IanSchafer.com

Social Media for Social Good at the Ad Council.

I spoke today at the Ad Council's Partner Conference, where many of the causes the Ad Council supports get together to discuss the burning issues around raising awareness of their very important initiatives.

At this event, the focus was squarely, 100% on social media, and understandably so.

In doing my part to set the table for the day's discussion, I gave the following presentation where I talked about some significant research findings, best practices, and case studies including our recent major effort with the Ad Council, SHARE YOUR VOICE.

Enjoy!

Social Media for Social Good

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: social media)

Upcoming Events You Should Consider Attending.

The next two weeks are flush with events in NYC, orbiting around the sun of Advertising Week.

I'll be flush with events too, so here's a heads-up on how you can catch me...

Monday, September 15th

Social Ad Summit

Tribeca Rooftop, NYC

11:15am - 12:00pm

Branded Experiences on Social Networks

Large brands spend billions of dollars every year on advertising. Hear from a few of those large brands about how much they are allocating to social networks. Find out what has worked and what hasn’t as well as the hurdles for brands getting on social networks.

Thursday, September 18th

OMMA Global

Marriott Marquis, NYC

4:45pm - 5:30pm


Getting Social Sites to do your Work for You

Are you looking to precisely target based on demographics or activity? Targeted ad networks are showing promise for delivering more precise demographic segments for marketers than the big global networks. Could the same be true for vertical social networks? Social shopping, reviews, and more targeted groups can provide better engagement for those people you want to reach.


Moderator:

Brant Barton, Founder, Bazaarvoice


Speakers:

Adam Cahill, SVP, General Manager of Carat

Michael Carrier, CEO, StyleHive

John Riordan, Director-National Sales, Yelp.com

Ian Schafer, CEO, Deep Focus

Thursday, September 22nd

MIXX 2.8

Crowne Plaza Hotel, NYC

4:45pm - 5:30pm


The Self-Service Revolution


It sounds too good to be true: A completely automated process for setting up and executing highly-targeted ad campaigns. But how do we separate the hype from the reality? In this interactive session, you'll hear from marketers and platform-providers working together to define the automated future.

Moderator:

Michael Wolf, Partner, Farrallon Point, Inc.



Panelists:

Dan Ballister, Chief Operating Officer, TRAFFIQ

Aaron Finn, President & CEO, AdReady

Ian Schafer, CEO, Deep Focus

Jay Sears, EVP, Strategic Products & Business Development, ContextWeb

Tuesday, September 23rd

Advertising Week

Paley Center (formerly the Museum of TV and Radio), NYC

12:00pm - 1:00pm


Social Media: Giving Voice to Social Causes



The explosion of social media has created countless new ways for advertisers to engage consumers. It’s also created countless ways to promote social causes and increase civic engagement. Whether it’s social networks like MySpace and FaceBook or bloggers, widgets, twitter, or friend feed, these powerful tools can and are being used for the greater good. This panel brings together the best of the best to discuss where social networking meet social change.

Panel:

Moderator: Bob Greenberg, Vice President, Corporate Brand Marketing
Panasonic Corporation of North America

Douglas Atkin, Chief Community Officer, Meetup

Chris Colborn, Chief Experience Officer, R/GA

Lexi Reese, Head of Media Platforms, Google

Ian Schafer, Founder & CEO, Deep Focus

Video of My Panel at the Conversational Marketing Summit.

Missed me at Federated Media's Conversational Marketing Summit?

Check out video of my panel here.

Video of the rest of the panels can be seen here.

MySpace Homepage Redesign, Starring Batman.

MySpace Homepage 6-19-08, originally uploaded by Penny Kim.

I really, really like the MySpace redesign. I'm just not a big fan of the execution of The Dark Knight homepage takeover. I don't know...I guess I was just expecting...more.

What do you think?

Thoughts on Twitter/FriendFeed/Plurk/Etc. Business Models.

I trust that Ev & Biz are well on their way towards taking Twitter to an even higher level. And I'm sure they don't need my help in getting it there.

But I was just thinking about this last night, and figured I'd just put it out there.

What if Twitter, or any other messaging service, remained free for personal use, but charged for professional use? And by professional use, I mean customer service, messaging, product or news updates, or anything else.

What if in order for a company to use Twitter, Plurk, Pownce, FriendFeed, for any of the above purposes, they needed to pay a monthly access fee?

That fee would include:

** Unlimited messgaing (of course).


** More robust and customizable profile pages.


** A dashboard to manage followers and those the company follows.


** A tweet trend tracker that does an enterprise-level job of identifying, well, trends.


** An analysis tool that can call attention to customer service-related issues (flagging them as more urgent).


** A database that facilitates CRM with followers.


** Tech support for plugging its API into its already-existing CRM and marketing initiatives (for example, I'd love to get my Amex updates like 'payment due' via direct messages on Twitter).

I'm sure there are a whole bunch of ways to bring benefits to using these messaging services worth paying for -- especially for corporations searching for a bit of humanity in dealing with their consumers.

Charging individual power users is interesting, but you really don't want to dissuade them from becoming power users. Power users are integral for making these services get bigger.

Obviously, the only way this would work is if the service had some sort of critical mass, or at least one amongst consumers that these companies would find 'influential'.

But again, this is all just food for thought...do you have any?

Was Anyone Thinking Ahead About the 2008 NBA Draft Lottery?

I was engulfed in work tonight, and realized that I missed a night I've been waiting for for a while -- the 2008 NBA Draft Lottery. As a Knicks fan, it's all I had to look forward to this season.

11:43pm: Where did I go first? ESPN.com. And no list of the lottery results on the homepage. Ah, but there was a small link to the story about the draft. But no list of the results. Argh!

Google Search on 'nba draft lottery results'? Turned up nothing. Nothing!

So then I go to NBA.com.

A link to a video recapping the top three picks. But I WANT A LIST! It was only until I got down to near the bottom of the site (which I only realized existed by doing a Firefox 'find text' function) that there was a link to the results.

11:51pm: Going back to those Google results made me realize that I missed the fact that Yahoo's coverage of the results were, in fact, indexed -- but it was the very last result on the first page of results.

This was way too hard to find. So maybe I can help everyone by just posting the list here. Maybe I'll linkbait have better luck getting indexed by Google than NBA.com did:

Results of the 2008 NBA Draft Lottery

SECAUCUS, NJ, May 20 – Following are the results from the 2008 NBA Draft Lottery, which was conducted Tuesday at NBA TV’s studio in Secaucus, New Jersey. The Chicago Bulls, who had a 1.7 percent chance of obtaining the first selection, will have the first overall pick in the 2008 NBA Draft, which will be held in New York City at The WaMu Theater at Madison Square Garden on Thursday, June 26, 2008.

1. Chicago

2. Miami

3. Minnesota

4. Seattle

5. Memphis

6. New York

7. LA Clippers

8. Milwaukee

9. Charlotte

10. New Jersey

11. Indiana

12. Sacramento

13. Portland

14. Golden State

Following is the order for the remainder of the 2008 NBA Draft:

15. Atlanta (To Phoenix)

16. Philadelphia

17. Toronto

18. Washington

19. Cleveland

20. Denver

21. Dallas (To New Jersey)

22. Orlando

23. Utah

24. Phoenix (To Seattle)

25. Houston

26. San Antonio

27. New Orleans

28. LA Lakers (To Memphis)

29. Detroit

30. Boston

2008 Second Round Draft Choice Order:

31. Miami (To Minnesota via Boston)

32. Seattle

33. Memphis (To Portland)

34. Minnesota*

35. LA Clippers

36. New York (To Portland)

37. Milwaukee

38. Charlotte

39. Chicago

40. New Jersey

41. Indiana

42. Atlanta (To Sacramento)

43. Sacramento

44. Philadelphia (To Utah)

45. Toronto (To San Antonio)

46. Portland (To Seattle via Boston)

47. Washington

48. Cleveland (To Phoenix)

49. Golden State

50. Denver (To Seattle)

51. Dallas

52. Orlando (To Miami)

53. Utah

54. Houston

55. Phoenix (To Portland via Indiana)

56. New Orleans (To Seattle via Houston)

57. San Antonio

58. LA Lakers

59. Detroit

60. Boston

* Pick may be conveyed to Detroit.

New Post @ AdAge: When Habits Change Faster Than Ad Models.

My latest advisory, yet still optimistic tale contribution to Advertising Age's Digital Next is live. Hopefully it will be in the next print issue as well.

Here's a sneak preview:

When Habits Change Faster Than Ad Models Venture capital and big-media acquisitions can't bankroll social media forever

Posted on 05.02.08 @ 09:32 AM

Ian Schafer Ian Schafer also blogs at IanSchafer.com.
Technology is a funny thing. It enables humans to be capable of so much. It raises our potential to improve our lives and the lives of those around us.

But so much of technology is hidden from plain view because it doesn't make money. Financial gain is arguably the most important aspect of technological innovation, because without it, all but the most altruistic of reasons cease to exist.

We are living in a time in which the media we consume are undergoing the most rapid technological transformation since the advent of TV. Back then, there was a lot for companies to gain by having a TV in every home in America. It gave advertisers the ability to pitch their wares to TV's captive audience. And over the years, those advertisers have shelled out billions upon billions of dollars continuing to do so because it was perhaps the best-performing media, but one that delivered a passive audience.

We are now witnessing a migration of ad dollars from lesser-performing media to online's active audience.

Even within a rapidly growing medium such as the web, there is a still more-quickly growing form of online media that we call social media. This includes social networks, blogs, virtual worlds, widgets, applications, communities and any other format where the individuals who use it create or distribute the majority of the content.

Read the rest over at AdAge.com by clicking here.

See Me @ IAB ’ s Leadership Forum on Online Video on 5/5 @ 11:30.

Don't miss the IAB Leadership Forum on Online Video @ 11:30 am on Monday, 5/5. You'll see me participating in what is likely to be a lively one-on-one debate on future of video, online and/or off.

The Great Debate: Buy Broadcast? Buy Online? Buy Both?

There's been plenty of discussion in the industry about a perceived tension between buyers of online and broadcast video. But is it real? Does it matter? Hear this point-counterpoint debate between two senior executives as they argue from opposing perspectives about the value and future of broadcast versus online.

Moderator: Patrick Keane, Executive Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, CBS Interactive

Ian Schafer, CEO, Deep Focus

Steve Robinson, President & Founder, Panache

Register here.

Recap of My Panel @ Content Delivery Economics.

Today I spoke on a panel @ Contentinople's Content Delivery Economics on the topic of Monetizing Content Through Digital Syndication & Advertising. My fellow panelists were:

Moderator: Mark Kapczynski, VP of In-Stream, EyeWonder

Scott Bender, VP Advertising Sales, IGN Entertainment Consumer Group, Fox Interactive Media

Brian Wieser, SVP, Director of Industry Analysis, Magna Global, Interpublic

Patrick Mahoney, Senior VP Digital Media, Entertainment Studios

Ian Schafer, CEO & Founder, Deep Focus

Julian Zilberbrand, VP Group Director, Technology & Ad Operations, MediaVest Worldwide

Travis Howe, Senior Vice President, Digital Sales, Sony Pictures

This was a lively panel filled with discussion about the future of content monetization. Key takeaways?

* Convergence is closer than it's ever been technologically, but is suffering from a bit of 'Who Killed the Electric Car' artificial growth-stunting.

* The model for the monetization of video content will ultimately be some combination of ad-supported and subscription revenue.

* There's no 'right way' to buy online video. For some advertisers, it's all about breadth and scale. For others, it's all about depth and experience.

* Advertising networks may very well represent the best shot at the potential for online video content to match up against TV in terms of reach.

* Brand integration doesn't scale well, but it's what lots of advertisers are looking for, especially when working with the large media companies.

* The monetization of content is actually quite dependent upon the hardware and platforms it will be delivered to.

No big surprises here, but no one professes to have all the answers. But I suggest we get a heck of a lot closer before we start wondering about 'what's next'.

The ‘ Integrated (Big) Agency Model ’ . Will It Blend?

As each week passes, it seems another large agency (read: holding company-owned, >1000 people) is announcing their plans for 'integration'. This week, it's MindShare, as MediaPost reports.

As MindShare's North American CEO Scott Neslund declared, "We're making a very clear statement that the time has come to break down the silos."

Intentions? Good. But will it blend?

Various other efforts from the large agencies have been announced in the past few weeks and months, with some announcing digital's move to the forefront. Some, like MindShare, have taken the 'media-neutral' stance.

It seems that the rationale for all of this is positioning -- positioning of the media agency as something that is more than reach + frequency buyers of volume. Positioning is one thing. Being able to back that up with legitimate creativity is another.

The problem with all this is that creativity was not a building block of any of these agencies. They were established to plan and buy tons of media (traditional media) back when the fragmentation of television from broadcast to cable made everyone freak out. It was no longer so easy to buy television, print, and outdoor, and more hands needed to be brought on-deck to scale.

To scale.

Scalability has been the foundation for all these agencies' success. When you look at any of the holding companies' balance sheets, the media businesses are the segments driving those profits and revenues.

And then came the web. And infinite fragmentation. As much as big new media tried to lead us down a 'portal' (broadcast) model, the web has mega-fragmented. And that fragmentation is practically infinite.

Ironically,infinite fragmentation has become the undoing of the very agencies that were born out of the 'original' fragmentation of media. What infinite fragmentation should do is force us to re-think the role that agencies play when it comes to scale. And while the uber-large agencies are re-thinking and transforming, it's imperative that they understand their role.

It's very, very difficult (dare I say, impossible) to scale in terms of breadth (of reach) and depth (of experiences) simultaneously.

As the social media explosion continues, we know just how important experiences can be (although not how we can apply metrics -- but I'm working on that). But scaling reach and experiences at the same time is usually an exercise in futility for brands, not to mention their agencies.

So the question is, can big media agencies built upon breadth, deliver depth? Creativity needs to course through the veins of an agency of any size to apply it consistently to both strategy and tangible output.

In the opinion of this blogger and CEO, there's no precedent of retrofitting something that large into what the industry is calling for. Brands need smaller, more nimble, more innovative agencies built as integrated problem solvers from the ground-up -- with creativity as its religion and the ability to deliver experiences (with the results to back it up) as its practice.

The web can still be a reach medium. But as it continues to fragment, it's costing more and more money to deliver that reach. And maybe that's the role of the larger media agencies. If I'm a brand, I've already got my reach through television. I want to use the web to deliver the depth of an experience that brings consumers closer to me.