And The Oscar For Engagement Goes To...

I hope that some of you are going to watch the 78th Academy Awards next Sunday because audience ratings have not been very kind to the Oscars in recent years. The ratings were down 21% in 2004, and declined even further in 2005. Switching dates because of the Winter Olympics can’t have helped.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have made efforts to rebuild the audience, but as they don’t directly control the movies that get produced, and have only limited influence on the ones that get nominated, they end up placing the burden of engaging an audience on the host.

Last year it was, if you remember, Chris Rock. But he didn’t seem to help very much. Billy Crystal has done it a number of times, and people absolutely love him and his opening musical numbers. But interestingly, if you check the actual viewership numbers, you’ll find that when Crystal was host he had the highest – and the lowest – audience numbers measured over the past 10 years.

Anyway, this year the Academy turned to Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's award-winning fake news program The Daily Show. When it was announced that he was selected to host the awards he said, "As a performer, I'm truly honored to be hosting the show, although, as an avid watcher of the Oscars, I can't help but be a little disappointed with the choice.” Funny guy.

All of which may just point out the validity of the statement that “entertaining is not the same thing as engaging,” a fact that a large number of advertisers and branded entertainment consumers might well take to heart.

ABC sold all of its inventory for the awards telecast, with 30-second spots costing an average of $1.7 million, so you’ve got to figure that advertisers are looking for some sense of return on a pretty big investment. And to that end, Brand Keys conducted the 1st Academy Awards Engagement Survey.

The survey was conducted among 1,000 men and women, 18 – 59 years of age who expressed a top-box intention to watch the March 5th broadcast.

Creative “reviews” are interesting, but more and more, clients are revisiting the question of seeing a return on their investment. Anyway, the Academy Award Engagement Survey, like the Brand Keys Customer Loyalty Index, was conducted expressly to tease out respondents’ true behaviors. The process quantifies the level of engagement created by the media environment and advertised brand – the equity increase (or decrease) resulting from an advertising effort on a particular show like the Academy Awards. It reports the “return” or “loss” gained from the advertising effort.

Engagement assessment metrics have been indexed to allow for cross-category brand comparisons, and are benchmarked to 100, so like traditional research, higher is better, with + 5 required for a difference at the 95% confidence level. Results for specific brands were as follows:

American Express: 110
CareerBuilder.com: 102
Coke: 105
Dyson: 97
GM (Cadillac): 111
JCPenney: 95
Kodak: 109
L’Oreal: 115
Mastercard: 109
McDonald’s: 100
Miller Brewing: 104
State Farm Insurance: 93

An increase in brand equity always results in an increased engagement. That means viewers will pay more attention to the advertising, think better of the product, and actually go out and buy the advertised product.

The Brand Keys assessments provide a predictive measure of an ad’s return, no matter how “creative” the advertising. “’Engagement’ is something more than just seeing – even liking – the commercial. It’s creating an emotional bond between the product and the viewer. The ads are not seen in a vacuum so the media environment in which you place them can help or hurt.”

These assessments are highly reliable predictors of future behavior in regard to brand purchases, meaning viewers will pay more attention to the advertising, think better of the product, behave favorably towards the brand (Hell, behave anyway! One of the new ‘metrics’ marketers have latched onto being an increased interest in the brand indicated by a visit to the website!) and actually go out and buy the advertised product.

Time magazine named Stewart one of its most influential people of 2005 so it will be interesting to see if Stewart can influence the ratings.

But to paraphrase actor Edmund Gwenn, these days it may just be a case where, “comedy is easy and engagement is difficult.”

Sex Sells, Technology Engages

Groucho Marx once opined, “women should be obscene and not heard,” but he, of course, didn’t have the technological advantages available to us today to do both at the same time.
Sports Illustrated, on the other hand, does. It’s launched a site dedicated to its annual swimsuit issue that makes the following available:

- Wallpaper and screen savers of your favorite models to download to your mobile phone.

- Customized swimsuit posters

- The Model Reveal Game.

- Skin (your favorite SI Swimsuit model’s pix. Not real skin!) for your cell phone, iPod, or laptop.

- Swimsuit model IM Icons.

- 2006 Sports Illustrated behind-the-scenes swimsuit shoot videos and interviews to download from iTunes.

All of which proves that any sufficiently advanced technology can be totally indistinguishable from actual magic. And these days consumer engagement has to be a little more than advertising slight-of-hand!

The Battle Of The Brand Titans

OK, so who’d win in a fight between the Jolly Green Giant and Mr. Clean? Who’s tougher Captain Crunch or Tony the Tiger? What happens when a human brand turns on another? A clash of egos, for example. Say, The Donald vs. The Domestic Diva.

The answer is in a letter obtained by People magazine from Donald Trump to Martha Stewart in reaction to an interview Stewart gave Newsweek where she reported that she was supposed to fire Trump paving the way for her to capture his viewers.

Dear Martha,

It’s about time you started taking responsibility for your failed version of “The Apprentice.” Your performance was terrible in that the show lacked mood, temperament and just about everything else a show needs for success. I knew it would fail as soon as I first saw it – and your low ratings bore me out.

Between your daughter, with her one-word statements, your letter-writing and, most importantly, your totally unconvincing demeanor, it never had a chance – much as your daytime show is not exactly setting records. Despite this, I did nothing but positively promote you. Your only response to your failed show was, “I thought that I was supposed to fire Donald Trump!” You knew this was not true – NBC would never fire me when “The Apprentice” was, for a good period of time, the No. 1 show on television, and my recent finale, where I hired Randal was the No. 2 show for the week, easily beating the competing finale of “Amazing Race” and others. Even Mark Burnett said, “Thank God that didn’t happen,” when asked about firing Donald Trump.

Essentially, you made this firing up just as you made up the sell order of ImClone. The only difference is – that was more obvious. Putting your show on the air was a mistake for everybody – especially NBC.

In any event, my great loyalty to you has gone totally unappreciated.

Sincerely,

Donald Trump

P.S. Be careful or I will do a syndicated daytime show, perhaps called “The Boardroom,” and further destroy the meager ratings you already have!

Egotism may be the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity, but it sure does spice up the tabloids!

Happy Birthday Mr. President

How Did The $6,000,000.00 Man Pay For Lunch?

A biometric payments and authentication firm, Pay By Touch, has launched its new online payment and identification service. It gives consumers a new and secure way to identify themselves on the Internet.

The program allows consumers to log onto web sites they commonly use and simply slide a finger across a scanner that's fitted to their computer. If a positive identification is made, the web site instantly signs the consumer in without requiring them to remember, type or transmit a username or password. When a positive identification is made, the system accesses the shopper's Pay By Touch wallet, which contains the user's existing account, payment and shipping information.

Deployment of the service is supposed to begin in the Spring of this year.

They haven’t actually mentioned it, but I suppose that the following operational “laws” will be put in place:

1. A biometric scan will not injure a human being or his purchase, or, through inaction, allow a human being or his purchase to come to harm.
2. A biometric scan must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A biometric scan must protect its own “existence” as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws!

Just a thought!

Electronic School Days

We have been talking a while now about how the 21st century consumers are “bionic,” born hot-wired into the Internet, and TiVo-ready. So it’s no surprise that advertisers have been spending umteen numbers of dollars trying to capitalize upon the high-tech world to engage younger consumers.

But here’s a twist, teachers are using computer games to move the 3-R’s away from traditional books and blackboards to better engage their “bionic” students.

Instead of traditional physical exercises, for example, phys ed teachers have moved over to Dance Dance Revolution to get students to shake, rattle, roll, and sweat to music.

Or history teachers using Civilization for in-class, empire building in fictional settings throughout the world. Sounds a lot more interesting than the dry textbooks of yesteryear, doesn’t it?

It’s always been true that good teaching is one-fourth preparation and three-fourths theater. Now the theatre may just appear on a hand-held game.

Love Is, Above All Else, The Gift Of Oneself

Unless your romantic interest has a really hot fantasy date in mind!

As part of our 2006 Brand Keys Valentine’s Day Survey, we asked everyone, “next to your very own sweetheart, whom would you like to celebrate Valentine’s Day with?”

Here’s how the fantasies added up this year:

Men

1. Scarlett Johansson
2. Teri Hatcher
3. Eva Longoria
4. Nicole Kidman
5. Angelina Jolie
6. Halle Berry
7. Beyonce
8. Jessica Simpson
9. Marcia Cross
10. Paris Hilton

Women

1. Jake Gyllenhaal
2. Matthew McConaughey
3. Jamie Foxx
4. George Clooney
5. Johnny Depp
6. Brad Pitt
7. Hugh Jackman
8. Tom Cruise
9. Will Smith
10. Sean Connery

Keep in mind that jealousy can be a positive motivator if it inspires you to work harder for what you want!

Happy Valentine’s Day.

Everything Old is Interactive Again

Before TV shows (and commercials) were beamed to iPods, before mobile text messaging, heck, before moving pictures, a number of optical devices were available to create animation. They had weird and unpronounceable names such as thaumatrope and praxinoscope.

These devices let you view a spinning card with small images on it, each like a single cell in animated movies and as the images spun by, it appeared that the image moved. This was due to something that 100 years ago was considered astonishingly high-tech, called “persistence of vision,” which is the process that blends individual images into a continuous stream – just like it does in the movies.

The one that survived, the one that Thomas Edison played with, the one that we dug out of the bottom of Cracker Jack’s boxes was the flipbook – the earliest form of, what I suppose we’d call today, interactive entertainment. Well, they’re back. A company called Flippies manufacturers custom flipbooks for marketing and promotional uses. And they’re fun. And involving. And, well, really, really, really low-tech.

Marketers and advertisers spend a lot of time talking about consumer engagement, and seek ways (many of them high tech) to involve consumers with their brands. Well here’s one that doesn’t need batteries, or recharging, or sign-in codes. It’s thumb-operated and fits in your pocket. Someone once noted that high technology is a way of organizing the universe so that you don’t really have to experience it. And sometimes the old ways are the best ways!

Cause and Effect and Effects

Ten days ago we noted that after receiving the R. L. Polk Automotive Loyalty Awards for “outpacing the rest of the industry in manufacturer loyalty,” for the 6th year in a row, General Motors Corp posted an $8.6 billion dollar loss. Today GM shares were down $1.06, at $21.75.

Today, The Wall Street Journal reported that GM “will halve its common-stock dividend, slash pay for its top five executives, and curtail benefits for salaried workers.” So much for “manufacturer loyalty!”

We’ve said it before, and we’ll end up saying it till the end of time, loyalty does equal profitability! You just have to measure it according to a relatively simple formula: Stand for something and have what you stand for meet or exceed the expectations that consumers hold for your category.

I don’t mean to rant, but you’ve just got to suspect that maybe those folks in Detroit have been standing too close to the exhaust pipes of all those cars they can’t sell.

A Rolling Stone Gathers Momentum

Which 4 of you didn’t watch the Super Bowl yesterday? Let me rephrase that question. Who didn’t watch the Half-Time Show?

The reason I ask is that Ad Age critic Bob Garfield was interviewed last week and opined that the Rolling Stones were a bad choice as a Half-Time Super Bowl act. Mr. Garfield said, "It was a surprising choice but [the Rolling Stones] obviously have appeal to all demographics because they've been around since the early Jurassic period. For them as a band, this is the last surrender to commercialism. Next stop is Hollywood Squares. Any pretensions they have to art are gone and now they are just the ultimate commercialized pop act."

Wow! Don’t hold back, Bob. How do you really feel?

OK, he’s entitled to his opinion. He’s a critic after all. But Mr. Garfield’s statement might have had more currency had the Rolling Stones done this a decade ago. But with the broadening and homogenization of consumer consideration sets, sports and rock concerts (all of which are branded and heavily advertised) battle for the same shares of time, mind, and wallet. So being called the “ultimate commercialized pop act” is high praise indeed. They don’t call it “branded entertainment” for nothing!

The match was better than Mr. Garfield would have folks believe. The NFL’s been a leader among the four major league sports in recognizing that their competition isn’t just other sporting events, but “entertainment” generally. They wisely accepted a number of years ago that they too are “entertainment,” or should be, and the more that they did to fuel that perception, the better off they’d be.

The rare “wardrobe malfunction” notwithstanding, finding performers who “appeal to all demographics” is a nice fusion of sport and spectacular. Engaged consumers and viewers!

Now that’s the way to get lots of satisfaction!

Change: An Irreversible Trend

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. Well, most of the time.

We know (and pretty much take as fact) that the world in which we market, advertise, promote, and research, has changed. Sometimes some statistics make the fact come alive.

Courtesy of the Census Bureau, here are some statistics: New York City (where Brand Keys is based) then (1950) and now, looking at the number of people employed in certain professions.

Accountants: 38,932 (1950) vs. 69,796 (Now), Authors: 3,641 (1950) vs. 16,906 (Now), Bakers: 15,719 (1950) vs. 4,313 (Now), Blacksmiths: 624 (1950) vs. 0 (Now), Economists: 714 (1950) vs. 5,751 (Now), Elevator Operators: 28,884 (1950) vs. 65 (Now), Fishermen: 1,002 (1950) vs. 238 (Now), Lawyers: 23,384 (1950) vs. 54,683 (Now), Policemen: 19,027 (1950) vs. 33,281 (Now), Real Estate Agents: 10,069 (1950) vs. 19,612 (Now), Teachers: 50,424 (1950) vs. 138,427 (Now).

All appears to change when we change. And that’s a fact!

Media Mêlée

A recent study from Ball State University suggests that print media such as magazines and newspapers are far more engaging than electronic media like TV, radio and the Internet. Why? Well, one of the main reasons offered up is that reading requires people to be more focused on print making it harder to multitask as they do with electronic media.

The study collected data by observing directly how consumers used media, which is certainly an improvement over the usual antiquated media survey methods. But if advertisers and media planners really want to understand how consumers engage with advertising content, they need to move beyond “time spent.” They must identify the percent-of-contribution that each media makes to the engagement process. And they have to do it in ways that actually correlate to positive behavior and actual sales. Loyalty metrics provide that as an output (check out our website under “What We Do” for all the validity studies), but you can’t stop there either.

As interesting as the study was, in the real world viewers and readers use different media in different ways for different categories.

That means that while a newspaper may be more engaging for retail stores, it may be less engaging for an automobile. Furthermore, our efforts to understand and measure engagement indicate that “brand” plays an essential part in the engagement process. What works for, say, Macy’s won’t necessarily work the same way for Bloomingdales.

Not to denigrate the recent study – it’s certainly light years ahead of how the industry currently plans – but advertisers want insights and advantages they can apply to their own products, not tactics that can be used by anyone playing in their category!

All of which, I realize, adds an additional layer of complexity to the process, but nobody ever said that measuring real “engagement” was going to be easy. As Albert Einstein said, “things should be made as simple as possible but not any simpler,” but we’re working on it.