iAd

When I decided to write about Apple introducing a new advertising platform for mobile devices, I came up with the witty title of iAd to play off their newly released gizmo the iPad, but apparently that's actually what they're going to call their new service anyway. How creative of them...

This will allow Apple (and developers) to make money off advertisements appearing in various Apps. This benefits the owners of iPhones because it means that more content will be free, because developers will be able to make money off advertisements rather than charging a fee to download the App. This benefits the developers because more people are apt to download something for free rather than something they have to pay even a meager sum for. And it benefits Apple because according to the article linked above, it could mean $400 million a year in revenue.

So it's all a win-win-win, right?

Well, not so fast. What about the advertisers? How will this benefit them?

It allows them to reach individuals easily on their cell-phones. It also allows them to use Apple's customer data to create effective mobile ads targeted at specific demographics.

But are people really going to take kindly to advertisements on their cell-phones? I've had a few Apps with prevalent ads, and they're just as easy to ignore as banner ads on websites. They're just another nuisance to be tolerated while opening an app for a brief moment. So it's great that Apple is finding another source of income for their developers. But the only way this will work is if the advertisements actually generate awareness and sales, something that isn't guaranteed.

Coors Not Quite

The Coldest Tasting Beer...this was Coors Light's Marketing stance for a long time, I guess before they realized that being Cold has nothing to do with taste...it is a temperature. If I have a refrigerated Bud Light and a luke-warm Coors Light that's been sitting on the counter...both taste like crap, but the Bud Light feels colder on my tongue, regardless of Coors Light being "frost-brewed."

You know your product is in dire straights when its most marketable aspect is that it gets cold when refrigerated. That's like me starting a soup company and claiming I have the warmest soup cause it's cooked over a flame. "Flame-Boiled" if you will.

Oh, and about your whole "the label turns blue when it's cold" selling point, know how else someone knows when it's cold? By touching the bottle or can.

Now, Coors Light has changed their commercials to say it's "the most refreshing beer," which is far better than "coldest tasting," but you're still banking on an attribute that is controlled by refrigeration! Everyone knows your beer doesn't taste good. And I commend you for not trying to make that claim (as Miller Lite seems content to do now). But why don't you follow Budweiser's and Dos Equiis' lead and stick to commercials that make people laugh?

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Fake News Program Commercials

Let me tell you something. If you advertise a product using a commercial that emulates a news program, complete with a make-up swathed newswoman singing your product's praises and the words breaking news flashing across the screen, you're hurting your own credibility. I understand that it might help your advertisement cut through the clutter of others, but it is also deceptive. And when you are trying to get people to use your product or service, the last thing you want is for them to feel tricked by your advertising. Because if they feel tricked by your advertising, they won't take anything said in your commercial seriously. Thus rendering the advertisement a waste of valuable money. I respect that people are trying to be creative and find new ways to get TV viewer's attention, but deception doesn't help your cause.

I've seen a few financial services commercials, and a cablevision commercial using these techniques. I wouldn't trust the latter anyway, but making a faux-news program that looks more like a sleazy infomercial isn't the way to go.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

The Importance of Innovation

In 2009, Blockbuster reported a loss of $558.2 million, in 2008, $374.1 million, and in 2007, $85.1 million. To put that into perspective...that's over a billion dollars lost in the past 3 years. In response to their gaping financial wounds, Blockbuster plans to close up to 545 of their retail locations and cut back significantly on advertising.

I never like to be the one to say I told you so, but this is what happens when people are late on the shifting trends in human behavior. In another retail business, Barnes & Noble, faces falling profits because of digital readers and online booksellers, forcing them to create their own contraption, much later than Amazon released its Kindle, and with much less hype than Apple will release its iPad.

With the internet and the instant gratification of knowledge being at ones fingertips, people are accustomed to being able to do everything from their home. And if they can get things instantly, like an on-demand video or an ebook downloaded directly to their digital reader, they're going to spend their money in that manner. They're not going to scour through a retail outlet for a product that might not even be available.

But what happens when a company is late to a party? They're not the belle of the ball. When people think of mail-service video renting they think of Netflix. They don't think of the blue and yellow of Blockbuster, and won't if the chain plans to cut back advertising. When most people order books online, they think of Amazon, not Barnes & Noble. They don't think of the Nook, they think of the Kindle and the iPad.

Blockbuster plans to place "Express Kiosks," like Red Box to compete with that source of video rental, but once again they're late. Red Box has its vending machines outside the most popular convenience store chain, 7-11, which are located everywhere and the perfect place for someone looking for an impulse $1 movie rental. So once again they're late.

There was a time when Blockbuster could have capitalized on its strong brand name to create a monopoly on these new technologies and services. But for some reason I feel like there was someone in the board room saying, "Oh, people won't go for that. Those businesses will never last." And I'm sure that same executive is asking himself every night, "How did we end up in such a dire situation?"

The answer is change. You must always be open to it, and when new technologies and methods are available...give them a serious thought. Because if it's convenient...it's going last.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

When Comedy Becomes Tragedy

I watch a lot of TV. Well...actually no I don't. At least not when compared to a majority of people, but I do watch my fair share, which is more than I'd like. Naturally, I tend to turn to comedy when it's on. Not sitcoms, because they're all pathetic, tired, and I don't need a laugh track telling me something's funny when it clearly isn't. To me causing laughter is the greatest achievement...this means that an ill-fated, miserably-failing attempt to draw my laughter the greatest offense.

That mindset breeds a great deal of dislike for many mainstream comedians and shows, like say the Sarah Silverman Show for instance. One would think that taking a popular comedian and giving them a half-hour every week would have great effects, no? But it is often not the case. Then again, they often give shows to unfunny comedians simply because they have large fanbases because they put on accents and pander to specific demographics (see Lopez, George or Mencia, Carlos). I think the problem is...stand up comedy doesn't always translate into a good television show.

You can combat that by saying, "Steve...Seinfeld was the best show of all time, and he was a stand-up comedian."

And I can easily counter, "Yes, but he also had Larry David who has proved with Curb Your Enthusiasm he is a phenomenal writer."

The problem is that networks focus too much on the name. They look for a popular comedian to draw in audiences, but neglect the writing. The best comedy shows on Television--South Park, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and the Office--all have one thing in common...great writing. With the exception of the Office, none had a huge name involved, and even with the Office...other than Steve Carell the cast was a bunch of unknowns. A majority of people didn't know who Larry David was. Danny Devito didn't join Sunny until it's second season, and the writing was already there.

I understand the need for a name from a marketing standpoint...but you also need the writing from a quality standpoint...that's how you make an enjoyable show and build up a cult following who will watch religiously every week and buy every DVD and holiday special. But networks will never learn, other than FX...they know what they're doing.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

NBC Pucks Up, Yet Again...

Please, tell me something NBC. You and I have had our disagreements in the past, and we all know my stance on the Olympics. And then there's the matter of me dissing the NHL by excluding them when I make broad statements about major sports (NFL, MLB, NBA). But how, could you take the USA-Canada game, and put it on MSNBC where nobody is likely to look. People flipping through channels tonight who want to check out what's on the Olympics will likely flip to whatever channel your main network is on in their area, and if nothing entertaining is on...they'll move past it.


Well, tonight...nothing entertaining is on...because you took one of your most exciting and marketable events and decided to put it on a different channel (MSNBC). Now maybe you did this because you thought the event would draw enough buzz of its own that people would scour your family of networks to find it. Or maybe you overlooked the fact that it is an all-star grudge match between neighboring countries featuring the most recognizable names taking part in the Olympics. Or maybe Jay Leno decided he wanted to watch men in full-body spandex suits skate around in large white ovals over and over again.



And for that matter...how many different speed skating competitions could they possibly have? It seems like every day, the only event ever on is speed skating. I respect what they do, but watching people glide over a plane of white is pretty boring. Even watching it on an HD where you can see the reflections of people in the audience yawning it gets tiresome. And if it isn't speed-skating on...it's a taped skiing race, whose outcome has already been broadcasted all over the world on ESPN for the past seven hours.




But here you have a live competition (an actual head to head event, rather than people competing against a clock), and you figure "Eh...let's give our prime time spot on Sunday night to the same damn event we've been showing for the past ten days straight."

You continue to exceed my expectations NBC (my expectations are for you to make exceedingly unintelligent programming decisions.)

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

A Rose by Any Other Name

Names are important in business. It is the first impression you make with a potential consumer and you always want that to be great. Or even if it isn't great, you at least want it to be memorable. I'm going to begin talking about basketball in a moment, and you may get confused why I would start a post discussing the importance of a name, and then delve into a conversation about sports, but bear with me.

New York sports teams are usually global brands or at least have a sizeable national following. Part of that comes with marquee players and championships, and the other part comes with the fact that the city they represent is the worldwide center for business. This is certainly a case with the Yankees, as well as the Giants and Jets (the football teams don't have a global appeal because it is very much an American sport despite how many games they stage a year overseas).

In basketball, it seems to be a different case though. In basketball, the storied franchises are the Celtics and the Lakers. New York just doesn't have the appeal of those other two. Part of it is the fact that they have become a laughing stock, and the other part is that they really have no identity. And here is where we come back to this name business.

They are known as the New York Knickerbockers. Knickerbockers are a pair of baggy knee-length trousers that were worn while playing baseball in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and was eventually adopted as the name of the sports club who played the first game of baseball in Hoboken in 1846. Because of this legacy the first owner of the basketball team adopted it as his team's name. It would work fine in baseball where teams are named after the color of their Sox (baseball apparently doesn't care for spelling), but in basketball it doesn't quite fit. Might as well call yourselves the Manhattan Pantaloons.

While we're on the subject of names, let's turn to a team that will soon make New York it's home. The current New Jersey Nets, who in three years will become the Brooklyn Nets. That's like a football team being called the New Jersey End Zones, or a hockey team known as the Brooklyn Goals, or maybe if the United States wants to try out a new name for their Ryder Cup golf team they can go with the Holes.

I understand the importance of a name and a tradition. The Devil Rays changed themselves to the Rays because omitting that one word was meant to erase their long penchant for losing (which it did). But teams need to understand the importance of a name as a marketing tool. Do you know how many people root for the Titans because of their awesome name and sweet uniforms. Or the Buccaneers because of their name, uniforms, and the fact that they have a pirate ship in their stadium. Are these true fans? Some could argue no, and if they don't follow the players and the teams progress I would agree with them. But do they buy jerseys, hats, and if they live around the area...tickets? Yes, and that's reason enough to do it.

Fans want to be excited by sports. And in order to attract new fans you need an enticing name, and stylish colors that even people who aren't fans will buy, so you can make money on merchandising. Do the Nets and their Navy, Silver, and Red appeal to anyone? Do the Knicks and their Orange and Blue?

No, but they have their history and to change a name would be to alienate the fans that are invested in that history. I would never expect a team with a legacy like the Knicks to do such a thing. But the Nets are a different story. They're moving to a new city in a new state, so why not have a new identity for your new fanbase. Especially after the historically bad season they're having this year.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Note to Southwest Airlines

If you have a celebrity on one of your flights, especially a respected one with a group of loyal followers who he keeps a constant dialogue with, you do not treat that person with disrespect. Word will get out and generate a great deal of negative press. Overweight people are becoming a larger and larger demographic (in both ways) and to alienate an entire growing contingent of Americans is not the best idea for a business.

Can one person really drag down a flight? How do they decide, does the pilot come out and start poking the overweight party in question? You don't know how much weight is jammed into the overhead compartments, or below deck in luggage. One person can't make that great a difference.

Another bad idea is broadcasting an individual's travel habits in an insincere apology. It is a violation of privacy and very unprofessional.

Here's a solution...instead of trying to cover up your mistakes with your see-through corporate condolences...do something about your problem! Offer wider seats! Don't single out people and embarrass them in public. Admit your fault, and turn the negative into a positive. We live in a forgiving culture...repent and offer some plus-size promotions, and you can have overweight people everywhere flying your airline.

But no, you'll go with the typical response of "well...it's not our fault," and spew nonsense about it being your policy. Times change...people change...and guess what, you need be ready to alter your precious policies to adapt to these changes.

Here's a new slogan for you:

You're now free to move about the country...unless you're overweight, then you might as well just roll yourself to your destination cause you're not getting our planes, tubby.

Sounds about right.

-- Steve Creswick
Steve Creswick.org

Why Watch the Olympics?

This weekend the Winter Olympics start on NBC, and I know everyone in America is on the edge of their seats. (I realize sarcasm does not translate well in the written word, so I'll point out that the previous statement was meant to be sarcastic). I should also point out that NBC instead of spending money securing rights to NBA or MLB games decided instead to lock-up the Olympics long-term, which could lose up to $200 million this year, and Notre Dame football, who haven't been good in years. The executive responsible for these shrewd programming decisions, Dick Ebersol, was just extended until 2015 at somewhere between $10-$15 million. Clearly, NBC isn't too busy ruining late-night to take some time to sabotage their sports department as well.

But this article is not about incompetent executives or their terrible business decisions...this is about the Olympics, and me trying to determine why people have no interest in them.

1. One of the first lessons learned in sports marketing is that America favors their professional leagues while Europeans live for international competition. This is probably because European countries are all so close to one another, so it is easier for a rivalry to build, and because America has enough heated match-ups in their own sports. It also hurts that America has never excelled at soccer which is the premier international sport in the eyes of our friends across the Atlantic. The only time we ever developed an interest in international competition is when we felt the need to display our superiority. Since sports are now big business, the best players of other nations now come to the United States to play, so the highest competition in most sports is right in our own backyard.

2. With Television packages showing every single game by every local team and major networks showing the match-ups of the best teams in the nation, there is an abundance of sports goodness every evening on television. Back when the Olympics were popular, they were the only sports on TV. Now, there are so many contests of familiar sports, that the American people are more emotionally invested in that they have no interest in watching the Olympics.

3. The United States likes stars and story-lines. Yes, Bob Costas does plenty of profiles of athletes to attempt to get the American people in their corners, but with the Winter and Summer Olympics switching off, and having 4 years between each competition, it is impossible for Americans to follow certain athletes when they're not seeing them every day.

4. Time Zone Difference. This is not the case this year, with the Olympics so close to home, but most of the time there is a substantial time difference, which causes NBC to delay the popular events so they can show them in prime-time. The only problem with that, is with the internet, everyone already knows the outcome and it ruins the surprise and excitement of it all.

5. Drama. We are used to last-second buzzer beaters, walk-off grand slams, and 4th and goal down-by-a-touchdown situations. All those situations involve one team getting the best of another team. That drama can not be matched by people sliding down ice only competing with a clock. I have nothing but the utmost respect for every athlete, and their respective sports, but sports is a form of entertainment, and the sports the American people have embraced also happen to be the most entertaining.

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Who planned this?

Funny how when CBS has the Super Bowl, the halftime show is performed by the band whose songs are used as the theme songs for the network's most popular franchise, CSI. Talk about making the most of your programming.




-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Can a Writer Be a Celebrity?

The beginning of every form of entertainment is written. Whether it be the cheesy dialogue of an old action flick or a literary masterpiece that puts the entire human condition into perspective. Even your favorite reality show or Hollywood gossip host has an entire team of scribes feeding them lines.

Why then, if these are the brainchilds of every popular production, do they get none of the recognition? Why do they only get a few hundred-thousand for creating the backbone of an entire film, when the recognizable faces who mouth their written words get millions?

Perhaps, we can delve into an old adage for inspiration. A mainstream mantra I've heard more times than I would have liked during my ongoing job search is, "It's not what you know...it's who you know." Well, in this case, "It's not what is said...it's who is saying it."

The sad truth is, we live in a visual culture, where seeing is believing. In order for someone to become famous, they need to be visible. They need to be on television talk-shows and internet video. They need to have a plague of paparazzi swarming them at every second of their life. People need to be able to put a face to name. Because with so many voices vying for attention, a human being needs some way of deciding which ones are important enough to lend their ear to. And if someone is a celebrity in our sycophantic world, they're worth hearing.

With the internet and web 2.0 technologies, everyone has a voice and the opportunity to carve out a nice little fan base, but if someone who makes a living as a writer ever wants to achieve celebrity status they will need more than their words. If not, they will continue to toil in obscurity until their work is read by a more worthy media figure.

It is possible for people with a background as a writer to break through the mold and wrestle their way to stardom. Look at Conan O'brien. He began his career penning skits and episodes for SNL and the Simpsons, but once they put his fiery red mane in front of the camera...he became an icon. So there is hope for writers to become recognized by the masses for their talents, but the only problem is that they'll first have to develop an image and a whole new array of talents before they can get the attention they deserve.

Any thoughts on why writers rarely achieve celebrity status?

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor

Who wants to read an E-Book?

Over the weekend, Amazon and MacMillan book publishing got into a little scuffle over how to price their e-books. Amazon wants all e-books to be priced at $9.99 to entice people to buy a Kindle and read using their technology. When the Kindle first came out I remember an army of nay-sayers claiming people would never pay for both the expensive gadget as well as the 10 dollars for each book, but that is in the past and the venture has been successful enough.

Still, Amazon refuses to price e-books at anything other than $9.99, which has angered publishing companies. The bookseller take a loss by pricing them so low, but they make up for that loss by selling Kindles. The publishing companies believe that pricing e-books this low can last forever, and will even take a less percentage of profit to have their products priced higher. Apple will allow publishers to price their own books for the iPad, and they want the same from Amazon as well.

But the real question is not about Amazon or MacMillan or Apple. It is, why would the consumer want to pay close to the price of a regular book for an e-book? They're not thinking about the author who put so much time and effort into the tale they're reading. The reader is thinking about what they get for their money.

They do not get a tangible product they can lend to their friends. They get words on a screen, which can be found just about anywhere one looks on the internet. So, if you want to price e-books higher, there should be an incentive to purchase them over a hardcover or paperback copy, shouldn't there?

Well how about we borrow some marketing practices from other mediums.

1. Downloadable Content: It is popular for videogames in the digital age to offer free downloadable content with pre-orders of all the big releases, whether it be extra missions, or unique equipment. Maybe include a short story download, an extra chapter(not essential to the story of course), or access to those in the future.

2. Embedded Soundtrack: Set the mood with fitting music to accompany whatever chapter or page the reader is on.

3. Commentary: DVDs have optional commentary, so maybe e-books should have optional notes written by the author to clarify certain things, and expand on certain reasons for taking the path he/she did when writing the narrative.

1. Allow readers to upload their own notes and commentary, like when you buy a used book for class and most of the important stuff is already highlighted.
2. Access to commentary and opinions of reviewers, or academic essays in the case of certain books

4. Include concept art: We live in a visual culture. Some video games and movies offer concept art with their Collector's Edition packaging, so why not have an artist rendition of major scenes or characters included?

-- Steve Creswick
Ad Doctor