Comments on: The Death of Marketing Media with Media http://www.pandemiclabs.com/blog/online-video/the-death-of-marketing-media-with-media/ Insight into viral and social media marketing Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:02:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Brennan White http://www.pandemiclabs.com/blog/online-video/the-death-of-marketing-media-with-media/comment-page-1/#comment-7527 Brennan White Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:32:05 +0000 http://pandemiclabs.com/blog/2009/01/the-death-of-marketing-media-with-media/#comment-7527 Thanks for the comment krgaskins! Clearly great thought and effort went into your post and I agree with many of your points. I definitely think your first comment about creating a distinction between "filler" and "just plain bad marketing" is dead on. Regarding evangelists: Had I dared make this post longer, I would have discussed how BSG is in its final half-season and how the main error they're making results in dividing the evangelists further rather than solidifying the core fan base (those who sit through 20 iterations of the same commercial to see the new content and those who don't). Your point about the un-PC article is true as it relates to traffic and ratings. However, the show is so close to the end of its run that their ratings increases over say 6-8 episodes may not be as valuable to the franchise in the long term as finishing off the show with a fanatically loyal fan base. Additionally, the ratings may not have a chance to "reach equilibrium again" as there is only a half season remaining the show. Ratings could just as easily end on a bad note. If we were to see that fan base provide an engine for future content and monetization of of future content, we could see a multi-generational loyalty spring out of BSG akin to the loyalty for Star Wars. In this eventuality, the show (as a business) has significantly larger long term upside than the short term ratings increase. If I were running the business side of BSG, the possibility that might I jeopardize the loyalty of my best fans during the final months of my series would be far more than enough reason to forego the minuscule amount of revenue I could eek out from the pre-roll advertising. My post intended to make this point, however, I may have missed the mark. Thanks for the comment krgaskins!

Clearly great thought and effort went into your post and I agree with many of your points.

I definitely think your first comment about creating a distinction between “filler” and “just plain bad marketing” is dead on.

Regarding evangelists: Had I dared make this post longer, I would have discussed how BSG is in its final half-season and how the main error they’re making results in dividing the evangelists further rather than solidifying the core fan base (those who sit through 20 iterations of the same commercial to see the new content and those who don’t).

Your point about the un-PC article is true as it relates to traffic and ratings. However, the show is so close to the end of its run that their ratings increases over say 6-8 episodes may not be as valuable to the franchise in the long term as finishing off the show with a fanatically loyal fan base. Additionally, the ratings may not have a chance to “reach equilibrium again” as there is only a half season remaining the show. Ratings could just as easily end on a bad note.

If we were to see that fan base provide an engine for future content and monetization of of future content, we could see a multi-generational loyalty spring out of BSG akin to the loyalty for Star Wars. In this eventuality, the show (as a business) has significantly larger long term upside than the short term ratings increase. If I were running the business side of BSG, the possibility that might I jeopardize the loyalty of my best fans during the final months of my series would be far more than enough reason to forego the minuscule amount of revenue I could eek out from the pre-roll advertising.

My post intended to make this point, however, I may have missed the mark.

]]> By: krgaskins http://www.pandemiclabs.com/blog/online-video/the-death-of-marketing-media-with-media/comment-page-1/#comment-7525 krgaskins Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:41:22 +0000 http://pandemiclabs.com/blog/2009/01/the-death-of-marketing-media-with-media/#comment-7525 I think you should make the distinction between 1) "filler content" that has nothing to do with the media of interest to evangelists, and is spun as being related or as-good-as it, and 2) just plain bad marketing dealing directly with the media at hand. By nature, evangelists are a hard bunch to shake. Per Keller Fay, word-of-mouth is positive by a 7:1 ratio, and there's even an argue to be made that negative WoM is, well... still viral power. Sure-- when you deprive avid (let's say, for example) chocolate-eaters of Godiva and give them peas instead (assuring them that it's Godiva), they're going to lose interest, and look at you with skepticism and disdain-- but that's a combination of, 1) first and foremost, deprivation (you may notice that blog traffic drops steadily when posts aren't made consistently) and 2) marketing that doesn't deal with the media at hand, in essence. For example, if the Sci-Fi Channel was still regularly pumping out episodes of Battlestar Galactica but happened to post a highly-trafficked, un-PC web article about it, the show ratings might even INCREASE. Bottom line: I doubt the show would lose many influencers over an "egregious" marketing error such as that, and ratings would eventually reach equilibrium again. The real problem here is "deprivation" and being disingenuous with the fans. The latter really gets to the heart of the "groundswell" movement, and concern about "erring" when it comes to the utilization of viral power can be a huge hang-up to getting the word out. I think you should make the distinction between 1) “filler content” that has nothing to do with the media of interest to evangelists, and is spun as being related or as-good-as it, and 2) just plain bad marketing dealing directly with the media at hand.

By nature, evangelists are a hard bunch to shake. Per Keller Fay, word-of-mouth is positive by a 7:1 ratio, and there’s even an argue to be made that negative WoM is, well… still viral power.

Sure– when you deprive avid (let’s say, for example) chocolate-eaters of Godiva and give them peas instead (assuring them that it’s Godiva), they’re going to lose interest, and look at you with skepticism and disdain– but that’s a combination of, 1) first and foremost, deprivation (you may notice that blog traffic drops steadily when posts aren’t made consistently) and 2) marketing that doesn’t deal with the media at hand, in essence.

For example, if the Sci-Fi Channel was still regularly pumping out episodes of Battlestar Galactica but happened to post a highly-trafficked, un-PC web article about it, the show ratings might even INCREASE.

Bottom line: I doubt the show would lose many influencers over an “egregious” marketing error such as that, and ratings would eventually reach equilibrium again.

The real problem here is “deprivation” and being disingenuous with the fans. The latter really gets to the heart of the “groundswell” movement, and concern about “erring” when it comes to the utilization of viral power can be a huge hang-up to getting the word out.

]]>