Showing posts with label digital advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital advertising. Show all posts

Monday, April 14, 2014

Thanks For Sharing: Oliver Luckett and the New World Order of Celebrity Advertising

In the midst of trying to come up with something write about this week, I came across an article in Yahoo News titled, "It's All in the Share, and the Buzz." by Eric Pfeiffer.  The article discusses a man named Oliver Luckett who has become incredibly successful for branding and shaping public perceptions of celebrities such as Mark Wahlberg, large companies such as Ford Motors, and even President Obama.  He does this by creating original content that is heavy on "buzz" and the likelihood of going viral.

Oliver Luckett in theAudience's Hollywood Headquarters (via.)
Luckett began his foray into development of media specifically designed for an online audience in 2008 after selling his company DigiSynd to Disney.  From there, he launched his new company theAudience with Napster and Facebook's Sean Parker and William Morris Endeavor's Ari Emanuel.  The purpose of the company is to build an online presence for their clients while also shaping people's perceptions.  Luckett sees the internet as the only necessary medium in building and crafting brand awareness.  It doesn't have to be as expensive as television and the results are frequently more quickly realized.

Let me break down a couple of examples:
  • Perhaps the most famous example of theAudience's work is an EDM song by a duo called The Chainsmokers, who quite literally utilized the power of social media to gain a following and subsequently a major label contract after the release of their song, "#SELFIE".  
               
            I personally find the song to be terrible, but does shamelessly find a method of relating to the youth generation's inherent narcissism or vanity, as well as their desire to connect with one another.   The "word" selfie is so heavily used in our society's everyday vernacular that Webster's Dictionary actually added it to it's list of words in 2013.  Not only are "selfies" incredibly popular with today's youth, but many of the "selfies" used in the videos are licensed through real teenage "social media celebrities".  Two examples are Acacia Brinley (1.2 million followers on Instagram) and Nash Grier (6.5 million Vine followers).  I have no idea who these people are, but with such a large audience, it was not long before the video went viral.  It currently sits at over 64 million views on YouTube.

             EDM music plus social media celebrities plus use of hashtags and the word "selfie", it all seems far too obvious, but it worked.  It certainly doesn't make our youth look very intelligent, it makes them look predictable.  

  • The second example is a commercial that was created by Ford Motors and released a couple of weeks ago.  If you'll recall, Cadillac released a commercial during the Super Bowl that received a great deal of criticism for "extolling the values of American consumer culture."  As a reference, here is that commercial:

              As you can see, the commercial presumes that Americans work harder than the rest of the world and that as a result, we're better and we deserve better.  There are a lot of ways the tone and dialogue might be deemed offensive, but in response Luckett and his team chose to leech off of the video's infamy and create a response for Ford Motors:


                     The clip features Detroit activist Pashon Murray speaking proudly of the good that hardworking Americans do.  She makes note that we are not all material driven, entitled blowhards.  She leaves the viewer feeling good about themselves, that they should hold their head up high because we are American and that means we want to make the world a better place.  The video currently has over a million views on YouTube and was published on March 26th.  Those aren't astronomical numbers but they are still impressive.  

It's easy to recognize that clear dichotomy between the two campaigns, but that is because they are specifically designed with different audiences in mind (the firm's namesake was not chosen hastily).  Luckett and his team recognize the power of "sharability" and the changing landscape of advertising.  A lot of the power of theAudience is driven by the company's access to a vast network of celebrity supporters.   Ford was responsible for the commercial itself, but they needed help reaching viewers which is where Luckett came in.  He granted them access to a number of vast celebrity networks that agreed to share the video on their social media accounts.  If you think that's impressive, imagine the impact theAudience had during the most recent presidential campaign.

Luckett was hired to manage over 60 Facebook pages for Barack Obama and his initiatives and was able to reach 261 million people a week with original content designed specifically for President Obama.  The power his company is able to wield, especially in this age of instant fame and celebrity worship is perhaps unmatched.  I'm not sure if it's fair or manipulative exploitation, but I'm very curious where this methodology will go next and who else will hop on board.  What are your thoughts?  Is the age of television advertising dead?  What do you think the key to successful viral marketing?  

Sources:


Monday, April 7, 2014

TWITTER AND THE NEW UNCERTAIN WORLD OF DIGITAL ADVERTISING

TWITTER AND THE NEW, UNCERTAIN WORLD OF DIGITAL ADVERTISING



Greetings to everyone enrolled in MKT 595,

This is my first blog post with regards to this course, but it is certainly not my first foray into the world of blogging.  In the past I have created blogs that discussed comedy and music (I'd post the URLs but the information is so dated, I think it would only serve to embarrass me.  Do you remember when Susan Boyle was a new thing?  You do?  Well kudos to you! Do you remember when The Big Bang Theory was funny?  I don't!)

Anyway, to kick things off I figured I'd discuss something I'm incredibly curious about which is the effectiveness of advertising on Twitter or more specifically how Twitter generates revenue.  My little brother was recently offered a job at the popular - newly public - tech firm in a sales position.  He and his team would be charged with persuading companies to purchase promoted tweets that would be targeted at relevant Twitter users.

Twitter currently has around 645,750,000 users, with an average number of 58 million tweets per day.  That means that the average person should be tweeting about 11 times each day.  Unfortunately this is far from reality.  In fact, about 40% of Twitter accounts (258,300,000) do not tweet anything at all.  This does not necessarily mean that the accounts are dormant, but they very well could be.

Some other statistics I found quite interesting:

  • About .5% of the Twitter users attract 50% of attention on the channel
  • 71% of daily tweets attract no reaction
  • 25% of Twitter users have 0 followers
  • Approximately only 8% of Americans use Twitter
There are several other tidbits that you can find in the links below, but the point is that I am not able to reconcile that astronomical valuation of $18 billion that Twitter received when it went public in November.  Apparently neither can Scott Galloway, professor at NYU's Stern School of Business.  Last week at the Ad Age Digital Conference, Galloway claims that while Twitter is currently trading at $44 a share, it is much closer to $10 a share:


“We believe it’s vastly overvalued and that the love affair with Twitter is about to come to an end,” Galloway said, speaking on behalf of the L2 Think Tank. “If you look at the number of advertisers advertising on each platform, LinkedIn actually has more advertisers than Twitter.”

LinkedIn also has a more diverse revenue stream than Twitter, which is completely reliant on advertisers.

Galloway also predicted that, in the midst of the social media bonanza that is currently our Internet, businesses are going to give some sites the shaft, and Twitter will be among those. Only time will tell if Galloway is right, but even if he isn’t, press like this has been known to cause stocks to drop. And since he’s an MBA professor of Brand Strategy and Digital Marketing, so there’s probably something to what he says.

“Your clients are sort of done playing in traffic trying to spread their peanut butter across eight or nine different platforms. I think you’re going to see a consolidation like, ‘These are the two platforms we’re going to invest in, and everybody else is going to be left out in the cold,’” he said.
Galloway thinks that the platforms that businesses will invest in will be Facebook, YouTube and Instagram. Sad times for Twitter, Foursquare, Pinterest, Tumblr and the like.
(Via.)

It is important to remember that this is just the opinion of one man.  Last week was not a good one for Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn (stock prices fell -5.4%, -8.8%, and -13% respectively).  Galloway does make a solid point, the biggest dilemma firms face with their advertising budget is clear metrics indicating a return on their investment, namely which avenues to use and how to determine whether they have been effective.  While Facebook advertising revenue last year was 127% that of Twitter's, Twitter's click rate was significantly higher than Facebook's, this according to a report generated by Resolution Media.  Twitter also commanded a far more expensive cost per click.  

I am still a little bit torn on what conclusions should be drawn from all of this information.  Of course I advised my brother to do as much research as possible and follow his instincts, but is it really worth moving to another city for a one-year contract for a company that hands out far more questions than answers?  I enjoy Twitter quite a bit.  I definitely take advantage of corporate promotions, but I mainly use the channel to follow comedians and the news.  The businesses that I do follow employ their own social media strategists so they really have little need to pay Twitter themselves.  While a tweet like anything else put forth on the internet has the ability to live on forever, the greater likelihood is that it will get lost in a sea of words, meanderings, and musings.  

I am curious to hear other's thoughts though, so please feel free to comment below.  Do you think Twitter is an effective advertising strategy?  Do you think the company is valued accurately?  Do you use Twitter?  What do you use it for?  Thanks for stopping by!

Sources: