Time Shifting and Second-Screen Viewing - An Advertiser's Dilemma

Melissa Peters

            We are living in a time when people are continuously plugged in to a variety of different media and that presents both opportunities and challenges for the industry’s professionals. A trend that has been growing rapidly in the recent years is time shifting and multi-screen viewing and it poses a tricky problem for advertisers in particular. Neilson acknowledges this issue in their State of the Media report in saying,

The advertising landscape is evolving at an unprecedented rate, influenced largely by two factors: media fragmentation and population shifts. Changes in the population are creating a younger, more diverse, more tech-savvy consumer base. Identifying how to reach them has become more complicated due to an explosive number of viewing options. (Nielson)

            Advertisers have a lot to compete with as it gets harder to catch and keep the attention of this new generation of tech-savvy, multi-taskers. They know what they do and especially what they don’t want, ads getting in the way of their content, and they are becoming increasingly skilled at finding ways around that problem. This means that one impact of this trend is that advertisers are going to be forced to branch out. According to an article in AdAge, “Combining broadcast and digital allows more impressions to be delivered across second and third devices, where target audiences are consuming the most media” (Atkinson). This art of combining broadcast and digital effectively has become more important as the availability of multiple screens increases. As the article goes on to say, “The more screens you have, the more likely you are to engage in media multitasking” (Atkinson). As viewers shift their attention from one form of media to another in order to avoid advertisers’ plugs, the advertisers will have to make the same shift and be discreet about it.

           

Social media will be a helpful tool for industry workers as people become increasingly reliant on it. Through tracking social media it could be possible to pinpoint specific times that you can expect your audience to shift and not shift their attention. In an article from Variety, the author talks about her struggles with wanting to time-shift for convenience, but also feeling left out of a social experience if she does so:     

The days of “Must See TV” are giving way to the era of “Must Discuss TV.” That is the real incentive to watch live — to remain a part of conversation with friends, co-workers and the Internet. TV, especially for younger generations, occupies two extremes on the viewing spectrum: It is either incredibly personal, as you watch on your own sked, or incredibly social, with live tweets and texts fired off every few moments. The middle ground has all but crumbled. (Marechal)

           

This is helpful for advertisers to know because it’s a very real trend among the public that can be honed in on and used strategically. Although this indicates that even though an audience might occasionally endure commercials in order to watch their favorite show live, they still have plenty of ways to shift their attention during the breaks. A study described in AdWeek, however, has hopeful news on that front too: “Turner found that those who use a second screen while watching TV still listen to the TV audio, and that dynamic audio can actually pull them back to the first screen. The findings have implications for advertisers as they think about how to get multitaskers’ attention early with audio and keep it throughout the ad” (Moses). By making these sound associations stick while people watch their limited dose of live TV, advertisers can then transfer the memorable bits to the second screens effectively.

The root of the problem is going digital in a way that doesn’t scare off the audience. As an article in The Wall Street Journal describes, that area still needs help: “Survey participants said they had several reasons for wanting to skip online ads including the fact that they see the same ads being repeated or the ad was poorly targeted at them,” but also goes on to say that, “Despite the complaints, most poll participants said they would rather watch ads than pay for content. Only 18% of those polled said they would pay a premium to avoid seeing ads” (Vranica). Even though it is more trouble to avoid ads online than it’s worth to the majority of people, advertisers need to avoid annoying their audience right off the bat or else they will keep finding ways to evade the efforts of the industry.

Advertising has entered a new age of possibility and has already made steps in the right direction when it comes to keeping up with the needs and attention spans of their audiences, but they need to be more discreet as well as more memorable if they want to make their messages last.

Works Cited

"Advertising & Audiences: State of the Media, May 2014." Nielsen.com. May 2014.

Web.

Atkinson, Kirsten. “Six Key Trends as Upfront, NewFront Blend Into a Giant Play for

Video Ad Dollars.” AdAge. 8 May 2013. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/upfront-newfront-blend-a-giant-play-video-advertising-dollars/241331/

Moses, Lucia. "What Does That Second Screen Mean for Viewers and

Advertisers?" AdWeek. 31 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/what-does-second-screen-mean-viewers-and-advertisers-148240

Vranica, Suzanne. “What Do Consumers Hate More Than TV Ads? Online Video

Commercials.” The Wall Street Journal. 15 July 2014. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/07/15/what-do-consumers-hate-more-than-tv-ads-online-video-commercials/

Marechal, A.J. “Watching Live TV Vexes the On-Demand Generation.” Variety. 27 Sept.

2013. Web. 25 Jan. 2015

Adaptations and Targeting Audiences: The Year of the Superhero

Lindsay Goldstein

Have you ever sat down to watch a movie or television show and thought to yourself “haven’t I seen this before?” Or opened up a book only to close it a couple of chapters in because, for some strange reason, the plot and characters seemed extremely familiar? That’s because you probably have read or seen it before, just in a different way. Adaptations are a huge trend right now, with books, movies and television series all being reworked and changed for a different medium. Adaptations have been happening for what seems like ever, but have reached a whole new level in recent years. Notable examples include John Green’s “The Fault in Our Stars” on the big screen and the increase in superheroes leaving their comic book pages for some air time on network television, like “Arrow,” “Gotham,” and “The Flash.” Simply, adaptations are a great way to target audiences as you’re recreating something that they already love just in a different medium. But why have adaptations become so popular? Are they more successful if they mirror their original, or is creativity expected? And what’s the deal with all of those television shows about superheroes?!

Television executive producer Jason Katims knows adaptations well, having worked on “Friday Night Lights,” “Parenthood” and “About a Boy,” all of which were adapted from movies and/or books of the same names. In an October 2014 interview with TheWrap, Katims explained that he believed the trend was simply a matter of ease. “It’s very difficult to get shows on the air. So I think that sometimes, having this source material, not only for yourself as a creative and a writer, but also for the sake of how it’s perceived in the marketplace, by both the networks and ultimately by the audience, it’s significant,” (Maglio and O’Connell), he told the site in an article titled “Movies-to-TV Overload! Why Hollywood Has 27 Projects in the Works (And Counting).”

While convenience is obviously a factor, it’s not the only one. Adaptations basically come with a built-in audience which is crucial, especially in today’s competitive marketplace. Executive producer Noah Hawley told TheWrap that “Everyone is looking for a pre-existing brand,” (Maglio and O’Connell). This idea of a “pre-existing brand” may also explain another adaptation trend in Hollywood today: the comic book revivals. These adaptations, from books to television, are doing extremely well in today’s market, like Fox’s “Gotham,” a series based on Batman. In the Los Angeles Times article “Fall TV’s Winners and Losers – So Far,” Scott Collins writes, “Fox needed help in the TV ratings this fall, and it got some from a nice kid named Bruce Wayne,” (1). A huge contributing factor to the freshman series’ high ratings, according to a Fox executive, is the fact that it is an adaptation. Dan Harrison, executive vice president of scheduling said of “Gotham:” “That’s a franchise that has a multigenerational fan base,” (Collins 1). In this case, the fact that the show already has a strong following and fan base that crosses generations allows the show to excel, even though the show is not exactly the same as the comic books or movies. This is also why other comic book adaptations, like The CW’s “Arrow” and “The Flash,” have also done so well, and why this specific genre of adaptation to television has become such a trend. Shows that offer a unique story and characters don’t have that opportunity to have a pre-existing audience.

The question, then, becomes what makes a better adaptation: one that stays very true and faithful to the original or one that takes creative liberty? Based on current audience research, there’s no right answer because both types have been extremely successful. As “Constantine” executive producer, David Goyer knows comic book to television adaptations well. He offers his opinion in a Variety article titled “Meet the Comicbook Heroes Battling for Control of Fall TV,” saying, “if you try to change it too much, that’s when you get the audience rejecting it,” (Prudom and Friedlander). When it comes down to it, money is at the center of every decision made in film, television, books and other types of media. Ratings and audience research are especially important for advertising purposes, so keeping an existing audience happy, like Goyer explains, is key to a successful adaptation.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems with adaptations comes with finding an audience, thus knowing exactly how much to change when adapting a title becomes tricky. Some adaptations, like the film version of “The Fault in Our Stars,” stay very faithful to their originators, allowing the fans of the original to enjoy the adaptation for the same reasons. On the opposite end of the spectrum come adaptations that offer a new and different approach. Katims’ cites his television series “Parenthood,” which he adapted from the film of the same name, as an example of this. He tells TheWrap that “having the title ‘Parenthood’ and having the memory of it being a movie that people warmly remembered… helped push it along,” (Maglio and O’Connell). He uses the same title as a way to attract the fans even though the two are different in many ways, building an audience as a result. The success of the show is just one example of how adaptations that stray from their originals can thrive, even among those that are carbon copies. 

What do you think about adaptations? Are you drawn to those that are exactly the same, or would you rather be surprised by the story’s journey to a new ending? What are some of your favorite adaptations and why? Do you think this trend is temporary or are adaptations here to stay?

Works Cited: 

Collins, Scott. "Fall TV’s Winners and Losers — So Far." Los Angeles Times., 17 Oct. 2014. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

Maglio, Tony, and Ryan O'Connell. "Movies-to-TV Overload! Why Hollywood Has 27 Projects in the Works (And Counting)." TheWap. TheWrap News Inc., 31 Oct. 2014. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

Prudom, Laura, and Whitney Friedlander. "Meet the Comicbook Heroes Battling for Control of Fall TV." Variety. Penske Business Media LLC, 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 27 Jan. 2015.

Social Media and SuperBowl Commercials: The Future of Digital Advertising

Erika Almanzar

Each February, the mix of gatherings with friends, large amounts of food and advertising’s biggest showcase collectively signify the most important night in American football: the SuperBowl. While audiences are amped to root for their favorite team, another moment many look forward to is the set of commercials, which advertisers estimate to be about $4.5 million for a 30 second spot this year, according to Ad Week. Among the list of companies purchasing spots for SuperBowl XLIX include Doritos, Dove Men + Care, Coca-Cola, Skittles, and many more (Ad Age). With the tremendous growth of social media in the past decade, large corporations have taken notice of its increasing popularity among users through apps and mobile websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Vine. As a result, advertisers have strategized ways to not only incorporate social networking into commercials, but have also collaborated with viral personalities and celebrities in promoting their brands.

While many view the SuperBowl as the most important night in branding, critics argue that the annual event showcases the flaws in advertising, resulting in companies creating pitches that “focus on nothing other than comedy or sex instead of prompting clicks and likes about the advertisements themselves” (Baskin). However, recent examples show that social media plays a vital role in the branding of companies during highly televised events, such as the SuperBowl. For example, last year’s Esurance commercial featuring The Office star, John Krasinski, used its 30-second slot to promote a giveaway of $1.5 million to one Twitter user who used the hash tag, #EsuranceSave30 (Luckerson). According to Time Magazine, the advertisement resulted in over two million tweets in less than 24 hours, with 200,000 tweets posted within a minute of the commercial’s airing. Additionally, Esurance’s Twitter page exploded from 8,900 to over 110,000 followers post-SuperBowl commercial. With an online giveaway, all Twitter users had equal opportunity to participate and share opinions through social media, which made Esurance a household name in the immediate days following the 2014 SuperBowl.

While Esurance received much attention and success in its collaboration with celebrities, social media, and a commercial, Oreos has also received large amounts of viral attention from its online advertisement during the blackout at the 2013 SuperBowl. Within minutes of the lights shutting off during the second half of the game, Oreos tweeted an ad with the caption, “Power out? No problem”, along with a picture saying “You can dunk in the dark” (Sanders). In a short amount of time, Oreos generated about 14,000 re-tweets, along with its Facebook post receiving over 200,000 likes, according to BuzzFeed. While Oreos previously aired a 30-second commercial earlier in the evening, the company took the Internet by storm with a quick and clever response to the game’s blackout.

After proven success from companies incorporating social media into their SuperBowl advertisements, what can we expect to see this year? According to Laura Johnson from Ad Week, we can anticipate a 90-second commercial from Bud Light based on its #UpForWhatever tagline, which is geared towards Millennials.  While encouraging twenty and thirty-somethings to consume more of their beer, Bud Light is teaming up with DJ Steve Aoki to present a party scenario that younger viewers can enjoy. Another advertisement to look forward to is GoDaddy’s collaboration with Nascar star Danica Patrick and a Golden Retriever named Buddy during its 30-second spot. Throughout the game, Buddy will have a Twitter account and is planning on creating posts and interacting with online users.

With social media increasing at a rapid rate, is it important for companies to gear their advertisements more towards the digital community? Today, many corporations are hiring professionals to create and manage their online accounts. Additionally, platforms other than Facebook such as Twitter, Pinterest, LinkedIn, and Instagram have increased significantly over the past year, with about 52% of adults using two or more social media sites (Pew Research Center).  In order for media industries and professionals to remain relevant in a digital age, it seems as though social media has become the key to networking and positive customer feedback. Recently, companies such as Taco Bell are notable for having constant interaction with their Twitter followers, which has increased the company page’s viral traffic and popularity.

In terms of the SuperBowl, do you believe the commercials that use social media throughout their ads are generally more successful than those who do not? Or is the quality of the commercial more important in generating online discussion? Furthermore, could we predict that eventually all SuperBowl advertisements will rely on social media, one way or another?

Works Cited

Ad Age Staff. "Super Bowl XLIX Ad Chart: Who's Buying Commercials in Super Bowl 2015." Advertising Age Special Report Super Bowl RSS. Advertising Age, 30 Jan. 2015. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.

Baskin, Jonathan S. "The Dumbest Night for Brands? It's Still the Super Bowl." AdAge.com. Advertising Age, 08 Jan. 2013. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.

Duggan, Maeve, Nicole B. Ellison, Cliff Lampe, Amanda Lenhart, and Mary Madden. Social Media Update 2014. Rep. Pew Research Center, 09 Jan. 2015. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.

"Esurance Featuring John Krasinski - Super Bowl XLVIII Commercial."YouTube.com. YouTube, 04 Feb. 2014. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.

Johnson, Lauren. "The 10 Super Bowl Ads You Won't Want to Miss This Year." AdWeek.com. Ad Week, 25 Jan. 2015. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.

Luckerson, Victor. "Esurance’s $1.5 Million Giveaway Is Making Twitter Go Crazy." Time.com. Time Magazine, 03 Feb. 2014. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.

Sanders, Rachel. "How Oreo Got That Twitter Ad Up So Fast." BuzzFeed.com. BuzzFeed, 03 Feb. 2013. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.