Lairig Marketing

User-Generated Content Circa 1956

In what might become a week-long series, today’s post looks at the fever-pitch topic of “content.” Almost as prevalent as articles about Facebook, Pinterest, and “The Five Reasons You Need A Social Media Strategy,” you can’t surf very far without tripping over flotsam like this, from the current issue of B2B Magazine: “Content Marketing Becoming Vital.” zzzzzzzz.

Our perspective for today’s post looks at our old friend, user-generated content, which we took to the woodshed back in January of 2010. The most ironic thing about UGC over these last three years or so is that marketers believe they’ve invented something.

As with other digital marketing “innovations,” they are wrong. Consumers have been submitting “content” to brands for a very, very long time. The fact that it can now be done digitally doesn’t delete history.

Consider this date – July 11, 1956. That’s when 25 families from across the U.S. descended on Disney’s new California theme park for a free week of fun. Among them were the Barstows, whose nutty dad recorded the whole thing on film.

They got there by entering a promotion for 3M Scotch tape (or as we would call it today, by SUBMITTING USER-GENERATED CONTENT). All contestants needed to do was submit an entry that paid off on this half sentence: “I like “SCOTCH” Brand Cellophane Tape because…”

Little four-year-old Danny Barstow won for writing the words above and those below on a big poster:

WHEN SOME THINGS TEAR THEN I CAN JUST USE IT.

Actually, he didn’t write it himself. But he did add “DANNY” in all mismatched letters at the bottom.

Hard to know why 3M selected Danny as a winner. Probably because the Barstow family of five submitted SIX entries, all in one big-ass box. (As proof of how consumers have always been more clever than marketers, the Barstows cashed in their FOUR first-class tickets for FIVE seats in coach.)

The interesting footnote, as you might know, is that Barstow the elder put together a 34-minute 31-second documentary of the whole story in 1995 (and devotes the first six minutes or so to the family’s Scotch Tape contest shenanigans – see the film here).

In 2008, the Library of Congress selected the film, titled Disneyland Dream, for special preservation. How’s that for user-generated content?

And here’s something you don’t see with today’s contests. To enter, you had to submit proof of purchase of a roll of tape. Multiply the Barstow’s SIX rolls by the alleged million entrants (0.6% of U.S. population at the time), and you’ve got some real “social media ROI.”

One wonders about little Danny now, perhaps a grandfather. And about Danny III. No doubt wailing away at his iPad all day, entering dopey contests left and right.

Or, just maybe, Grandpa makes him do it old school.

Third Time Won’t Be A Charm – Part 2 of 2

In Part 1 of this very short series, we looked at an example of a company attempting to launch a new product category not once, not twice, but three times. In the end, we don’t think Pepsi Next will be successful at the third attempt by Pepsi to develop a “mid-calorie” cola.

Today we look at another example of three swings at the ball. This one won’t end in a strike-out. But the outcome might be worse. This could end up as a never-sending series of foul balls.

How ironic that 3D for mass entertainment is on its third major iteration. The first two unsustainable 3D attempts by Hollywood in the 1950s and late 1970s are well documented. Yet here we are again, with pretty much the same goals and technology underpinnings.

And, as in the Pepsi Next case, a market the consumer never gave a hint of asking for.

Same inputs, same challenges. There is some chicken and egg in here, but basically here are the barriers to mass adoption of 3D:

• Lack of content
• Need for special glasses for viewing
• Costs of access (DVDs, special TVs, movie ticket prices)
• Discomfort with viewing experience

As before, the “3D hype” is not living up to expectations put forth over the course of 2010. Still not enough movies, still not enough purchase of movie tickets, still not enough sales of 3D-capable TV sets, still those expensive, clunky, butt-ugly glasses.

There are some major differences this time, though, that will keep this category alive, albeit on life support (or to go back to our baseball metaphor – an endless pitcher-hitter dual). The viewing opportunities have spread to the computer and gaming console, and to the smartphone (see Sprint 3D EVO). In addition, manufacturers are working maniacally to make cheaper glasses and/or viewing panels that eliminate the need for said glasses.

So 3D will survive this time. But why won’t it grow to the sky?

As with the Pepsi Next example, we have a solution with very little need. We already live in a three-dimensional world. When we retreat, escape, we seek comfort in two dimensions. If we want entertainment in three dimensions, we go to the theme park. It’s a reason gaming like Call of Duty, et al. will be a 3D success story – it is not escape, but immersion.

Long term, where 3D ends up will be dictated by Gen Y and/or their kids. If 3D sticks around long enough this time, entertainment habits might be broken. People might be wearing those stupid glasses wherever they go.

BTB Thought Leadership – Part 2

Yesterday we looked at thought leadership through the eyes of a business white paper. However, since there are a billion of them published every day, you’re going to need to expand your own thoughts on this one. What I’m about to reveal will take you very little in the way of a financial investment, but it will be major in terms of time. So if thought leadership can’t move up on your priority list, then stop reading now and come back tomorrow.

Video Killed The White Paper Star
comScore says we viewed nearly 5 BILLION videos online in January, 2011. Can’t fight ‘em, so join ‘em. Buy an affordable Flip camera and download some free/cheap video-editing software. Or hire two kids on a per-job basis from the local liberal arts college (rumor has it there are still a few film students out there).

Tales From The Script
Don’t just read the white paper into the camera. Create an outline of what you want the viewer to get out of the experience in…drumroll…three minutes. That’s all you get in the online video world. You are not going to keep anyone’s attention for longer than that

CE-No
Unless your CEO is a Steve Jobs-type visionary, keep them off camera. CEOs come across as blowhards (history will show, for example, that the “visionary” Jack Welch was nothing but a bully). As we implied in yesterday’s post, your company representative has to be someone from the guts of the organization who knows what he or she is talking about – who can gain credibility from the target audience.

Go Mo-bile
Roger Daltrey was way ahead of himself – everybody has indeed gone mobile. When shooting your three-minute thought leadership videos, have the speaker move around the room. Or demonstrate whatever it is he or she is talking about – a little bit of show and tell. Or get outside, walk down the street, the park, anywhere that can maintain the viewers’ interest.

Location Location Location
While it is nice to think the world will line up at your website to see your video, the data says no. You need to post it on your LinkedIn page, create a YouTube channel, put it on the Sales force laptops, flash drives, etc. Let’s call it the busman’s version of going viral.

Keep your wits about you. This will seem like an extraordinary amount of effort to get off the ground – the preparation, the support crew, the time, the curation. And the small number of video views, initially, will seem like it wasn’t worth the bother.

Stick with it. Thought leadership is a definite “no pain, no gain” situation.

The Fable Of The TV Cord Cutter (Part 4 of Many)

So if TV cord cutting is really all the rage, how to explain FLO TV? This unit of Qualcomm, the big telecoms chip provider, announced recently that it would halt all sales of its “mobile TV” devices. Those that opted to get FLO TV piped through their smartphones will continue to get service “until Spring 2011,” and then, well, who knows?

A year ago, as consumers were still chewing over the FLO TV offering, a research firm called TeleAnalytics forecast that “broadcast mobile TV” would become a $2.8 billion industry by 2013, with 50 million U.S. users. I wonder what it thinks now.

FLO TV scotched this whole thing from jump. It was so far ahead of cord cutting, it didn’t know to position it as such. Instead, it tried to build a complement to in-home TV viewing. A consumer could purchase a small device for $250 or so, and pay a three-year contract of $9 a month ALL UPFRONT with no chance of refund, for the pleasure of watching a handful of stations “on the go.”

What killed it? The smartphone explosion and the lock that programmers have on content. Once again, as we saw in Part 2 of this series, no prime time in prime time.

So mobile TV goes back to being, for the most part, a carrier opportunity. But as we noted a few days ago, don’t expect Sprint or AT&T to get rich on “smartphone TV,” since demand is low.

Cord cutting is not going to take root on a lousy form factor with high costs. FLO TV lost out on both. See Netflix instead, raking in subscribers and revenues for its streaming video service. A simple conclusion would be to say, “Aha! So there are the cord cutters.”

But we don’t know. There is no data yet to suggest that these new “Netflix streamers” don’t also still subscribe to cable. And a Netflix-streaming-through-the-Xbox scenario sounds like a typical cable household to me. Plus, the cable/satellite critical average-revenue-per-user metric keeps rising through it all.

One thing to keep an eye on is Netflix’s churn rate, which has always run twice the rate of cable and satellite. Why pay $9 when you can get it on Hulu for free?

And that’s where we take this tomorrow – a look at the logic of the cord cutting decision. Or lack thereof.

The Fable Of The TV Cord Cutter (Part 2 of Many)

To see how slanted the comment-o-sphere is toward cord cutting, check out the number, and temperature, of comments dropped under this “article” titled “Cable Subscribers Flee…” (P.S. Remember what I said about linkbaiting headlines yesterday?)

Last night the volume of comments had reached nearly 5000. FIVE THOUSAND !!! Almost all of them were anti-cable. A majority were cord cutters, detailing their lives out from under the Cable Cabal. Here’s a sample:

“Ditched the cable/dish services nearly two years ago and am totally satisfied with Netflix and the Roku service that allows me access to so much more. Netflix is now expanding with services from Hulu/Amazon, etc.. I pay around $100 a year, have access to tons of movies, tv shows of all sorts, news, concerts, etc. with no commercials.”

Read it a couple more times. This is very important. These commenters always leave two things out, and overstate most everything else.

“Totally satisfied with Netflix and the Roku service...” >>> Neither one allows you to watch live broadcast TV. Yet here is what Roku says on its site: “Watch current seasons of House…whenever you want.” That’s a lie. If I want to watch it the minute it airs, I can’t.

“I pay around $100 a year.” >>> You pay a lot more than that. The cheapest Netflix subscription is $9 a month, so already you’re trapped in a lie. But you also have to pay Roku for its little streaming box. That could be $100 alone, if you want it in HD.

And those people who boast about live sports over the Web? Ask them how much they pay ESPN and MLB.com for the privilege. It never seems to make the comments section.

And then overstatements like “access to tons of movies, etc.” Cable and satellite provide that too. Check out the On Demand section of any of their sites.

“…with no commercials.” What? You mentioned Hulu.

This stuff is pandemic. Just yesterday, Steve Rubel – another one of these “names” everyone is supposed to plotz every time he Twitters or blogs but we have no idea why – ruined a decent Ad Age article about future Internet broadband capacity issues by including garbage like this:

“Digital prime time is here.” Again, there is no live prime time over the Internet.

“Xbox, Netlfix [sic] and Hulu supplant the TV nets as the new kings of prime time.” Nope. See above.

“…we may opt for ad-free on-demand rentals or all-you-can eat subscriptions.” Meaning you will swap one subscription for another.

As you read the tons (!) of cord-cutting articles, and comments, over the next few months, keep these two points in mind:

• There is no “prime time” on the Internet.
• Streaming long-form video to your TV is not free.

Nothing good ever is.

Movies On Smartphones: The Tipping Point

Even though there will be a surprising, unexpected slowdown in the growth of HDTVs this holiday season (see: sh&tty economy), tons of them will be sold, adding to the tons already in homes across the U.S.

So why is there so much talk about the following?

• Cable and satellite companies are screwed
• Everyone is going to cut the cord and watch “TV” on their laptops
• People are dying to watch full-length movies and TV shows on their smartphone

The data don’t substantiate it. Especially the latter claim. An interesting report was released by Nielsen last week. The research company asked iPhone users what sort of media they consume over their smartphone on a regular basis. While more than half said they regularly listened to music or read news on the iPhone, just 12% said they watch movies and only 11% claimed to watch TV programs. (To be totally scientific here, I’d need to know what Nielsen meant by “regularly,” but since the company asked about all types of entertainment, we can use the data on a relative basis at least.)

You could say, “Well give it time. Let the companies push more content toward smartphones. And let the people adapt to this new mode of media consumption.”

Except that Nielsen was smart enough to also ask iPad users the same question. And even though the iPad has only been around for about 5 minutes, here are the percentages:

• Percent who said they watched movies regularly on the iPad = 32%
• Percent who said they watched TV shows regularly on the iPad = 33%

So I’m here to call the top in the market for “watching movies and TV programs on your smartphone.” The tipping point has come and gone. The iPad wins.

Why there would be anyone today hard at work on a project to pump more “TV” content to smartphone users is beyond me.

And if you happen to work for a magazine, and have been assigned to get your content configured for smartphones – shoot yourself. The same Nielsen research showed that the percentage of iPhone users who regularly read a magazine on their phones hasn’t even hit double digits.

Yet. And most likely never.