Digital entertainment branding

CBS announced yesterday that it will allow Yahoo! to stream two entire episodes of its television comedies, “Two and a Half Men” and “How I met Your Mother”, from Dec. 27 through Jan. 2 via www.tv.yahoo.com. We are clearly watching the continuing media shift that has major implications for marketers and advertisers alike.

We are witnessing advertisers and branders experiment with new ways to distribute their content while at the same time searching for revenue sources other than traditional television advertisers. It is an interesting process to witness. It is also a process that can teach a lesson to all marketers and branders: Test and measure to quantify branding ROI.

When we consider the ol’ P’s of the Marketing Mix, the P for “Place” involves distribution. Let’s talk about that for a minute.

With television content now being digitized, it no longer is necessary for content to be “aired” at certain times at which everyone who wants to view must tune in. Television shows can be distributed in any number of ways, not necessarily by advertiser-supported television broadcast. Even when they are, consumers may record the broadcast and view it later at a shifted time while zapping out commercials.

Apple with its iTunes is clearly the leader in the distribution of digital entertainment content. Disney chose to distribute some of its content via iTunes for a fee and now CBS chooses Yahoo! at no charge to the consumer. Interestingly enough, although you may be receiving Disney content, you are doing it within the context of the Apple-branded environment and brand experience. CBS’s content is delivered within the Yahoo!-branded experience. Even of more interest, CBS does not even produce the shows it is making available, they are licensed for network airing from Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox.

What is going here?

There is a grand experiment taking place that involves not only distribution but also the brand management of digital entertainment content. This involves many issues that are carefully being tested and measured.

Some of the questions being explored are:

If programming is distributed by alternate outlets, does the financial benefit of wider reach and distribution outweigh the loss of control over a portion of the brand experience?

If content is distributed via one’s own or a partner's website or online service, how will this affect revenues from existing television advertising?

Can new distribution methods capture new revenue streams?

Are consumers willing to accept commercial marketing messages in their digital content in exchange for better programming, easier access or lower prices?

Is there any long-term financial benefit to the brand of getting wider reach with entertainment content if one does not immediately increase revenues as a result?

Can the revenue generated by a distribution partner deal outweigh the financial loss from advertisers and loss of direct control over the brand?

If we can achieve wide content distribution, will advertisers then come to us willing to pay for access in this alternative media? If so, will consumers accept the ensuing intrusion...or does that just get us back to where we started?

Media and market fragmentation continue to destroy the old model of advertiser-supported television. Television is becoming a direct marketing, direct response medium. Studios are grasping to hang on to their exorbitant rate cards until they find new sources of revenue and advertisers are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for expensive television advertising in the face of shrinking audiences and consumer disdain for marketing messages. This shift from a mass market approach to a direct or niche approach will have long-term ramifications.

The winners of this new age will be those companies who find ways to get quality programming into the hands and hearts of those consumers who will gladly give something back in return. Be it direct financial support by paying for content or a willingness to support advertisers and information intermediaries who make easier or better distribution possible.

Now that we take a closer look at it, nothing has really changed at all.

Smart marketers and branders realized all along that strong brands must attract loyal and passionate customers who are willing to make some sort of financial commitment to the brand.

There is and never was any such thing as a free lunch because brands must financially benefit the company in some way or the rest is academic. Capturing eyeballs and ears without action in return is not enough.

The brands who find ways to get the desired content to the right people in the best way for those consumers will be the winners. Consumers will gladly respond with support for the brand as long as the promise is made and reciprocity agreement is understood and reached up-front. Those brands will show a measurable, financial return.

Brand confusion? Brands & Sub brands - first MP3 audio post

- Transcript -
This morning while listening to the radio, I heard a talk show host discuss today’s announcement by Volkswagen that it releasing the world’s fastest car. With 1,001 horsepower and a zero to 62 mph time of 2.5 seconds, this absurd Bugatti automobile will sell for a million dollars and be sold through only a few Bentley dealerships throughout the country because Bentley and Bugatti are both brands owned by VW. The parting comment from the show host asked rhetorically, “Will anyone really buy a $1M Volkswagen?”

I like to look to the automotive industry for case studies on branding since some of the greatest successes and most miserable failures in brand strategy have taken place in this industry. From Ford’s Edsel to Chrysler’s near-death experience and rebirth in the 1980’s under Lee Iacocca to Toyota’s creation of the Lexus luxury brand to Honda’s complete transformation from its initial image as a cheap, small import brand, this industry provides us plenty of branding education.

A brand should offer unique value and promise an experience that cannot be found anywhere else in the market. When you get right down to it, brand strategy is little more than a philosophy toward how a brand should be designed, manufactured, distributed, sold and supported after the sale. The philosophy for each brand should be unique, offer a unique experience, and deliver on that philosophy each and every time.

In this case the guy on the radio got it wrong by asking the wrong question. This car is not a $1M VW or a Bentley. It is unmistakably a Bugatti.

Bugatti obviously has a completely unique philosophy toward its brand. It could never be mistaken for a VW nor will it be. The brands are very clearly differentiated.

I’m not so sure the same could be said about the Chevy, Buick, Pontiac and General Motors brands.

Bringing out the best in yourself & others

Make no mistake, optimism and happiness are choices...and they are choices that must be made every day.

Rarely are the best choices the easiest.

Media shift continues

According to a recent PR Week story, the Top 10 media trends to watch are:

1. Portability of video content
2. Blogs
3. Media transparency
4. The rise of celebrity weeklies
5. The growth of Hispanic media
6. Business woes for newspapers
7. Digitization of print media
8. Media consolidation
9. Source agnostic/disintermediation
10. Refining media measurement

Let’s continue to focus on #1.

As I’ve commented in this space before, the portability of video content is going to cause a major change in the way we consume media.

Today there is a story in the USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-06-nbc-ipod_x.htm that announces that NBC Universal Television Group has reached an agreement with Apple to sell its television shows for download to video iPods and other electronic media players.

There is also currently legislation in the United States to force cable companies to allow consumers to choose the channels to which they’d like to subscribe a la carte rather than in packages or bundles. (Can satellite radio be far behind?)

We will soon be at a point where all of our media is highly personalized and we will seek out only the media we want to be exposed to. We are “self-regulating” ourselves to get rid of media clutter and only consume what we want.

While some will argue that this will cause polarization of opinion and narrow mindedness, I believe it will cause media companies to finally, truly become marketing-led organizations.

Consumers will dictate what they want to see, when they want to see it and how much they want to see. Consumers will also “test drive” many other options to expose themselves to a more diversified pallet of opinions and points of view. They will seek these alternative "channels" when they are most open to fully considering other points of view.

I also believe that consumers will reward advertisers who find ways to support the new media model by making conscious decisions to support those advertisers who make it simpler, more enjoyable or cheaper to obtain the media. They will also support those advertisers who support content that is in tune with their own world view. Welcome to the free market, democratized media and advertising model.

The digitization and distribution shift of news and entertainment content continues to be revolutionary. While the widespread adoption of digital content consumption continues, traditional broadcast media will continue to face challenges and so will advertisers. Advertisers will have to become niche marketers because our channels will be, in and of themselves, niches.

I think we will all be better for it.