BrandBlog (tm) / Marketing + Branding Blog

John Naisbitt's 11 mindsets of forecasting

1. While many things change, most things remain constant.
2. The future is embedded in the present.
3. Focus on the score of the game.
4. Understanding how powerfull it is not to be right.
5. See the future as a picture puzzle.
6. Don’t get so far ahead of the parade that people don’t know you’re in it.
7. Resistance to change falls if benefits are real.
8. Things that we expect to happen always happen more slowly.
9. You don’t get results by solving problems but by exploiting opportunities.
10. Don’t add unless you subtract.
11. Don’t forget the ecology of technology.

Nielson/NetRatings: TV Broadcasters Should Put Content On Web

Frank Barnako (MarketWatch) submits: If you have an Internet connection at home, odds are you're watching less television. Maybe as much as 25% less, depending on the broadcast or cable network, according to research now being distributed to TV executives by Nielsen/NetRatings Inc. [NTRT].

"It's not that people are abandoning TV for the Internet. Sometimes, they do both," said Mainak Mazumdar, the company's vice president of Product Marketing and Measurement Science. "We only have 24 hours a day ... (that's) a finite amount of time to consume media." He added, "Yahoo (YHOO) users are watching less. MySpace.com (NWS), much (less), the difference is 20%."

Mazumdar said company's first unified TV-Net report "provides a solution for the networks to say to advertisers 'We are getting incremental ratings for our programming on the Internet and want to be compensated for it.'"

The Nielsen analyst said the results are "phenomenal" and that broadcasters are smart to put their programming on their Web sites. He cited data which showed visitors to Yahoo and MySpace watch more of the programming on Bravo (GE) and Comedy Central (VIA) than does the average viewer. "That's not surprising," he said. "They're kind of lifestyle channels."
Via: http://media.seekingalpha.com/article/18317

Why Google Didn't Buy the New York Times

Susan Mernit submits: I started the day reading about how TechCrunch's Mike Arrington felt attacked by the journalists at the Online News Association conference, and ended it hearing that Google (GOOG) had indeed bought YouTube for $1.65 billion in do no evil stock. That news got me thinking about what Google mighta coulda bought with their money and didn't, and I got to asking myself where the paradigm shift was in that.

For instance, with that kind of dough, Google could have bought the New York Times Company (NYT). I remember talking with Timesman Martin Nisenholtz about how the NYTimes was one of the biggest consumers/placements for Google AdWords, right behind the big portals as they were still called then, Yahoo and AOL (this must have been late 2004.) Nisenholz felt that the Times had to find a way to roll up in size, and not soon after, they bought About.com.

Presumably, if Google was looking for a property that they could own to place their own AdWords on, they could have considered buying The New York Times. But no--they didn't, did they--and the decision to spend all this money on YouTube shows that the coffin nails of mainstream media are already strewn across the open grave (Yes, I am feeling poetic tonight, that kind of day).

The amazing miracle of YouTube versus The Times, as everyone reading this blog surely already knows, is that YouTube is a platform where cream--user-uploaded videos--rises the the top, to be savored by the world, while The New York Times Company is an information organization that pays thousands of journalists, designers, business people and administrative types millions of dollars to create expert content that tells people what to think and what to like. And honey, that day is passing fast.

Via: http://media.seekingalpha.com/article/18193

[IPGLab] It’s all about the YouTube brand

Last night at the Creative Commons salon in SF (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Salon) the buzz around the Google - YouTube deal was not so much about the implications on Big Media content but rather about the content posted by independent users.  The Burning Man-esque crowd of copyright reformers seemed to feel that Big Media would find a way to get paid for their content.  But there was a lot of chatter about who was going to make money off the individual's work.  Free server space for video hosting is a table stakes expectation.  Unless GooTube can cut users in on the monetization of eyeballs to their work, the CC crowd fealt that the audience of video generators would migrate elsewhere much like LonelyGirl15.  The creators of LonelyGirl limited their posts to YouTube once they realized they could make more money by teasing the content on YouTube & MySpace but bringing people to their own site (www.lonelygirl15.com) that could be directly monetized with Revverized videos. 

It's safe to assume that the makers of AdSense and king of the micro-payment will find a way to financially reward independent video creators.  However, even with a parity compensation program, YouTube should maintain its audience provided that they properly nurture the YouTube brand.  Few digital media brands have exploded on to the popular consciousness like YouTube.  Awareness is sky high, yet I would suggest that the depth of understanding of the YouTube brand is quite low. 

In addition to using its new found resources to invest in a more rewarding user experience for video uploaders, YouTube would be wise to further invest in the drawing power of its Brand Awareness.  If it becomes cooler to upload your videos directly on to your own blog, profile, or some other video service, the YouTube audience could erode.
Via: http://blog.ipglab.com/?p=49

Should Your Brand Use Online Video?

With more than half of adults (53% of consumers 18 and older) stating that they view online video, we're witnessing the early signs of mainstream adoption of Internet video. Given that Gen Xers and Gen Yers view video more often than older generations, this sought-after audience is a prime target for video advertising. However, with diminishing effectiveness of standard online ads, marketers need to be more creative with their messages and targeting. To leverage online video in order to target customers effectively, marketers must think like content providers by creating entertaining video, not just placing ads. Some retail brands, such as Amazon, Borders, Best Buy, and Gap, actually have significant numbers of their customers viewing online video — making them a prime target.
Via: http://www.forrester.com/go?docid=38788

Corporate Blog Design Is Broken

As blogs become a staple of online culture, more and more companies are using them to humanize their organizations and build personal relationships with their customers. But most corporate blogs are fraught with usability problems — like confusing terminology and poor navigation — that hinder mainstream user adoption and regular readership. In order to tap the power of blogs, firms must understand their target users and the design shortcomings that currently make corporate blogs difficult to use.
Via: http://www.forrester.com/go?docid=40389

Bloggers Vs. Brands?

Suddenly corporations are all over the blogosphere. Last year, Business Week ran a feature, “Six tips for corporate bloggers”, which highlighted a deal between the web services company Marqui and 20 bloggers who were offered $2,400 each to write about the company once a week for three months. At the end of June this year, the idea went pro with payperpost.com, a site set up by Ted Murphy, chief executive of the advertising firm MindComet. PayPerPost’s home page shows a youthful adman in a smart suit and with a cheeky grin - “He wants to create a buzz for his new product” - alongside a glamorous girl kicking back at a cool party - “She wants to make money”. “You tell the blogger what you want him/her to post about,” the advice for advertisers reads. “You can require the blogger to add photos to their post, write about experiences with your product; the possibilities are up to your imagination.”

I don’t personally agree with the premise, but the article certainly highlights some points that are worth noting. Brands are trying to buy placement in blogs and this is a trend we’re going to see going on for the next few years as companies struggle to integrate the concept that globally networked marketplaces are human dialogues. It’s nothing insidious – instead, it’s just companies trying to fit the blogging world within their conception of the media world. Paying for product placement or ad space is normal to them and change can be a little scary sometimes. Eventually, I think this will give way to normal discourse, but it’s going to take few years.

More interesting, Stephen Armstrong, the author of the piece, seems to be subtly suggesting that instituting some type of oversight or regulation into the blogging world might be a good idea. Again, something I’m personally opposed to, if for no other reason than it would hamper the free marketplace of ideas.

My favorite line in the article, though? “Many new bloggers are […] college kids just trying to get laid.” Two questions: What universities does this guy live around and where can I get an application?

via: Interpublic - The Future of Media

The Futurelab 100 Online Brands

The Futurelab 100 ranks the online relevance of the world’s 100 most valuable brands as listed by Business Week/Interbrand. Its objective is to highlight to senior executives the importance of paying close attention to their brand’s performance in the online arena.

The ranking is based on the number of times the brand’s name appears in leading search engines like Google, Baidu and Technorati, the number of links to the brands website, its reach and Page-rank relevance, and the number of times people express their “love” or “hate” for the brand. The Futurelab 100 will be compiled each time Business Week/Interbrand issues a new ranking

[PDF] THE FUTURELAB 100 via: FutureLab

E-tailing 2.0 in Second Life, Entropia Universe, and There.

E-commerce is poised for a fundamental change—a shift from making online purchases (commercial transactions involving a single consumer interacting with a two-dimensional Web page) to going shopping online (a social experience involving groups of people interacting with one another in a three-dimensional Web space). The difference between the two is as great as the difference between sitting on your couch leafing through a J. Crew catalog and heading off with friends for an afternoon trip to the mall.
Via: HBR Are You Ready for E-tailing 2.0? October 2006

Sometimes this life seems so cluttered with marketing and sales pitches that it’s enough to make you want to flee to another world.

And you can. A second life awaits in one of the many increasingly popular online worlds, including one called Second Life. Inhabited by the alter egos of a few hundred thousand users, Second Life is not the most popular of these online habitats, but lately it has been attracting — yes — marketers. Toyota, Starwood Hotels and a variety of music and book companies have begun branding efforts in Second Life; the Virginia politician Mark Warner even gave an interview there recently. Longtime users like Gareth Lancaster have been expecting this.
via: NY Times Magazine Selling To Avatars, October 1, 2006