media landscaping

Rocketbooms New Podcast Ad Model

I was on vacation last week and very busy at work the week before that, so sorry for the long posting drought.  (You'll get over it I'm sure)

Catching up on things I missed while I was at the beach, I noticed that Andrew Baron and the folks at Rocketboom rolled out a new model for advertising in their podcast.  PodcastingNews breaks it down to this:

The show plans to charge $3,000 per episode for sponsorships, which will include:

• Post Roll Sponsorship Gratitude. White text on black background. Company logo and byline. 7 seconds. Travels with all videos to all platforms (incl. web, phone, tv, portables). Quicktime videos online are clickable to open company website in a new browser window.
• Company Name & Link. Travels as metadata to most platforms (inc. RSS feeds). Increases company link value across the web.
• Sponsor Blog Entry. Click here for details.
• Quicktime Chapter Marker. Easy access to sponsor message from chapter drop-down box.

Early sponsors under this format are Twitter and YouTube..coincidently timed with the launch of Rocketboom's own YouTube channel.    I am surprised it took Andrew this long to get on YouTube.

Marie Claire Would Sell Her Soul for an Ad $

Marie Claire, the womens fashion and beauty magazine, launched a video podcast late last year (produced by Podshow).  The show is called "The Masthead" and is sponsored by Unilever.  One thing they seem to ignore though is the healthy line between church and state.  It should always be clear what is an ad and what isn't.

Yesterday, I was on a call with the ad agency for an auto-maker who asked for "video ads beyond pre-roll...I want true integration.  If you can pull that off, we have HUGE dollars to throw at you."  I am sure that all publishers are hearing this, but those who have a division between church and state are going to have a hard time pulling this off. 

If you know of any examples of this being done well, please let me know.  This project from Marie Claire is an example of what I am NOT looking for.

They apparently have no editorial line at all and were able to land a big deal for Unilever by dropping all ethical concerns and taking one for the team.

The very first episode I watched this morning, episode 8 "NY Fashion Week", started off with Editor-at-Large, Joyce Caruso-Corrigan saying, "we are looking for trends and we are looking for the NEWS.  At the end of the day we are a magazine...its JOURNALISM...and we depend on NEWS every season."  OK, so assuming this is news about NY Fashion Week, why do they only cover the fashion show of their sponsor, Diesel?

Womens Wear Daily notes that,

Nearly every one of the eight segments so far has prominently featured Unilever beauty products in scenes with the magazine's editors, and the most recent one included footage of the Diesel New York show, with Marie Claire fashion director Tracy Taylor explaining in the podcast, "What I love about Diesel…."

In episode 4, Paula Knight, Associate Fashion Editor, holds Degree Deodorant in her hand while she tells the viewer that they have to return the garments to the show when done, so the models have to wear clear deodorant so they don't stain the dresses.  They even do a close up on the deodorant to be sure that the viewer can see it is Degree she is holding...a Unilever Brand.

I have a few questions.

Is this really journalism as Ms Caruso-Corrigan claims?

Is this what ad agencies want when they ask for "Integration"? 

Do advertisers really want to do business with a property who is so desperate for ad dollars that they will cross these lines?

I think it is fine for Podshow to produce these and it is a great idea for Marie Claire to be playing in this new media realm.  However, you can't call this journalism.  Its a 9 minute ad that comes out every two weeks, disguised as editorial.  Lets hope that dying magazines don't continue to sell their souls like this just to survive a little longer.   

A nod to BrandBrains for the link.

Podcasting Could Use Some Link Love

Podcasting would be so much more popular if it had a linking mechanism.  In this post where I  referenced a conversation that occurred on the Gillmor Gang Podcast, the "link" is sending you to the Gillmor Gang site and then telling you how far to fast forward to find the part I was referencing.  This is really clunky experience, but I don't know a better way to reference podcast content.

I think that Podzinger, the Podcast Search Engine, is sitting on the solution.  Next to every set of results, they provide you with a nice little widget (seen on the left) that lets you listen to the result right from the search page.  Podzinger would not be a very interesting service if every search result told you to go download the podcast and forward to minute 7.  Wouldn't you be more likely to discuss podcast content in your blog if you could have a widget like this to embed the actual audio you are talking about?  I think the answer to both questions is yes.

Right now, the barrier to entering a podcast conversation is much higher than in blogging.  I would argue that the conversation in Podcasting is mainly podcaster to podcaster and the audience participation is an aside.  Sure, you can comment on the podcast's blog or trackback from your own blog, but the most powerful part of it all, the audio, is left all alone in iTunes.  Also, the delayed reaction that a "comment line" provides can hardly be called a conversation.  This widget could enable much more engaging conversations.

I am not saying that podcasts should be listened to entirely from the widget.  The widget would just provide a snippet of content, maybe 5 minutes or so. 

In addition to finding new listeners, this widget would be another place to insert advertising. 

So, Barbara, what do you think?  Is this a good idea? 

Get a Degree on your iPod

Productive Strategies spent a lot of time to compile 134 Academic Podcasts for your listening pleasure.    Don't like your current job?  Why not pop in your ear buds and become an Air Traffic Controller?

Great work...

Mobile Dialing Codes

MobileCrunch writes a great post, about mobile dialing codes and whether or not it will work for marketers.  The concept of typing a code from an ad into my phone and then getting back important information on that product is an interesting idea for marketers to consider.

Picture yourself at BestBuy on a Saturday trying to buy some new gizmo and there is no employee in site to answer any questions.  What if the point of sale signs had dialing codes on them that you can dial in and get back all the info you need on the products.  This could be very useful.

What if a billboard for the next big movie had a dialing code on it that popped up the trailer when typed into your phone? 

What about its uses for publishers?  It might be possible to have a dialing code for a video or audio podcast.  Stick an ad in the front of it and..whala...you potentially have a business model.

Take this one step further and layer on GPS.  Dial a code and it sends back location specific content on what to do where you are...restaurants, movie theaters etc.  A local media property could produce video segments on different regions of their market and serve them up over the mobile device.

This could get exciting...

Opening the Conversation

This past weekend, Web 2.0 company, Waxxi, officially took the podcast, flipped it on its head allowing participants to chime in and open up the dialogue. Their inaugural podcast featured the authors of Naked Conversations Robert Scoble and Shel Israel.

 

Here’s how their service works: everyone who registers for an event on Waxxi’s web site is given a unique user code and a toll free or direct dial telephone number to dial into. The conversation is moderated, so there isn’t what might be considered ‘podcast chaos’ and with the touch of two buttons on their phone, people can ‘raise their hand’ to ask a question.

 

So far the buzz is good and thus kudos are in order.

Across The Sound #30 Summary

I just got through this episode (I'm a bit behind) but wanted to share some info that Joe offered up about the continued decline of TV viewership.  Apparently, a 30 second spot on this weeks American Idol Finale will cost $1.2 Million and will garner an estimated 30 Million viewers.  He compared this to the fact that the last time a Super Bowl spot cost $1.3 Million (1998) it offered advertisers 90 Million viewers. 

This equates to a 66% loss in value in just 8 years.  wow