Category Archives: media mix

Find-ability + Relevance > Reach + Frequency

Ah, preparing for and being at conferences, such as the iMedia Brand Summit (#imedia for you “twits” out there as Brad Berens from iMedia so eloquently put it today) always make the mind think freely about this industry we are in and all trying to make better. Thus, I’ve actually posted twice in less than a week…and now thrice. As per usual, the idea here isn’t fully baked, but it is an interesting thought w/ which to toy. That thought is this…

Find-ability + Relevance > Reach + Frequency

Note I am not completely sure what Find-ability + Relevance equals just yet (not “engagement”, please, dear Lord, not “engagement”), just that the combo is more valuable than the staid addition for reach and frequency. Here’s what I mean…

It’s a digital world in which we inhabit. As such, it’s a world of 1’s and 0’s that is becoming more and more search-able. And the goal of any search is finding what one wants. Thus, find-ability – the ease w/ which a person seeking something can connect that something w/ your brand – is much more valuable than reach – the percentage of a pre-conceived demographic audience that you think you need to reach.

In order to ensure your brand being found leads to what you ultimately want – sales, perception changes, and whatnot – your brand must be relevant. That means regardless of where, how, when, how often, in what form, etc. your brand shows up, it is always providing a benefit to those who were either seeking the context w/in which your brand is appearing or the application of your brand at the stage in which those people are seeking it allows them to take the next step in their journey. This can occur “frequently” or it could occur once – but the key is that when it does occur, it is seamless and beneficial. It is not done a certain amount of times just for the sake of doing it a certain amount of times (i.e. frequency).

One of my interpretations of (now former) CMO of Travelocity Jeff Glueck’s keynote today (note: this is my interpretation based on the things that have been rolling around in my head that I referenced earlier, he didn’t say or even insinuate the following) is that digital is a key base medium not for it’s measurablity or DR potential, but as the place where relevant experiences begin and are nurtured based on how easily one is found.

Not figure out how you want things to look in the offline world and let that drive the “brand” and then augment w/ online and figure out emerging channels like mobile and apps and stuff once you nail that offline. But realize that their is legitimate, scaled behavior tied to digital media that can be a basis from which all things start – and all that other media can serve the purpose of driving measurable results through these find-able, relevant media.

Fun to think about how you can turn the status quo on it’s head, isn’t it?


Filed under digital distribution, future of media, media mix

The beer that made Milwaukee famous

It’s my blog and I’ll be a focus group of one if I wanna…

Personal proof that (a) advertising works and (b) media mix doesn’t matter:

At some point last week, I saw an advertisement, can’t remember in what medium, from Schlitz showing pics of middle class men from the 60s/70s that simply stated, “Your father was not a metrosexual.” Damn straight. Now he did drink Coors yellow bellies and Old Milwaukee, but, regardless, the man most definitively was not, and still isn’t and never will be, a metrosexual. And, frankly, I greatly admire the man and would personally prefer to not be referenced as such when it comes to selecting by beer.

Also at some point last week, I went down to my basement to grab a beer and it turned out to be my last. So at the subsequent liquor store trip on Saturday, guess what popped into my head as I turned up my nose at beer w/ lemonade in it, malt liquors w/ fruit flavors, and $10 six packs? That’s right: My father, and me, ain’t no damn metrosexual. Get me a case of Schlitz (and a six of Leinie’s Octoberfest and Shiner Bock – Yes! I can get it in MN!)!

Did I need a glitzy multi-media experience? Did I need to be “engaged” by Schlitz? Did I even need to remember if I saw the ad in print, online, TV or a billboard?

BTW, I could do a similar posting for Miller High Life.


Filed under advertising effectiveness, media mix

You know what to do, G, Bust a Myth (or three)

Heard from a couple of you w/ regards to the iMedia “Myth Busters” panel I’m going to be on this Tuesday. Below are the 3 key points I gave to the moderator. What do you think?

Myth #1
“Online” or “the Internet” is a medium in the the same sense that, or can be considered/compared to in an apples-to-apples way with, TV, radio, magazine, out-of-home, etc in terms of media mix allocation. TV, radio, magazine, out-of-home, etc. imply a “pushing” of message. “Online” or “the Internet” are best leveraged when there is a “pull” – and the investment buckets, not to mention the people resource buckets, push and pull come from at a marketing organization and/or agency tend to not be the same. Many “online campaigns” and pure-play online businesses don’t really require “media spending” at any significant level to be successful, but they do require a keen understanding of how the platform of the Internet operates to make themselves easily found. That tends to require a different kind of investment and resource allocation than “successful” TV, radio, magazine, OOH, etc. “campaigns”. So trying to figure out how to shift TV or print money into online is short-sighted – especially as all media becomes digital and runs on the platform (i.e. not the “medium”) that is the Internet.

Myth #2
Another one is thinking one, universally applicable definition of “engagement” or success is possible. ABC’s upfront presentation got me going on this one. Efficiency at the front end or amount of time people spend “watching” is not necessarily a predeterminant of success on the back end. Marketers need to define success and the systems to measure it for themselves, share it completely and fully w/ their partners/agencies, agencies need to take care of the front end to make sure whatever is negotiated produces desired results on the backend, and reward media vendors accordingly with business – regardless of how high or low CPMs are.

Myth #3
Most tactically is mobile as a “medium”. It’s not a medium. It’s a tool that allows people to not have to carry around scraps of papers, shopping lists, to do lists, little black books, etc. Develop a functional experience in mobile that allows people to solve the day to day problems they have with stuff they usually have to carry around in their purses or pockets.


Filed under advertising effectiveness, communication platforms, conferences, future of media, media mix, mobile, monetizing media

Oh, and media mix, too

Yeah, same VSS report as mentioned right before also points out broadcast has finally overtaken newspaper as the #1 advertising platform and the Internet will unceremoniously unseat broadcat in 3 years or so. Ramifications for media mix, the media industry, people who print stuff on paper and send things over air waves. Blah blah blah. Didn’t plant a link, go find it yourself if you care or haven’t.

To this I say, who cares? All media is becoming digital. People are spending more time w/ media delivered digitally and becoming more efficient in their media usage while doing so.

Pretty soon (sooner rather than later I hope) media mix becomes pretty much moot. Find-ability should become the key aspect of “media”, and functionality should become the key aspect of “creative”, in a digital world. Whether its sight, sound and motion OR sight, sound or motion.

Again, medium, message, etc. etc.

Leave a comment

Filed under digital distribution, future of media, media mix

Efficient Time Spent w/ Media replacing Media Multi-Tasking?

Do we have the death of another industry buzzword? Headlines from the new release of VSS Communications Industry Forecast (the 22nd annual) don’t mention multi-tasking or the fact that time spent w/ media is flat but fragmented.

It does, however, mention that though overall time spent w/ media is down ever so slightly (at this point), time spent w/ digital/new media is up. And, what’s more, they expect a continued downward trend in overall time spent w/ media because increased use of digital media is making people more efficient in getting at what they want and need.

So if the expectations of new/digital media is increased efficiency (i.e. people spend more time w/ digital/new media so, overall, they can spend less time w/ media in general), what does this mean for pretty, flashy, brand-y creative things vs. functional, time-saving, aligned-w/-content-behavior-and-context creative things?

Medium, message, etc, etc…


Filed under future of media, media mix, media usage, push vs. pull

Is All Media Local?

With presidential election season comes the re-emergence of Tip O’Neill’s famous “All politics is local” quote as presumptive candidates galavant around the country searching for votes. It’s especially interesting in a flat world – “local” now applies to central Asia, the Middle East and at least a few hours of stop overs in various capitals of Europe. Think globally, act locally…

Got me thinking about how relevant that metaphor is for media. Get out of your marketer seat and get in your user of media seat (sit in both simultaneously if you can because I think Tip was when he said what he did about politics). I’m not talking about national vs. local in terms of buying media. I’m more interested in how it’s received.

I’m talking about local in terms of couches and dens and cars and shopping malls and strip malls and taxi cabs and sidewalks and phones/PDAs and mailboxes (physical and electronic) and laptops connected to free wifi in a Starbucks and earbuds plugged into digital music players (must stop now – hearing Von Trapp children singing Favorite Things).

The point is how something gets to someone is moot unless what’s being said and how it’s being said is relevant for the situation in which the person is in when receiving the something being said to them – and they can take action on it assuming they’re properly motivated.

Thank you for the resounding chorus of, “Well, duh!”, but now search your mind for examples of missed opportunity in terms of something being said in such a way that – as you sat on your couch or checked your iPhone/BlackBerry or walked down the street or through the mall – you scoffed at the irrelevance in what you just encountered. I’ll assume it won’t take you long to think of something that happened either just yesterday or perhaps even this morning.

Obviously, we can’t just toss aside the established deliniation between local and national media or the need to understand the dynamics of audience delivery to accumulated action. But in an increasingly digital world allowing for more and more sophistication in message delivery, looking at local in terms of message reception becomes necessary.


Filed under local, media mix, media usage

3 Things I’m Over

  1. TV is as strong as ever – Yeah, so people still have the TV turned on a lot, but what AREN’T they doing while it’s turned on? And what AREN’T they watching when they are engaged with its programming? The “strength” or “effectiveness” of media individually becomes less meaningful, what medium is the “base” vs. “complimentary” becomes less meaningful, which leads me to…
  2. Media Mix – Why is it that in the face of increasing research showing the extreme proliferation of “media multi-tasking” there are still long, drawn out discussions about the “right” media mix? More and more, the holy trinity of advertising – sight, sound, motion – can be delivered easily and much more cheaply (how’s free media strike ya?) via things that aren’t in the container of television. Especially in light of the digitization of most media delivery, which leads me to…
  3. Emerging Media – I was over this one a looooong time ago. Yes, stuff emerges, but emergence is not a long term situation. But the last true media to “emerge” was the Internet. Since it’s emergence, the infrastructure on which it’s built (dial up to high speed to fiber optics) and the software and applications that can manipulate it has improved vastly (video to widgets to all things open source). Pretty much anything else that has been labeled an “emerging medium” is simply a bolt on top of the Internet of some sort or a piece of hardware or software that allows for manipulation of existing media or straight up creation of media. The ways and means of the Internet has improved so vastly that most media will come into your home digitally via one line and you will care very little about what screen you’re viewing it on, whether you’re “online”, or if you’re viewing something live or “time-shifted”.

OK, that release of acid has me a bit more comfortable now. Thanks for playing.

Leave a comment

Filed under digital distribution, future of media, media mix, media usage