The series Gossip Girl was returning to the CW network, and was under some pressure to deliver ratings numbers higher than the previous season’s. After realizing that hundreds of thousands of people were watching the show online (gasp!), they figured that last season’s gradual decrease in viewership from (2.5 million viewers to 1.8 million viewers) may have fallen victim to the nasty, horrible, clutches of the internet.

Seriously.

So the CW, to avoid the wrath of technology, decided to pull the series from the web entirely. No Gossip Girl for you. That’ll teach the internet. Now you ‘internet-people’ are going to have to watch it on the television.

Well, the results are in.

The premiere of the series scored 2.44 million viewers. It got 2.5 million last year. CW’s spinning this as a victory somehow, by saying that ratings for the series were 8% higher than the series it replaced.

Seriously.

Haven’t we learned anything, class?

The availability of your content on the internet is not why your content’s TV ratings have slipped. On the contrary, it’s probably why ratings didn’t slip more than they did. I find it painfully ironic that a show with the word ‘gossip’ in its title is ignoring — nay, shunning — the medium that could facilitate and channel the most buzz about it.

This show started out poorly. Even at its peak in its first season, it lost about half of the audience from its lead-in, America’s Next Top Model. And to make matter worse, Gossip Girl premiered after the ANTM’s season finale. It started off week, and didn’t get much better.

Gossip Girl’s 2007 Lead-In Audience Lost from America’s Next Top Model.

Here’s what the blogosphere’s looked like over the last few months:

See that spike after April 15th? That’s outrage and wonderment about why the CW was pulling this series from the web.

One thing I’ve learned is that in this world of many, many options, audiences will not tolerate inconvenience, and are more likely to punish those that prevent an enjoyable experience.

Case in point, check out what the #5 most searched-upon content is on isoHunt, a Bittorrent search engine:

Not exactly what the CW had in mind, methinks.

I’ve seen firsthand how a good content distribution strategy work wonders online — not only in terms of generating buzz, but generating ratings, not to mention ad revenue.

Hopefully, the continued ratings slide is enough to encourage other networks to keep making their content available, however and whenever people want to consume it. Even if it continues to be ad-supported, as long as it’s easy to get, it’s good enough.

Share on Facebook

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.

Share on Facebook

The secret’s out now. I was at the Mets game today instead of going to work.

But that didn’t mean I didn’t think about advertising.

My pal Steve Reed pointed out this sight on the right field wall:

To paraphrase famous Mets fan Jerry Seinfeld, “What’s the deal with putting two ads with the same fonts so close to each other?”

It’s funny. I never even realized that Geico’s and Casio’s brand fonts were so similar before this. It helped me to avoid thinking too hard about the Mets’ bullpen.

Share on Facebook

I just got back from my local Duane Reade pharmacy and after waiting 15 minutes on a line of 20 people that stretched down the haircare aisle (there was only one cashier on duty), I attempted to use a $5 off coupon printed on a receipt that I had earned for spending a total of $100 at Duane Reade.

According to their Dollar Rewards program, for every $100 you spend, you get a $5 reward. Very kind of them. The problem is that this program is loaded with things that actually encourage you to not redeem your coupon. So while I’m sure they are collecting lots of great market research as to what people are buying in their stores, they make coming back to the store a completely un-rewarding experience.

Back to my story. I didn’t realize this, but you only have 14 days to spend that $5 reward you earn. I was a week-and-a-half late. And they wouldn’t let me use it, of course. This kind of rewards program is incredibly restricting. I had other chances to use the reward, but I didn’t have my Dollar Rewards membership card with me (even though I had my coupon), and they wouldn’t let me use it.

Isn’t the point of a loyalty program to keep you loyal by rewarding continued shopping in the store? Instead, Duane Reade makes it so difficult to use those rewards that unless you comply with their restrictive parameters you can’t even reap them.

Check out a list of their customer un-friendly rules here.

It’s no surprise that Duane Reade was ranked dead last in a recent study of chain store pharmacy customer service rankings by J.D. Power and Associates.

And for a regional chain, they sure have a lot of results on a Google search of “Duane Reade sucks”. Understandably so.

Maybe it’s time to start listening to your customers before they switch to one of the other drug stores popping up on every corner.

Share on Facebook

In case you missed it, BusinessWeek reporter Sarah Lacy pretty much bombed the Mark Zuckerberg keynote interview yesterday at SXSW. Check out CNet’s coverage here.

One thing I noticed was that before she went on, she sent a post over to Silicon Alley Insider telling us what she was going to ask Zuckerberg.

So, we will not re-hash why Zuckerberg didn’t sell to yahoo. We will not re-hash the fact that he’s — gasp! — 23. I might make fun at his awkward 60 Minutes line: “was that a question?”

Everyone has glommed onto the corporate facebook story. And to Mark, that’s the least interesting part. So we’ll spend some time talking about the site itself, and the role it’s playing in the world. And we’ll tackle thorny advertising questions. (Beacon, anyone?)

Mostly, I hope to draw out some of the real Mark. I’ve spent some 30 hours or so interviewing him, starting when he was a 19 year-old punk. And you know, he’s not a bad guy.

THAT’S the problem.

She told us what she was going to ask him. Lacy should have done a little more research into the makeup of the crowd at SXSW. She should have known that this crowd wanted answers. If Zuckerberg wasn’t going to provide answers, or at the very least, information, then that would’ve been his (or Facebook’s) problem. Instead, she utilized her ‘familiarity’ with Zuckerberg (she’s interviewed him before, and is writing a book that features him) to try and ‘friend’ (approriately enough) information out of him. And that information never came. Zuckerberg is not known for his conversational finesse. You need to put him on the spot - without insulting him. If the questions were the right ones, the ones that the audiences wanted to hear, she could have at least satisfied some of the crowd.

But that never happened.

She never asked us about what we wanted to hear from him. Of course there is time for ‘audience questions’ after the interview. But why wait until then to hear what we have to say?

What Sarah Lacy should have done was write a blog post and solicit questions to ask Zuckerberg in the comments section. She could have taken the pulse of the crowd before she arrived. She could have at least given Zuckerberg the opportunity to address the issues that were so important to the crowd.

Style aside, a lot of what was missing was substance. In an interview, the questions need to have as much as (if not more) substance than the answers. It puts the onus on the interviewee. If Sarah gave the audience the opportunity to contribute substance to the interview — relevant to them — than maybe the crowd wouldn’t have turned on her so quickly.

Isn’t it ironic that one of the most attended, most accessible (to the public) interviews of the CEO of the most popular social and collaborative property on the web, had nothing social or collaborative about it?

Next time, please ask. Don’t tell.

Oh…and please use this as an opportunity to listen to the crowd that is your audience. And converse. Don’t antagonize.

Share on Facebook

This post summarizes an ongoing conversation I’ve had over the past couple years with Brendan Light, SVP Research and Development at Buzzback Market Research: a super smart guy at a super smart company.

The Internet. It happened fast. One day, I was a high school, checking out images of college campuses on CD-ROM, the next, I was emailing from a “terminal” in my college library. The transition from analog to optical media-based digital content to Web-based content happened in a heartbeat and big business (and subsequently, big advertising agencies) had to adapt…fast.

So what happened? Everyone reacted instinctively and created an advertising convergence culture…and I don’t mean this in the good, Henry Jenkins way. This was more a convergence of media aesthetics–the creative executions that populated the Web evoked familiar print and TV advertising styles. Even digital DM and CRM programs were really just ports of their offline brethren–not systems reconfigured to take advantage of interactivity. At the time, it was more important that clients and consumers wrap their heads around the medium in a way that was familiar. There’s a silly phrase: “we only use 10% of our brains.” Well, we marketers (and our clients and consumers) have only been using about 2% of the Internet. It’s nobody fault, really; no clients (or consumers) were really prepared for the power of this fully operational battle station. What’s sad is, since the advent of online channel, nothing much has changed. Online Advertising still rarely equates to Interactive Marketing. Digital, it turns out really just means not analog.

But, as the search for engagement valuation continues, there could be a way for agencies and brands to work together to create a different kind of value system redefining, or at least taking some of the pressure off of the idea of “engagement”. To do it, we have to up the ante: it’s time to define and differentiate Interactive Marketing from Online Advertising.

How? When? Where? Whaaaaa?

The onset of the Semantic Web means more powerful targeting. Targeting that could get very close to simulating an online, controlled research panel. Tools like Buzzback’s suite of creative research applications (or ones like them) could provide back-end qualitative and quantitative analysis, as well as a flexible creative platform that will allow individual advertising executions to double as learning labs for valuable market research.

A new form of compelling interactive units would be more dynamic, always morphing and relating to user interaction on a collective and individual basis. Because the creative is more responsive, interaction rates would increase and clients would receive new types of valuable data that’s far more actionable than what they’re getting today (think about it: in addition to today’s conventional tactics, these high-powered units could inform product designs…or anything else a client would usually get from a focus group).

This approach could help close the gap between what’s measurable and what’s actionable for our clients, increasing the value of the creative and the placements.

Some people might scream, “you’ve got your chocolate in my peanut butter!” but the combination of creative advertising and market research could be the most powerful and most valuable convergence we’ll see.

What would it take?

1) A Reality check. Focus groups and surveys are dying. Research companies need to upgrade their approach and enroll their clients in this shift. I expect it would also take independent research companies and creative shops buddying up. If either expect to be successful without the other, they’re mistaken (unless they can spend lots of time and money building a best-class department).

2) Pliability. Clients and agencies need to develop more flexible strategic plans…or develop them more frequently. Part of what makes this model so interesting is how actionable it is…but agencies can’t do anything if they’re constricted by a plan that’s 6 months old. There’s really no way to predict where a conversation with consumers will go…and the most valuable reactions will be in response to the most current consumer activity. So the way most plans and spending forecasts are developed today, they probably couldn’t support this system well enough to extract the value.

3) A Breakout Hit. Money is money is money. How many times did clients ask for Subservient Chicken (without any idea how many chicken sandwiches it sold). Even though this new hybrid model would be more efficient for clients, engaging for consumers and flexible for agencies, it better not taste like medicine. A great execution for a popular brand that yields amazing results (anecdotally as well as statistically) will help this become reality. How do we increase the chances of that happening? Simple. Make sure that all your online advertising ideas are embedded with interactive marketing smarts.

Share on Facebook

First, Rupert Murdoch nixed plans to make WSJ.com free.

Now, I can’t even log in.

This is not the way to build an audience.

Share on Facebook

Just a heads-up for all of you going to CES.

Wireless internet access at the convention center and The Sands costs a whopping $399 for two days.

That’s more than the average room in Las Vegas costs. And that’s lunacy.

Here’s a tip from your uncle Ian: Bring your EVDO card if you have it.

Share on Facebook

All over my neighborhood here in NYC (Union Square/Chelsea) are these ads, usually above subways, touting the opening of this Dell Direct Gift Store, a pop-up store, near Union Square at 813 Broadway.

So I think to myself, “That seems interesting. I wonder if they carry the new Nokia N810 Internet Tablet in there.” When one has a question, one typically turns to the Internet for an answer.

Of course, I go straight to Google and type in, “Dell Direct Gift Store”. Search. Nothing.

Then, “Dell Direct Gift Store” “813 Broadway”. Search. Still nothing.

Actually, I do get something. This link to what apparently is the only coverage of this store even existing.

The next thing I do is head over to Dell.com for some help in determining what the store’s contents are, contact information, anything.

Again, nothing.

The point I’m getting at is that if a company that relies so heavily upon the web for transactions goes through the trouble of opening a pop-up store, at least do it right and provide some information about it on the web, wouldja?

Share on Facebook

The Los Angeles Times reports that writers, fed up by Studios and Networks, are banding together to launch their own production startups, aimed at producing online video.

From the article:

The groups modeled after United Artists (which eventually was bought by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. and recently was revived with the help of Tom Cruise) envision creating and distributing programming for the Web and recouping their investments by selling rights to the most successful properties to TV networks or movie companies.

If these guys are going to bet on the fact they the money they make will be earned when selling properties to networks and studios, they’re going into it losing. Has this model ever worked? It barely works for the publishing business. If I were an investor, I’d be leery of any investment that would require content to be so good, and so successful, but with the only money to be made only when — or if — the content is snapped up by a network or studio. As the average filmmaker how successful this strategy is.

Why wait to make money until you sell the rights? The web is a big enough medium to have content reside exclusively within it. It’s also big enough for that content to be seen by enough people and to make enough money to negate the need to sell ancillary (or other) rights to it. Maybe, just maybe, someone will figure out a way to distribute, promote, and sell advertising against content big enough to bring in a return for investors. Will that be a property like YouTube? Will it be a platform like VideoEgg? Time will tell, but the right time for this to happen is, like, now. So hurry up, people.

UPDATE: PaidContent weighs in on this too.

Share on Facebook