Blogs

My interest in broadcast advertising effectiveness was piqued recently by this scan of a McKinsey & Co. study in Advertising Age. The "grabber" in the article is that:
"...by 2010, traditional TV advertising will be one-third as effective as it was in 1990."

Hmmm... thought I. The numbers cited seem to indicate that this has happened. I went to the source in the McKinsey Quarterly Report to verify my thesis. What I have surmised is that the study assumes what has already happened to prime-time advertising will take hold in TV as a whole.

Just look at the numbers. A 40% price hike has bought 50% less viewers in prime-time since 1990. That represents about a 65% decrease in effectiveness, or as the study words it, "35% as effective as it was in 1990"; which sure sounds a little friendlier doesn't it?

One of the curious by-products of this market's collapse are the efforts by some advertising agencies to "shock" their represented products to greater effectiveness. This has lead to the spectacle of gambling on highly questionable imagery to gain market share. The old saw may say that there "is no such thing as bad publicity" but that just is not true.

Another tactic is to carpet bomb a property with logos and "messages". There may be some significance in the psychology of this but I question how useful saturation ads are in the long run. Do "exclusive to" products really get a bump outside of the controlled environment of their "exclusive" property?

The McKinsey Study has quantified what we really already knew: the age of TV dominance is over. Advertising and sales has already adjusted to the new channels available to it -- and they are not on television. Somebody send a Telex to the TV business.

In contemplating a wired conversation, it seems that I have initiated one. That is a far more useful metaphor for the current state of connectedness that is perjoratively referred to as "blogging" than anything else I have read lately. I think the phrase "keep those cards and letters coming in" could be roughly translated to "me heart the trackbacks" in this age of the digital essay. Mind you, we are awash in a sea of prate as well but it is easily filtered. (Merely using "prate" in a sentence also helps to qualify reader participation.)

Ethan took part 1 of my "Activity or Action?" series and riffed it into something much bigger than I had envisioned in the near term. Coincidently he eschews blogging yet again in a follow-up post a few days later. While I do not agree as strongly with his aversion to being associated with blogging -- quite obviously by someone's definition he is blogging -- his repeated association to the concept of 'me, Writer' is sound.

"Activity or Action?" stems from my frustration with a lack of forward thinking and planning work in much of the current internet application space. I have much more to say about that but the issue at hand is Ethan's extension of the theme to be far more comprehensive. Take a look at his action points if you have not yet read his piece:
? "No" is not a plan
? Forward or Backward?
? Conservation as Regression
? Progress wanting, progress found
? What is dreamt of in your philosophy?

While things get a bit muddled in the middle, the thrust of the argument is that complex problems require progressive decision making. Progressiveness can borrow from the past and it will be multi-faceted. Progressiveness is not the domain of a particular political philosophy. Instead it dwells mainly in the houses that retain the best ideas for the problems at hand. Progressiveness is not a dogma, it is an ethos.

I think we are developing some themes here that quite reasonably could be expanded into a book. Once Ethan has finished his L'ingOL, I think he needs to face the AYBBAM demon. Given some of the latest business/leadership books I've been trying to read, we could not do any worse

Regardless of the "version" of the web you're working on these days you have probably noticed a curious trend in web site design. For some reason the 2 dot oh'ers are especially fond of the number "3"; as in a trio of words, pictures or links.

Part 3 in the Activity or Action series urges you to follow form and function; give fashion a break. Reduce the proliferation of web sites that use a trio of 'action' words and a cute google-able name. Like, you know "TechnoverBeethoven: Cogitate, Maneuver, Theorize" or "Wanna.Be.Whatever: Re-mix, Re-use, Gesticulate".

And for heavens sake, why do these sites invariably have either a tiny link or no link to real information about the site, service or product? If you're not ready to tell me that stuff, then why the heck would I use your tubular new app dude?

(PS: If you pronounce subtlety with a hard "B", then please note that this was part three of the series.)

An update to my feed story regarding the Podshow bunch. While The Bradcast is still listed in the Podshow search engine clicking on the show "information" link takes you to a blank page. My copyright notice barring caching or complete reproduction of my feed for subscription purposes is clearly visible. You cannot download attachments or subscribe to my feed through their site; it's a small victory.

I strongly urge all podcasters that do not want an inferred relationship with Podshow to make sure that they exercise their right to be independent. You do not have to be listed if you do not want to be.

The title ought to say it all. I don't actually know what the heck "architechting" means -- other than displaying a poor command of the English language -- but the word I dislike the most right now is "monetize". As in, the "monetization of podcasting", "to monetize your web site" or "if we get this right we should be able to monetize it".

Poof! There you go. Your web site instantly turns into dollars. Just because a few really bright teenagers can copy somebody else's good idea and find a buyer doesn't mean that a business model exists. Some people will be able to sell code, servers, web domain names, etc and make some money. If you do get something in the first tier of a new concept land-rush or, even if you don't and you find a buyer, then you are just engaging in the time honoured exchange of trade in goods and services.

No, what I'm really thinking about here are the tool makers and widget jockies of the latest vanguard. Maybe you have a good idea, maybe not. If you do then test it in the real world of the web beyond the minions of "tech". Make it useful to the AOL'ers, the Ebay'ers, grandma and the kid in Montana with dial-up. Get out of the bubble and breathe some business gas.

Give up on dreams of 'monetizing' your latest 'tool'. If you want to make money then don't be embarrassed about using words like 'plan', 'profit' and 'goal'. Dreaming is something you do when you sleep. Your waking life is for action.

Right now, right this very minute, somebody is hatching a good idea and they don't know what to do with it. Maybe the idea just cannot be conventionally commercialized. That's okay; we've got open source. There are ways to move concepts forward without capital. The key is to imagine the result you want, whether it is a commercial ambition or a noble cause. To get there, you have to have a plan. Make progress everyday and think in terms of what defines success for you.

Monetization is not an action, it's just an activity. If you can't figure out how to "monetize" your web hobby then is it something that you can turn into a money maker? Antique dealers don't wonder how to "monetize" old chairs; they sell them. Define what it is you do and establish your value in the marketplace of ideas.

I'm webbed out. A generation ago I probably would have been "bummed" out. Before that, by a decade or 4, maybe I would have been "sick and tired". So, inspired by "All of your internet scandals are meaningless" -- I have contemplated a wired conversation where action is more meaningful than activity.

Now don't get me wrong, I know that activity surrounding web metrics can be pretty meaningful and, for some, quite lucrative. No, what I'm getting at are petty hypes, goofy buzz, lemming web-pedantry. Collective wisdom is not always the coolest thing.

To start the series, let's contemplate this notion:

Stop playing with 'memes' and focus more on ideas.

What would this mean? Well, about 20,000 bloggers would stop gaming search engines, content finders, indexing tools and aggregation sites. Instead they would either post something useful or take the time to contemplate their next useful concept.

Yeah, right.

Don't have much time to post today BUT...

Todd Cochrane's on to something big. Really big. Go Here http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/006233.html and then check his sources. Your jaw will drop.

Podcasters: If you do not have a formal affiliation with Podshow, I would be interested in chatting with you so that we can expolore our legal options for protecting our copyrights.

UPDATE: July 8, 2006 - Bunch of folks are cutting Curry and Podshow slack for re-pointing the "show feeds" links to the real feed for the show. Big deal. Take a look at what they are doing with the players; Podshow is caching our content. In my case they are doing it (actually they are not doing it in my case because apparently my last podcast was in December 1969 according to their site. And yes that does make me the Podfather...) even while my copyright notice -- which is embedded in my feed and clearly visible on the page at which the Bradcast is listed -- strictly forbids caching my content without permission. And no; they do not and will not get my permission.

At 9:40 PM, the prairie sun begins to fall behind a curtain of rock that's 50 miles away. We watch from a grassy bluff amidst the wild roses, the city to our north and our future all around. A weathered old land forever new, fresh and alive. We celebrate all of what we are; east to west. Happy Canada Day 2006.