How many people actually saw the commercial?

Seth Godin offers an explanation for why Nielsen is just now getting around to rating viewership of commercials:

The answer is that the networks are a critical client of Nielsen, and the last thing in the universe they want is to rate commercials. The surprising thing is that many advertisers don’t want the ratings either. Why? Because as soon as you measure, you need to admit you failed. So you need to tell your boss you wasted a few million dollars…

The Internet has been messing with (disrupting?) traditional media since the beginning but I’ve always felt the real disruption would occur in the advertising arena. Who is listening and watching our commercial messages? What do they think about them? And how are they reacting to the messages? Answers: Lots of people. They love them. Racing to make a purchase.

Will Google Audio shake up radio advertising?

Steve Rubel points to a ZDNet report on Google’s plan for a product “…that dynamically generates and changes a terrestrial radio commercial based on demographics and news/conditions in the local market. According to those who have seen the demo, if it’s really hot in one area, McDonalds can switch from their regular burger ad to one that touts their cool drinks and frozen treats. In addition, while most advertising campaigns require a $20,000 spend, the new Google solution would require a mere $200 minimum.”

I sure would like to see that demo.

And I’d love to know what Chris Anderson thinks of Google’s plans to sell radio advertising. In his book, The Long Tail, Anderson demonstrates a clear understanding of how advertising works:

“The traditional advertising market is a classic, hit-centric industry where high cost enforce a focus on the biggest sellers and buyers. The way it works is that an advertiser, say General Motors, has a marketing budget. GM commissions an advertising firm to create some ads and then a media buyer to place those ads in television, radio, and print and online.

Meanwhile on the other side, those ad-driven media have their own ad sales forces. they pitch the advertisers and their media buyers on the virtues of their advertising vehicles. If all goes well, millions of dollars change hands. All of it is labor-intensive and made even more costly by the expensive schmoozing that’s required in businesses where a lack of trusted performances metrics makes salesmanship and personal relationships key to winning business.

These days salespeople don’t just twist arms, they also serve as advertising consultants, informing advertisers about the most effective ways to use a given medium or brainstorming creative new approaches to getting the advertisers’ message out. That works well enough, but because it’s expensive, it imposes a subtle cost: a focus on just the largest and most lucrative of potential advertisers.”

Today, there are thousands of small Google advertisers who had never advertised anywhere before. Because of the self-service model, the measurable performance, the low cost of entry, and the ability to constantly tweak and improve the ads, advertisers are flocking to this new marketplace.”

It’s going to be interesting (Read: scary as hell) to see if Google can/will fundamentally change the way radio advertising is bought and sold.

Clear Channel considers :01 Blinks

In early 2005, I linked to an Adrants item about Cadillac trying out five second commercials (and made the obvious reference to Max Headroom). According to Advertising Age, Clear Channel is considering one-second commercials (called Blinks)

The Blinks could be used in a number of ways. Clear Channel’s Creative Services Group crafted a demonstration spot using the McDonald’s jingle, and placed it between one hip-hop song and another. The group also created a Blink for BMW’s Mini Cooper with a horn honking and man’s voice saying “Mini,” and placed it before miniaturized news reports. (Neither marketer has a deal with Clear Channel for Blinks.) Other audio mnemonics that could use Blinks are the Intel chime and the NBC bells.

Sounds like a publicity stunt but who knows. Not sure how this syncs with CC’s “less clutter” philosophy. If anybody has heard one of these (or, better still, could send me a wee air-check), gimme a shout. [Thanks, Jackie]

What will the boss think?

Seth Godin calls this the most important “marketing pothole”:

Great marketing pleases everyone on the team, sooner or later. But at the beginning, great marketing pleases almost no one. At the beginning, great marketing is counter-intuitive, non-obvious, challenging and apparently risky. Of course your friends, shareholders, stakeholders and bosses won’t like it. But they’re not doing the marketing, you are.

Ad agencies dropping “radio” for “audio”

Something called the Streaming Media East conference was held earlier this week in New York. One of the discussion panels was “The Changing Face of Internet Radio” and –according to a couple of the panelists– some of the major national ad agencies are dropping the term “radio” in favor of a more accurate lable: “audio.” One panelist went so far as to point out that “audio” is a cooler word than “radio.” (Gulp)

Two of our networks (Radio Iowa and Wisconsin Radio Network) have the word “radio” in their names. Hmm. “Audio Iowa?” That’s a lot of vowels. “Wisconsin Audio Network.” I don’t know.

You can watch the panel discussion here. [via RAIN]

One in five say web ads most effective

More than one in five U. S. adults, or 22 percent, say the Internet is the most effective way to grab their attention about a product or service, according to a report released this week by Burst Media. The report, based on a March survey of 3,700 adult Web users, also found that magazines, newspapers and radio lagged behind both the Internet and TV, with 12 percent, 10 percent, and 6 percent, respectively. [Online Media Daily]

I guess I’m more disturbed by radio’s ranking than the overall validty of the research. The part I have no trouble buying is 57 percent of respondents saying that the Net is where they turn first to research products they might purchase. Absolutely.

Now that I’m thinking about ads, here’s something I wish I had time to try: record all of the commercials on one of our local radio stations between say, 6am and 9am. Then just mash ’em up in a montage of 10-15 seconds per spot. Just to get a gestalt of the commercial messages. Maybe I’ll do an hour. Somebody remind me.

Mark Cuban says bring back live commercials

Dallas Mavricks owner Mark Cuban says bring back the live commercial so neither the viewer (nor the advertiser) will know what to expect until it happens. Calling them Reality Commercials, Cuban claims implementing such a thing would not be a technical challenge or a creative one but it would entail a whole lot more work. I don’t watch TV ads now but I just might watch a few if they were live. Could we make this work in our network newscasts? Doubtful. Our clients probably woudn’t like it. Our sales reps wouldn’t like it. Our anchors wouldn’t like it. But our listeners might. [via AdRants]

Net ad spending to overtake radio in 2008

Zenith Optimedia Group has revised it’s global ad spending outlook and now predicts the Internet will overtake worldwide outdoor ad spending next year, and will catch up with radio (which will have a 7.9% share, down from 8.5% in 2005) in 2008.

If you’re a radio station manager, you a) do not believe this forecast for one minute; b) think it might be true but have no clue what to do about it; c) don’t care if it’s true or not because you plan to retire in a couple of years anyway. [Radio Business Report]

Got milk?

Sounds like SC and LA have lifted the black-out on the breakup: Lance used his satellite radio program to talk about the breakup, saying lots of nice things about his former love. And Sheryl was talking with Ellen DeGeneres. The 44-year-old rocker thanked fans for their support and noted that — despite the heartache — she is free and single again. “‘All my friends say I have to get right back on the bike,” Crow quipped, “‘and I keep saying, ‘Maybe not a bike.'”

Value of New Media vs. Old Media

Jeff Jarvis on the the Rockeboom ad auction:

And here we have in a microcosm the explanation of why media is so horribly out of sync today: The public is valuing new media much more than the old, but the advertisers still value the old. Most every newspaper and in many cases TV networks and magazines have much larger audiences online, but the revenue for their old media properties remains much higher because the advertisers and agencies still value the old and the safe. They want metrics. They want control. They want guarantees. This, in turn, makes big publishers and producers play it safe because they don’t want to mess with the cash cow. And that means that advertisers miss the opportunity to reach a larger, younger, smarter audience in the new medium, which is — supposedly — what they’re dying to do. And that means that big media companies now face competition from a thousand Rocketbooms and a million Gawkers.

And if you are in the media/advertising business and you’ve never heard of Rocketboom or Gawker… you’re probably already screwed. Tick, tock…tick, tock.