We Must Blaze A Trail To New Media [1946]

Found a small stack of PDFs of scans of old issues of Grey Matter, Grey's research newsletters the agency sent out to media ("since 1935"). Particularly cool is a 1997 retrospective (pdf) of what Grey had published about television over the years.

From a 1946 issue:

"Throughout the still-raging dispute concerning the precise position television will occupy in the advertising firmament, a point has been missed... television is just one phase of a new advertising age (we might call) the "electronic age" of advertising...

We hope we will not be charged with being anti-newspapers, anti-magazines or any of the established media... but we see a brilliant future for radio, for television, for (other electronic media). And we would be sadly remiss in our duty to advertising... to clients.. to future clients if we did not firmly resolve to explore those new media intensively and utilize them to the maximum of their potentials." 

The iPad and the Return of Tummy TV

One of my first iPad impressions last year was how different it felt to hold moving images in your hands: "Watching HD videos on the iPad gives a strange sensation you don’t get from TV or laptop, a feeling of proximity, almost intimacy." Adam Lisagor, in a much longer post, shared a similar feeling:

"The iPad is for the nightstand. And for the sofa, and for the places between where you stand in line and where you sit at your desk. That’s why every iPad poster and billboard features it on a lap or a knee. They’ve stopped short of showing it on a chest in bed, but that’s where mine gets its most use."

"To my mind, holding a 10” screen a foot from my face in a dark room is more immersive than staring blankly at a 40” screen twelve feet away."

"iPad. It’s TV for your chest™."

Which reminded me of an 1965 ad from Bernbach's book for the new 5-inch TV sets by Sony that had become known, likely thanks to Bernbach, as tummy TVs ("so that your wife can sleep, we also include a personal ear plug").

-- image credits: 1, 2. Also from the same Sony series: Pee Wee Tee Vee and The Walkie-Watchie

"The Future of Advertising" Speech by P&G's Ed Artzt, 1994

On May 12, 1994, the CEO of Procter & Gamble Edwin Artzt delivered a speech at the annual 4As conference on the future of advertising. It has since become a classic,  often referenced but rarely read in full.  The speech, written months before the first banner ad received its first impression, was prescient in many regards and inspiring throughout:

"We run the risk of simply adapting to these changing technologies, but if we don't influence them -- and if we don't harness them -- loyalty to our brands could suffer in the long term."

"The most important change, by far, is that people will become more program-driven and less channel-driven." 

"[Remote controls will] soon be replaced by program navigational services that will fundamentally change the dynamics of TV viewing."  

"In virtually all of the media tests that have been launched around the country, consumers respond very positively to time-shifting." 

"History says that the advertising industry adapts brilliantly to new technology. But we can't sit there. We have to act."

"So we've got to get involved in programming to make certain that advertisers have access to the mass audience and to the best properties." 

The speech was made a year and a half before Nicholas Negroponte's seminal Being Digital.  The full text of the speech, via AdAge archives and an abandoned MediaCzar blog,  follows.

Study: 3D Ads Remembered Better

Make that ad really pop:

"ESPN used Disney’s Media and Ad Lab in Austin to measure viewer response to its inaugural 3D coverage. It was, for the most part, favorable. ESPN found that cued recall of ads increased from 68 percent in 2D to 83 percent in 3D. Purchase intent went from 49 to 83 percent. Ad "liking" went from 67 to 83 percent.

"We don’t know how much of this is due to the novelty of the 3D experience,” said lead researcher Dr. Duane Varan. "We tried to get around that with 2D... but we won’t know the answer to that for a while."

-- TelevisionBroadcast.com

...and Statistics

If you haven't been following, Bob "The Ad Contrarian" Hoffman posted Top 10 Double-Secret Unknown Facts About Advertising, a digital strategist shot back with his own interpretation of the "secret facts", to which Hoffman replied, "Normally, I don't bother answering annoying gnats, but this guy accused me of cheating. I spent a lot of time on this and was painstaking in getting my sources."

You must be new here, Mr. Klein.

Hoffman and I had a similarly lovely exchange in the past: his numbers, my numbers, his graceful retort.  It was so much fun last time around that I couldn't resist poking a stick into a few of his "double-secret unknown facts".  Because, to quote Hoffman, "What I try to expose in this blog are the outrageous claims and misleading data." It's not that the numbers are not accurately cited, it's that some important nuances are painstakingly omitted.

"Fact #1) 99.9% of people who are served an online display ad do not click on it."

Yes, well:



Source: EyeBlaster via eMarketer.  Here's the DoubleClick's Benchmark report Hoffman probably refers to.


"Fact #2) TV viewership is now at its highest point ever."  This announcement from Nielsen is Hoffman's source.  Let's look at it closely, especially at the pdf linked at the bottom of the announcement.  From the pdf, we learn:

Average viewership per day, persons 2+:
-----------------------
TOTAL DAY
1991-1992: 4:06
2008-2009: 4:49
-----------------------
PRIME TIME:
1991-1992: 1:12
2008-2009: 1:12

Not exactly an explosive growth.

And a related tidbit from Nielsen's "TV Audience 2008" report (pdf and a MediaPost article):

Number of available channels per average household:
1990:  33.2
2008:  130.1

Charting the two together, we get something along these lines:

(Chart source: Future of Media Report 2007 (pdf) and 2008 (pdf).)



"Fact #3) 96% of all retail activity is done in a store. 4% is done on line." Hoffman's source: US Census Bureau.

Let's look at the US Census then.  Here's the growth chart for e-commerce dollar volume for the past decade (click on it to zoom in). So far, pretty accurate, although one can say that last year the e-commerce volume was "highest ever", kind of like the way Nielsen talks about TV viewership above.

Now let's look at the footnote:  Electronic auction sales, mail-order sales and automotive sales are included in retail, not e-commerce. E-commerce also excludes "non-retail operations such as travel agencies, financial services, manufacturers, and wholesalers".

Oh, and then there's this: "Manufacturers led all industry sectors, with e-commerce accounting for 39 percent of total shipments ($2,154B) - up substantially for the seventh straight year."  (US Census E-Stats 2008, pdf).

"Fact #10) TV viewers are no more likely to leave the room during a commercial break than they are before or after the break." Hoffman's source: Council for Research Excellence.

I've already looked at this study back in May. If you do the math, it turns out that probably only about 20% of the people are sitting in front of commercials not doing anything else, maybe paying attention.

Using the iPad as AppleTV

I was reading a rant about the new AppleTV on SmugMug's blog and found myself nodding in agreement with "Imagine that the AppleTV ran iOS and had its own App Store."  I then reached into the drawer for the iPad's VGA connector I'd bought a few months back for $30 (haven't seen any cheaper knock-offs yet), plugged my iPad into the flatscreen, and there it was, an AppleTV with an app store. I downloaded a few Stanford's free video lectures  from iTunesU -- the native Videos app supports video-out -- and played them on the large screen. (Other shows rented or bought through iTunes might not play via VGA.)

I watched two movies from the Netflix app; they weren't of Blu-ray quality, but were still very watchable and streamed smoothly over wireless.  You can't charge the iPad while the VGA connector is in, but the battery lasted long enough to provide video entertainment for the entire evening.

Among other video sources that looked fine on the big screen were websites (some through Safari, others through the Perfect Web Browser app that almost lives up to its name), the ABC app, YouTube, and AirVideo for watching video files stored on other PCs at home and streamed to the TV via iPad over the wireless. The Hulu app, too, should work with video-out, but I don't have the Plus subscription to try for myself.  Many more video apps are in the works.

I've been looking for a small HTPC to replace a dead desktop as a bridge between TV and the internet, perhaps an Acer or a Lenovo, but for now, it turns out the iPad will work just fine.

This Ad Was Brought To You By Your TV Set

Interesting. Sony and other makers of Internet-connected TVs are counting on advertising as a revenue stream, according to Bloomberg. "Grabbing a share of that advertising revenue is the ultimate goal of TV manufacturers. Samsung says it plans to introduce an on-screen virtual storefront of applications for shopping, games, and other activities that would allow advertisers to reach customers on its TVs, Blu-ray players, PCs, and cell phones."  I call it the appstorization of everyday things.

I would love to see how TV makers are going to fit the ads in and how they are going to deal with content providers.  Wonder if they'll try to build in some kind of advanced capability to track and collect TV usage data right into the TV sets. That's what Natal-Kinetic could be good for, too:  watching whether you are watching the screen or doing the dishes.

Study: People Share Room With TV Ads

They make it sound like it's a good news.

Center for Research Excellence released new findings from their massive and very expensive ($3.5M) ethnographic study of media consumption behavior. The researchers observed and recorded behaviors of 376 adults in four markets for the average period of 33 hours each or roughly two full waking days (or "three-quarters of a million minutes" altogether, as they prefer to put it.)  It looks like they used methodology and tools developed by Ball State Uni's Center for Media Design for its Middletown Media Study, which I've been following here closely since 2006.

The press release is pretty celebratory throughout, starting with the headline "Most TV Viewers Do Not Leave the Room or Even Change Channels During Commercial Breaks."

The study was funded by Nielsen.

A supposedly sympathetic media executive is quoted as wondering rhetorically: "Do viewers actually pay attention during commercial breaks?"

Great question. Let's see what we can milk from the data highlights since the press release never answers it directly.

- 20% change rooms during a commercial break
- 86% of viewers remain with live TV during commercials (that is, don't change channels)
- Multi-tasking was found to accompany about 45% of all media use. That's 45% of the 80% who stay in the room. "Multitasking" here does not include concurrent usage of other media, as seen on the graph below (source: pdf).  And of them, 86% stay on the same channel.

In other words, about 38 people out of 100 (that is, 100 x 0.80 x 0.86 x 0.55 - does the math check out?) are in the same room and on the same channel as TV commercials and aren't working, eating, or attending to personal or religious needs.

Now, to fill in the gap on concurrent media exposure.  In Ball State's original media study in 2006, which was smaller in scope but similar in methodology, researchers found out that TV is an uncontested (single-exposure) medium during 71.5% percent of total minutes it is on (pdf).  (According to a different, newer Three Screen report, 59% of people use TV and Internet at the same time at least once a month.)

So, in the end, we probably have a whopping 20% of the people sitting in front of commercials not doing anything else, maybe paying attention. Maybe.

- via Ad Contrarian, who, too, thinks the news is good.

Comcast Turns iPad Into Xfinity Remote

From Comcast's blog: "Comcast Labs has developed a prototype of a web-based remote control that will extend our interactive programming guide to many IP-enabled devices. The Xfinity Remote, which Brian Roberts demoed today on an iPad at the NCTA show, enables you to search for your favorite shows and movies on television and video on demand, change the channel on your cable box right from your iPad, and set your DVR remotely."

Comcast already has a DVR remote for iPod touch and iPhone.  It also has a site for its Comcast Interactive Media Labs; wonder if it's the same as "Comcast Labs" above.

All Your TVs Are Belong To Hollywood

The FCC "approved a request to allow companies that sell movies via video-on-demand services to activate signals that would block the copying or other re-use in home entertainment systems of recent releases." (NYTimes, via @stellawongo)

In other words,
- Content owners will be able to turn off, remotely, certain plugs on your new fancy TV or set-up box to prevent copying of new VOD releases;
- Some cable channels will be viewable only if you have a new fancy TV -- equipment that supports the Selectable Output Control tech.

These guys are pretty upset; BoingBoing isn't happy either.

Screwing with people's hardware is just wrong. Next thing, they will power down my fridge because I cook recipes off the net instead of buying an authorized cook book. 

Let's see who and how soon will be the first to suggest an idea to remotely shut down TVs of people who routinely skip commercials. 

Starling Preps App For Social TV Viewing

For those of you who were interested in the last week's post about social TV, here's another recent announcement (also written up in Contagious and Creativity):

"Starling builds on the emergent trend of 'co-viewing,' which generates active social media chatter when fans of a show gather online. It connects fans with other fans of the show, and friends to what their friends are watching. Users engage each other around the shows they already enjoy, and discover new shows through the social graph.

Starling builds the experience by sorting popular comments, and comments from the viewer's friends. Comments that appeal to the viewer can be voted upon. Voting is simple. Viewers tap the screen to 'star' a comment and viewers with well-received comments are awarded points in a global scoring system."

Some relevant Nielsen stats from q4 2009: "59% of TV viewers now use the Internet once a month; the amount of time Americans spent using the Internet while watching TV reached three and a half hours a month."

MIT Tech Review: Social TV Will Change the World

MIT Tech Review has published its 2010 list of ten technologies that will change the world, and one of them is social television. Wonder why now; I first posted on the subject five years ago, and the research goes a lot further back. It seemed like a pretty cool idea back at the time -- imagine connecting with those other wonderful people watching The Steve Wilkos Show! -- but the more I keep thinking about it, the more it seems like a solution in search of a problem.  Besides, with a combination of Twitter on a smartphone, hashtags and a TV, this isn't even the only solution.

That TV remote on the picture above looks pretty much like a new Dell smartphone with Twitter on it.

Anyway, the article highlights work by a Media Lab's research group: "Marie-José Montpetit, an invited scientist at MIT's Research Lab for Electronics, has been working for several years on social TV--a way to seamlessly combine the social networks that are boosting TV ratings with the more passive experience of traditional TV viewing. Her goal is to make watching television something that viewers in different places can share and discuss--and to make it easier to find something to watch."

A few years ago, John Batelle had a pretty cool idea of using online conversations around TV programs to rank shows in importance, the idea that has later materialized as Twielsen.

Sometimes, it feels like the TR suffers from the availability bias: two other technologies on the list are real-time search and 3D (mobile) displays.

Last year, they put Siri on the list, the same company Apple just bought.

3D Puts Brand Placement Out Of Focus

Very interesting: the proliferation of 3D tech in TVs and theaters may threaten the current model of brand placements because of how 3D puts background is out of focus:

"One of the key characteristics of 3D, as used in Avatar, is "limited depth of field." Essentially, this means that the figure onscreen in 3D pops out at the audience while the background appears out of focus. An attempt to focus on the background causes what some call "Avatar h3dache."

For product placements though, the loss of a clear background means the elimination of countless placement opportunities for a wide range of brands. Cars logos, soda names, box graphics and any number of other brand identifiers will appear to be just a swirl of blurry color. Any attempt to distinguish them will be pointless. What good is a product placement that cannot be seen?"

- via

Video Advertising from Armpits

Just as you think there's nothing left to blog about, a friend sends you this. And this is a deodorant company sending out street teams with small TVs sewn into their armpits. The dream of Smell-o-Vision has finally come true.
- via CherryFlava

Update:  R/GA: "I pray the Charmin people don't see this." 

The Cure Against Loud Commercials

SRS Labs, a company whose sound tech lives in many familiar devices, is bringing us something that will kill the volume difference between commercials and regular programming. The tech is called TruVolume and will come packaged in stand-alone gadgets that go between the TV set and the cable box, and as part of third-party devices (it already lives in some Samsung and Vizio TVs). Other companies working in this direction are Audyssey and Dolby.

Radio Advertising Eliminator would mute the ads altogether.

Details in WSJ, DVICE, and Sound & Vision (via).

TV Ads Most Helpful

"Over one-third of Americans (37%) say that television ads are most helpful in making their purchase decision while 17% say newspaper ads are most helpful and 14% say the same about Internet search engine ads. Radio ads (3%) and Internet banner ads (1%) are not considered helpful by many people. Over one-quarter of Americans (28%), however, say that none of these types of advertisements are helpful to them in the purchase decision making process."

On the bright side, 9% say they don't ignore ads.

-- Harris Interactive, July 1, 2009 (pdf)

Western Electric Crosses Phone and TV

1969, but a prototype was tested in 1956. A lot more details here.

Image via

Who Needs TV?

"Just 52% of the public in the latest poll say a television set is a necessity -- down 12 percentage points from 2006 and the smallest share to call a TV a necessity since this question was first asked more than 35 years ago."
-- Pew Social & Demographic Trends

Thinking Laterally About Targeting

"Softcore porn franchise Girls Gone Wild is claiming record sales after one of its ubiquitous basic cable ads accidentally aired during a live telecast of the Good Friday service at the Vatican.

GGW CEO Joe Francis says he received a record spike in sales.

'We may have tapped into a whole new market,' Francis said. 'It seems that many of the same people interested in the Pope’s message are also interested in ours.'"

- THR

"Lateral thinking is about reasoning that is not immediately obvious and about ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic." (wiki)

The Economics of YouTube

On Silicon Alley Insider: "Assuming YouTube delivers the 75 billion streams that Credit Suisse projects for 2009, and assuming YouTube manages to slot an ad for every stream (which is practically speaking, impossible, given the nature of much of their content), YouTube would have to achieve a $9.48 CPM for every video impression shown."


Earlier:
Pay-Per-View as Ad Model for YouTube
Hulu vs. YouTube