-thirds – of its international force.  There is speculation about the possibility that Redstone can now step in and purchase MySpace at what is now considered a relative bargain for the site — $1 billion.

According to eMarketer, in May 2009 Facebook topped MySpace as the most popular social networking site in the United States. And although as of April 2009 MySpace still led with almost 47 percent of the social networking advertising space, a Crain’s article refers to an eMarketer prediction that MySpace’s ad revenue will decline 15% this year to $495 million, while Facebook will see a 10% ad revenue increase to $230 million.

So for the moment, anyway, Facebook has overtaken MySpace as social media’s BMOC. Who will claim that title four years from now? Twitter? Or a yet-to-be identified company now incubating in some Silicon Valley garage or Silicon Alley loft? Or MySpace, once again?

Popular tastes can be fickle, after all, so how can a brand or company achieve a relatively permanent dominance in the social media space?

San Jose Mercury News’ Scott Duke Harris wrote an excellent piece last week discussing Facebook’s future, Planet Facebook: Is social networking site a phenomenon or fad?” He cites the company’s purported vision to make the terms “social connecting” and “Facebook” synonyms, just as Google became the verb for search.  More than 10,000 websites are now compatible with Facebook Connect, he notes, an easy way to sign on and provide chat feeds, videos, photos and other items to participating web sites.  The Twitter-Facebook connection is a fine example of the benefits that such interactivity adds to the online experience.

In addition to interactivity and ease-of-use, communications platforms rely on the network effect; the more users in the network, the more value that is provided to each customer in that network.  Verizon Wireless and countless other mobile phone companies hammer this point through their advertising.

But phone companies are able to lock consumers into costly contracts because they control the means of distribution; social networking brands don’t.  People can join, quit or ignore MySpace and Facebook at will.  Survival also depends not necessarily on the number of users, but the quality and value of those users to each other – something that LinkedIn does reasonably well for business professionals.

As MySpace restructures and, possibly, rebrands, perhaps it will focus its energies on what it already does best: being one of the best independently-produced music, film and comedy destinations on the web.

It’s tough being all things to all people.

The Media and the Message

Branding, Free Content, Internet, Paid Content, Social Media, Television | Posted by Larry Greenberg
Jun 09 2009


I recently attended a digital media event in which a panelist, a video producer, disagreed with Marshall McLuhan: the media is not the message; the message is the message, the panelist said.

Even if you’ve never heard of McLuhan, chances are you will recognize the reference. The Canadian scholar made up the phrase at a time when the new medium of television had all but secured its dominance as a message delivery platform.  Alternately brilliant and inscrutable, McLuhan’s controversial media theories got industry experts to think in a new way about the impact of technologies on people’s behavior – and on content itself.

McLuhan categorized different media as “hot” and “cool” according to the extent of sensory interpretation required of the consumer. Radio and newspapers were deemed hot because the information is presented fully formed, needing little sensory interpretation by listeners and readers.  Television, on the other hand, which in the 1950s and 60s offered a low-resolution, black-and-white image of inconsistent quality, was cool (and by that McLuhan didn’t mean ‘boss’).  Television required greater involvement of the viewer’s senses to ‘get the full picture.’

Back to the panelist’s point and what it has to do with the name of this blog.   Media has come a long way since McLuhan’s time.  There is an endless array of high and low-resolutions screens – HDTV, IPTV, mobile devices, portable readers, iPods, PCs, IMAX theatres and more. This variety offers new opportunities and challenges for advertisers, content publishers and influencers.  With so much content competing over so many platforms for the attention of a greatly disaggregated audience, quality, as defined by the beholders, will be an essential differentiator.  As the old saw goes, content – that is, good content – is king.

But the nature of the platform – the media – as well as context matter, too. For example, what demographic prefers what type of video and at what length?  How should a message or brand be shaped to leverage the power of a particular medium?

When it comes to video, conventional wisdom on this topic seems fleeting.  Online was thought suited best for user-generated video-snacking, an association that didn’t appeal to advertisers; then came Hulu and viewers started consuming full-length television episodes.  NetFlix’s Watch Instantly function will now be available through the Vista Media Center; and internet-ready televisions were front-and-center at this year’s CES.  Will this cause more filmmakers to consider direct-to-web features? Will advertisers now reassess online video or will the shrinking traditional television audience share still represent the biggest bang-for-the-buck?  Will users who are accustomed to free be willing to pay for premium content?

Hopefully this blog will serve to initiate discussions on these and other questions, as “The Media and the Message” will endeavor to explore a broad range of media-related issues involving monetization, content creation, messaging, branding and more.