Marketing with Video and Rich Media Blog

The client-vendor relationship

Anyone working in the creative services industry will relate to this video. Hopefully those who don’t will appreciate the satire and irony.

Starbucks on the defensive from pro-union video activism.

Video is a very powerful and effective way to communicate.  We’re going to be seeing more videos like this one.

Brave New Films is an organization at the leading edge of video activism. It creates news magazine style videos that examines / ‘exposes’  a range of political issues. Recently it has turned it’s sights on the ‘socially conscious’ Starbucks. The above video details a variety of anti-union activities that Starbucks has allegedly taken part in recently and it encourages viewers to spread the word. The production values are very good and I’m certain it has Starbuck’s full attention.

In a previous post I talked about how Dominos had used YouTube to respond to a PR crisis it was facing. Domino’s was harmed and the CEO spoke out honestly and emphatically that his company was doing everything it could to make the best of a bad situation.  This new video calls out Starbucks and directly challenges CEO Howard Shultz. Should Starbucks respond to this video with their own video? Yes they should, but in a very different manner than Domino’s had chosen.

Shultz won’t respond directly to the accusations in this video because it’s a discussion he can never ‘win’. Some topics – abortion, gun control, the death penalty etc. are emotionally charged with as many advocates as opponents. Most politicians / business leaders chose to avoid these types of issues wherever possible. Should Starbucks avoid this issue? Of course not – the social media channels are alight with this discussion and it isn’t going to go away. Starbucks has to find a way to communicate its position on employment (unions) without getting sucked into a vortex of angry politics and vitriol (check out the comments on YouTube to get a sense of the passion behind this topic). Starbucks is a business – it would prefer not to have unions operating in its stores – no surprise there. The self-inflicted added burden that Starbucks carries is that it has tried to position itself as a caring and socially consious company. (WalMart, by contrast has never been hobbled by this positioning.)

The timing of this video coincides with a major marketing campaign by Starbucks that attempts to position the company as rethinking and resetting its goals and reaching out to its various constitutiencies. In other words, the timing couldn’t be worse. So what would you do if you were leading Starbucks PR team?

State of Florida misses the ‘social’ mark in new video promotion

 

Good effort…  but the execution is off the mark.

Like every tourist destination in the world, the State of Florida is looking for new ways to attract visitors during tough economic times. They engaged  Spark - a Tampa agency to help them build a ‘social video campaign’ to spread the word and ‘Share a little sunshine.’

The promotion began with the above video which is basically a call to action to all Floridians to help boost tourist trade – an integral part of the Florida economy. So far so good.  {Unfortunately the campaign got off to a bumpy start as many YouTube posts complained that the poster board concept (which goes back to  Bob Dylan’s 1965 Subterranean Homesick Blues Video video) was ‘stolen’ from a very touching YouTube video entitled Mark by Ben - a plea by a Florida boy to help find work for his father.}

A website and promotional campaign was created to encourage keen Floridians to pass along the good word. The website includes one of three commercials – ‘Romance’, ‘family’, ‘friends’ that participants are encouraged to forward with the promise of a chance to win valuable prizes with each new email sent.

 The State missed a huge opportunity here. Offering a prize for emailing these videos to friends and family is a good idea but I don’t think it’s enough. Sure it’s easy to do and sweepstakes and contests will always guarantee a certain amount of interaction. I just don’t believe that the recipients, if they actually watch the commercials, will care. If someone sent me an email with a tourist commercial from their town I may start watching it, but it better be really good, or have a compelling message or story. These videos were obviously created on a very tight budget and certainly don’t reinforce all of the beautiful stereotypes of the Sunshine State. These stereotypes,  (Eiffel Tower, Venetian Canals, Manhattan Skyline, etc.) are one of the main reasons people choose travel destinations. Yes, reminding people of important social hooks (friends, family and romance) is interesting but there is limited direct connection to Florida other than the fact that someone from the state may (or may not) have forwarded it to you.

There is a place for high quality video and a place for lower-budget video. The problem is that the lower quality video better have something else going for it or it won’t get noticed.

A better option would have been to create or purchase a lot of excellent quality b-roll video and encourage Floridians to create their own tourist videos using as much of the supplied high quality b-roll video as they wanted. The uptake might have been more limited but the viral potential for these videos would have been a hundred times greater – as would the impact.

A contest to forward commercials is not a social marketing campaign, it’s a contest – that’s it. Give people the incentives (the contest and the ‘Help support your state’ video) AND give them the tools to create compelling videos with themselves in the video – now you have the potential for some exponential growth in both viewership and impact.

Some videos would be great – especially if you give the people excellent source material to insert in the videos and some would be pretty bad. But even the bad ones would be good because they would have real people in them and these people would want to forward these videos on to their friends and family and their family and friends would want to watch them and forward them on to other people.

Unfortunately, this campaign results in the worst of both worlds – lower budget commercials with limited social uptake.

Vodaphone Zoozoo ads top Indian Viral charts

 

Ogilvy and Mather developed a series of 30 ads to showcase value-added services offered by Indian’s second largest mobile carrier – Vodaphone.  The ads have become very popular in India and are already being spun into other promotional activities. The ads are also doing very well on international viral video charts.

It’s interesting to note the feedback on YouTube – unanimously positive. (I’ve never seen that before.)Facebook is also buzzing with Zoozoo fever. Either Ogilvy has their promotional machine spun into overdrive or they have genuinely struck a nerve in India.  You have to question some of the ‘buzz’ when you read a YouTube comment like “Express yourself with Vodaphone.” Regardless of whether the excitement is genuine or ‘enhanced’ you have to give Ogilvy & Mather credit. India is coocoo  for Zoozoo.

Channel creates more video (film) art to promote their brand

 

When you own a premium brand you have to spend premium dollars to support it.

Channel has just released their newest commercial / mini-movie and as before, have done a wonderful job. Last time it was Nicole Kidman in a three minute short film (or a three minute long commercial). This time around Audrey Tautou – one of France’s national treasures – graces the screen for Channel. North Americans might remember her as ‘Amelie’ in one of the few French films to get theatre time back in 2001. The Director of that film – Jean-Pierre Jeunet directs this commercial and was given a free hand in creating Channel’s newest filmette. Naturally he cast his favourite actress (it didn’t hurt that Tautou is also playing Coco Channel in the recently released film ’Coco Avant Channel’ in France) in the lead role.

The story (not that it matters a whit) centres around a chance encounter on a train to Istanbul. Tautou spends the remaining two minutes waiting and hoping to hook up with the handsome stranger. A sudden romance on a night train to an exotic destination – ya, it`s cliche. Romance and mystery and the promise of adventure – that`s what you buy when you drop $100 or more for a little bottle of purfume – the promise of something exciting. That`s exactly what Channel is selling, and they are quite good at it.

You have to give Jeunet top marks for his direction. He spared no expense (watch `the making of` to see what kind of coin they dropped on this little video) at creating some asbolutely stunning sequences. He`s come a long way since his last big North American film - he directed the last Alien film (I think it was called Alien Abomination). Like the perfume Jeunet is selling, this video won`t be for everyone  but for those who it targets, he hits the mark perfectly.

Is Starbucks ‘reaching’ or just reaching out.

Starbucks is like Apple in many ways. It has a loyal – some would say fanatical – following, it sells a premium product and it differentiates itself on the experience around the product, rather than simply on the specific features/benefits of the product itself.

Apple however, seems to be flourishing (relatively speaking) during these tough economic times whereas Starbucks is searching to find it’s soul (and bottom line) and to remind everyone that there is still something very special about the Sbux experience.

Howard Shultz CEO of Starbucks is seen above in this video posted to the Starbucks YouTube channel. Although the stated audience for this video are the Starbucks ‘partners’ (employees) it is clear that the intent is to announce to the world that Starbucks is reaching out to all of its constituents – customers, prospects, influencers and employees to tell them that something ‘important’ is going on. (Hint – it’s really just a marketing campaign)

Starbucks is supporting a major marketing and advertising program (very unusual for Starbucks) through a number of social media activities such as YouTube video contests and ‘alerting’ twitter followers to watch out for the new campaign. Clearly you have to be a zealot to want to be notified of any one’s new marketing campaign.

The style of the video – honest, comfortable and personal is good – it supports the overall brand image and hints at something important going on. Just the same, after watching the video I can’t help but conclude – so what? I visit Starbucks mostly for off site meetings, the $4 coffee is just the cost of renting the furniture for a half an hour. Starbucks is not a movement or way of life for me no matter how hard they try to make it so.

I acknowledge that selling $4 coffee is tough during tough times. Interestingly one of the employee/partners ( all seemingly mandated to wear black )  mentions in the video that they do indeed offer alternatives to the $4 coffee.  Starbucks cannot and will not be able to compete on price with anyone so I’m not sure mentioning this does them a lot of good.

I think the short term attention will improve their outlook for a time but I can’t help but think this is more than reaching out – it’s almost a cry for help to all the fanboys and girls out there to keep the faith and help to keep the Starbucks experience alive.

The consequence of tv / online video convergence.

Computer Monitor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Video sages declare convergence is upon us!

Chad Hurley, CEO and founder of YouTube declared earlier this year that we are now in a transition where the use of, and differences between TV and online video are beginning to blur. In a video interview for Sky News Hurley suggests that consumption of online video and television content will simply coalesce into ‘video’ that will be viewed wherever and whenever the user wants – in the family room, on your laptop, on a mobile device or on other portable network devices.

Paul Sagan took it a step further in his key note address yesterday at the Streaming Media East Conference by declaring that we have reached the ‘tipping point’ where consumers will now start to view online video the same way they view television. Sagan, the CEO of the global content delivery network, Akamai refers to Malcolm Gladwell’s use of the term ’tipping point’  being when a critical mass is reached in the adoption of new product or technology a new market/service becomes firmly and finally entrenched.

Sagan points to recent online events such as the Obama Inauguration and NCAA “March Madness” where comparable numbers of viewers watched events online and on television. Sagan also points out that online HD video is the game changer where “Internet quality now matches TV.”

Ignoring the fact that it is in both of their interests to herald the arrival of a convergence that will bring millions of dollars (assuming YouTube works out the advertising thing) to their companies, it’s difficult to argue that convergence is not happening. If the only question left is when, not if, then what are the consequences of this convergence?

1. Ad dollars will migrate. Assuming a fixed promotion pool television, newspaper and radio advertising will continue to take a hit. Old media companies have to adapt to survive. Denial isn’t a particularly good long term strategy.

2. The video ad unit will never be the same. Ad agencies have followed a simple formula over the past 50 years: Create something memorable in 30 seconds. No standards exist online and in spite of everyones’ best efforts no ‘standard’ will emerge in the short term. Online viewing behaviours and content formats continue to change – so will the ads that pay for all that content.

3. Interactivity changes everything. By and large video is still video,  today – a linear medium consumed in a relatively ‘lean-back’ position. Immersive technologies, gaming, behavioural targeting of content (not ads), multiple endings of entertainment content, next generation ad placement (real time changes to video), new 3D formats and who knows what else is going to change how we consume and monetize content.  

4. Content formats are fluid. Movies are 90 minutes, television is either 1 hour (44 minutes) or 1/2 hour (22 minutes). Pretty simple. Advertising will have to adapt to new content formats. “Two minutes is the ‘right length’ for an online  promotional video, correct?”  Who knows? “No one watches any video online for more than 30 minutes right?” Wrong. Advertisers and television producers set the agenda and pretty much stuck to it over the last 50 television years. Online is different. The Internet is a big sandbox where everyone gets to play. We will continue to discover new styles and formats and approaches to online content creation for the rest of our viewing days. Not only will content owners begin to shift their content online, they will begin to do things with their content that they never could have imagined in the next few years

5. Communications will continue to become much more visual… more engaging. Show me don’t tell me. No, text isn’t dead, but it’s doing less and less of the work online.

6. Online measurement/metrics will drive results. Advertisers will begin to see exactly with whom, why, where, when and how their ads worked. Privacy issues aside, we’ll begin telling everyone – either overtly through our actions or covertly by our behaviours – how we feel about their content.

7. Sharing and collaborating really is a big deal. Engaging social networks and reaching out to the twittering masses isn’t possible via television. Online not only is it possible it’s necessary. Creating content that is intended to be shared (and critiqued and reconstructed and parodied) adds a new level of complexity to content creation.

Online video top priority for ad execs

Brightroll Networks, one of the largest video advertising networks has published it’s Q1/09 report which surveyed 150 ad agencies across the US.  Tod Sacerdoti, CEO and founder of Brightroll stated “Online video advertising is increasingly being pushed to the forefront of marketing budget discussions amongst agency executives and CMOs.”

Some highlights from the report:

1. Despite media backlash, pre-roll is still the dominant and most effective ad unit.
2. In spite of the increase in popularity of online video advertising a lack of data around video advertising efficacy is stopping some from pursuing online video advertising more aggressively.
3. 87% of respondents to the survey stated the plan to spend more on online video advertising. (13% said less)
4. The report concluded that agencies need to stop re purposing TV content and use multiple, lower-cost creative assets that better target response rates for campaigns online.
5 The majority of respondents expect online CPM prices to decrease either marginally or significantly next year.

 

t-mobile creates another viral ‘event’.

A few months a go it was a flash mob dancing in Liverpool station. This time around it’s a sing-along in Trafalgar Square.

T-Mobile continues to embrace event-based promotions to support their Life’s for Sharing  marketing campaign. It’s working well for them. T-Mobile enticed a large crowd (mob) to gather in Trafalgar square to take part in a massive ‘dance activity’ -  like the Liverpool stunt, but bigger. Instead of dancing (selected) people were handed microphones and the mob was encouraged to belt out a fourteen thousand strong version of Hey Jude. Multiple cameras throughout the audience captured the love.

The video makes you smile and I have to imagine that Sir Paul approves (legally or otherwise). While it is different in structure from the Liverpool Station video it is similar enough in approach that I don’t believe it will create quite the same buzz this time around. It’s still better than most viral videos in that it directly and obviously supports a specific market positioning – ‘Lifes for Sharing’, it is very well done and it is very engaging (very shareable). I imagine T-Mobile will  be back at it in a few months with something even ‘newer and fresher.’

The back-story around these events is almost as important as the events themselves. Pink was in the crowd to perform a few songs and to work the crowd into a performance-ready pitch. There are as many “I was this close to Pink” camera phone videos as there are “This is me taking part in the song” videos on YouTube. This participatory approach is very smart as it promotes viral and social engagement .

It’s interesting to wade through the criticism of these types of events: “It’s fake”, “It’s staged”, “It’s just a big ad for T-Mobile”. Sure it is, so what? All those people and cameras… and Pink…  didn’t show up on their own. One blogger commented that she refused payment to promote the event on her blog and was torn about even mentioning the video. I’m surprised that people still don’t realize that video seeding and PR and a million other promotional activities are an integral (essential) part of the ‘viral’ success of these videos.

Are viral videos just sponsored entertainment?

 

Who would bother forwarding an infomercial on to a friend?

Millions of people as it turns out. The above video is a rap remix of the original Slap Chop video that already has 1.4 million views. This video has been seen by close to 900,000 people and other versions (they’ve ‘sliced and diced’ the original into a variety of styles and formats) have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. These numbers don’t include  the  parody videos that are now starting to surface. That’s millions of views for an infomercial.

Vince Shlomi- the presenter who helped to make the owners of the ShamWow product a lot of money is back with another over-the-top delivery that heralds the glory of this new kitchen chopping device. It’s campy, it’s silly, and it’s exhausting but it does something that most other viral videos do not: it sells. It demonstrates the features and benefits of the product very clearly. And it is memorable.

The top commercial viral video at the moment is the Samsung Extreme Sheep LED Art video. (8 million views) It’s clever and fun to watch but has little, if any connection to the Samsung LED monitors it ‘promotes’. Most viral videos are really ‘sponsored entertainment’ with a very weak direct link to the product or service they are supposed to promote. Viral video producers are very careful to point out to advertisers that being to ‘salesy’ will turn viewers off (and also lessen their chances of winning awards).

The  T-mobile Dance video by contrast is absolutely brilliant and does what many viral videos do not – it includes the product and the experience (in this case – people sharing the moment with their camera-phones) as part of the video. Certainly the connection is not overt – but at least there is an obvious connection. Going from the hearding of  light-suit adorned sheep to large screen television screen is a bit more of a stretch.

Entertainment should never be the goal – if it is then you should sell tickets. Effectiveness should be the measure of success. Did your video sell product, inform your customers and prospects or ‘support the brand’ in a meaningful way?

Will Slap Chop win any awards?  No way. It will be ridiculed by ‘serious’ marketers.

Did it entertain?  If you are a big ‘kitchen demo rap’ fan – then it delivered the goods.

Did it help to raise awareness of the product?  Absolutely!

Was it memorable?  I won’t soon forget it.

Did it help to sell product? I don’t know the numbers but I would have to say yes – if for no other reason than all of the Slap Chop parody video creators having to rush out and buy the device to use in their parody videos. (Perhaps that is a new sub-market.)