Noteworthy to profile Sirius Satellite Radio's recent sponsorship/customer acquisition strategy at Detroit's North American International Auto Show. Per link to news story--their marketing gurus are thinking out of the box with a box--and leveraging outsized point-of-entry ticketing 'kiosks' that are being deployed at Detroit, as well as a string of other major consumer auto shows.
The large scale platforms, provided by a company called WalkUp Systems seem ideal for advertisers of all kinds, as they incorporate large plasma screen video and plenty of real estate for static signage; place-based media applications that complement ticket back advertising opportunities for these massive audience events; Detroit Auto Show attendance is estimated at 750,000 and upcoming New York Auto Show will attract more than 1.2 million.
Sirius Radio scored a coup at the Detroit Auto Show this week, and owned the front door media by blanketing the platforms with static signage and broadcasting a selection of entertaining video spots as tens of thousands of visitors stood in ticketing queues to purchase their show entry tickets. A perfect way to drive the attendees to Sirius's exhibit inside the auto show, insiders say that Sirius merely needed to acquire less than 100 new subscribers to justify the cost and ROI for the advertising placement. Kudos to Sirius..Very smart marketing!!
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Google Takes On Uncle Sam
With Google's Eric Schmidt move this week to challenge government investigators requests for user information, MediaPost's "MediaDailyNews" is one of several channels that are running daily editorials and comments...
Here's one reader's feedback that I thought made for good reading...
"I'm actually thrilled that Google has thrown down the gauntlet, as its high time that Uncle Sam (well, lets face it, George W. & Co.) be called to task for its ever increasing, and more than alarming 'interpretation' of the government's constitutional powers and selective appreciation for what constitutes individual rights.
But the fact of the matter is, this isn't about the government's attempt to track child pornographers on the internet, or even perhaps trying to find the sickos that are downloading the content. There's a much bigger picture, and Eric Schmidt knows it, even if he ultimately regrets taking a heroic stance on privacy issues when other Internet titans (Bill Gates, Terry Semel and Jon Miller) are unabashedly acquiescing to government inquiries for internet user information. After all, its not good for business to turn down Uncle Sam.
The government is attempting to enforce a law that was struck down by the Supreme Court two years ago. Its almost unbelievable how brazen the abuse of power is becoming.. no different than how George and Dick are instructing their private police force to interpret the Patriot Act--which was intended to protect us against terrorists (and all of those WMD's in Iraq) in much the same manner as a James Bond "00" license.
And if not flashing the Patriot Act badge, government prosecutors have become hell bent on using any tactic to thwart those whose morality is not in line with George, Dick and the handful of others that have their finger on the red button. Hundreds of examples, and each today, the abuse of power becomes more frightening.
Whether altruisticly trying to stand up for what he believes is right, or as others contend, merely trying to use his bankroll to protect the secret sauce of Google's search technology and the underlying powers that now rests in the hands of one of the world's best capitalized corporations, the fact remains that Schmidt is putting himself into the cross hairs of what could prove to be an arduous battle. And its one that his billionaire internet brethen have chosen to avoid. After all, the government has proven that it will go to all lengths to pursue anyone that challenges their wisdom, taking a chapter from the playbook of a fellow named Putin.
Here's the crux of the story: The effort is part of a government campaign to revive an anti-pornography law, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which the Supreme Court struck down two years ago. The law attempted to ensure that only adults visited porn sites by requiring that visitors register, or use access codes, before gaining entry to such sites. Now, the Bush administration is back in court, trying to prove that these requirements are the only realistic way of preventing minors from accessing online porn.
What remains unclear is why the government would need records from Google--which is, after all, a private company and not an investigative arm of the Department of Justice.
Here's one reader's feedback that I thought made for good reading...
"I'm actually thrilled that Google has thrown down the gauntlet, as its high time that Uncle Sam (well, lets face it, George W. & Co.) be called to task for its ever increasing, and more than alarming 'interpretation' of the government's constitutional powers and selective appreciation for what constitutes individual rights.
No doubt that the majority of Americans, including myself, believe that child pornography is abhorrent. Those that disseminate it, are indeed supplying the fuel that drives child molesters directly into our communities. And notwithstanding freedom of press issues, those that publish or distribute this material should at the very least, be subject to much more stringent penalties than what exists already. A firing squad would be fine with me.
But the fact of the matter is, this isn't about the government's attempt to track child pornographers on the internet, or even perhaps trying to find the sickos that are downloading the content. There's a much bigger picture, and Eric Schmidt knows it, even if he ultimately regrets taking a heroic stance on privacy issues when other Internet titans (Bill Gates, Terry Semel and Jon Miller) are unabashedly acquiescing to government inquiries for internet user information. After all, its not good for business to turn down Uncle Sam.
The government is attempting to enforce a law that was struck down by the Supreme Court two years ago. Its almost unbelievable how brazen the abuse of power is becoming.. no different than how George and Dick are instructing their private police force to interpret the Patriot Act--which was intended to protect us against terrorists (and all of those WMD's in Iraq) in much the same manner as a James Bond "00" license.
And if not flashing the Patriot Act badge, government prosecutors have become hell bent on using any tactic to thwart those whose morality is not in line with George, Dick and the handful of others that have their finger on the red button. Hundreds of examples, and each today, the abuse of power becomes more frightening.
Whether altruisticly trying to stand up for what he believes is right, or as others contend, merely trying to use his bankroll to protect the secret sauce of Google's search technology and the underlying powers that now rests in the hands of one of the world's best capitalized corporations, the fact remains that Schmidt is putting himself into the cross hairs of what could prove to be an arduous battle. And its one that his billionaire internet brethen have chosen to avoid. After all, the government has proven that it will go to all lengths to pursue anyone that challenges their wisdom, taking a chapter from the playbook of a fellow named Putin.
Paul Allen Folds His Cards; Gives Up Online Casino
George W & Co. trumped Paul Allen today, as the billionaire folded his cards and agreed to pay a $7 million settlement for running Internet casino advertising in The Sporting News. No doubt, this settlement may throw a wrench in the wheels of progress for those that have been enjoying increasing revenue by accomodating an assortment of online gambling marketers. Will prosecuting those with advertising platforms stagnate a multi-billion dollar global industry that grows each day, and where more than 70% of the players are US citizens?? I guess Paul Allen knows that it doesn't make sense to play against a loaded deck. Can you spell 'prohibition'?
Now, if George and Dick wanted to use the settlement money to actually buy and send body armor to our boys overseas, I'd be less critical..But we know that isn't going to happen.
Now, if George and Dick wanted to use the settlement money to actually buy and send body armor to our boys overseas, I'd be less critical..But we know that isn't going to happen.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Its All About ROI..
If you're the type that believes in re-reading the Bible as a means to remain ever-reminded about basic tenants, than this link will be worth your time. 6 short paragraphs for marketing and sales gurus handed down from generation to generation---and each section provides age old wisdom that is both timely and inspiring. How to increase sales? Start from within and leverage every one of your employees. Than tap into the group that represents your absolute best sales rep: your satisfied customers. Duh... Much more pithy and pertinenet prose--click on and enjoy!
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Buzz Marketing--It Really Works
Yesterday's WSJ ran a great story i.e. buzz marketing and cited great stories that underscore the fact that 'its all about the network'. Who's your best sales representative? A satisfied customer that provides a reference. What's the best medium to deliver a brand message? In-person communication. Duh. The best part is, this is also the least expensive way to connect. And, its effectiveness CAN be tracked--all it takes is a creative promotion or tracking mechanism that links the tag line to the bottom line.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Bankers Bet With Advertisers on OnLine Gambling. US Govt Says Its Craps
November was rife with media stories profiling celebrities that have been recruited by ad agencies to push the envelope and further promote a variety of popular on-line gambling web sites. Each article underscored the multi-million dollar budgets these companies have, and how they are just beginning to flex their muscles with a blend of place-based and in-media strategies. And each article also pointed to the potential illegality of these celebrities participating in these ads, implying that mid luminaries such as former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura (promoting BetUS.com), comedian/ celebrity Tom Arnold (BetOnSports), Hollywood actor James Woods, Football Hall of Fame's Jim Kelly, and even basketball legend Shaquille O'Neil are all potentially goint to follow in the path of online gambling pioneer Jay Cohen, who served 30 months in prison for promoting one of the first sports betting sites.
But wait. If those individuals are are in the government cross hairs, what about those that are running the biggest banks and investment funds on Wall Street?? According to the front page of today's NY times, its not just about celebrities. Today's story profiles the real players that are underwriting this multibillion dollar industy, and one that has sigificant impact on some of us in the advertising and sponsorship world. As the song goes, its "Its all about the money!"
Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch,Citigroup and the most influential investment funds, including Fidelity, are spotlighted for underwriting, financing, and or owning large stakes in many of these off-shore based "illegal" enterprises that have since seen their shares flourish on international bourses, including the London Stock Exchange. Does this mean that former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, now sitting on the Board of Directors of Citigroup is going to be prosecuted for aiding and abbeting an illegal enterprise?
PartyPoker is a company that rakes in millions every day, and has built a global brand image. And that success has not been lost on Wall Street bankers that have figured out how to circumvent the byzantine laws that Federal prosecutors insist on enforcing, and who continue to impose the threat of prosecution to keep advertisers from promoting sites that are predominately visited by US citizens (industry research suggests that 70% of the visitors to these sites come from within the US).
To illustrate the point, PartyPoker's media buyer, Barry Markowitz of Earthquake Media recently told me that he is aggressively trying to overcome a big ad placement challenge for his client: it seems that mainstream media insists on making a differention between advertising the company's ".net" and ".com" sites. The ".net" site is the "G" rate version; only Monopoly money is used here, the ".com" site is where the real action takes place, and links from the ".net" site to the ".com" are as plain as the smirk on George W.'s face when asked about WMD's in Iraq.
I spoke to Barry in the course of pitching him on PartyPoker sponsoring a major consumer auto show (750,000 attending in a 10-day run)--the audience is 70% 21-49 yr old males, with average income of 100k+. A no brainer for Barry, who merely wanted to know who to make the check out to. When I went back to secure approval from the show's promoter, she winced when I explained who the advertiser was. I pointed to the fact that Times Square was about to be lit up with advertising from a similar company, and recited the major cable TV channels that are facilitating the exact same thing, all in connection with broadcasting poker tournaments. It didn't take the show's sponsorship consultant to reply with "How much is in it for us?".. When I gave her the number, she said that she'd "have to get final approval from the show's producer." Two days later the message came back, "Sorry, we can't do it. The producer was on the fence about the legal issues, but if the client would pay more, I'm sure we could swing it." American ingenuity at its finest.
The legal issues surrounding internet gambling are no doubt complex, but are obviously driven by political agendas. Obviously advertisers are feeling the sting. By the way, these laws aren't being enforced because of heavy lobbying from the brick and mortar casino industry in Las Vegas; those guys are now strong advocates of online gambling and have invested millions in yet-to-be-unveiled internet sites, and are merely waiting for the winds to shift in Washington. Even though I prefer the glitz and glamour of Vegas, the fact is, tens of millions of Americans are wagering on line, along with tens of millions of non-US residents. This is an $8 Billion a year juggernaut, and getting bigger every month. And the smartest investors in the world aren't going to miss out on the opportunity.
Contrary to the prurient mindset of a select group of self-righteous politicians who have no trouble violating the Constitution if it serves their moral agenda, prohibition-esque and outmoded regulations have no place in today's world. Threatening, imprisoning, or even torturing those that are merely suspected of aiding or abetting purported terrorists, or knowingly violating the US Constitution and the privacy rights of US Citizens in an effort to 'protect the other citizens' is one thing. But using the same resources and similar tactics against advertisers that are facilitating global brand names? Give us a break.
If Time Magazine gave an award for Hypocrite of the Year, you know who I would nominate. We're living in a country where 18 year olds, who don't have the legal right to smoke or buy beer, can be sent off to fight and die in a god forsaken foreign country that supposedly harbors WMD's and is alleged to be the centerpoint for world terrorism. There's a reason why its called "world" terrorism. Terrorism is everywhere, and there is no 'centerpoint'. Certainly its not in Iraq, and one can argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a 'terrorist', but simply another in a long line of despotic rulers that happened to kill millions of his own countrymen. And, by the way, what we are doing in Iraq is merely pouring gas on the fire of terrorism, NOT extinguising it. If we must send teenagers off to fight in a place that harbors terrorists, why not send them to France, instead of Iraq? Donald Rumsfeld could actually carry a weapon and lead the charge, instead of making appearances to dish out lobster on Chirstmas day in the desert, and I can see Condi Rice in fatigues, while shopping for shoes in Paris. .Doesn't the government have anything better to do than to use the threat of jail on advertisers that are merely promoting what Wall Street is undewriting?? Or maybe the US government should put everyone on Wall Street in jail, but not before Dick Cheney can sell his stock in Halliburton
But wait. If those individuals are are in the government cross hairs, what about those that are running the biggest banks and investment funds on Wall Street?? According to the front page of today's NY times, its not just about celebrities. Today's story profiles the real players that are underwriting this multibillion dollar industy, and one that has sigificant impact on some of us in the advertising and sponsorship world. As the song goes, its "Its all about the money!"
Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch,Citigroup and the most influential investment funds, including Fidelity, are spotlighted for underwriting, financing, and or owning large stakes in many of these off-shore based "illegal" enterprises that have since seen their shares flourish on international bourses, including the London Stock Exchange. Does this mean that former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, now sitting on the Board of Directors of Citigroup is going to be prosecuted for aiding and abbeting an illegal enterprise?
PartyPoker is a company that rakes in millions every day, and has built a global brand image. And that success has not been lost on Wall Street bankers that have figured out how to circumvent the byzantine laws that Federal prosecutors insist on enforcing, and who continue to impose the threat of prosecution to keep advertisers from promoting sites that are predominately visited by US citizens (industry research suggests that 70% of the visitors to these sites come from within the US).
To illustrate the point, PartyPoker's media buyer, Barry Markowitz of Earthquake Media recently told me that he is aggressively trying to overcome a big ad placement challenge for his client: it seems that mainstream media insists on making a differention between advertising the company's ".net" and ".com" sites. The ".net" site is the "G" rate version; only Monopoly money is used here, the ".com" site is where the real action takes place, and links from the ".net" site to the ".com" are as plain as the smirk on George W.'s face when asked about WMD's in Iraq.
I spoke to Barry in the course of pitching him on PartyPoker sponsoring a major consumer auto show (750,000 attending in a 10-day run)--the audience is 70% 21-49 yr old males, with average income of 100k+. A no brainer for Barry, who merely wanted to know who to make the check out to. When I went back to secure approval from the show's promoter, she winced when I explained who the advertiser was. I pointed to the fact that Times Square was about to be lit up with advertising from a similar company, and recited the major cable TV channels that are facilitating the exact same thing, all in connection with broadcasting poker tournaments. It didn't take the show's sponsorship consultant to reply with "How much is in it for us?".. When I gave her the number, she said that she'd "have to get final approval from the show's producer." Two days later the message came back, "Sorry, we can't do it. The producer was on the fence about the legal issues, but if the client would pay more, I'm sure we could swing it." American ingenuity at its finest.
The legal issues surrounding internet gambling are no doubt complex, but are obviously driven by political agendas. Obviously advertisers are feeling the sting. By the way, these laws aren't being enforced because of heavy lobbying from the brick and mortar casino industry in Las Vegas; those guys are now strong advocates of online gambling and have invested millions in yet-to-be-unveiled internet sites, and are merely waiting for the winds to shift in Washington. Even though I prefer the glitz and glamour of Vegas, the fact is, tens of millions of Americans are wagering on line, along with tens of millions of non-US residents. This is an $8 Billion a year juggernaut, and getting bigger every month. And the smartest investors in the world aren't going to miss out on the opportunity.
Contrary to the prurient mindset of a select group of self-righteous politicians who have no trouble violating the Constitution if it serves their moral agenda, prohibition-esque and outmoded regulations have no place in today's world. Threatening, imprisoning, or even torturing those that are merely suspected of aiding or abetting purported terrorists, or knowingly violating the US Constitution and the privacy rights of US Citizens in an effort to 'protect the other citizens' is one thing. But using the same resources and similar tactics against advertisers that are facilitating global brand names? Give us a break.
If Time Magazine gave an award for Hypocrite of the Year, you know who I would nominate. We're living in a country where 18 year olds, who don't have the legal right to smoke or buy beer, can be sent off to fight and die in a god forsaken foreign country that supposedly harbors WMD's and is alleged to be the centerpoint for world terrorism. There's a reason why its called "world" terrorism. Terrorism is everywhere, and there is no 'centerpoint'. Certainly its not in Iraq, and one can argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a 'terrorist', but simply another in a long line of despotic rulers that happened to kill millions of his own countrymen. And, by the way, what we are doing in Iraq is merely pouring gas on the fire of terrorism, NOT extinguising it. If we must send teenagers off to fight in a place that harbors terrorists, why not send them to France, instead of Iraq? Donald Rumsfeld could actually carry a weapon and lead the charge, instead of making appearances to dish out lobster on Chirstmas day in the desert, and I can see Condi Rice in fatigues, while shopping for shoes in Paris. .Doesn't the government have anything better to do than to use the threat of jail on advertisers that are merely promoting what Wall Street is undewriting?? Or maybe the US government should put everyone on Wall Street in jail, but not before Dick Cheney can sell his stock in Halliburton
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
New Age Marketing: Its About Place. Its About Time.
If you didn't know that 'place-based media' is all about connecting to targeted audiences when they are most receptive, than you are missing the boat as its pulling away from the dock. Loaded with advertising spending dollars. One company that really has its arms around this sector is MEDIAplace... brilliant guys...their current website is a placeholder (www.mediaplace.us)...but i hear that its a few weeks away from being re-vamped....otherwise, they know that its about place, and that its about time that marketers figured this out!
Welcome To Marketing 201
We can wiki, we can blog and we can banter, and this is the place to talk about what current trends, politics, and what makes sense and what makes dollars in the world of brand marketing, corporate sales, and effective communication. We'll profile marcomm strategies across all boundaries and industries; from financial services, to the finicky world of IT...and everything in between..feel free to comment, to criticize, to cry out...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)