To Those Who Don’t Get It
There is a healthy (or unhealthy as the case may be) majority of traditional advertising analyst types who simply don’t understand what is happening right now in marketing. They see all this web 2.0 innovation, consumer generated media (CGM), massive shift in publisher power, rise of social networking, less control over brand, etc, as a “fad.” If you’re one of these unfortunate souls please take a moment to listen to the Evil Marketer give you the low down on the paradigm shift going on in your industry to which you are somehow recklessly oblivious.
Here’s a very good example of the arguments that these pundits raise in defense of their position. Let’s break them down one by one and show them the error of their ways, shall we?
1. “…it’s hard to imagine how there won’t eventually be a backlash against ubiquitous user-generated video clips, blogs and the like.”
Good point. I mean, there has certainly been a backlash against all those billions of informational web pages out there that users can access for free on their own time. It’s just too much information and too easy to find and almost always gives me exactly what I am looking for! People are turning off their computers and flocking back to the library and the Yellow Pages in droves. I’m sure people will grow tired of endless, free entertainment that is unavailable anywhere else and manages to speak to them in specific ways no other media ever has in the history of the world. They’ll just throw up their hands in frustration at all that entertainment and go back to watching Matlock.
2. “At what point do we have social saturation when every person and every marketer tries to film every idea they’ve ever had? The best content will always rise to the top but there will be a ton that probably won’t get covered and people may stop posting when it becomes evident that nobody is interested…”
Yes there is something wrong with a world where everyone is free to create art and get it seen by billions of people. And we all know that TV and movie and music production companies are experts at producing great content that appeals to every person. Please. The point here is there is an audience for almost anything, no matter how small. And artists will create art even if no one cares; it is the nature of who they are. They will not stop, and if anything their output will grow because somewhere out there is someone who will like what they produce.
3. “…what ‘You’ need to do is actually generate profits and revenues in order to have a real say. And it’s unclear just how effective ‘You’ will be.”
Ah, this is the crux of their argument: if you produce some crap that only 5 people watch then you can’t monetize that and it’s essentially worthless. Stop thinking in traditional mass media terms people! Of course you can’t monetize an audience of 5. But if you have a million videos that each has an audience of 5, not only can you monetize it, you can target your marketing like a laser AND measure response in real time all the way to purchase. Not to mention much of the “advertising” will be the content itself, tailored in a very specific way to a very niche audience, produced for FREE by your own customers. How can you not get that?
4. Here’s a longer excerpt supporting their argument in #3:
To wit, one of the most buzzed about online videos, of two Chinese kids lip-synching to “I Want It That Way” by the Backstreet Boys, has been viewed about 1.3 million times on YouTube since the video was added to the site in November, 2005.
Meanwhile, a show like NBC’s “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” or CBS (Charts)’ “Smith,” which was the first cancellation of the fall TV season, are branded as failures even though they generated nearly 10 million viewers a week and are supported by advertising.
Oh my God can you be more clueless? You’re actually comparing the relative strength of a stupid video 2 guys in China made with a webcam with shows starring recognized actors, produced for millions of dollars, written by a team of professionals, and which were probably tested before audiences for weeks??? The point is that a million people have watched that video even though it cost nothing to produce and starred nobody. It wasn’t monetized because people like you haven’t figured out the best way to do it yet. As soon as YouTube gets off its ass and starts running 5 second pre-rolls to its most popular videos, a video like that could generate millions in revenue — again all of it tracked down to the timestamp of purchase. And it might only cost you per click (or maybe even, dare I say it — CPA).
5. “But so far, the amount of money people are making is negligible.”
followed by
“YouTube probably will be a winner [as well as MySpace].”
followed by
“But the scores of startups that have cropped up in the past two years to challenge the YouTubes and MySpaces may find it difficult to profit from ‘You’ no matter how creative ‘You’ are.”
Ok, first you argue that you can’t make money distributing CGM. Then you say that YouTube and MySpace actually will make money. Then you qualify that by saying no one else will. That sound you hear is the Evil Marketer sighing very deeply.
6. “‘This idea of having customers generate ad campaigns would be a good idea if it really was consumers,’ said Stevens. ‘People winning these contests are not coal miners, cab drivers or people who sell shoes at Bloomingdale’s. They are people at small agencies or independents.”
And your point is? That this whole CGM thing won’t work because a shoe salesman can’t produce a winning SuperBowl commercial? Not only are you obviously wrong about the potential influence of CGM, you’re also wrong about the power of that shoe salesman, and THIS is where you are really missing the boat.
Let’s take a look at a lifetime shoe salesman; we’ll call him Frank because I suspect that’s what his real name is anyway. Maybe he’s making what, 40k a year? How much knowledge does he have about shoes? How much influence does he have when a customer comes in and needs to make a decision? If he could more efficiently monetize that knowledge and that influence somehow, do you suspect he could make a lot more? I do. The system may not yet be in place for this, but I believe one day there will be organized networks of influencers like the guy who’s sold 50,000 pairs of shoes in his lifetime. If I’m looking online for a pair of shoes and there was a network in place to allow Frank to assist me in a decision, and if he was paid a flat rate by a specific online store just to have access to him plus a commission on the shoes he sold (all trackable of course, including what pair of shoes the customer originally wanted and even what ad they clicked on in the first place to get to the site), not only would he be making a lot more money selling a lot more shoes (from home), but I would be willing to continue to buy shoes from that vendor there just so I could get Frank’s help, because I like Frank and he is a hell of a lot smarter than any automated “suggestion” system or FAQ page.
What does that have to do with CGM you ask? Good question.
The point is that the internet allows everyone a way to better exploit and monetize their talent. It has enormous economies of scale, ultimate reach, and requires very little real-world overhead or infrastructure. All advertising is, at its essence, is a way for clever people to get people talking about or interested in a product. Remove the infrastructure required in running a major ad agency, expand your potential customer base to the billions, and tap into the resources of thousands (maybe millions) of smart people, people who have influence and expertise and maybe already love your brand, and only pay them if they produce results.
Or not.
Love,
The Evil Marketer