Media Planning

posted 02/16/08 by Rick Webb

Media planning. What’s our take on that, you ask? Well, like everything else on the Internet, we think it could be a lot better. It’s all kind of weird, still in this talking head phase from broadcast, where everything is thought of in discrete units that are interchangeable. On broadcast you have, what? 60s, 30s, 15s and, maybe, if things are crazy, a 3 or 6. But you make each one, and then you run them in a bunch of places. With interactive media planning, it’s like we have 90s, 80s, 60s, 50s, 40s, 30s, 20s, 11s, 9s and 14s, and each one has to be a different frame rate, and a different color, and a different interlace speed. It’s ridiculous how much money is wasted making mechanical iterations for online media buys done in a vacuum separate from the creative. Or when you do a banner campaign around a square piece of creative and the media buy comes back with a million skyscraper banners. Then the client ends up spending $180,000 to do the mechanical banners for a $300,000 media buy. These numbers are not made up. We’ve seen it happen. More than once.

It gets worse. How do you place a Subservient Chicken? How do you “buy media” for a viral campaign? And you know what else sucks? When you’ve just come up with the greatest idea ever for a campaign – a brilliant campaign that will tell the world about your awesome project without placing a single banner ad, and all you need is $100,000, which is awesome, because the client said they have $500,000 for the internet, except oh look there’s an email in your inbox saying that… oh, it’s the media plan. They just spent $450,000 on media. We have $50k now. Man, they didn’t even need that media. This happens all the time. All the time. It’s so bad.

Media planning needs to be holistic. It needs to be coordinated. It needs to be planned with all the information at hand, including the best ideas that are on the table so far. At some point, somewhere, someone makes a decision on how to break down how money is spent on Internet marketing. Sometimes a client will just say to us “we have X dollars, how should we spend it?” This is awesome. Sometimes, before a lick of creative is made – before a single good idea has been generated – the breakdown of how the Internet marketing money is going to be spent has already been determined. So here’s our bit of advice: whoever it is that is deciding where each dollar goes in their Internet marketing, please, for the love of god, decide after the ideas have come. Don’t plan your interactive spending before you know the best approach for the job at hand.

Interactive media planning is not just site, banner, partnership, add-ons, viral. It’s an approach. It’s a strategy to best, and most effectively, use the medium of the Internet and the finite amount of money you have to get your message across. It is different for every message, and it is not anything – at all – like media planning in any other medium.

And, finally, the most important thing we can tell you about media: Please, please, please don’t do a gigantic expensive media buy (print, TV, etc.) before you know how long the interactive will take to build. It’s common sense, we realize, but we think, owing to interactive’s historic place as the poor relations of advertising, it’s still all too often an afterthought. People come to us all of the time saying “the broadcast runs in six weeks. We need such-and-such for the Internet.” We will do everything we possibly can to make sure this happens, but all too often, it’s not possible for us, or it could be better given more time. Nine times out of ten, someone will be able to do it for you, but ten times out of ten it won’t be half as good as it could have been.

Here are some recent posts from our employees about Media Planning:

VitaminT Starter Upper

Are you interested in becoming the next Twitter, but have trouble writing with brevity? Do you feel you could have made Instagram, if not for your fierce devotion to your StarTAC? Despite all this, you still have the opportunity to create the Next Big Startup, thanks to Vitamin T’s latest offering: the Starter Upper. It’s your one-stop app for starting up your startup, based on a tried and true method of entrepreneurship – simple addition.

Behavioral Advertising & a Shower

1 shower. 2 audio ads. Multiple feelings & a conclusion.

Apps are killing the ad bubble

News sources are in love with the iPad because it is returning impressive engagement metrics and we are inevitably going to see a move towards apps and app aesthetics. For instance, the recent Twitter redesign was admittedly influenced by Twitter for iPad.
Right now it would seem that the advertising revenue from traditional websites is paying for the apps existence, and that is great… but as tablets and apps take eyes off of the sites the advertising is going to want to follow. Something has to give. Either the bubble pops, or apps fall into the same distracting trap the sites are in.
Apple introduced iAds to avoid this dilema, but so far the numbers aren’t in the advertisers favor there. There has to be a better way, and I want to find it.

TV ads are so easy!

It’s so easy to buy TV media these days even a child can do it. My son Brian spent $2 on Google AdWords to promote his webseries Guitarings (a collaboration with Kyle Gass of Tenacious D) and, after picking his programming schedule and demographic mix, sure enough, on Monday night at 3:19am on Versus, his 30 second TV spot ran, nationally. Haha. Awesome.
Here’s the spot:
I wonder at what point clients are just going to set up an account with Google and make their own media buys?
And ok, so at 24 my son’s not exactly a “child.” But it made for a better opening line to this post.

Oops I did it a again (Comment on Gigantico's "On Display" post)

Just read a gloriously clear, detailed explanation of everything that’s broken with banner production and media buys these days over on Gigantico, and of course once again I found myself leaving too long of a comment. I have to stop doing that. Anyway, you should totally read their post if you’re at all involved in the buying, selling, placing or production of display media.
My comment dealt more with the second part of his post, about the broken relationship between digital media agencies and digital creative agencies, but I do think I should probably also mention that in terms of Gigantico’s (very convincing) argument about new display units and download sizes, the IAB is starting to tackle that, and Noah and Jen over here are on the agency advisory committee, so at least that part is getting tackled. Or starting to.

Nine Rules for Effective SXSW Marketing, or avoiding the Purevolume problem

So, I am back from that insane week that is known as South by Southwest, or SXSW. For the uninitiated, SXSW is three conferences in one – an interactive conference for the first half of the week, a music conference for the second half of the week, and a film festival spanning the whole week. It takes place in Austin, TX and is in its one millionth year or something like that.
This is my fifth year attending both the music conference and the interactive conference, and my tenth SXSW overall. I’ll try and get to another post on here about the interesting things I encountered at the interactive conference, and I generally blog about my experience at the music festival over at my Rock Tourism blog Rocktourist if you’re curious.
What I thought it would be fun to do this year, though, would be to critique SXSW as a marketing channel. This seems like it might prove useful to our clients, who are always looking for interesting ways to market to people. And while there has been no shortage of things written about marketing @ SXSW, I haven’t seen too many people critique the marketing from a conference-goers point of view. Given my long history in advertising, I figured I was the man for the job.
There are several ways you can market at SXSW. First, you could go the legitimate route and become an official sponsor of the conference or conferences. This ranges from something as simple as a ad in their program book, to an insert, to sponsoring a party, as we did, or becoming a full on partner for the conference.
Secondly, you could throw a rogue party, or host a rogue party house. During the interactive conference, this mainly means doing things like buying out a bar for a night and spreading the word on facebook that you’ve got an open bar tab for a few hours. During the music conference, this can also be this way, but can extend to being an insanely elaborate “house,” such as the Fader/Levi’s Fort or the Red Bull Moontower.
During music, you also have the option of throwing a day party – sponsored or not. Rachel Rae and Paris Hilton took this route, as did the Onion and Pitchfork. Typically this is a consortium of brands banding together – friends, usually – and getting together with a music label, magazine, booking agent, etc. in order to bring you some bands.
One other option is to sign on as an additional sponsor one of the lounges that is already in existence. Purevolume is the best example of this. Purevolume is a music website that hosts an after-hours rock lounge all week, and sponsors pay to be either a week-long sponsor (if, say, you’re a vodka brand), or you can sponsor a specific night. As a bit of an experiment, I sponsored a specific night at Purevolume on my own (well, with some friends, more on that in a bit), using my twitter handle. I mainly did this because I like a good party, and I was curious what the process would be like.
Finally, you could “go rogue” and be on the ground, doing hard core guerilla marketing – leaflets, free samples, etc.
So, first, let’s look at the official sponsors. Basically, the top level of being an official SXSW sponsor lets you be a “presented by” sponsor. This means that every booklet, sign in the clubs, banner, etc. has your logo on it. You can be a “presented by” sponsor for interactive, film, music, or all of it.
The interactive only presented-by sponsors seem to include Microsoft Silverlight.
The all-conference sponsors seem to be Miller Lite, Fuze, IFC, ZOne (the bars, I think), and the Austin Chronicle.
Pepsi seems to be a sponsor as well, though during interactive, interestingly, they sponsored the conference as Mountain Dew. On the site it says Pepsico, with the old logo. On the banner behind the bands, it’s the much-maligned new logo.
This sort of sponsoring seems to be a straight up numbers and impressions play. SXSW is a remarkably diverse festival, especially across interactive, film and music. Getting your logo in front of all of those people probably has value – especially for second-tier products like Zone and Fuze. I have no idea what this sort of sponsorship costs, but I would do a straight up calculation against any other sort of outdoor or display advertising. There’s not a lot of deeper engagement with the consumer, and anything ancillary the offer aside from your logo everywhere goes to a far, far smaller number of people.
Throwing a party during the interactive and film conferences, by contrast, seems an extraordinary value. For very little money, you get your name printed in the official schedule, and a TON of people will come to your party. It’s up to you to capitalize on that and turn it into good will for your brand, but after two years, I’ve found it’s really not that hard. You just throw a good party, and be nice to everyone. Seems a much better value. Red Bull takes this to the extreme with the Red Bull Moontower, an amazing party installation over on east Guadaloupe that has fantastic art, great bands, free drinks, all the red bull you want and zero carbon footprint.
Having this kind of control over the experience is powerful, and you can reach your target in a much more effective way. Potential customers can feel true brand affinity for you if you footed the bill on them seeing Monotonix or Erica Bayduh up close and personal.
Comparing this to sponsoring something like Purevolume, the benefits become even more clear. After hours houses at SXSW are notoriously packed, impossible to get into, or so far away that they aren’t worth going to. You don’t control the brand experience, and the conditions are generally horrible. I paid maybe a third as much for my Purevolume sponsorship as we did for the Barbarian/Onion party at the (really wonderful) Mohawk bar. I don’t think I even got one tenth of the brand exposure. For days afterward, people were complimenting me on our great party at the Mohawk. For days afterward I found myself apologizing for the rude door staff, capricious rules, schizophrenic bouncers, warm beer and intolerable volume at the Purevolume house. The told us the VIP area held 100, limited our total number of VIP wristbands (not simultaneous attendance, but total wristbands) to 50, then took ten of those for themselves, even though they had the other 50, and then proceeded to cram 200 people in there. We had a wine cosponsor who wasn’t allowed to serve her wine. All of this was after we explicitly stated our concerns that exactly this would happen. Priority attendance was randomly cut off at 1AM for a 4AM party – even though the whole point of doing it there was for the 4AMness of the event, and such a cutoff was nowhere in our contract.
Having gone to SXSW many times, and been to Purevolume before, I went into it expecting exactly this sort of behaviour, and so I’m not surprised. But I cringe thinking of other sponsors who come by expecting to be treated well. Walk up to the door and say your a sponsor. You’d expect at least a “oh hello, this isn’t your night but come on in” or a “sorry we can’t let you in tonight but talk to so and so tomorrow and you’ll be all set.” This was a nuisance for me, but could be a serious drag if you’re a brand or trying to show a client a good time. It’s worse when you’re trying to get a client in, holding a VIP wristband for them in your hand, and are being yelled at by bouncers telling you that the place is full no matter what, while you watch them bring in underage girls.
Obviously I’m a little bitter, but I think it does actually highlight the risk of this sort of marketing. As you partner up with people, know who’s in charge. Purevolume has a business to run and an image to protect and that involves giving young aspiring rock bands the impression of upward success in the music industry. This is potentially true at any other party that’s not in your control.
I’ve noticed that Fader and Levi’s have had a long fruitful relationship on the marketing of the Fort, and it seems to work well for them. I’d have to question the immense expense and whether it’s had an impact on their brand, however, but at least I can’t fault the great experience the Fader/Levi’s fort provides. You’ll notice, however, there aren’t a ton of second-level sponsors for the Fort – it’s just a couple brands. So the impact is stronger.
I also have to put in a good word for the guerilla marketing on sixth street. Free handouts are THE BOMB and everyone is thankful. There are THOUSANDS of people on sixth street, just walking around – way more than actually attend the conference. And they love free stuff. There was a line 8 people deep wherever the little Red Bull car went.
This, then, I think, leads us to some guiding principle for advertising at SXSW.
Nine Rules for effective SXSW Sponsorship
#1: Do less, well. Don’t try and blanket the whole event unless you can OWN it. Have a single party, or maybe two, and have them be AWESOME. Facebook did this expertly during interactive – they found a great club and they had their single party, and it was awesome and I will be forever thankful for them for showing me the awesomeness that is Flosstradamus live. I still have people thanking us for Tokyo Police Club last year, even though we were the smaller party last year.
#2: Don’t worry if there’s something else going on. There are just SO many people at SXSW, and so many parties, and so much NEED for parties that it’s totally okay if there’s another, or bigger party down the street. So long as you’re listed in the official guide (or have great promo on your own), people will show up. People show up for bands in the lobbies of banks and at pizza restaurants. They’ll come to the party.
#3: If you’re throwing an event, have a stone cold badass party planner, and make sure you have your VIP situation sorted out: Any party at SXSW, no matter what, is going to have a line at the door. Hundreds of people long. Before you start. Make sure your VIPs know who they are, and make sure they know how to behave and where to go. Make it clear to them they’re the VIPs, and don’t call everyone VIP. There’s nothing that upsets people more than to be told their a VIP and then get to the party and realize that there are 500 other VIPs waiting in line.
#4: Keep your event downtown: This one is the subject of much debate – and the remoteness of the Red Bull Moontower definitely adds to its air of authenticity, and makes the locals feel a bit more loved. But do consider the ramifications of location. People are notoriously weary of lines. but they’ll give anything a shot if they know it’s not too far out of their way and there’s another bar next door.
#5: Control the event, or at least make sure you trust those who do: When we first came to SXSW, we did our party with the Onion, whose president at the time was a close personal friend of mine. I knew they wouldn’t screw us, I knew we could trust them. One of my employees was friends with the bar owner. Ditto. The minute it feels like you’re talking to your potential co-ponsor like a media channel or a media outlet, rather than a partner, beware. If your goals and needs aren’t aligned, and they’re in control, their needs will come first.
#6: Try to stay legit: There’s a LOT of weirdness with being a legitimate SXSW sponsor. They want you to upsell. They may discourage you from having your party on a certain night. They may not exactly tell you what their motivations are. Sometimes it’s a complete mystery. Why is the opening party for interactive THREE DAYS IN? Nobody knows! But in general, they’re good people, and being a legitimate sponsor is not only sound from an impressions and marketing point of view, it’s the right thing to do.
#7: Offer something unique: Bring a band who’s not playing (Activision OWNED this this year with Metallica showing up at their Guitar Hero party). Bands during interactive. Free booze. Something to give your party a little bit different of a spin.
#8: Get a ground crew: Having a local presence can help immensely. We have definitely benefitted from the Onion’s Austin ground operation through the years (thanks guys!)
#9: Become friends with the staff: If your event has a staff, try to become friends with them. They may change halfway through the night, that friendship may go out the window when capacity hits, but it can’t hurt. And stay cool. Treat them well and they will treat you well. Usually.
Okay, I’m running out of rules. Nine it is. This entry is so Mashable.

Banners, The Media-Creative Scism

Expanding on yesterday’s post, another blog post of mine that started as a comment. This time, to Noah, commenting on yesterday’s post
I think there is a TON that can be done with the banner. I have a whole host of thoughts about that – not dissimilar to yours. As you know, we do still take the occasional banner job, and I always find it hilarious how pleasantly surprised our clients are at our abnormally high interaction and clickthrough rates. They’re always wondering what tech or theory we’ve applied, and are always confused when I tell them we just made the banner with a creative approach, from the heart. It’s such a rarity people consider it innovative.
That being said, I do think, broadly speaking, that the banner has a marginal, at best, place in really making a great brand initiative online. What are the great brands that have been built using the web? Google, Facebook, Twitter, Zappo’s, Netflix. Banners have barely been involved. This, I think, is the crux of the issue: to make a great brand online, you need a methodical strategy, a plan, and a lot of manpower. What you don’t need is a lot of paid placement. And our industry still makes its bread and butter on paid placement.
I did an IAB panel not too long ago and the one thing I said that people actually agreed with was that “our industry shot itself in the foot, when it comes to the internet, when we split media and creative.” It was a great idea, given the circumstances at the time. It’s making our job nearly impossible on the internet. There are these media companies that control the money, and they have a massive disincentive to move that money to the Internet, because it’s a lot more work for them, for less money, and less impactful results. This is not just theoretical. I’ve seen it in every single relationship I’ve had with a media company. Clients want to spend more on the internet, so they tell their media company to shift their dollars. But what’s the media company gonna do? Take an effective, lucrative arrangement with CBS and funnel that money into some half-assed content partnership with MSN? They know in their hearts that it’s not as effective, and it’s more work.
That poor CMO’s screwed too, because his extra funds to the internet aren’t being applied correctly. Because where you actually make an impact on the internet is over on the creative and strategy side. Websites, games, branded content and utilities, a social media strategy. Stuff that creative shops make, not media shops. And those shops, who are desperately need of greater funds to make bigger impressions for brands on the internet, cannot get the funds they need, because all the money’s locked over on the media side. And then the media side try and make all of that stuff, to capture the revenue, but they don’t have any good digital creatives, because what great digital creative would want to work at Giant Media Company X, when they could be working here or at RGA? It’s a total mess.
The solution, obviously, is for companies like us to get into Planning, as RGA has. This, of course, has it’s own set of problems – economies of scale on purchases, executing the purchases, and the need for a new type of smarter, more web-savvy media planner who views a Twitter feed or an ad on the Massive network in-game or a blog mention as viable media channels just as much as a Yahoo! partnership or search. And the old media companies are no dummies, of course, so whenever such media planners do crop up, those companies snap them up immediately. Usually somewhere around their fourth interview here, since, you know, it’s our first one, and we want to be careful. Ha. So it’s a slog. But one I think, over time, we can prevail in. It’s gonna take another 2-3 years, though. But even then, the bulk of major marketer’s money will be locked up at the Group Ms of the world, and even as more money is shifted to the internet, the bulk of it will be wasted on half-assed creative and ill-conceived partnerships, not providing value for anyone and tainting CMO’s view of the efficacy of interactive advertising.
Another theoretical solution for this would be to see the Aegis/Carat’s of the world really truly properly integrate their creative boutique offerings (such as, in their case, FarFar) as part of the big picture from the getgo when planning an online marketing spend, but here you get to the last, ugly but undeniable truth.
You have a million dollars of a client’s money to spend online. Which is more profitable? Give it to a boutique studio that has a team of 15 expensive people on the project, with high overhead costs and a lot of freelancer bills, or to give it to Yahoo, and take 25% profit off the top, and assign one media guy to oversee it? The profit pressure is immense to just give it to Yahoo.
But which is more effective for the client? 15 of the best people in the world building something great and unique for your brand, or another freakin’ bland content partnership with a portal, and some banner ads?

@brianmorrissey, the dearth of internet creatives

There’s a great post by Brian Morrissey over on his blog about whether or not there’s a dearth of great internet creatives. He implictly exempts our dear selves over here @ TBG with his chicken photo, bless him. He makes some great points about creativity, but he also got me thinking about paid media. Banners. Display.
His quote from the a digital agency CEO was telling – “doesn’t think it’s possible to do large-scale brand building through web media.”
This CEO – and the IAB – are, as brian says, fighting the last war.
We all know it’s possible to build a brand on the web. Zappo’s et al have showed us this. The problem is that last word: Media. Here’s the god’s honest truth: to build a great brand on the web, you don’t need to buy a single piece of paid media.
The fact of the matter is that paid media placement is almost entirely irrelevant to brand building on the web. Think about that. To build a brand on the web, you don’t need the one thing that the ad industry is built upon – buying space and time. Yet virtually every “digital marketing” organization out there is built upon buying and selling these paid media placements. It’s as if we’re trying to build the first automobile but insist that we keep the horse in there.
I don’t think it’s so much a matter of the lack of great creatives, as the fact that everyone’s working within organizations that are, from their very core of their being, built for the wrong purpose.