See into S60
» Subscribe
» Favorite Links
» What is S60?
» Freeware & Trials
» S60 devices
» Hints and tips

» About this blog
» Marketing Strategy (16)
» Participatory Politics (1)
» Personal (2)
» Reports from the Field (11)
» S60 Agents (7)
» S60 Ambassadors (17)
» S60 Marketing (15)
» Word of Mouth (14)
Ambassadors S60
» Tommi's Reports from Wonderland
» Voice of S60
» Creating Carbide C++
» S60 Multimedia Blog
» The Convergence Zone
» Web Browser for S60 Blog
» Consumed by S60
» Java for S60
» Mobile Web Server
» Mobile Security
» See into S60
» Business2GO
» Nokia Podcasting Application Blog
» The Humanity! AuntieWiv is the Last Man Standing
» Report of the Week for Widset Pets V: Auntie Gets a Pet
» Widset Pet Campaign Rewards Have Arrived
» Auntiewiv vs. Nikhil Chawla: Widset Pet Showdown
» A Dead Even Tie! Rita vs. Dan or "Why Dan Shouldn't Boast"
» July 2008
» June 2008
» May 2008
» April 2008
» March 2008
» February 2008
» January 2008
» December 2007
» November 2007
» October 2007
» September 2007
» August 2007
» July 2007
Subscribe
Links

January 11, 2008 Could the Boston Red Sox, New England Patriots, and the Boston Celtics be any better? Posted by Daniel Shugrue at 12:58 PM | Categories: Marketing Strategy, S60 Marketing, Word of Mouth

Boston sports fans have had *very* little to complain about in the past 7 years. The Red Sox have won two 'World' Series, the Patriots 3 Super Bowls, and the Celtics today are 29 - 4, the best record in the NBA. Even our soccer team, the New England Revolution, played in the League Championship in 2007.

Our players, our teams, and our coaches are truly great. One thing that is not great, however, is the experience of watching the games as a fan.

We know that the growth of broadcast advertising has had unfortunate consequences for corporations and consumers in general: In 1971, the average consumer was exposed to 571 ads a day. By 1997, that same consumer was exposed to 3000 ads a day (Shenk, "Data Smog"). Marketing executives today estimate the number has grown to 5,000. The traditional broadcast advertising is nearing a saturation point.

The sports scene is one of many examples of this saturated market. Ten years ago, when I watched my beloved Red Sox on TV, a total of 2 advertisements were shown between each inning.
Today’s Sox matches are a whole new ballgame: from two hours before the first pitch is thrown until the stadium lights have been turned off, we are inundated with billboards proudly displaying large corporate entities. The billboards and signs are everywhere and on everything. They are on the walls, the dugouts, the napkins, even displayed on helicopters flying over the field. Companies wishing to promote their brand have become increasingly more brazen. For instance, when a relief pitcher is brought in to the game, “the call to the bullpen is brought to you by Verizon Wireless.” Sportscaster Jerry Remy promotes his "RemDawg" hotdog stand in between batters. Little animated figurines dance in the corner of the screen to promote tv shows, furniture stores, and coffee shops.

The NFL is no different: We used to listen to the Patriots on WEEI. Today, we listen to the Patriots on the “Safety Insurance WBCN Patriots Rock Radio Network”. The pre-game show is sponsored, the opening kick off is sponsored, and nearly every 4th down features a product placement.

And the NBA is perhaps the worst offender of all. We no longer watch the Celtics at the Boston Garden, we watch at the TDBankNorth Center. Each quarter is interrupted by inane on-court contests, giveaways, and other shenanigans. And when we visit the bathroom and dutifully stare straight ahead while we go about our business, we see ads on the bathroom wall. If we choose to look down, a company called “Wizmark” is fighting for sponsorship space on the cakes at the bottom of the urinal.

As these ads proliferate, the relative impact of each ad is diluted. Each “impression”, as defined by the advertising industry, becomes shallower and occurs over a shorter time span.

As a result of this saturation, consumers are now tuning out ads. For example, in 1964, 34% of consumers recalled at least one advertisement from the last TV show they watched. In 2006, only 4% did (Newspaper Bureau Association, 2007).. In 1965, advertisers needed 3 television ads to hit 80% of the population at least once. By 2007, they needed 117 ads (James Stengel, P&G CMO).

As the interruptions become more frequent, and in many cases more shrill, the reputation of advertisers has diminished. For instance, in 2007, advertising executives were the 20th least trusted professionals in the USA, following lawyers and preceding used car salesmen (Gallup).

It is no wonder, then, that "Word of Mouth" or "WoM" advertising is now the fastest growing segment of the advertising industry. The following data was released by PQ Media in November 2007:


PQ Media released the following data at the last WOMMA conference in November 07:

PQMedia.jpg

PQmedia2.jpg


Thanks PQ Media. I see this trend as a promising one. WoM, in my experience, is about connecting people who know and use a particular product with potential buyers of that product. Broadcast advertising, on the other hand, is about shouting at potential consumers. I'm not blaming the Sox, Celts and Pats for accepting money from broadcast advertisers. I'm hoping that as WoM advertising grows, we see fewer corporate-paid interruptions at games, and more conversations-- outside the stadiums-- between corporations and genuinely interested, potential customers.


Permalink |

Comments

Thanks,

this was very well written post.

Mayby following real time and life adds has become another item feed where are partially (and mostly involuntarily) following..like in Continuous Partial Attention?

Posted by: Henrikki | January 11, 2008 05:09 PM

Forgot to clarify my conclusion: being part of the item streams we do process add feeds differently in today's world.

It can make us react (and so they can be effective)..but who actually remembers all of our IM/news/other feeds? In that sense the data above shows a bit outdated expectations towards adds.

I do agree, however, that VOM is still more effective making people react. It still has other problems, like can it be as exhaustive than say, TV commercials and so on..

Posted by: Henrikki | January 11, 2008 05:20 PM


Post a comment







«Back to previous page