LaughlinOutLoud

A very important anniversary passed last year. And as far as I’m aware, it passed with minimal fanfare. We were all too engrossed in Mad Men. TiVo turned ten.

I bring this up for a few reasons. First, it seems like a anniversary worth recognizing. (TiVo ranks right up there with the iPod, iPhone and Twitter for changing my life for the better.) Second, despite the drum beating by the doomsayers, the thirty-second commercial is not dead. (It’s changed. For the better.) Third, it’s worth acknowledging we were all – or at least I was – too busy to notice.

Habits are changing dramatically. Strategies, too. That’s not news. So it should come as no surprise that it seems we may be at the beginning of another revolution. By the end of next year, eMarketer projects 86.6% of US Internet Users to be Online Video Users. That would account for an almost 40% increase in five years. But the under 25 set is already blazing a farther-reaching path.

According to new report from Retrevo, 29% of the Under 25 set reports watching TV online “all” or “most” of the time. Include “some” in the equation and the number shoots up to a whopping 83%. This next – trend-setting – generation continues to watch TV. Four out of five of them just might not be using a TV to do so.

The revolution is being televised – in new and exciting ways.

I’ve been thinking a lot about words lately. In this business, we have a tendency to spend hours (and hours) deliberating exactly which adjective to include on a brief. Is the brand smart or intelligent? Nimble or agile? Fast or really fast?

For better and worse, words matter.

It strikes me as odd, then, that there are so many words we just let slide. Tim Williams, principal of Ignition Consulting, points out that most marketing words are based on the military: strategy, tactic, target, campaign. The list goes on. But string enough of those together and – at least on paper – we’re at war with the consumer.

His bottom line? We won’t change our behavior until we change our language.

“Traditional” is the first word I would change. Webster’s defines traditional as:

An inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)

and

A belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable

In our world, traditional media is often used to characterize any media that’s not digital. And the word itself suggests “old.” If you search for traditional media on Google, the first return is from Wikipedia – which comes right out and describes it as old media. In marketing, old is where brands go to die.

Traditional isn’t old. And new isn’t new. We’ve all seen incredibly innovative television commercials and outdoor executions. We’ve also all been exposed to exceptionally tired Twitter campaigns.

But, if you need a game changer, who would go with something traditional? Especially when you could go with something new! And, if it’s new, we’d have to assume it’s… improved!

But “cutting edge” isn’t good. Just like “tried and true” isn’t good. Good is good. And any descriptor that – even subtly – impacts a strategic decision otherwise needs to be neutralized.

I get asked all the time what’s going to happen to advertising in the future. Good question… I wonder about that a lot. It’s hard to know where to turn your head next. Truth is, advertising hinges on the future of media, just like a lot of businesses.

Mobile and social media are changing faster than you can keep up with. What’s interesting is that the focus has been on two discussions. 1.) The death of print media. and 2.) The convergence of on-line and broadcast, or TVs and computers. On top of that, everyone’s expecting mobile and social media to be game changers, if they aren’t already.

The great thing about the future is that it’s always different than what we think it’s going to be. Well, if you’re wondering how traditional print magazines ever hope to survive in the future, as soon as next year, check out this article about traditional content and the Apple tablet. It’s from a web-site that’s speculating about the new Apple tablet rumored for 2010 release and how Time, Inc. is creating content in anticipation. Is it print any more? Is it a computer anymore? Is it a TV? Is it the internet?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And then some. I can’t wait!

The great thing about the future is it’s always different than what we think it’s going to be. I’m not sure about the future, but I do know it’s great in demo form.

Dark thoughts started with e-mail from our executive producer in Chicago. He sent a link to a podcast called What’s Next for Advertising from National Public Radio (an ad free medium ironically).

Catching up after three days in the Chequamegon National Forest, this e-mail found me receptive to primal concerns. It was a slight adjustment from questions like, “Is that wolf poop?” to being in the right frame of mind to think about professional survival.

I just knew a show about the future of advertising had to have a Shakespearean plot to it. The final scene of Act III would end with the stage littered with bodies.

I listened and I wasn’t disappointed.

Mass media dies. The big agencies are next to go. After all, why would a consumer listen to an ad when a blogger can tell them what to buy? The podcast goes way beyond the killing of Madmen, too. It also predicts the end of mass marketing. Not even Proctor & Gamble comes out this story alive.

The argument goes that without mass media, mass-market brands can’t do the volume they require. Something about efficiencies getting lost. It’s hard to survive inefficiency. There is no known cure.

But then things get brighter. There are some Utopian speculations about how more “backyard” brands will pop-up and inherit the earth. I hear birds chirping and butterflies fluttering. As the media fragments, it gets more specialized, actually helping niche brands find niche markets.

For big brands life just gets a little more complicated. The challenge will be to partner with the media and create big audiences – more like the old days than the nowadays really.

What will remain a challenge for both large brands and small is to have ideas. They’ll need concepts around which to organize their marketing. They’ll need us.

Things aren’t as scary as they seem. Yes, it was wolf poop. Yes, my dog and I are still here.

I work back and forth between our Chicago and Milwaukee offices, so I pay close attention to three local major daily newspapers. One’s in bankruptcy, another’s stock is trading for $.59 and the third’s stock is trading for $.03. The daily paper’s themselves cost more than a share of their stock. Last time I checked a package of Cottonelle toilet tissue was selling for $3.59, just to put additional perspective on the value of newsprint.

There’s no mystery to what the problem is.  I can go online and get the same or more up to the minute content for free, so why pay?  But, this doesn’t seem like a sustainable business model either.

It’s pretty clear that people are as hungry for news as they ever were. Yet most of the online links still serve content that is funded by an old school print or broadcast brand. If they go away who exactly will pay the people who write the news? This is where advertising always comes in. If the newspapers are lucky, they’ll monetize their websites before all their reporters and columnists drift off into the blogosphere. The survivors will make money. They always do.

After all, brands are a short cut to understanding. So the online brands that gain awareness will grow and prosper. It’s interesting that bloggers are now migrating into branded websites so they can become sponsored content. Maybe the future won’t be neatly divided into main news, local news, sports, lifestyle and business. But don’t bet against it. How many different websites do we want to bookmark after all?  One thing’s for sure, the need to know what’s going on won’t go away.

Maybe the new normal will begin to look like the old normal. Only with fewer trees and dirty fingers involved.