RP: Mr. Donaldson, what lies ahead for new opportunities, new technology and the digital advertising industry. Especially in Germany, it is often more about fears leading to regulation. Cookies and targeting are under attack through policy advisors, we discuss opt-out, etc. Where as an industry did we take a wrong turn?

DD: Of all the things about which we could talk – how can I improve the user experience to create interactive experiences that deliver value – we are seemingly stuck on “how many actually clicks did my ad generate and get me to that client’s website”. We are consumed by seeing data as opposed to humans. For me, the first question you should ask yourself with technology is “How can I make things better for people?” Which then leads to some kind of commitment – activation that creates an emotional connection. That’s what designers and creative people do. They are engaging storytellers with a job to entertain. The danger is when we purely think about business justifications and ROI and data streams in isolation. Then we forget relationships. If we only look at clicks and such things, then it’s just like a pimp seeing people as way of making money and a number’s game. How do I get ‘your (click) data?’ is kind of like “How will I get you to spend more money?” which equals another notch on the bedpost. And so we result in prostituting brands, instead of building relationships that will last a lifetime.

RF: In the discussion of opt-out clauses, there are many opponents and critics of the Interactive Advertising Bureau.

DD: I agree that the IAB has to respond from the perspective of protecting both consumers and an industry it represents. If people want an opt-out, we have to offer that. But equally I think what is on offer is too simplistic and merely a response to the EU guidelines, rather than a ‘real’ usable solution. Consumers do not want to opt out of the technology – especially from technology companies they know nothing about – but they rather object to ‘this or that’ brand or product’s message. Think of how it is when you are shopping in a mall: You go into one store and you avoid the seller saying “I’m just browsing” and then five minutes later, in the shop next door, they find themselves engaged in a conversations about EXACTLY the same product and happy to talk and give away personal information. Because they feel that THAT particular assistant can help them make a better decision… If technology can imitate that approach somehow, then we have a winning concept.

RF: Instead we focus on fear – and people who are being spied on from advertising and feel persecuted.

DD: Because as technologist we approach this all wrong. The way we focus on our data analysis on the net against buying behaviour is like: We are rummaging through the garbage of people we have no prior relationship with and we know exactly what they have done. And then we have the nerve, to knocking on their very doors and say “Hi, I know that you bought this, would you be interested in buying this too?” We have moved from “ID Theft” to “ID Rape” such is the apparent and understandable reaction from consumers. We must find ways to control our approach to technology, which in many approaches is actually getting worse for the consumer.

RF: One reason is that most users do not understand what information they share and leave behind. Then greatly react later in the astonishment and horror. Because it is an abstract topic for most consumers.

But let’s be clear. This is not an online advertising problem. When I tell people what companies do with do with credit card information, it is no different. I’ve even heard a leading card company speak on stage about the data they have can even predict the behavior of potential divorces through analysing change in shopping habits.

RF: Of course. The supermarket chain Target sends pregnant women advertisements for products for pregnancy before they have even bought any. Because they can read the pregnancy from the other department changes.

DD: Yes. But no one makes the statement: Let us ban credit cards! The problem exists across many areas of modern life. But as I said, this is not an online problem is a human vs technology problem.

RF: And how do you handle that?

DD: As an advertising technology company we have as an ethical and moral obligation. We know what we could do practically anything given technological advancements. But we have to filter this through “how can we make consumers’ lives better” through things such as relevance. The old concepts such as Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook’s statement suggesting “privacy will no longer be an issue in the future” is totally and utterly disconnected from reality. Because as soon as something goes wrong, answers are demanded and changes are sought. If people are willing to liken products on Facebook or to subscribe to an email newsletter that’s one thing. They may click on ads because they the interested, that too is great. But people do it if it “only” if it adds value for them and they feel in control. It is what happens afterwards that is the debatable issue.

RF: Which it why it must actually work for both sides. Consumers and advertisers equally.

DD: Yes, and technology here is neutral. If we develop technology so that the information becomes more relevant to the end user, and then assists the consumer where and when they need something – and filtering out things they have no interest in, then it makes sense. It’ moves to a virtual shop assistant that aids the consumer choice, instead of a technological fear of change.

RF: Fear of change is also nothing new. When the railroad was invented, people were afraid that they might not survive at this speed.

DD: I think it maybe a human problem in not so much a fear of technology, but that of change. It is a natural human emotion. And it is that, that we must understand. We have to make things better for consumers – give them relevant content, improved user experiences. When I put the product in the fridge and detects what is there, what is not or when is about to expire and can alert me somehow – to protect my health or help order me more, then it makes my shopping easier. Yes it is change, but its done in a way where the benefits out way the fear of change. Thats the only way to help consumers adopt change.

RF: It’s always about how it makes my life easier. When I first saw the project from Tesco in Korea, instead of advertising posters hung in subway stations, there were images of supermarket shelves, with product codes, that can be scanned via smartphone and order them directly, I thought “great, that’s brilliant!” I hate pointless standing around, waiting for the train. If I can do my shopping here, that’s great. Since no advertising must be suspended. If I can buy there and then, which is more direct and actually helps me.

DD: And so we see something fundamental in the role of technology vs human needs and equally conscious of fear. So to me it is about communication first, technology second. My role as Head of Innovation is that of a translator between consumers and brands mainly. How do we get the right kind of message at the right time in the right way to the end person? Then, how can I find innovative ways that assist people given technological advances. As a result it is then how can I help educate brands about what can be done so they can deliver what their customers actually want. It isn’t technology for the sake of it, it is about people helping people. That has got to be the core essence of any innovator.

RF: How do you work through your process? It’s is just part of your job to always look to see what is coming next and what innovations companies should adjust to?

DD: The funny thing is: What comes next is different depending on the part of the world. Every culture filters things differently, each country has its own strengths – and weaknesses. I identify these strengths and needs in other countries. And have to go through that filter about a technology or product innovation in order to be accepted in another country. In Germany, for instance, privacy sensitivity is more prevalent then in some other countries. On the other hand you need to check what and where resistance will come from? For example, the strong reaction to NFC and RFID in the U.S. citing “spy chips” compared to Japan where it is more accepted as a way of simplifying purchases. We have to analyse culture as well as technology to secure advancements.

RF: By William Gibson coined the phrase “The future is here, it is just unevenly distributed.” So I guess it is your job to find and figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit together?

DD: Perfect example. In South Korea and Japan, we have a decade of networks using 3.5G mobile standards because of government backing from the outset. It is in reality five years before it will be en masse in Europe that way. But when it happens part of that cultural difference of the “East leading technology” will disappear. I am already seeing the roll-out between Japan and US is not as distinct as as it once was. Walking around consumer electronics shops in Tokyo now is no more exciting than going to an Apple Store in London now. And especially when we consider the West’s leading in things like social media and mobile integration today. Sure there are still differences, but when you consider there was never an open “app” or “handset feature choice” so distinct in Japan in the way there was in the West due to the way mobile providers rolled out their operating platforms – and so often features were more controlled by manufacturers as opposed to individual app developers, for example, which has seen the West springboard in advances that Japanese consumers today are hungry for. So if you understand the reasons behind the cultural differences, then you can to some degree predict what is to come next. And that to me is going to see more of a universal flat-lining of the cultural differences as far as technology is concerned.

Translated from German, as originally published on W&V DE

Subscribe to my RSS feed  |  Get E-mail Updates

There is no longer TV, online, or mobile specific video – it is all just digital video. Video has converged on a digital platform through the advancements and adoptions in both consumer and marketing technologies. Think of it as engagement everywhere – a marriage of online and TV.

As consumers, we are actually watching more television now than ever before in history and 60% of us are on a second screen device while we are “watching” TV. So why does this matter so much to marketers?

TV content and advertising is not shifting to online, in fact they are both growing together and more importantly the lines are starting to blur. Most people are now familiar with the “in-stream” ads that play online before a requested video, which can often offer a near identical experience to the same spots on TV. Traditional agencies and agency departments are responsible for trafficking and measuring in-stream video, yet they are faced with an endless amount of requirements and varying standards with each publisher’s video player. This inefficiency is time consuming and costing significant money to agencies, and in turn to their clients.

I spent the last month traveling and educating TV account planners and broadcast traffickers on the in’s and out’s of online marketing – the past and the present, and discussing the future of the marketing industry. One of the themes that came out of these discussions is everything is becoming digital – :30 TV spots to billboards to mobile devices. If a connected screen exists, it is a digital channel.

The folks I’ve spent time with agree, but something is missing. The missing piece is the cross channel infrastructure — a way for agencies and advertisers to strategize and buy their media, execute and distribute the media efficiently, and measure in a consolidated view that shows results across digital channels.

It’s time for a revolution – a video revolution led by agencies and advertisers, who themselves are converging teams and resources. I’ve spotted a trend, I’m sure many of you have seen it as well — more titles and group names at agencies with the word “integrated”. Unfortunately, even if a portion of folks are changing their mindset, by and large the agency’s perspective of these screens is that they are separate parts of a campaign versus a more holistic view of seeing everything as a channel in one overall initiative.

The result is that you have different groups within one agency that are siloed which is a challenge, but you also have completely different agencies working together or at least working for the same client that causes more than a lack of cohesiveness but ineffectiveness when using multiple channels for a video-rich campaign.

So what’s the solution?

What we’ll see are more technology providers developing more solutions that are flexible enough for any agency or a multitude of agencies to accomplish their responsibilities for a complete digital story.

Through new ad management and ad serving solutions, agencies are able to achieve the same success they have had through 3rd party ad servers for display and search campaigns online, but now in the cross channel video space. Single video sources optimized and distributed with advanced tracking is a reality and the agencies and brands that have adopted this approach are seeing increased efficiencies in their workflow and costs.

There are countless number of success stories improving the workflow of agencies by taking a TV spot and distributing it across any screen. A single platform that is flexible enough for agencies/advertisers to execute their campaigns across channels tells a complete story to hyper-connected, digitally omnivorous consumers.

What would happen if buying and management platforms could begin to include all sorts of digital channels? What about cross-channel video reporting?

I stunned a long-time broadcast planner last week, when answering her question on how quickly technology solution providers are able to provide insights and analysis for online video campaigns – updated every hour. She looked at my colleague on our TV sales team, who she’s worked with for nearly two decades and said “One hour, could you imagine?!” We can and we do. This is a revolution born out of the marriage of TV and online.

As consumers, we don’t consciously think about where, when, how, and on what screen we watch video – we want it on whatever, whenever, wherever — this is the new WWW Marketers need to move past thinking in silos about a fragmented consumer on different screens, and connect content and ads to customers across all digital video channels.

As published on Huffington Post Co-written with @rmanchee

Subscribe to my RSS feed  |  Get E-mail Updates

Even though I now subscribe to more magazines than I have ever before, the majority of them end up in my recycling bin the day they arrive. Why? Because by the time a magazine arrives in the mail its digital self has already been magically updated on my iPad.

Whether it is current events, celebrity gossip, or sports scores – we want the latest and most up to date information. News sites have had to embrace this thirst and change how they process, package and present information as news.

Not only are we constantly on the hunt for the latest, as consumers we want what is relevant to each of us. Based upon our preferences, interests, and behaviour – if we don’t care about it, we’re on to the next headline, story, post, or blurb. The 24/7 news cycle helped lead this behaviour of the hyper-connected consumer. This is a 21st Century reality.

So why is our advertising stuck in the 20th Century? Why are our ads not as dynamic and up to date as the information we are constantly consuming through our unlimited data plans, broadband connections, and digital touchscreens?

Some may shrug their shoulders thinking the technology is not there to facilitate such dynamic and fresh ads. I say hogwash. Only your imagination is limited.

In the last several years, we’ve seen the advent of DCO, or Dynamic Creative Optimisation. This technology platform enables ad agencies and marketers to dynamically control (and optimise based on performance metrics) designated elements of their ad creative – whether it be copy, graphics, video, or even background colours. This has been available in online display ads, video banners, mobile ads, and even in-stream video ads (think interactive pre-roll ads) for years and is just now starting to see widespread acceptance and adoption.

Savvy advertisers have embraced this and moved beyond simply coming up with a concept and crossing their fingers for it to work. But these same advertisers have demanded real-time metrics – who waits a week or 24 hours to know how consumers are responding to your ads?!

As media has converged and the separation between online and on-air has simply become digital, these same opportunities for real-time ads are becoming are reality even in traditional marketing channels.

The death of TV, or the :30 second spot, has been greatly exaggerated. More people are watching TV than ever before – in fact, speaking from here in the US, the average person watches nearly 35 hours of television a week. I have a full season of the Office to watch on my DVR, so clearly I am letting my country down somehow.

With so many hours of TV viewers, how can marketers take advantage of this audience with real-time ads?

We saw one great example where TV viewers saw more relevant and current-customised ads during the recent Olympics. Ad agency BBDO was able to pull off a pretty impressive feat for their client, AT&T.

AT&T’s “New Possible” campaign placed winning Team USA results into its advertising in near real-time, with ads airing in primetime in less than 24 hours after a winning performance.

The “New Possible” campaign was created specifically for the Olympics to reinforce AT&T’s “rethink possible” platform. The concept was that during the Games, the next generation of athletes would be tuned in and become inspired by the athletes’ winning performances. The winning efforts of gold medal gymnasts and swimmers would become the new goals for this next generation. To be able to insert these winning achievements seamlessly in the ads required BBDO to shoot and have available multiple versions and multiple endings of the ads, depending on the results.

Behind the scenes, BBDO and partners created and produced and DG delivered the spots on air. It was a massively coordinated effort involving the NBC network, BBDO and DG to get the updated creative on-air in record speed. The final ads were timely, relevant and added a deeper emotional connection with the consumer at home rooting for these athletes.

If something like this worked for the Olympics, why not other major events on TV and online? Where else could real-time ads provide greater context to a consumer? Did I hear someone say ‘the Oscars’?… Stay tuned!

The technology is there, the partners are here, and now it’s up to more agencies and advertisers to move beyond dipping their toes in the water and dive in. After all, we couldn’t celebrate world records in life or celebrate them in ads, if we never got in the pool.

As published on Huffington Post Co-written with @rmanchee

Subscribe to my RSS feed  |  Get E-mail Updates

What’s the most expensive computer you have ever purchased? No, it wasn’t that tricked out Macbook Pro from a few years ago that set you back over £2k. It was your car.

Your car is the most expensive computer you will ever own. What’s fascinating is that on average you will replace your computer and your car nearly the same frequency – every 3-5 years. Hopefully you are not replacing both at the same time, though.

Last year, nearly 13 million new cars were sold and this year JD Power expects this number to be closer to 14 million. And while computer sales were over 414 million and smartphone sales were nearly 488 million, your car is more than just a super computer that can go from 0-60 in 6.7 seconds.

If you think about the time you spend in your car, it is one of the few parts of the day that your multitasking is limited but your time spent is substantial. The average US commuter spends nearly an hour each day commuting by car. In countries like the UK it is even higher – here we spend an hour and half on average in our cars.

Having spent time over the last couple of months in nearly a third of the top 20 worst commuter cities (Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Los Angeles, Toronto, Houston, and New York) — I started thinking about how I could make better use of this time.

And with the forthcoming reality of self-driving cars, we will all be passengers with a substantial amount of free time on our hands, something these days each of us could use a lot more of.

There are some amazing ideas extending existing technologies and even some that recreate elements in the car that we are familiar with.

What we are seeing are connected cars with more than just traffic information and the ability press a button to make an emergency call, but customised infotainment that harnesses the power of connectivity and distinct personalisation.

One of my favourite examples is from GM and a design academy. They took the car window and the idea the window being a portal to the outside world, and the windows become digitally connected screens. A great video from GM – http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEDn1517Xno – shows the how these ideas could be realised. The concepts would allow you to play games, connect to your social network, or even learn about where you are and where you are going. I see this and know that the world is a better place for my children, because as a kid I remember the monotony of “I Spy” and trying to find license plates from all 50 US states. This is just amazing.

Earlier this year, I had a chance to spend some time with Tesla Motors. I was blown away by the technology that not just ran the car, but allowed the consumer (who is also a driver or passenger) to interact with a touch screen interface that is nearly the size of two iPads.

So as I see these types of interfaces and screens, I begin to think through what opportunities are available to connect with consumers?

How can the location-based data – where you are and more importantly where you are going — factor into an advertising experience?

My GPS knows where I am, where I am going, and what time I’ll get there. It also knows what I will pass along my route.

Several years ago I worked on an online banner campaign for a fast food restaurant that had the simple concept to allow consumers to enter their home address and their work address, and it would map out the most convenient location to swing by to try one of their featured value breakfast meals.

It was a good idea, but honestly it was cumbersome and lacked the situational relevance that a similar type of execution could achieve directly into my car’s GPS/in-dash display. In fact, maybe my car knows what stores and restaurants I tend to stop at, so it can dynamically optimize what offers are presented to me via the display and the car radio.

Do we look at this as an online, mobile, out-of-home, radio, or some other type of media buy?

It’s important to remember that as much as we want the latest technology with all the amazing design features, we still want to be comfortable and not overwhelmed so much we lose sight of the function. The design needs to be built with the consumer in mind, and not make us feel intimidated, overwhelmed, or plain stupid. This is true in how we engage technology from a marketing perspective

Great technology will become ubiquitous and fade into the background, just as some of the best “ads” people adore and share. The proper balance between tech and what is natural will be adapted and adopted. Automation will increase efficiency and give us more time to sit back and relax, work, or be entertained. And savvy marketers will be able to take advantage of the evolving mediums and connect with consumers wherever they are, even if it means sitting in stop and go traffic on the commute home.

As published on Huffington Post Co-written with @rmanchee

Subscribe to my RSS feed  |  Get E-mail Updates

This dynamic upward trend is attributed to the availability of high speed broadband enabling viewers to stream video en masse. Consumers are now accustomed to searching for content from VOD to YouTube. In addition with the rise of homes connecting their TV’s to the Internet, the TV screen and PC screen are becoming indistinguishable.

This trend excites digital marketers with the expansion of their creative budgets. The possibilities are endless. Video content from TV advertising can now be shown in many more places in online advertising, which is a key reason we’re now seeing far richer video in the ads on websites. For example, banner advertising is increasingly video rich, with formats of ads that can show online viewers the sort of creative that they’d be used to seeing on TVs. With more use of video content on websites as a whole, we’re seeing more use of instream ads – that show viewers a TV style ad just before the content they’ve requested. But it goes further than a TV experience: online can be more interactive or can link the video creative with companion creative in other spaces on the page, enabling the user to interact and explore the brand without leaving the website.

These opportunities are increasing, too. For example, more and more news content is becoming video-based online, which is providing ample opportunities to provide in-stream video ads. The ability for targeting specific users against such content will become increasingly more prevalent although as news can often be sensitive in nature, advertisers will face new challenges to get this right to protect brands and ensure the message of the ad is sensitive to the story being told.

Beyond transforming the web into a TV experience by embedding more and more video, the next stage will be synchronizing the big screen with mobile devices enabling viewers to engage with two screens simultaneously. The companion device in the viewer’s hand, such as a Smart Phone or Tablet interacts with the TV ad carries on the story line enabling the user to have a deeper brand experience. This has multiple sponsorship opportunities, where each product placement on a main screen could push a trigger to a secondary portable screen to discover more about the product offering.

However in addition to the amazing creative opportunities, this changing market landscape is creating new challenges for marketers and content creators, or buyers and distributors.

Content producers are being targeted by a new wave of distributors, such as Google and YouTube. Established TV companies need to look for new ways to maintain the premium value where there is a wave of consumers seeking alternative more convenient online methods for getting video entertainment.

From the TV side, there can be more effective usage data to measure how well a campaign is performing including its ROI. This additional accountability could change the way TV spots are purchased and could ultimately squeeze the margins of both agencies and broadcaster/publishers.

Consumers are hungry for the next thing. Technology doesn’t stand still. Although we can pride ourselves on being innovative, there are still issues that must be addressed to ensure the profitability and accountability are maintained for the future growth of media.

As published on Huffington Post

Subscribe to my RSS feed  |  Get E-mail Updates

Media experts have already tapped into the potential of second screens, or dual-screening, as a way to reach people from a generic mass audience broadcast on the first screen (the TV) to a more personal interaction on the second screen in that individual’s hand. Broadcasters, brands and advertisers alike are in a heated race to find ways to engage viewers with relevant and rich second-screen content.

The Big Click Won’t Stick
But what do we really mean by second screen, after all? It’s as simple as having a second screen to duplicate content viewed on another, right? Not quite. The hype in the advertising world over second screens to date has focused on content that either replicates that on the first screen, or puts the onus on the viewer to pursue the content. In other words, see something on TV and do something on your phone or tablet to play along.

However, in the real world, consumers don’t click, nor do brand advertisers gain inherent value in them doing so. Meanwhile, online advertising with video content is gaining real momentum. Why? Because click rates for ads with video have increased – in fact, people are over 200 times more likely to click on an in-stream video ad that rolls before an online video than on traditional video-less banner ads. While waving a phone in the air during an ad may initially give you a hey-that’s-cool techy thrill, there’s still a lengthy gap between those clickable ads that are getting results and the time second-screen content may or may not appear on that screen. So while dual screen advertising is today generating lots of interesting experimentation its likely that the awe-factor will wear off and brands and advertisers will find engaging viewers to activate click-here content more challenging and less effective than other techniques like advertising alongside online video. So is dual screen advertising a flash in the pan?

Push v. Pull
Here’s the thing – it shouldn’t be up to the viewer to activate second screen content in the first place. The inherent layered richness of video and second screen advertising content goes well beyond the “click” to making advertising content that’s relevant and engaging, not something a user has to dig around for. The difference is in a service push, versus a consumer-dependent “pull” for that ad.

Instead, second screen advertising content should be a natural extension, and a reflection of the person connected to that device. That scenario has different versions. First, it’s a guy watching a football game at a pub on a big screen, with the smartphone as a second screen. And later that same guy goes home to make a cheese toastie, watching late-night TV in his kitchen, while he checks his tablet on the counter. Now, with technology now available that can trigger richer ad content on a second screen and synchronise it in real time to the TV, reaching people with their organic consumer habits and habitats, will be the next step.

Rethinking TV
Connect to the consumer on their second screen, push real-time ad content to the person behind the screen and have them engaged with your brand. Magic. Push ad content, and push the boundaries of second screens – just how far can we go? In the future, the entire process of creating TV content might sound like a Jetsons episode, but it’s not far off. TV shows could have points in the narrative devised to encourage complementary viewing on a second screen. Imagine a product placement for a soft drink aired during a prime-time show. For example, a viewer could wave a phone at an image of the drink, as a product placement during the show, and be directed to additional promotions, coupons, or links for the viewer to directly purchase the beverage. Imagine if the TV spot was 3D, and someone is offering you that drink for you reach out and grab, and in turn the phone appears to fill up with that very drink! The possibilities and potential advertiser tie-in are endless.

Beyond the tech capabilities, the future of second screen advertising is just as much about connecting to the individual viewing the screen – the ultimate scenario that second screen advertising technology needs to realise.

As published on Huffington Post

Subscribe to my RSS feed  |  Get E-mail Updates

This is the concept of giving a response back to a user that instead of the sense of sight and hearing, takes advantage of touch or a tactile response.

From gaming (Wii-mote anyone) to mobile phones (small vibrations while typing or even the vibration of a new email or text). With more touchscreen devices on the market we are seeing more industrial designers utilize haptics.

There was some speculation that Apple was going to take advantage of a patent they filed centred around haptics with the launch of the third generation iPad, but alas that didn’t materialise. Though some folks are already speculating the iPhone 5 may incorporate something more than the simple alert vibrations found in the iPhones of today.

Even Nokia has filed a patent earlier this year that would essentially allow for magnetic ink to be embedded on a user’s skin via a sticker or even a tattoo that would vibrate once triggered from a smartphone. Think about that for a second. Imagine what a full-sleeve of vibrating tattoos would feel like. At least I know I’d never miss another phone call or text from my wife when I’m out at a noisy venue.

Our brain’s are an open source platform ready for us to hack.

So beyond the cool, geeky technology factor, why are scientists and developers looking at haptics as an opportunity for innovation? Well, there have been numerous studies that show how the human brain is able to interpret visual representations through what they feel and essentially rewire what we perceive (or what we don’t perceive). From feedback on which way is North, to discerning objects we can’t see, or even more complex experiments such as navigating mazes.

Have you ever wanted to feel something on the Internet?

Think about a world where a user can feel a product. Or how about a brand? No longer are the days of surveying users and asking them how they feel about a brand or message, but rather how the brand feels to them. Why do people still want to go into a store and see a product — because they want to touch it, try it on, and see how it fits for them. Soon they will be able to do that without ever leaving their home or office.

And while I am not sure too many folks (at least in the very near future) would get tattoos or wear a five-pound belt that would allow for tactile feedback, we need to think about a culture where the idea of a personal device is removed from the equation completely and humans become even more integrated with technology. This pervasiveness and inclusion in our lives will lead to ways for marketers to connect with consumers and potential customers in a whole new way. And for consumers to expand their senses beyond what they thought was possible.

If scientists are able to help people see with their tongue via very mild electrical shocks, what’s to say an ingenious marketer couldn’t display customized advertising this way for consumers? Even on a simpler basis, brands created jingles that have lived on way past the duration of a particular ad campaign – in the near future could we see (or feel) a vibrating jingle that resonates with consumers more than any melody or lyrical hook?

As published on Huffington Post Co-written with @rmanchee

Subscribe to my RSS feed  |  Get E-mail Updates

Brands used to be built by memorable TV moments.

There was as time when your life revolved around your favorite TV series. I remember saying I will meet you at 10 p.m. — after Friends.

There were also those TV ads that when they came on, we knew Christmas was coming. As a child I remember the Coca-Cola ads every Christmas with the big white furry polar bears playing with a bright red coke can, red and white just like Santa Claus. A few years ago they took those ads off TV and people complained it wasn’t Christmas without them — so they brought them back.

Then we grew up and in the ’80s, two devices came along that changed TV viewing and advertising, microwave ovens and video recorders.

When I was out with friends, too busy to come home for a family meal. I was telling Mum, “Leave it in the microwave.” She was going crazy; we didn’t sit together to eat anymore. Then video recorders came along and we were asking, “Can you record this and watch it when I get back?” We weren’t sitting together watching TV anymore and we were fast-forwarding the adverts.

Where we now? Internet — instant this, instant that. Needing information at our convenience. Now we can watch TV by ourselves on iPhone and with Sky+, you can watch your favorite series anytime… what does this leave the world of advertising?

Some things have not changed, however. If advertisers want something solid, something that is going to last, whether personal or brand, they still need to invest in relationships with consumers.

It still takes time… they need to learn to build brand moments online to create lasting customer relationships.

Advertisers can build the most beautiful brand experience on the web, but if people don’t come to it is useless. People are not getting the brand connection advertisers crave. Because buyers are interested not in just one click, but a series of interactions, created by questions and answers.

That’s nice, does it come in red?! How much does it cost? Is it safe for the kids? And we talk and discuss, continually trying to find out more… mostly independent advice.

We see something — we discuss, we find information. This combination of searching online and seeing display advertising work together with the aim to create what advertisers call a “conversation with the brand.”

People learn by repetition and more so when linked to an emotional connection.

Take for an example the blockbuster Cartier campaign that includes a three-minute film that shows a leopard roaming through snow, deserts, and the streets of Paris until he meets his reincarnation as a diamond bracelet. It’s surreal, lush and incredibly cinematic.

And people are engaging with this ad, seeking it out online and sharing it with friends. This is ACTIVELY INTERACTING with adverts for 3 minutes!! Taking six times as long as with a TV advert and investing real emotional involvement.

It is a beautiful example of online branding driving offline conversions. This type of work will become more common in the advertising we see as the notion breaks down that advertisers work to promote brands via offline methods like television or outdoor advertising and use online advertising to get specific responses (such as clicks through to a site to make a purchase). More and more, online advertising will seek to be compelling and emotional, and when successful will aim to make you feel something for the brand rather than just make another click.

This is a key turning point for advertising and the future for online marketing.

As published on Huffington Post

Subscribe to my RSS feed  |  Get E-mail Updates

When you work in digital marketing, mentioning TV in the same breath probably conjures up pictures of Don Draper fraternizing with women, long lunches, and drinking whiskey from a decanter in plush offices. So not much has changed, then?

Everything has changed. That heyday of the creative director as demi-god seems a far cry from today’s ROI justifications to squeeze every lost drop out of every cent before being allowed the good fortune to even look at a dollar bill. For all the advancements in digital media, one thing is certain — we are still not working remotely on Hawaiian beaches (fragmentation passed off as innovation, DSPs passed off as an answer to declining CTRs, and interaction passed off as consumer engagement has ensured this.)

The very fact that TV still commands 50 percent of the half-a-trillion dollar global media budget is that it unashamedly presents itself in the homes of each and every consumer and says “look at this, it’s beautiful and you know you want it.” And lo and behold, the resulting “ker-ching” of cash registers proves this to be true.

Meanwhile, digital marketers are adjusting knobs and dials trying to figure out if consumers did click and, if so, where. Marketers are trying to figure out how to de-dupe consumers when they clicked more then once, or what happened if they didn’t click at all. This translates to excel spread sheets, late nights, etc. (Um, no thanks.)

Yet with the rise of smart phones and tablets, something has happened in the last few years that followed the meteorological rise of social media. That is when you are sitting in front of high value entertainment and something piques your interest when presented imaginatively, the passion spills over into intrigue and sharing.

It is estimated that 25 percent of consumers go online after seeing a TV ad. That’s a huge spike right there. That’s not to mention that half of all TV watchers have a second electronic device in their hands, such as a smart phone or tablet, whilst in a comatose state on the couch engrossed in anything from “The Vampire Diaries” to “Mad Men.” But whether you are checking your email or talking on Facebook, the habit is now truly synced for TV watchers. So much so, the biggest topic of discussion on social media by far is TV content. We just love it and we can’t get enough, because with every wave of consumer technology — from video recorders to X-Box and Hulu — technology just drives TV viewing up and up, and with it the potential for advertising dollars and media measurement.

We first saw it when we combined search and display — one of the first major moves to consolidate our fragmented industry. We discovered that 30 percent of people searched once they actually saw something. This sounds obvious as, clearly, one doesn’t tend to look for something they have never heard of. Yet this next organic wave of “dual screening” — watching linear content on the main TV screen — whilst interacting on a second screen in your hand, is going to change everything we know about media to date.

Now don’t get me wrong, the ability to place-shift content and carry TV with you in your pocket is going to grow exponentially, especially as the promise of 4G becomes a reality — but the forecast of $254 million by 2015 isn’t something the TV producers are too worried about. The big shift is in the delivery of video — not through traditional broadcast methods– but increasingly via the internet infrastructure. Right now Google estimates that 40 percent of all internet traffic is video, within the next two years it’s expected to top 91 percent! Take the Super Bowl — the largest TV event in the U.S. — as an example. On February 5, 2012, it was streamed online for the first time and 2.1 million unique viewers spent 78.6 million minutes watching it, making it the most viewed live-stream event ever. We can expect the Olympics 2012 to dwarf this.

Already 30 percent of U.S. homes find their TV sets are connected to the internet, whether directly or via an over-the-top service like cable or BluRay live. Best Buy saw 30 percent of all new TVs sold last year were “connected” and they are planning on this being 90 percent by 2015. The distinction between TV and online is quickly becoming blurred — and this is clearly shown in the impending explosion of online video. But let’s be honest, sitting in front of your laptop isn’t the future for online video, it’s going to be video distributed over the internet to the very best screen in your home, your television. So what does this mean for the digital marketer?

The rise of tablets and smart phones is the next wave of what we saw with the desktop PC being outpaced by laptops. Not only that, but this increasingly means “apps.” Go to any major portal or significant website via your handheld device and I guarantee you will have seen this kind of message: “Download the app for this site here.” Online is beginning to radically shift as well as print media, and from BBC iPlayer to HBC GO, we are seeing TV beginning to shift. A recent In-Stat survey estimated that over 60 percent of connected households will use a TV app at least once per week. As you would expect, Netflix and YouTube currently dominate the TV app space, but with the rise of companion apps from major TV networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS it isn’t long before we can assume that TV stations themselves will just become apps.

But for all the talk of smart TVs and the rumor mills around a 50″ Apple iTV, consumers don’t replace their TV sets the way they do their mobiles. We typically replace our mobile every 12 to 18 months compared to every 7 to 10 years for TV sets, though that figure is now beginning to drop. This means for TV to shift we need to think of things connecting to the TV, as opposed to an actual smart TV in the near future. And that, my friends, is the race between OTT boxes from cable companies to Roku, Apple TV, etc. and wireless companion devices of the smart phone and tablet era. Long-term, my money is on the latter.

When you look into what tablet and smart phone users are doing when watching TV, we discover that about 19 percent are searching for content related to TV advertising, a huge percentage of which are looking for coupons and discounts. This means that if we can simplify the process of finding related information or even sharing with friends whilst in front of the TV using a companion device, we can find a hybrid lean-back experience with lean-forward engagement.

Whether it is snapping a QR code on the screen, or letting high-frequency audio be picked up by a listening app on your smart phone or tablet, you can trigger a related response on the second screen. This doesn’t just have to act as a single redirect mimicking a click-thru, oh no. Multiple audio signals can be picked up within TV content or ad content to create multiple trigger points such as to collect characters by swiping your phone at the TV as shown by Wieden and Kennedy in its Honda Jazz TV ad, whereby the more interactive characters collected on the phone, the more hidden features one could discover.

But that is only TV ads. What about content itself? Adding meta data to all TV and film content means that potentially the trigger points of Daniel Craig sporting the latest Omega Seamaster in a Bond film becomes a trigger for the companion device to show an ad. Ever wondered what shoes Sarah Jessica Parker was wearing? Well now you can know without even doing a search.

Rolling a phone in front of a TV that triggers a response is just the next iteration of rich-media. It combines picture-in-picture across devices, whilst allowing a mass-reached broadcast medium to be overlaid with highly targeted personal ads that are user-initiated. It’s the 21 century expandable ad! It’s an in-stream plus a companion ad. It is HTML5 at its finest, set within an organically tactile device your toddler or grandmother will just intuitively “get.”

No more explaining to my mother what I actually do. No more convincing your CEO about online banners working, and them never actually seeing your work. Finally we are going to converge TV and online, and out-of-home content with interactive advertising, search and social media sharing within the most personal of devices. Not only that, but the chance for discount coupons and offers (or even payments) will happen right on a phone in your hand. Before you can even type “What is that hand bag she has?” your phone tells you and lets you look at it in 360 degrees, review it, buy it and show off to all your friends on Facebook that you are awaiting delivery of that very beautiful designer bag, all before the ad break even comes on the TV. Bingo! Winner, winner, chicken dinner (which, incidentally, you just ordered for home delivery via your mobile after seeing the latest Kentucky Fried Chicken ad.)

And the best part? Not only is this highly targeted advertising, being able to deliver individual ads to every single person in any given living room, or theatre or high-street, It offers measurability, accountability, consumer engagement, stunning creativity, and all with consumer-initiated opt-in. Did you hear me privacy advocates? I said “consumer opt-in!”

But before we jump up and down with extreme jubilation, I want to throw a note of caution. Along with this, will come an exposure of actually how bad TV is. We will show that assumed reach isn’t all it’s cracked up to be — after all, that’s why broadcasters turn the sound up in ad breaks, because those TV guys secretly know you are going to the restroom. After all, that’s where all the Facebook status and Twitter updates originate, isn’t it? This two-way, return path of data means advertisers will ask questions about TV budgets and talk ROI. Agency margins will be squeezed, media prices will be squeezed, and then we will end up with a DR conversation and DSP’s for TV. (Hold on, haven’t we been here already?)

The bottom line is TV is changing. The notion of online video is permeating all media channels, and modes of measurement are going to be a hybrid from evaluating the value of an emotional connection through exposure as well as a tangible engagement through interaction. TV is just a large high-quality monitor that displays video content, irrespective of how it is transmitted to it. But everyone knows this will be increasingly via internet. It isn’t going to die. It’s just going to become a lot more dynamic, targeted, and measurable — complemented with “huge” production budgets. And that my friends, is the future of digital.

So go get yourself a decanter, put it in your office, and dream of the day you will actually have the dollars to fill it with a nice single malt and the time to enjoy it, whilst browsing Hawaiian getaways on your tablet device. And in the meantime, go figure what a “spot” or a “TRP” is.

As published on iMediaConnection

Subscribe to my RSS feed  |  Get E-mail Updates

One of the biggest consumer trends in television these days is “Dual Screening”. More and more viewers use a mobile, tablet or a PC at the same time as they watch a show on TV to augment their viewing experience. According to Nielsen, in the third quarter of 2011, 68 per cent of tablet users, and 63 per cent of smart phone users said they use their mobile device several times a week or more while watching TV.

With social media going mobile, “dual screen” mobile or PC-based interaction often consists of using a social networking site to facilitate side discussions about the plot or characters on the show. In fact by far the most popular topic on social media to be discussed is actually TV content. Media experts have already recognised dual screening as an opportunity to get people to participate or play along, allowing a generic mass audience broadcast on the first screen (the TV) and an more personal interaction on the second screen in the individual’s hand. It is picture-in-picture across devices that has followed on from the TV content saying ‘find more information online’ and making it a more seamless experience. With such behavior now commonplace with consumers, broadcasters and brands are racing ahead to capitalise on this activity by finding ways to engage viewers with tie-in content.

Dual Screens Debut with the Super Bowl

In the US, the Super Bowl is also well known for being a big event in marketing. This year was no exception, with five major global brands using the event to launch their dual screen ads including Best Buy, Chevy, Toyota, Pepsi and Subway. Previously, Heineken launched what they claimed to be the first “dual screen” mobile marketing campaign around the 2011 UEFA Champions League in Europe.

This is not such a surprise since sporting events are ideal for dual screening. Firstly, they are incredibly social and passionate events that typically need to be watched live in groups. Secondly, they don’t have a strong narrative and contain multiple ad breaks allowing the audience to drop in and out, cross to another screen, interact with social media and then back again without losing the thread. It works best when it is close to reality, and it does not demand too much attention, so it can generate discussion and allow time for breaks to take place.

TV shows with a complex linear narrative (dramas for example), which demand and earn the audience’s full attention, are a different proposition. While they do offer a great environment for product placement, which can be enhanced by interactivity on a second screen, this may require the user to pause the linear content. In this regard, dual screening could clash rather than complement their experience, but it does allow for a radical rethink on how TV advertising can be interspersed with content to create a more seamless experience.

Dual screening also makes sense when there is already a major investment in advertising or sponsorship so adding an overlaid interactive component only helps brands leverage the money already spent. Major sporting and cultural events provide a perfect opportunity for dual screening during the ad breaks, but it is the natural intrigue of ‘what’s that character wearing’ that will create the biggest reform of TV advertising.

It is this celebrity endorsed thinking that may be driving dual screening to be explored outside of sporting events. Early reports have revealed an expectation there will be another round of dual screened ads for the upcoming Oscars.

Rethinking TV programming

Once the right type of show for dual screening has been identified, the whole process of creating TV content is likely to change to create points in the narrative that will allow or encourage complementary viewing on a second screen. Metadata needs to be added at strategic points that can be grabbed by viewers on their mobile devices. For example, a viewer could ‘roll over’ an image of an actor to be directed to additional information about the character, view extra pictures and summaries of previous episodes. In addition, there could be information about the clothes they wear, the resort where the clip was shot, coupons, links to buy, etc. For advertisers, the possibilities and potential tie-ins are endless.

This type of approach opens up a whole new dimension to TV advertising without actually changing TV advertising per se, where every celebrity is a potential spokesperson. Visualise ordering a dress worn by Sarah Jessica Parker online, or ordering a special ingredient while watching Heston. Ad creative instead of appearing at predetermined intervals between shows or breaks in the action, would be initiated by the viewer based on their own initiative, within the context of their preferred programming – providing an opportunity for personalised interactions with brands. It is user-initiated additional content as opposed to just finding new formats for TV.

Dual screening also means creating complementary content online that is browse-able: short, non linear and un-demanding, but highly personalised. Content that augments rather than clashes. This requires coordinating between both online and broadcast advertising, so as well as revolutionising the experience for viewers the ad industry itself will need to make major changes to make it possible for these difference disciplines and formats to mingle and work together.

Already, there are many types of dual screening connectivity being explored. Beyond the ‘find us on Facebook’ links at the end of TV shows and ads or ‘Twitter handles’ for TV journalists and hosts, we are also seeing QR Codes – those square patterns for mobile phone scanning – at strategic points within TV shows. A clever new variation uses high-frequency audio that is embedded in TV content and undetectable by humans but able to be detected by companion apps on secondary screens. Most of the dual screen ads seen in the Super Bowl drove re-directs to complementary content just by listening to the onscreen action. Yet the next stage will see much more interactivity in real-time. This has been pioneered in campaigns such as Honda’s Jazz ad, where a viewer could collect characters and find hidden extras by simultaneously interacting with the TV ad with a mobile app. Here, multiple audio markers were contained within a single piece of linear video content.

As well as driving what’s on the mobile screen via the TV, an intriguing development is that the reverse will also start to occur. The proximity of the mobile device means it is possible to detect the location and potentially the personal preferences of viewers. That will make it possible to customise the dynamic data in the TV programming or TV adverting itself – either based on what purchasing outlets are nearby or by the individual’s preferences. This is one factor that will help to make TV ads more personally relevant to whoever in the room as more and more TVs themselves become ‘connected’. Second screen experiences driven by soundprint technology are really starting to deliver on the decade old promise of interactive television.

Turn on, tune in, get online, talk back

Harvard Business Review recently concluded that advertisers should see dual screening as an opportunity. Equally, the signs are that us multi-taskers are receptive to this type of communication. We pay active attention to TV ads, and are more likely to engage when a product interests us; we go online to learn more, or even purchase right there and then. It is estimated that 25% of us go online after seeing a TV ad!

Additionally, marketers are gravitating toward mobile second screen experiences because, as smartphone and tablet penetration grows, so does the number of consumers who are using their mobile devices to follow up on an ad they see on TV. Adding an interactive component on smart phone or tablet both extends the time spent with a campaign, gives people an opportunity to participate, and uses a more cost-effective and measurable channel to build a dialogue between a brand and its audiences.

So as the technology gets smarter, we can also expect to experience smarter marketing built around quality content, more relevance, more interaction and user-initiated investigation of desired products. Stay tuned for more exciting developments, right here on this channel. And in your living room. And on your mobile, tablet, laptop…

As published on Huffington Post

Subscribe to my RSS feed  |  Get E-mail Updates