That is to say, after a 50 plus-year reign of supremacy, has broadcast media begun to slide down a slippery slope to be consigned to history with the telegraph and Morse code? More and more evidence seems to be mounting that broadcast is facing troubled times. First, the market was segmented when cable came of age. The “Big three” were suddenly faced with actual competition and they lost significant numbers of eyeballs. This didn’t do a lot for programming initially, the song “500 Channels and Nothing on” sort of summed up the early cable landscape (with the possible exception of MTV, in the early days). But eventually, the industry found its footing and went the way of the magazine industry with channels dedicated to niche markets—think the History Channel for old men, the Food Network for people who like to eat, the Travel Channel for people who want to see the world without leaving their house, and Animal Planet for people who can sit through six hours of Ron Reagan commentating the riveting action of a dog show.

And while radio has always been a bit of a wild-west environment, the world reacted to the homogenization of content with satellite radio and our friends (soon to be friend) XM and Sirius (maybe Xirius, quick run out and register that URL). Once again we have channels that are designed to appeal to a much narrower demographic based on the inescapable logic that there may not be enough of an audience to make a radio station devoted entirely to the delta blues genre in any one metropolitan area, but if you take all of the people from all of the metropolitan areas in the country and add in the smattering of people in between those places, suddenly you have a potential audience that rivals the legions of Britney Spears fans that used to exist. And Clear Channel had to go running to a judge to make sure its leveraged buyout isn’t plagued by nit picky questions from a lot of bean counting bankers.

So, we see the broadcast universe moving to a model of medium-casting, with content appealing on different channels to smaller groups of people. But where do we go from here? (more…)

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

“It’s hard to know where to spend your money.” This is a quote from Mat Zucker at Agency.com, an Omnicom Shop from Adweek.

I circled that quote three times over because it optimized the confusion and quandary most agencies have today. They really don’t know. They are not sure whether they should ethically advise their clients to shift major budget to the web or protect their existing bread and butter in print and TV. They don’t know whether to build a microsite, re-build the existing corporate site or build landing pages within social networks like Facebook. They simply are more confused, conflicted and truthfully unable to make good strategic recommendations going forward. So, they guess and pontificate and recommend using old school “push” methods and creative mentality that does not work on the web, costing corporations billions in lost marketing dollars.

There is no reason for confusion. It just takes a little guts to do something new for your client, or if you are the client, new for your company. Find out what your target audience does, where they go, what they like and then use those channels and information to market to them.

Aaron Kahlow is managing partner of BusinessOnLine and chairman of the Online Marketing Summit. He is a regular columnist for Electronic Retailer magazine.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Here’s a few photo highlights from parties held during ERA’s recent eRetailer Summit in Miami. Check back often, your mug shot may be up next!

Click here for more information about upcoming events!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

As far as reality TV goes, Bravo’s “Project Runway” is top notch, or ‘fierce’ as some would say. While watching season four’s recent finale, one advertisement stuck out to me. It was a Levi’s ad directly targeting gay men.

American Airlines recently launched a major multimedia ad campaign targeting the gay travel demographic. I could go on and on about how inspiring it is to see these companies stepping outside of the box and making bold political statements, but I won’t. Frankly, these were smart business decisions. Sure, you may run into trouble from the likes of the American Family Association, which recently ended its two-year boycott of Ford for advertising to gays, but this is unlikely and trivial. The real lesson is in the numbers.

A report from eMarketer research found the following:

—The buying power of U.S. gay and lesbian consumers was $660 billion in 2006 and is expected to reach $835 billion by 2011.

—According to U.S. Census Bureau data, the median annual household income in the U.S. in 2006 was $46,326. For single gay men, that number was $62,000 and for single lesbians, it was $52,000. That number rises to $130,00 for gay male couples and $96,000 for lesbian females.

—About 89 percent of U.S. gay male respondents and 91 percent of lesbian respondents thought a brand’s sponsorship or support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) events favorably influenced their buying decisions.

—A significant percentage of the GLBT community checks whether a company is gay-friendly before buying its products.

—About one in four GLBT Internet users said they have switched products or service providers because they found a competing company that supports causes that benefit the GLBT community.

—Like a privacy policy or Better Business Bureau seal of approval, companies genuinely connecting with the GLBT community display the trademarks of relevant organizations prominently on their sites. With strong evidence that the GLBT community will support those companies that respect them, this is a best practice for online marketers.

Wells Fargo, Orbitz, Diet Pepsi, Diet Coke, Saab, Citi, IBM, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Prudential Financial, XM Satellite Radio, BP, Absolut Vodka, GM, AT&T, Chase, Harrah’s, Merrill Lynch, Showtime, Volvo, Dell, Hotels.com, Motorola, Nike, Shell and UPS all actively support the gay community.

If you’re not already including gays in your marketing, then why not? What are you so afraid of?

Pat Cauley, eMedia Editor, Electronic Retailer Magazine

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are two of the worst offenders when it comes to wearing fur. We’ve written the twins letters and sent them our undercover investigation to let them know the cruelties of this industry; however, that seems to have made no difference to them. The Olsen twins are constantly in the public eye and are looked up to by millions of girls around the world—that’s a lot of responsibility, and one that shouldn’t be taken lightly. What kind of message does supporting the fur industry send their fans? That it’s okay to abuse animals to keep up with the latest trends? That’s just downright heartless. There are so many humane alternatives out there that don’t cause an animal to suffer and die—like faux fur—that there is no excuse for wearing the fur off an animal’s back.

Our Trollsen Twins campaign is an entertaining way for people to learn about what happens to animals killed for their fur—people who might not know anything about what happens to millions of foxes, chinchillas, minks, rabbits, and yes, even cats and dogs, that are killed to become “fashion” accessories. We live in a tabloid world, and most of the time it takes something unique, and sometimes controversial, to catch people’s attention. We use every opportunity we can to help animals, and this is one way that is without a doubt effective.

Check out just a few recent articles that have been written about the campaign:

Fox News
AOL News
E! Online

There are celebrities out there who use to wear fur, but once we contacted them and let them know what the animals go through, they had a change of heart—and even work with us on our anti-fur campaign now. Eva Mendes is one of those celebrities who had a change of heart—check out her anti-fur ad and what she has to say about the fur industry here.

We know this campaign doesn’t necessarily appeal to everyone, which is why this is just one approach we take to educating people about animal rights. We do public outreach at concerts and festivals, write letters to the editor, stage demonstrations, offer free and low-cost spay and neuter services locally, and help students make a difference for animals. We focus on the four major industries that the largest number of animals are treated the worst—in the food, entertainment, experimentation and clothing industries. This is simply one of our campaigns to help animals that are abused by these industries, and simply one part of the important work PETA does to help animals.

Dan Shannon is assistant director of youth outreach & campaigns for PETA.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Back in December, I wrote a post discussing PETA’s marketing tactics against the Olsen Twins for wearing fur. Click here to read the original post, “Has PETA’s Advertising Gone Too Far?” This post spurred the most comments to date on our blog. Below I’ll share a few of the comments we received. And stay tuned, PETA has seen our blog and is rendering a response!

I think it’s an innovative new approach to go after high profile celebrities with a catchy phrase like “trollsen twins.” It caught my eye when I read about it and isn’t that the point? – Anne

For me, PETA’s tactics turn me off from the cause more than anything. I sympathize with their plight, but the vile public harassment makes their campaign less about fur and more about the defamation of their current target. – Jessie

Ummm, that’s pathetic. I don’t think it is effective to attack people as far as their lifestyles are concerned. They are just attacking celebrities because of their iconic status, thus drawing in attention. Yes, that works but not for the mission of the company. I think it would be more powerful if they actually focused on the reality of animal rights, something that would open the public’s eyes to the issues and recruit supporters. PS- This makes me think of Jeremy Piven throwing meat at the Vegans in PCU. – Jordan

I think PETA’s approach is not very different from other product advertising campaigns, such as, tobacco’s - “smoking after sex.” Alcohol and tobacco have been selling sex for years, why not PETA. Peta should hire a nutritionist to conduct some research into the possibility of vegetarians being more virile and potent. It could launch a whole new Viagra type advertising campaign. Let’s uncover the hard facts about being a vegetarian. – James

There is a documentary on HBO about the head lady of PETA. She is a nut. After watching that I would never support PETA. As for this campaign, it does nothing for me. Instead of using celebs they need to show people some of the hidden camera footage they have of the way some of these animals are treated. PETA has a crazy following with the mentality “you are with us, or against us,” and that is the wrong way to go about things. If they are looking for people the change the way they treat/consume animals the hot Olsen Twins are not going to get it done. – Boris

The tactics of PETA are sensationalistic and ineffective. If they really wanted to change the plight of animals and make a difference, they would not be wasting their time defaming celebrities and making tabloid headlines, but rather putting their efforts into exposing and trying to correct the horrible conditions behind the scenes. – Joy

We encourage all blog readers to dive into the discussion with us. Simply click on the “Comments” link below each post to add your thoughts.

Pat Cauley, eMedia editor, Electronic Retailer Magazine

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

It was the summer of 2003. I had just finished my first year of college down South, returned home to Pittsburgh and landed an internship in the Steelers’ marketing department. Walking into Heinz Field’s corporate offices was like something out of a movie for someone who was born and raised in ‘Steelers Country.’

I remember like it was yesterday sitting down in the boardroom as a manager sat across the long, brown, intimidating table ready to grill me. Forget a suit, I was dressed in old Catholic school gear I had dug out of my closet and forcefully asked my mother to dry clean! That table was all that stood between us. I was expecting the usual litany of dress code rules, vacation allowances, etc., when he caught me off guard and said, “What does marketing mean to you?” It would be two more years before I would even take my first marketing class, and so a stab in the dark was all I had going for me. Throughout the next four months, I learned an insurmountable amount of information about promoting the Steelers brand to better the community and serve the fans.

These early lessons have carried over into my current career, as I watch many of our members and readers engage consumers—rather than fans—to buy and interact with their companies. Fortune recently released a list of the top 20 most admired companies:

1) Apple, 2) Berkshire Hathaway, 3) General Electric, 4) Google, 5) Toyota Motor, 6) Starbucks, 7) FedEx, 8 ) Proctor & Gamble, 9) Johnson & Johnson, 10) Goldman Sachs Group, 11) Target, 12) Southwest Airlines, 13) American Express, 14) BMW tied with Costco Wholesale, 16) Microsoft, 17) United Parcel Service, 18) Cisco Systems, 19) 3M and 20) Nordstrom

These companies obviously all benefit from extraordinary marketing and/or advertising departments. For me, good marketing means taking creative risks. Taking the big chances is sometimes worth it, but sometimes it doesn’t pan out quite as you’d like. Take Cartoon Network’s gaffe last year, for example, when large, electronic light boards featuring characters from its popular “Aqua Teen Hunger Force” giving the middle finger led to bomb scares and the closing of multiple bridges in Boston. How is one supposed to know when a marketing gimmick or promotion has gone too far? How should CEOs react when marketing departments propose such big ideas?

Enjoy the following hilarious clip from CollegeHumor.com that pokes fun at the Cartoon Network scenario.

What does marketing mean to you?

Pat Cauley, eMedia Editor, Electronic Retailer Magazine

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Advantages:

-Native Spanish-speaking agents provide for higher quality communication with callers
-Call center labor pools in Spanish-speaking countries are generally more ample than on-shore
-Lower costs per minute and per hour
-Offshore and near-shore centers are oftentimes more flexible in accommodating U.S.- based clients’ requirements compared to traditional U.S. based call centers
-Lower rotation of employees, which allows greater continuity and consistency
-Native Spanish-speaking agents in Spanish-speaking countries are generally more inclined to sell than those that work in U.S.-based centers

Disadvantages:

-Time consuming and more expensive to travel to offshore/near-shore locations for site inspection and training
-Time zone difficulties
-Risk and cost of telecommunications-related infrastructure located outside the U.S. can be higher
-Call centers in other countries don’t always understand U.S. business culture and demands of U.S.-based companies
-Lack of understanding of U.S. addresses and fulfillment requirements

Conclusion:

Most call centers outside the U.S. utilize VoIP telecommunications to reduce the cost of call transmission, which make the cost of long distance inexpensive. Training outside the U.S. can be a little bit more expensive and take more time to travel, but if the marketer has budget, on-site training and site inspection are always worthwhile. Labor costs outside the U.S. are almost always more attractive. Marketers should consider whom the management team is and if it has experience conducting business in the U.S. and is able to communicate effectively with and reports correctly to U.S. marketers. Marketers must consider their level of comfort with each of these items and also take into account their experience or ability in first, managing a call center and second, managing a call center operation outside the U.S.

Do you agree?

Neal Topf  is president of Callzilla, LLC, and a member of ERA’s U.S. Hispanic Council

Bookmark It