Advertising and Convergence Culture

Panelists: Mike Rubenstein, The Barbarian Group; Baba Shetty, Hill/Holliday; Tina Wells, Buzz Marketing Group; Faris Yakob, Naked Communications; Bill Fox, Fidelity Investments

Migratory audiences and declining channel loyalty are seen as two key challenges convergence culture poses to the advertising industry. At the same time, campaigns that respond by capitalizing on the creativity of audiences prompt questions about the continuing role for creatives. This panel looks at the unfolding role for advertisers within convergence culture, looking at questions about the nature of agencies, transmedia planning and the increasing circulation of advertising as entertainment content. Does the agency structure need to be rethought? What are the implications of breaking down the distinction between content and advertising? What are effective ways to collaborate with creative audiences? How is convergence culture changing the value of different advertising sites?

• Mike Rubenstein, The Barbarian Group; what keeps me up  is the speed at which the company is growing, managing more employees, trying new things.
• Baba Shetty, Hill/Holliday; we have a full service media offering, we have also added digital and social thinking into that group; what keeps me up at night is managing that whole transformation, about managing talent, managing the clients.
• Tina Wells, Buzz Marketing Group; it is figuring out what teens, tweens want from marketers.  So why do 10 year girls like HSM, why are Bratz not cool.
• Faris Yakob, Naked Communications; I’m the digital ninja as that is what happens when geeks pick own job titles.  What keeps me up is usually the internet, it’s trying to understand how we fit in, the intention economy.
• Bill Fox, Fidelity Investments. I manage the internal inhouse agency and the relationships with the external ones.  what keeps me up at night is how do we keep on top of serving the needs of such a diverse type of customers.
• Josh Green is moderating
• JG: how do you think convergence is affecting value of sites, advertising,
• FY: I came from a media agency, the function of which was to broker space.  when I came in anything could be regarded as space.  That kind of thought is less welcome now as the invasion is less welcome.  It diminshes the value of sites as there is fragmentation.
• MR: brands are becoming more protective of where they find yourself.  They do not want to be associated with some things; we have to find middle ground.
• BF: you want to make sure your brand is protected; when you abdicate control it can dilute it.  it is very fluid.  There’s such change that can take place – you want to get out there as it gives buzz but it can turn negative.  when you mention value, it is a hard term to reckon with as the value can change within the same day, based on how it gets turned and twisted and moved.  Not sure if you can out the word value in that context, it does not stay solid enough for long enough.
• TW: I tend to disagree.  We are sued to saying z amounts of eyeballs, instead of looking to meet a specific person.  we have to look at 20 places more than one.    The shows are brands, where ever it is.  You will see more brand compatability, it is looking at what the brand stands for and looking at the channels and what they stand for.  Monitoring it, figuring out the attributes, how to find a way to match is a challenge.
• BS: value word is key, we have a way at looking at a single dimension of value.  You have heard about Neilson, the notion of big audiences for impression delivery,  but it’s more than that. there is a difference on the spectrum from an impression to a behaviour, better to really connect.  When you are in a over scheduled world when making decisions quickly you look for common words and terms.  it gets dumbed down quickly.  You an take 30 minutes to decide to spend 6million on 40 TV spots and then a few hours with no conclusion on spending 200k in social media campaign. 
• JG: can you give an overview of a recent success?
• MR: our most recent big one was kashi.com (sp?) it was a challenge, bigger on scale, a different site for us.  They have a fan base of the brand, with a lot of passion,  They were anxious to hear from these people and open the dialog.  It can take a lot of policing, as brand never want to hear the bad news, but it was good here and good back and forth
• BF: we have a whole load of traders; the way we get people to come to seminars is through direct mail and email, they sign up online, constantly looking for new information,  we bring them together, they have these conversations, they are online, multitasking on steroids.  They blog, and we would love to be able to use this stuff but we have to be careful as legal issues.  it can’t be advice.  It’s been interesting to see, we can bring the culture together, a great case study and it also a case study about how much we cannot do without issues, about how much we can do without getting our company in trouble.
• FY: one of the things I have tried to help my clients abandon is this notion of control.  Never been true before and less so now.  It’s more about contribution and re-appropriation of the ad texts.  [case study video - E4 programme Skins].  It was easy for that kind of activity to work for that property.  Written by under 21′s.  The ads were made by the fans, on myspace, reimagine the logo etc.  Letting go of control, finding gaps has more resonance
• TW: work with Acuvue,  we have been lead sponsor for MTV video awards.  The key measure is download of trial certificates last year we spent 4million and had 5000 downloads – they had tripled spending and had a massive decline of downloads.  They handed me Hampton High – a webisode/advertorial. 2 minutes of a fictional place.  First one debuted during premier episode of The Hills.  A lot of online, viral, banners, site.  We have 9000 buzz spotters – gave them assets and let them do stuff.  the last I checked we got 40k downloads.  The problem is engagement, it was much clearer what to do…when you see a TV ad then the last thing you do is go and get online.    The site could not J&J owned, it could be funded and advertised on, many clients going the same way.  P&G have between girls.  We still need TV and tradition stuff but we have to broaden it.
• BS: we have done a whole bunch of what you could call Point Solutions.   Just to get a big company to start thinking about lowering the walls, about being with content that is not carefully scripted.  The notion of control, is still there, but a lot of good marketers have understood.  Here’s a case study in the making.  We listened to how some early efforts that we did worked, what people did and then responded to it with the next iteration.  It is a programme for an insurance company, Liberty Mutual.  It is the size of CocaCola but far less brand recognition.  We started testing the waters last year.  There’s not a lot of insurance fan boys out there.  We looked a the culture and the competitions.  There’s a couple of models – the insurance company as parent, the child to child approach like the Geico.  We saw an opportunity for the adult to adult conversation.  In the office, they have an engraved in stone mantra in lobby, starts of ‘We, together with out policy holders are engaged with a great enterprise’.  We saw that they take it seriously, they they believe in doing the right thing.  So what if we counter programmed against all the crass stuff in culture – the right thing instead of the easy thing.  it was traditional and some components – whatsyourpolicy,com.  It was meant to provoke questions about what is the right thing.  People find their way to these things.  We came up with a question every week and got lots of responses.  The campaign had little to do specifically with insurance.  We got 1000s of people who contacted the company and agency who wanted copy to play to classes etc.  We got remixes, reposts.  One guy sent in 20$ saying they could add ot budget as he loved what he was doing.  We are doing again, the core of the campaign.  It is about associating this company with this value, finding the culture pockets that have this value.  Inviting participation,
• JG: the more advertising turns into entertainment, how qualified are the audience? do they just consume as content?
• TW: discussing with my agent in Hollywood, about content is king.  A lot of clients are looking at branded entertainment..why aren’t writers going to advertisers to get shows funded.  A friend in P&G doe snot think they will be going to upfronts in next few years.  Now you have the clients thinking smarter.  When we go back to brand and the way we get them to talk; Gossip Girls is a brand.  Verizon sponsors that show. It can make people look at things they may not have done before.  The idea is that there are messages to get out, there are only so many channels.
• FY: there are 2-3 fundamental questions.  Brand as entertainment is a subset of bigger things…the model was to interrupt there are tools to avoid interruption so the obvious answer is to invade tte entertainment.  It is about gaining attention, we can’t just buy it on TV spots, we have to deliver some kind of value to earn the attention.  If you can be interesting and develop culture content then people can give you time.  Does generating attention, familiarity lead to sales?  It is more difficult and more difficult to prove.  We can show people like what we do at one end, and that sales or something go up at the other but connecting the 2 is difficult.   YO have to believe that doing cool stuff means people may want to buy your thing if you work in advertising,
• BF: entertainment is great but still needs relevance for viewer.  Advertiser still wants to gain a sale. There is wasted media, but it does build up, there is the WOM as well.  You have to make sure there is the proper balance between entertainment and the information
• FY: it was the basic thing that you cannot borrow internest..but the Gorilla commercial destroys that. [shows the Cadbury's Gorilla after audience calling for it]. It has done a lot for sales.
• MR: there is a lot to be said for generating goodwill.
• BS: I used to walk for Fallon..the line that they used for years to explain this kind of attitude is the ‘economic leverage of creativity’ there is always something to be said for creativity.  Look at research, asking about why people buy things, people will make things up.  They are never quite sure why.  In agencies, there is a ole for some humility, it is not about being able to make people being able to do what you want them to do.  In marketing, one of the big transitions is not just saying stuff but doing stuff.
• JG: we are oscillating around a proposition about branded entertainment, is it doing stuff not just saying,  can we talk about opportunities and risks?
• BF: we can embed and do, we produce a lot of content, education in nature.  The line is about making recommendations.  You can outline choices and options, you educate. 
• JG: I keep seeing this question on the board.  On the early days of TV we saw branded shows, are we returning to this model
• TW: it is about mindset marketing.  I’m trying to educate clients on this.  We want to talk about mindset.  We are seeing the biggest shift, what is the mindset of the consumers at the time.  An ad like that was hitting the right mindset (cadbury). How do we figure out where it fits.   We are dealing with companies that started some of the branding and there is a look at going back there.
• FY: I think that there is increasingly more diverse iterations about what sponsorship is trying to achieve.  It is one way through entertainment; the doing stuff is another way.  this movement towards branded utility – you do something that delivers a service value, a value that delivers against who you are.
• BF: we have moved away from the branded tv a little but not away from branding in generally.  Still there.  Brands are locked into contracts for stadiums etc. The medium has shifted, not necessarily gone away.
• BS: the first round of branded entertainment brands were far more intrusive than today. A question that someone had was how was this different?  It is different as you do not have to do it. there are others ways, but the tools changing also works for marketing/agencies and they can do these as well.  Look at BMW films, where we worked with directors with no studio etc.  Entertainment is hard to do, look at the batting averages, it is hard to do , hard to do well.  One of the things we think about is about do we build it or do we collaborate.
• MR: it’s not just about owning the show.  The product runs campaigns, it is not just ‘the show is bought to you’ it blows up a little bit.
• FY: you guys did subservient chicken, that was branded entertainment
• MR: they [BK] were ready to try a little something new; looking at something based on engaging people, making something that was cool enough for people to use it.  trusting that the value was there to make the brand popular.  it worked out really well. [explained to those who have never seen it]
• FY: this inspired a whole new genre of sites!
• MR: it is there to be what it is.  yes, by BK but not going to beat you over the head.
• JG: so how do you work out the value?  What is it good for?
• MR: the goodwill thing, the WOM, the sheer number of people who have gone to the site.  more hits means more business?  whether that is in sales or association with the brand.  We saw more dudes in a chicken suit later.
• BS: it was when the line about ‘your way’ coming back and you can get impressions lots and lots or do something like this
• TW: your brand is who you are.  Maintaining that separates a gieco from a liberty mutual.
• BF: the absence of the negative, you recommend things..it takes so long to dig you out of a hole.  there is a conservativeness about doing anything that would do something wrong.  If you create a situation that brings things down they rally get angry and it is hard to bring up again.
• JG: is this about a conversation? why does the brand be the only one to talk?
• FY: we are preaching that dialog needs to be there.  you have to act on the contribution though.  I get clients to look for the bad stuff, understand what they are saying. How do you enter a discussion and not ignore it.
• BS: Dell is a good example.  They ignored a prominent blogger (jeff Jarvis).  Today they have a very well trafficed blog, talks about SL strategy, what they are thinking about, the IdeaStorm portal.  We have talked about marketing…but if you are really listening it is not just marketing.
• JG: what is the role of Social Media?
• TW: it is becoming a discussion that did not need to be had a few years ago. now I need to figure out a way that makes sense whilst still doing a brand identity.  It’s kind of messy and we do not know what to do.  Dove are having a good conversation..
• FY: but there latest has been used against them (the onslaught). 
• MR: if there were a thing about work that keeps me up at night it is UGC. everyone wants it but no-one wants to deal with it. it is back to how much do you want the bad news.  You have options, you can moderate all the time, it comes down to the brand.  Some are OK with the good and the bad.  it is constantly tricky.  Don’t think anyone is really comfortable.
• FY: it is slightly misguided.  A lot of campaigns are lame and lazy.  We did some in 2004 with Orange and we got maybe 100 entries  there;’s amore interesting area, can you help people with assets and tools.  With Sony Bravia we are trying to do that, dismantle it and let peopel do things.
• TW: we are not opening up the workshop, it is understanding how to appropriately have the conversation.
• FY: the move towards interactive participatory audiences.  We are in a business of products; the process is interesting and what elements we can get people involved.  We leaked the location of the Paint ad…people came,
• JG: you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.  whether you leak or not, people will pick it apart.
• TW: it changes the jobs, now it is planned leakage.
• FY: we call it propagation planning, giving people hooks.
• BS: the way the ad industry has used it is bad…[UGC] it is not really democratic, not very useful, just the same paths we have always used.  The other end is about talk and WOM. The idea of enabling generation of content, giving people artifacts, the best stuff is widgets or badges things that show what you think is important.  That’s very different to getting them to create the content.
• FY: it’s a value – you are giving them stuff in exchange for space.  FB changes how you communicate in some way.  In the world of infinite possibilities one way to navigate is collaborative filtering.  FB newsfeed allows stuff to be broadcast to your friends. 
• MR: FB is the next thing you throw in the package.  Brands that have not accepted UGC, they take a look at what people are saying, how can they address it before they jump in.  The real crux is to be able to talk about the bad things you need to be limber enough to do something about it., to address these problems.  You cannot just be the way taht you are and have everything around you..you have to do the changes.
• TW: the target audience are the most resistant?  this is a misconception.  They do not like dumb advertising.  they know what is going on , they like smart engagement.   Make their life easier.  IF you are then I want to have a discussion.
• FY: as advertisers we hate ourselves a little.   We can do things, we can influence the spending of money that can be beneficial.  need to start from standpoint of what can be done of value.
• TW: there is a point where information is key.  P&G can get teen girls to go to beinggirl.com (?), where girls can talk about what is happening to their bodies.  Tell me things I need to know and sponsor it/  That’s the exchange that I am seeing.
• BF: simple, make it relevant, give it to me and I will act on it.  My kids are so brand centric – they are not being resistant, they are more sceptical, they are more knowledgeable.  They sift through it, find the relevant.
• FY: brands are established cultural reference.
• TW: it i show they define themselves.  We are doing a lot of brand research…tell a 16yo boy to wear non-brand sneakers and they will not.  Take a look at flip.con, they allowed users to choose the advertisers.
• MR: it’s communicating on their level. 
• AudQ: before I was here I was at the social media mashup and it was all about social media.  there are 2 types of conversations – the brand to the consumer, and the one between consumers.  Given the stuff here, are you thinking what you do to support the conversations?
• FY: we have models of agency that allows us not to default to TV.  I’m interested in how you measure this.  There’s been evaluated metrics on financial returns and cognitive measures about recall etc.  In between you have behavioural metrics and that is where SM becomes powerful.  We can invent new metrics, looking at people reaching towards the brands, or transmissions an indication of conversations.  Put things in place that allow it to happen and then monitor what is happening
• TW: a part of me is a marketer and the other is trend analysis.  I’ve been doing work on tweens, what do they want.  Kids are teaching parents how to do things.  Our model is a little backwards about creating products.  we make and then go see if they like it.  In Eu they were doing far more research, that was unbelievable to me.  we have to listen more, seeing what they want.  We need to truly listen..stop marketing things.
• FY: marketing is understanding and providing for future needs.  it is an art and a science.  we often forget the science about what do people really want.
• MR: a lot of times all we can do is strongly suggest they can do things.  But clients often have it all there..we can try and do as much as we can, you can only tell someone the same thing so many times before you know they are not listening.  Are people truly ready for an open conversation and the answer is usually no.
• BS: the agency structure question…we’ve been around for almost 30 years.  the agency model has followed the route of efficiency, the purchase of standard media units.  they are understood and the basis of transactions.  efficiencies got squeezed out.  in the 80s/90s we went unbundled, which makes sense in standardisation. so now it is a different landscape, it is non-standard.  the media and the message is the same.    I came here as wanted to exploit an agency where buying and creating together.  what are the possibilities of getting most out of pieces being together.  We are talking a lot about what is possible.  At Forrester we were looking at what happens to corporate structure when communications allow easy company collaboration between companies to do things.  I think that is the landscale in ad services now.  you have an idea, you work with teams for a need then go separate ways.  People who are most threatened are the largest agencies who are siloed, disciplined focused, used to doing everything
• AudQ: there has been no discussion about international stuff.  How are things done differently?
• BF: each culture is different.  I worked with P&G when they were trying to standardise commercials.  in the mid-80s, did not work.  We are much further along in understanding that you need to be cultural specific.  You have to think that the brand does not stand for execution, but the values and mission and translate that into different things in different countries.  Advertisers are getting better, but keeping on top of that is hard.  We will see and more of it.  It is worth another forum.

Tags: foe2, advertising, convergence, ugc, naked communications, barbarian group, buzz marketing, fidelity investments