Archive for the ‘Marketing’ Category

Internet Marketing: Assuming the Mindset of a Media Company

Audience Engagement, Branding, Internet, Marketing, Public Relations | Posted by Larry Greenberg
Sep 27 2010

“Every company is a media company,” says Tom Foremski, the former Financial Times journalist.

Foremski is the force behind The Silicon Valley Watcher, which follows the business of technology and media. He also has a new website called, suitably enough, Every Company is a Media Company.  Foremski writes regularly about how the Internet, social networks and other types of digital media have radically changed the way we communicate – consumer to consumer, business to consumer, business to business.

Regardless of an organization’s size and structure – e.g., S-Corp., local service provider, or a multi-divisional international corporation – having a credible web presence has become essential to marketing and sales.   As I recently told a group of small business owners at the Mount Vernon Business Expo, a company’s strategy need not be extravagant.  In developing a strategy, however, businesses can benefit by assuming a mindset that is similar to that of a media company:  How can I be of use to my visitors?  What kind of information do they want and need?   By acting as a media company would, brands can build credibility and good will with target audiences and increase the frequency with which it engages prospects and customers.  Behaving like a media company means also abandoning the hard-sell and offering one’s expert advice without the expectation of a reciprocal sale.  The paradox, of course, is that the goal of such selflessness will lead to more sales in the future.

The financial barriers to web marketing are typically pretty low.  The time barriers – the amount of time that must be continually invested for a successful program – can be high.   Posts in the weeks to come will be written for the online marketing novice – the business owner or organization director seeking to understand the basics of creating a web presence and what type of investments, monetary and otherwise, are required.  I hope others who have already initiated Internet marketing programs will share their thoughts as well.

Tags: , , , , ,
No Comments »

Are Advertisers Ready to Embrace Baby Boomers?

Advertising, Audience Demographics, Audience Engagement, Internet, Marketing, Media, Social Media, Television | Posted by Larry Greenberg
Aug 31 2010

Is it time for advertisers to cast aside 50 year-old assumptions about 50 year-olds?

Pew just released a study that reports social networking among the over-50 set has nearly doubled – from 22 percent in April 2009 to 42 percent in May 2010. Although still heavily dependent on email, “many older users now rely on social network platforms to help manage their daily communications,” said Pew Senior Research Specialist Mary Madden, author of the report.  “Young adults continue to be the heaviest users of social media, but their growth pales in comparison with recent gains made by older users.”

Indeed, wrote Nielsen, 8 of the 10 most frequently visited web sites for 18 to 34-year-olds are the same for baby boomers, the generation born between 1946 and 1964. Nielsen also reported that the boomers spend 38.5 percent of Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) dollars, yet less than 5 percent of advertising dollars are targeted toward the 35 to 64-year old age group.

Baby boomers number 79 million, according to USA Today, the largest age demographic in the nation.  Are advertisers missing an opportunity with this enormous group?  Are marketers still wedded to the notion, which became conventional wisdom some 50 years ago during television’s early days, that most advertising dollars should be spent in pursuit of the youth market? Or are we about to witness a shift in advertisers’ approach to older consumers?

Boomers, said Pat McDonough, Senior Vice President, Insights, Analysis and Policy at the Nielsen Company, “… are the largest single group of consumers, and a valuable target audience. As the U.S. continues to age, reaching this group will continue to be critical for advertisers.”

The television audience is getting older as well.  Forbes recently reported that the median viewing age for the four largest national broadcast networks is 51 years-old. The average age increase reflects in part the dwindling numbers of young people who watch the networks.

As a result, TV’s share of the advertising pie continues to shrink. A joint survey by ANA (Association of National Advertisers) and Forrester Research of more than 100 national advertisers showed that advertisers allocated only 41 percent of their media budgets to television in 2009, down from 58 percent in our 2008.  But that same survey also showed that about 80 percent of advertisers believe the 30-second spot will still be around in 10 years.

So as brands reassess their marketing mix, with branded entertainment and the Internet playing a bigger role, will they also reconsider their demographic strategy?  Instead of focusing predominantly on 18 to 34 year-olds, will advertisers also try selling more to older audiences?  Alan Wurtzel, president of research and development at NBC, told Forbes that advertisers are beginning to take a second look at this demographic.

This would likely please late-night host Craig Ferguson, who shared his own thoughts on television’s youth marketing strategy in a funny rant last year.  (See “Appealing to the Youngest Common Denominator.)

Most of all, it should make advertisers happy, as they see their sales increase.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Appealing to the Youngest Common Denominator

Audience Demographics, Branding, Film, Internet, Marketing, Media, Online Video, Television | Posted by Larry Greenberg
Aug 11 2009

New York Times film reviewer A.O. Scott recently lamented Hollywood’s reliance on formulaic juvenility.  Just look at this summer’s crop of sequels, comic-book based adventures and bawdy comedies. For Scott, the issue wasn’t whether they were financially successful – many were – but whether box office success means movie-goers actually liked what they saw.

Cinemas continue to attract audiences, despite countless other entertainment options. It could be that unlike professional movie critics,  ticket buyers, both young and old, enjoy what the studios are offering. It could also be that going to a movie theater is still a relatively inexpensive (if you forgo the super combo at the concession stand), immersive and social experience. It’s a good excuse to get out of the house. For many, it would take a record string of stinkers to break their movie-going habit.

Scott’s wish that Hollywood give more original, mature and complex films a chance to find an audience has been echoed by many.  I share the sentiment. I would probably go to the theater more often if only there were more interesting choices.  But the studio statisticians aren’t about to ignore numbers like these: According to a 2007 MPAA Movie Attendance Study, “although 12-24 year-olds represent 22% of the total population in the United States, they represent 27% of all moviegoers and 41% of all frequent moviegoers.”   No surprise that the teenager perspective totally rules.

Scott is not the only one to recently express unhappiness with Hollywood’s long-accepted youth marketing strategy. Late night talk show host Craig Ferguson recently railed in his monologue against television advertisers, their obsession with the young adult demo, and how this is the reason why many shows tend to be sophomoric or, as he puts it, “why everything sucks.”

You can view Craig Ferguson’s monologue here:

The conventional wisdom, established by the television advertising industry some time back in the 1950s, is that young audiences are most valued because they represent an opportunity to build a lifetime brand relationship. Television programming executives, therefore, must design shows to reel them in; to do otherwise would be innovative, but possibly career-ending, risk-taking.

Can we expect studios and networks to continue to cater to the tastes of a young audience at the expense of the older demographic?  Or will the emerging economics of the online world enable new opportunities for producers to serve the diverse tastes of a chronologically broader audience?

Decades after U.S. homes began being wired, cable networks finally began to deliver programming with the sophistication, interwoven plotting and nuanced character development of a great novel.  Premium networks like HBO broke the mold with The Sopranos and Six Feet Under, and now the basic cable networks have followed suit with such series as Mad Men and Breaking Bad.

Online “television,” which is associated typically with user-generated content, is often accused of celebrating juvenility.  As the technology grows up, it’ll develop into a platform that better serves a broader demographic. And then, who knows? If the quality of the content is good enough, some people might be willing to pay for it.

Tags: , , , , , ,
No Comments »

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.”

Tags: , , , ,
No Comments »