Cable's Latest Great Idea: Speed Up Programs So They Can Stuff More Ads Into Every Hour

from the who-cares-about-quality dept

We've discussed numerous times that as the Internet video revolution accelerates, the cable and broadcast industry's response has predominantly been to double down on bad ideas in the false belief that they can nurse a dying cash cow indefinitely. Netflix nibbling away at your subscriber totals? Continue to glibly impose bi-annual rate hikes. Amazon Prime Video eroding your customer base? How about we increase the hourly advertising load! Similarly, cable industry efforts at "innovative" viewing options (like TV Everywhere) are often more about giving the impression of innovation than actually innovating.

The latest example of cable industry tone deafness? With cable and broadcast ratings continuing to fall, more and more people have been complaining that the industry increasingly likes to speed up programs notably so more ads can be stuffed into every hour. By speeding up Seinfeld by about 7.5%, for example, the industry can manage to deliver an extra two minutes of ad time during the program:

This has been going on for a while, and as complaints in this Reddit thread attest, another favorite tactic has been to heavily edit some programs for the same purpose. Fans of particularly popular programs tend to be the first to notice that their favorite content is now edited or accelerated, which may drive them to look elsewhere for a better quality version of that product (piracy, Netflix). Behold, even many executives in the cable and broadcast industry appear to be aware that adding more ads and degrading the quality of your product might not be the greatest idea for an industry at the cusp of a major competitive sea change:

"It is important for us to consider the effect this is having on the viewer experience,” said Jackie Kulesza, executive vice president and director of video at Starcom USA. “We want to ensure our message is seen by receptive viewers."..."They are trying to deal with a problem in a way that is making the problem bigger,” said Chris Geraci, president of national broadcast at media buyer Omnicom Media Group of the practice of increasing the commercial loads to make up for declining ratings."

Except the cable and broadcast industry has repeatedly shown it's not really worried about the "viewer experience." Why? Because for all of the bitching the public does about their cable company and its historically abysmal customer service, the industry knows the vast, vast majority continue to pay them an arm and a leg for bloated bundles of miserable programming that barely gets watched. Even as cord cutting accelerates, the industry isn't worried; plan B is to abuse its monopoly over the broadband last mile to ramp up deployment of broadband caps, recouping their lost pound of flesh via broadband overage fees.

Filed Under: advertisements, cable, commercials, internet, speed, tv shows, video

Marvel Goes DMCA Crazy Over Leaked Avengers 2 Trailer, Then Puts It On Its Own YouTube Page

from the quick-stop-that-advertising! dept

As the saying goes, death and taxes are both certainties -- as is the fact that politicians lie. But another near universal certainty is that Marvel will totally freak out whenever it gets the slightest inkling that its intellectual property is threatened. The latest head-scratching example of this was yesterday's leak of a trailer for The Avengers 2, which Marvel promptly DMCA'd.

The first trailer for next year's sequel to Marvel's The Avengers leaked today, earlier than Marvel Studios was obviously planning. The mega studio originally planned to show the new trailer publicly next week during an episode of television show Agents of SHIELD...Update: The leaked version of the trailer's been pulled from host Tinypic. Looks like Marvel isn't too thrilled about the trailer's early leak.

And you can see the studio's point. After all, movie trailers are advertisements, and Marvel certainly wouldn't want people advertising the studio's product to unbelievably hungry-for-anything fans out there. That might, you know, build up excitement for the new movie. What use could Marvel possibly have for that? As we know, now that the trailer has been leaked early before being taken down, literally nobody will see it during the Agents of SHIELD broadcast. Marvel must be totally screwed now, man. Game over.

Oh, yeah, here's the trailer that leaked.


Now, I'm sure you're wondering, "But, Tim, how could you possibly show us the trailer after Marvel DMCA'd the pants off of the leak?" Well, the answer is that I'm embedding that video from Marvel's own YouTube page. Yup, after the leak, and after it DMCA'd the leak because of how awful it was, Marvel then released the leaked trailer, prior to its original intended release, on its own YouTube page.

Which brings me to several conclusions. First, Marvel has admitted that there is no point to issuing DMCA notices any longer; otherwise, the DMCA notice would have been enough and it would have continued to release the trailer at the originally intended time. Second, Marvel hates getting free advertising. That's all a trailer is, after all, and Marvel has decided that the same video shown on its YouTube page shouldn't be hosted elsewhere, by other parties, for free. Makes sense. After all, you wouldn't want people to know about your movie or anything.

Filed Under: advertisements, avengers 2, copyright, dmca, trailers
Companies: disney, marvel

Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody

from the keep-busting-those-myths dept

We'd already explained how commercial use can be fair use in the Goldieblox v. Beastie Boys case, but we've continued to see people attacking the idea that an advertisement could possibly be either parody or fair use. I was going to write up something in more detail, but as is all too often the case, the awesome Andy Baio already did it and did it better, with a fantastic mythbusting of a variety of false statements being thrown around by many well-meaning, but not very knowledgeable, people talking about the case. He covers a lot of ground, all of which is worth reading, but I want to highlight the key case he talks about concerning the possibility of an ad being fair use as a parody. On Twitter and in the comments, I saw many people insist that an advertisement couldn't be either of those things, and insisting there were no cases to support the claim. Well, that's not true:

More than any other, I've seen this myth repeated everywhere. Can a company parody a famous artist's work and use it, against their will, to advertise an unrelated product? Actually, yes, as long as the use is transformative enough.

The most famous case is the Naked Gun advertisement below, a parody of photographer Annie Leibovitz's famous portrait of Demi Moore for Vanity Fair.

If you care about this sort of thing, the District Court's decision is a fantastic, and surprisingly readable, breakdown of the history of parody and fair use.

The ruling is well worth reading, citing the same Supreme Court case we talked about yesterday about how commercial use can absolutely be fair use, but directly applying it to this case, where a parody ad was created. While it recognizes that this is a commercial use, it notes that the overall weight of the four factors test makes it fair use:

The fair use doctrine has been described as a "guarantee of breathing space at the heart of copyright."... This breathing space ensures that copyright will not stifle the very proliferation of creative works that it was designed to foster. Three of the four fair use factors in the present case militate in favor of a finding of fair use, largely because the defendant's transformation of the plaintiff's photograph has resulted in public access to two distinct works, serving distinct markets, with little risk that the creator of the first work will be disinclined to create further works that may be open to parody. Because I agree with the Second Circuit that in this case "[a]ccording [the] proprietor [of the copyrighted work] further protection against parody does little to promote creativity, but it places a substantial inhibition upon the creativity of authors adept at using parody, ..." I hold that the fundamental purposes of copyright are best served by a finding that defendant's use of the Moore photograph is a fair one.

Earlier in the ruling, she also notes that while commercial use may be less likely to be protected as fair use, there are plenty of cases where it makes sense, if you understand the purpose of copyright:

I can only reconcile these disparate elements by returning to the core purpose of copyright: to foster the creation and dissemination of the greatest number of creative works. The end result of the Nielsen ad parodying the Moore photograph is that the public now has before it two works, vastly different in appeal and nature, where before there was only one.

Those findings clearly apply in the Goldieblox case as well, where the two situations are nearly identical. In fact, it's arguable that in the Liebovitz case, she actually had an slightly stronger claim than the Beastie Boys would have here.

And yes, this ruling is only a district court ruling in NY, so it is in no way binding on the California court where Goldieblox filed its declaratory judgment suit. But it highlights that, contrary to the claims of way too many people, yes, an advertisement can be a fair use parody of a different work.

Filed Under: advertisements, annie liebowitz, beastie boys, copyright, demi moore, fair use, leslie nielsen, naked gun, parody
Companies: goldieblox

Oreo Wins The Superbowl Ad Wars With A Timely Tweet

from the cost-less-than-$3.5-million dept

Yesterday was the day that, each year, proves that people do not in fact hate advertising. They actually like it quite a bit if the advertising is good. What they hate is crappy and annoying advertising. Of course, every Super Bowl, various brands duke it out to see who can get the most bang for their buck in Super Bowl advertisements -- which this year went for a cool $3.5 million for a basic spot. Still, many people are pointing out that the real winner of the Super Bowl advertising fight wasn't from one of the TV commercials at all, but rather Oreo's advertising agency, who sprung into immediate action when the power went out at the Super Bowl. Within just a few minutes (I think slightly less than 15), Oreo had put out the following tweet:

Power out? No problem. twitter.com/Oreo/status/29…

— Oreo Cookie (@Oreo) February 4, 2013

Just in case you can't see the embed, it says "Power out? No problem." And then had the following image with the caption "You can still dunk in the dark." A few other brands got out some clever tweets, such as Walgreens tweeting that it carries candles or Audi tweeting that it was sending some LEDs over to the Super Bowl. Twitter claims that four minutes after the lights went out an advertiser had already bid on "power outage" as a search term (you'd think "black out" might have been more effective). But Oreo actually got that graphic together, with the caption, and got it all up online quite quickly. I'm in awe, given that with big brands you normally expect there to be a bit too much red tape and "approvals" for anything like that. For Oreo, the key to having this work was that its ad agency folks and all of the key people from Oreo were in a room together, so the approvals went fast.

Tide also got a "blackout" graphic and joke online, three minutes after Oreo. It put up a weak image with a caption: "We can't get your blackout, But we can get your stains out." Kudos for trying, but definitely a step behind Oreo.

It's worth noting, by the way, that Oreo did, in fact, pay for a Super Bowl commercial as well, though it was showing up on lists of the worst Super Bowl commercials of the year. Whoever came up with the image and the tweet in record time may have saved the Super Bowl for Oreo.

Of course, all of this does raise a larger point about marketing and advertising these days. Doing a good job often has less to do with how much money you spend than with how good you are at actually connecting with people -- and a well-timed tweet and graphic can do wonders.

Filed Under: advertisements, blackout, fast reactions, social media, super bowl
Companies: audi, oreo, walgreens

DailyDirt: Not-So-Gross National Products

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Public bathrooms everywhere have been trying to reduce their water, energy and paper product usage. There was even a $100,000 prize from the Gates Foundation to design a better toilet. Toilet paper could be the next bathroom product that's ripe for disruption, so ponder a few of these articles next time you're on the thinker.

• Toilet paper on a roll was first introduced in the 1890s, and it took several decades before consumers were really comfortable asking for the product by name. Not surprisingly, the US uses more toilet paper than any other country, and the growing use of "TP" is evidence of the rising influence of western marketing.... [url]
• Star Toilet Paper is a startup that puts advertisements on toilet paper. The investor pitch goes something like: "It's like Groupon, but on toilet paper... and everyone has to use the bathroom, so if we can just get 0.0001% conversion..." [url]
• A new toilet paper called "Moka" is partially made from recycled paper products, so it's not the gleaming white most people are accustomed to. Beige toilet paper is more environmentally friendly, but will any bathrooms (other than public restrooms) actually use brown toilet paper? [url]
• Recycled toilet paper relies on the quality of the products it's made from, so if there's less office paper waste -- recycled toilet paper is either going to get more expensive or feel even less like "normal" TP. Seventh Generation says there may be a limit to how soft recycled toilet paper can get, but there may be paper additives that might help (but additives might also reduce the environmentally-friendly aspects). [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: advertisements, recycled, toilet paper, toilets
Companies: seventh generation, star toilet paper

Apple/Samsung Verdict Advertising Samsung As A Viable Alternative To iPads & iPhones

from the backfiring dept

From early on in the Apple/Samsung dispute, I pointed out that Apple's reaction really seemed to indicate to the world that Samsung's devices were the ones they were most scared of. And, of course, for those looking for alternatives, it was possible that it would act as really, really good advertising for Samsung. It's still early, but there's some anecdotal evidence that the verdict only emphasized that fact even more. Via Mashable, we learn of a post from Enrique Guitierrez, who was in a Starbucks over the weekend and overheard people talking about the verdict -- and they seemed to indicate that it was making them more interested in buying Samsung products:

Guy: "Wait, so what they're saying is, Samsung is the same as Apple?"
Friend: "I know, right? Makes me think twice about how much I paid for my Mac Book"
Guy: "Seriously"

Not 10 minutes later, a husband and wife, same newspaper:

Husband: "... Samsung's iPad is the same as Apple's iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a ripoff", after looking up the Samsung tablet on his iPhone.
Wife: "Oh wow," looking at the screen, "... that's a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?"

Those aren't the only examples in the post either. He notes that these people don't understand the details, but they seem to have gotten the message that Samsung makes at least an equivalent product for a lot less money... and that's making them a lot more interested in Samsung. Once again, it makes you wonder why Apple didn't just focus on competing in the marketplace, where they had a tremendous brand advantage.

Filed Under: advertisements, android, galaxy, ios, ipad, iphone, patents
Companies: apple, samsung

NYTimes Now Makes More Money From Readers Than From Advertisers... But Mostly Because Advertisers Are Fleeing

from the rebalancing? dept

Some are making note of the fact that, for the first time, "circulation revenue" is higher than advertising revenue for the NY Times. Of course, it appears that much of this is due to a sharp drop in ad revenue. That's not to say there hasn't been an increase in circulation revenue -- which includes both print and digital. The NYT raised print prices, and it didn't seem to scare people off that much. And it's continued to sign up people to its not-really-a-paywall. It's so easy to get around the paywall that, at best, it should be considered a nagwall for a donation -- with many people happy to pay something.

Still, one has to wonder if some of the softness in the ad side of the business is caused by the fact that there's this nagwall that can sometimes get in between readers and the site. It certainly could be limiting advertisers' willingness to sign onto campaigns. And, there are still significant questions about the sustainability of the NY Times in its current structure. Because there's still this bottom line: for the second quarter, the company had an operating loss of $143.6 million. We can argue all you want over paywalls vs. advertising and whether or not one side is up or one side is down, but if the company isn't make money, the whole system has to be in question.

Filed Under: advertisements, journalism, nagwalls, paywalls, subscribers
Companies: ny times

Celebrity Endorsement Deals Almost Always A Bad Deal For Brands

from the people-don't-care-about-celebrities dept

A new research report claims that celebrity endorsements in the form of TV commercials are almost always a bad deal for the brand. The study covered every nationally televised ad in the first 11 months of 2010 -- and saw that ones with celebrities underperformed other types of ads, often drastically. On average, celebrity ads had a negative "lift," while non-celebrity ads did much better. Of course, you can hide a lot of details in aggregate numbers, and part of it might just be that the celebrity ads were done poorly. It's possible that a good celebrity ad can still be effective, but what seems clear is that "just add a celebrity" does not help at all. The study's authors posit that consumers don't care as much about celebrity endorsements in these social networking days:

Today's consumer is a totally different animal than the consumer of even five years ago, meaning that what was effective and influential five years ago is not necessarily so today, as today's consumer is more likely to be influenced by someone in their social network than a weak celebrity connection. Today's consumer is informed, time-compressed, and difficult to impress, and they are only influenced by ads that are relevant and provide information. They don't want to have products pushed at them, even from a celebrity. In fact, the data show that relevance and information attributes were key missing ingredients from most celebrity ads.

I'm not sure I completely buy that. After all, celebrities are some of the most popular people to follow or friend on social networks. I think it may be more a case of poor utilization of celebrities, where the endorsements are seen (reasonably and accurately) as being fake, rather than sincere. I think when a celebrity really does like a product and then also agrees to do an endorsement, those can be effective. But a pure "let's put this celebrity with this product" sort of thing is quickly dismissed as inauthentic.

Filed Under: advertisements, celebrities, commercials

DailyDirt: Duh... Ads Are Supposed To Change People's Minds

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Ads can be controversial sometimes -- designed to attract attention. Most ads catch your eye with attractive people or shocking images, but the "best" ads also stick in your mind and remind you who the actual sponsor was. We're always interested in "good" ads (not the ads that get attention for how hated they are). So here, we've found some interesting ad-related articles and videos that demonstrate how ads can be entertaining.

The BBC picks 6 ads that it thinks changed the world. Don't worry: "Apply directly to the forehead" didn't make the cut. [url]

If you could save an online banner ad for later, would you? This sounds like a really bad copy of Instapaper.... [url]

LEGO has made a couple interesting short films. But still, I always forget that it's not Legos. [url]

Can any kind of internet meme effectively sell a mobile phone? If so, let loose the CaTz of advertising. [url]

Filed Under: ads, advertisements