IanSchafer.com

Have You Twitter(red)?

Our friends over at Product(RED) have launched an effort across several social media platforms that aim to have a sea of red wash over the web to raise awareness of World AIDS Day.

One of my favorite integrations is what happens on Twitter when you type in the hashtag #red. This is something that Twitter has enabled (no, you can't do it on your own with any color -- or brand), and here's what it looks like:

Click here to learn more about Product(RED)'s other efforts, and click here to follow our (RED) client, Bugaboo, on Twitter.

The New York Times API: Coming, But Is Revenue?

As ReadWriteWeb reports, the New York Times is working on an API that aims to make the entire newspaper 'programmable'.

From the post:

In addition to the API, New York Times CTO Marc Frons told mediabistro.com that internal developers at the paper will use the platform to organize structured data on the site. Following that, the paper plans to offer developer keys to the API allowing programmers to more easily mash up the paper's structured content -- reviews, event listings, recipes, etc. "The plan is definitely to open [the code] up," Frons said. "How far we don't know."

The effects that this might have could be far-reaching. The NYT is still a morning (and throughout-the-day) mainstay for millions of readers (and bloggers), and giving others the ability to use its content as they see fit may result in even more readership.

But access to content will no doubt be limited. What the NYT really wants is for people to visit its website. Not extract content from it. It's the great Newspaparodox. News has become a commodity. Blogs are beating newspapers to the punch, often because it doesn't have to deal with a bureaucratic fact-checking system (for better or worse). Analysis, features, and 'exclusives' are still the things that set the NYT apart.

The questions that still need to be asked are:

* Will opening up an API result in more readership?
* Can that increased readership be monetized?
* Can this be an additional/incremental revenue stream, or one that just aims to offset losses from the newspaper?

The Times' facebook application has only attracted 1,200 users, but then again, the successful facebook apps tend to skew heavily towards the silly.

'Opening up' is a trend, finally. But trends can become fads very quickly without a responsible business model. If you're a content publisher or media company, the least you should be doing is API-enabling your content. The next thing you should be doing is figuring out how to turn that openness into incremental revenue.

If you're an agency, you should be proactively bringing ideas to your clients that can take this API-mentality to its advertising and brand positioning. And if directly increasing revenue is not your goal, then you should be understanding and explaining how getting more open can yield positive results in other ways. But as in any case, to quote Glengarry Glen Ross, 'never open your mouth unless you know what the shot is.'

A Way to Value Engagement … or Value Beyond Engagement?

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.

LA Times Features the Year ’ s Best in Online Movie Marketing

The LA Times does a bit of a feature on some of best in 2007 movie marketing tactics online. Check it out by clicking here.

Among the 10 films mentioned in this piece, I'm proud to say that Deep Focus was at least partially involved with of 4 of their online campaigns.

Congrats to all of our clients featured in this piece!

OMMA Awards Update

I just got back from the OMMA Awards, and I'm proud to announce that Deep Focus walked away with 2 wins:


Rich Media Campaign
Agency: Trailer Park
Client: Buena Vista Pictures Marketing/”Meet the Robinsons”
Agency: Avenue A/Razorfish
Client: Washington Mutual
Agency: Deep Focus
Client: HBO/Flight of the Conchords


Viral Campaign
Agency: The Coca-Cola Company
Client: The Extreme Diet Coke & Mentos Experiments
Agency: Deep Focus
Client: Court TV/Parco P.I.
Agency: Eventful
Client: Energizer


Congrats to our clients at HBO and Court TV, and of course, the folks responsible for these campaigns at Deep Focus. You all are more dedicated, and work harder than anyone I've ever worked with...and I'm eternally grateful. I don't need an award to remind me of that.

What's special about these wins is that they are the results of clients trusting their agency to do things against the norm and against tradition. They listen. They are partners. They help us make "the big idea" happen by trusting our judgment, research, and instincts. They share the information that inform their great decisions, and allow us to not stop our thinking at digital interactive media. After all, all forms of media can be made interactive.

On that note, a special thanks to our friends at Amalgamated, GEM Group, and MediaStorm for their collaboration and support on the "That Girl Emily" campaign for Parco P.I..

One other thing to note. A weird thing, actually.

We were nominated for a category, Home Page Takeover/ Sponsorship, that was completely skipped over at tonight's show. Guess I'll have to tune into the website to find out the results...

What's up with that?

The Fine Art of (Promotional) Content Distribution

There's an interesting article in Brandweek by Chris Thilk of Movie Marketing Madness about what more Hollywood studios should be doing to get their trailers seen by more people. Chris specifically calls out Picturehouse and Yari Film Group as examples of smaller studios doing it right.

You'll have better luck finding an officially loaded version of a trailer if the movie in question is from a smaller studio. Houses like Fox Searchlight, Yari Film Group, Picturehouse and others have realized that YouTube provides a no-cost distribution platform for their promotional materials and have taken advantage of that.

There's no reason, honestly, for the major studios not to be as aggressive in seeding YouTube, Crackle, iFilm or any of the other video portals with official versions of their trailers. This is not "new media" anymore. And trailers aren't something that media companies make money from directly anyway, so the default "We can't monetize it" argument does not hold water.

And it's no coincidence those studios are Deep Focus clients.

In no way should you underestimate the importance of making the best quality, most recent promotional content available everywhere online. We've been preaching and practicing this for years, and it's been integral to our clients' successes.

You should be following Chris' (and our) advice, even if you're not a movie studio. If you've got any kind of promotional content, whether it be a commercial, a walkthrough, news clips, or anything else, it should be online. And it should be uploaded by you or your agency in the optimal quality, and the moment it is seen in any other medium. Otherwise, you run the risk of having an unauthorized person do it for you, at a less-than-preferred quality. This can lead to the unfavorable outcome of the unwanted clip, rip, or stream being the default one that people find when they search for your content online.

The bottom line? If audiences are looking for it, you must provide it for them, wherever they may be looking for it, in the format that you want them to find it in.

Read the article here, and his corresponding blog post here.

Deep Focus on The New Breed of Video Ads in The Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal does a nice job exploring the future of video advertising on the web, in an article looking at strategies being implemented by sites like Google Video, YouTube, and Break.com.

I'm quoted speaking about a campaign we ran for our client, New Line Home Video, to support the DVD release of The Number 23 on Break.com:

Time Warner Inc.'s New Line Home Entertainment used bugs last month to promote the DVD release of "The Number 23" on Break.com. Using the ad format, a graphic on the film slid onto the bottom of a video as it played; the graphic offered viewers who clicked on it more information. About 2.5% of everyone who saw the ad clicked through to learn more about the DVD release. "That's certainly much higher than standard advertising click-through rates on the Web," says Ian Schafer, chief executive of interactive ad agency Deep Focus Inc., which worked on the campaign for New Line.

Deep Focus is working with other clients and Web sites on similar ads, and Break.com says it's close to selling out its bug inventory. "This has been the most effective ad unit attracting advertisers and users," says Keith Richman, the CEO of NextPoint Inc., the parent of Break Media. "Users who frequently complain when they don't like things haven't complained at all."

Read the rest of the article here.

The Webby Awards Redux

So I went to the Webby Awards last night, as Deep Focus was a double-winner along with our client, Picturehouse. I certainly had fun at the event, which is often touted as "the Oscars of the Internet". I have some serious issues with that statement, but just as the Oscars have highlights and lowlights, so did The Webbys:

The Highlights
* Our client, Nevin Shalit, SVP New Media at New Line Cinema accepted the Webbys on both of our behalf. In a very touching 5-word acceptance speech (as the rules state they must be), Nevin stated:

Thank you Guillermo, Chad, Sabrina.

That's Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth's Director), Chad Ossman (Senior Developer, New Line), and Sabrina Caluori (Account Director, Deep Focus).

I was able to pry Nevin's backup speeches out of him as well -- speeches he almost went with:

All hail Guillermo del Toro

Ian, you make the speech

Guillermo, direct Master and Margarita

Personally, I was for the second one, but hey...what are you going to do.

* The Beastie Boys -- It's amazing how they always manage to stay relevant.

* David Bowie -- Even though he didn't come out as Ziggy Stardust, it was still really great to see him on a stage.

The Lowlights

* There was virtually no enthusiasm at this event during the awards ceremony, other than those that were cheering on their party's designated accept-er. This is a serious problem. We're trying to celebrate creativity here. Didn't feel like much celebrating -- or appreciating -- was going on. This event needs its personality back. Apparently Nick Denton @ Valleywag agrees:

I've vowed never to attend another Webby Award show for as long as I've been going to the show. After last night's 2007 gala, it's finally time to burn the bridges.

* The old-school internet heavyweights, like AOL, Yahoo and eBay, received extremely lukewarm receptions. I wonder if it was that people don't remember the contributions these companies had to the fact that this medium is now taken seriously, or that they remember that these companies are not necessarily inspiring creativity all that much. Lest we forget that eBay's taken chances on Skype and Stumbleupon, and Yahoo's stepped up with acquisitions like Flickr (who also had a lukewarm reception). Weird.

It was definitely a classy event. But I don't know...maybe it was too classy.