"Youth" and New Media

I put that in quotations, because....... what is "youth" anyway? I don't mean philosophically (I'm past that). I mean, where's the actual cutoff? Does it have to necessarily be at the magical age of 18 or, can it extend a little ways beyond that?

I'm leaning more toward the latter, at least for purposes of defining it for a media-based discussion.

A lot of those outside of that typical 18-under demographic nonetheless grew up similarly, if not from before age ten then certainly after it. The lesson tells us, for instance, that:

"About a quarter (26%) of the time young people are using one medium, they’re doing something else media-related at the same time (e.g., listening to music while using the computer, watching TV while reading a magazine)." (Ramos, Lesson 7)


Really, I think this is most prominent in the younger demographics, because these two generations really are the first to have experienced having so many options at their disposal. I know personally, even though I'm a good bit outside the 8-18-year-old range referenced in our lesson, I'm very rarely just using one medium at home. I usually always have the tv on along with the internet, and maybe some music here and there. I find as well that at places such as work, I usually have to have at least one option available. If something isn't, things just seem a little too "quiet."

Having none just seems, i don't know...... Amish. And I think I just need to pacify my attention deficit issues.........


Today's youth certainly is "growing up wired." But it's also the 20- and 30-somethings, and I can see it creeping upward into the rest of the populace as well. Not sure it's entirely a good thing (maybe you don't need wireless access for your laptop on your camping trip, ok?), but it's the new reality.




Ramos, J. (2008). "Lesson 7: The Young and the REST but not LESS: Targeting Youth and Multicultural Audiences with Emerging Media." IMC 619. West Virginia University.
Retr'd Dec. 10, 2008.

BMW....... films?

Yep.

For the discussion, I ended up watching one of BMW Films' "The Hire" series, starring Clive Owen as the hired driver (of a Beemer, of course) in each.

What I watched initially was a Guy Ritchie/Madonna film, entitled "Star." In it, Madonna really outdid herself, with the worst acting job of her career. But, this "overacting" (or maybe "underacting," depending on your perspective) did seem to have a purpose by the end of the film, which really redeemed the entire 10-minute or so presentation. It was pretty funny in the end, which I wasn't expecting.


I haven't watched the entire series, but every time I finish one, it's something I say I gotta do. However, I did watch another one, called "Ambush."

This film (seemingly the shortest of the series, at 6 minutes) featured "the driver" and a passenger, traveling along a road at night, and immediately "ambushed" by some masked criminals in a van that pulled up beside them. Giving the driver the frequency for their hand-held radios, he instructed him to slow down at the end of a count of 10 seconds, as they wanted the $2 million in diamonds his passenger had.

The passenger then informed the driver that he'd swallowed them, and they'd kill him to get at them. So, the driver decides to be a humanitarian and risk his life getting away from those in the van, and a Hollyw00d-worthy chase ensues.

I won't ruin this film by giving away the end, other than to say that it ends the same as the other - only, just being kind of funny. You actually want to see the passenger kind of get it in the end.


But this is a wholly watchable series, and I'll stick to doing as I keep telling myself I should and watch the whole thing sometime.

Well done BMW, well done.



(Make sure to check the video bar on the side for the clip.)

Are we 2/3 there yet?

It's the start of week 6, so, yes, almost........


This week's lesson introduced some interesting concepts, and, some others which didn't seem quite so interesting at first but then grabbed my attention. Short films are perhaps chief among them. As well, they were first to be discussed, so let's just take this in order.........

I have to admit, I wasn't really sold on the idea of short films. But I liked the ones I watched so well, I know right now what my second post for week 6 is going to consist of.

Definitionally, a "short film" can be 45 minutes. That doesn't seem so "short" to me, really. I think I'd chop 10 or 15 minutes off to be placed in that category for consideration. Either way,I have to admit that I was a bit down on the prospects of short films. But after watching the series I watched, I can see some promise. I can even, as I mentioned in the postings, see some potential for television action with these short films. They're very well done, though, nobody's going to the theater to watch them. Some of them, which are essentially series, could make the move to tv pretty cleanly, I'd imagine. It'd be pretty groundbreaking.

Moving on (or else I'll talk about this forever).......


We've all heard of podcasts, but, I can't recall hearing about Vlogs, or video blogs (which I can't help but pronounce "vee logs" for some reason).

I can see the potential here. But, I can also see everyone's vlogs getting lost in the barrage of online vlogs sure to pop up (because everyone's opinion matters....... but not really, and mostly, no one cares).

Moving on (or else I'll bore even myself)........


We'll finish up with streaming media. This is a great revolution of evolution, allowing a medium available before, but underutilized for the heavy downloads incurred. I see a lot of definite potential with streaming video.

Admittedly, I don't use it that much. But it's amazing to see that over 70% of internet users have.


Makes me feel like I'm not doing enough with my internet.

Mobile Marketing?

Why not?

Lots of reason potentially, but this is just one area both marketers and consumers are going to have to wade through and figure out, and then *re*figure when newer technologies arise to take advantage of the newer opportunities that present themselves for your attention.


The lure of a high response rate, the convenience of catching you wherever you go (imagine marketers drooling over a mobile television audience), and the simplicity of it all....... it's too much for a marketer to pass up.

This is, however, a highly personal medium, as was pointed out in the lesson. Invasions of one's mobile phone are taken much harder than similar efforts through landlines. Somehow, the mobile phone not only seems more personal, but private.


My idea (which I still kind of think I liked best among options) worked in the interest of full disclosure, and mutual benefit. I tend to think that sometimes things work best when everything is laid out on the table for both parties to see and agree to.

The idea? Simple: free service for allowing mobile marketing. A certain number of ads, text messages, responses....... those kinds of considerations........ gets you free minutes and/or texting, and certain marketing efforts (and your response to them) gets you free long distance minutes as well (all in minor, superficial detail, of course).


Back to the opening refrain......... Why not?

More and more people are switching to cell phones entirely, and more and more people are doing so for practical reasons (re: financial concerns). If they could get free service, or, even some free service, in exchange for being exposed to advertising (or asked to participate in a campaign where they must take pictures of their local McDonald's with their phone, something like that, but more thought out than that - you get the idea), I think a sizable number of people would go for it. We're already used to being exposed to ads and other marketing efforts in exchange for being able to enjoy things like TV and radio.


Think maybe I'd even give it a shot myself.



Why not?

Ritz makes a good cracker.......

But did you know they made games?

Well, sort of...........


In the spirit of week 5's lessons, I ran across a site filled with links to various advergaming sites. Advergaming is, or can be, a number of things (within the concept of providing entertainment that also serves a dual purpose of marketing a product, of course), and Ritz' games seem to have tried to attempt them all.

And I have to comment, somewhat successfully.

They insisted you click on the white crackers for the games. I'm not sure what purpose this served, but it continued to place the Ritz cracker front and center in the gamer's mind (though, why wasn't it one of the yellow crackers instead?). This advergaming venture stuck out somewhat to me for what Ritz did with it, along with the fact that Ritz doesn't really have a fun association for me with it. But I spent longer at this site checking out the games, and even anxious to quit those and see what else they had, than most other sites really.

They had a cool feature where they made a kaleidoscope out of Ritz cracker images. Surprisingly, you can spend quite a while moving your mouse over it and changing the image up and enjoy it without being high (although a decent trip might make the Ritz cracker kaleidoscope last a good while longer).

They also had personality tests, trivial facts, and some game that basically ripped "Pong" off, presenting itself as "Ritz Tennis," (with a big cracker as the paddle) that I was kind of bored with and then got interested in as the cracker opposite mine found a way to come back.


The message is, I was genuinely entertained by the site. It's probably not going to cause me to go back, but, it was still pretty well done. I suppose perhaps that my thinking might change on guessing which brands/products would have better advergaming. It might just make more sense that those which wouldn't be expected to might have to work harder to dispell those notions, and bring folks in.


Maybe I'll explore this a little more..........



http://www.nabiscoworld.com/ritz/

Continuing on......

To expand upon the previous discussion a little, there is something I wanted to point out. The lesson plan states the following:

"Why is e-mail such an attractive interactive method for advertisers? Four reasons: cost, customization, response and control.

1. Cost. E-mail marketing is relatively inexpensive. For instance, a $20,000 postal mail campaign will cost around $1,000 using e-mail."

That is, of course, true. Direct mail is so expensive, as to be cost prohibitive for many ventures and companies. The best they can do sometimes is hope to package multiple offers and send them as one package, if the mailings aren't really targeted.

However, other considerations than cost need to be made as well. Such as, not pissing people off, for instance. We have come to accept a certain level of "junk" in our mailboxes at home. It almost feels as if they are a public domain, of sorts. But, our e-mail addresses feel much more personal. And when they are invaded as such (even by companies we've allowed in beforehand for those "great deals and offers"), it can begin to feel, well........ like an invasion. And invading a personal space is not great strategy for a company to engage in.


This kind of thing has to be done with at least some regard for respect and limitations. That's really tied up in its success, for serious companies, and not just ones trying to sell you pills and hoping one fish a million will bite.


I have to say, "forward-to-a-friend" marketing is brilliant. It kind of undercuts any real animosity the consumer may have for the company over the very thing I was just stating could help foster it. It takes responsibility out of the company's hands really, and puts it back on your "friends."

Maybe they'll thank you.


If not, it's their fault. Can't really get mad at the company...... even though they were complete enablers here.

Week 4....... not quite midway yet.

In our week four lessons, the issue of e-mail marketing came up.

Now, what do we all think of when we hear that?


SPAM.


But, not so fast....... e-mail marketing of course involves that under its umbrella, but also, as the lesson pointed out, it can actually be tailored to certain audiences, with specific tastes. It's not simply "junk e-mail," unsolicited and unwanted.

Most of it however? Yeah, pretty much...... the bulk of what actually ends up in your mailbox anyway (like your real mailbox at home). Occasionally though, good deals come your way, from companies you've ordered through before and actually checked the box saying you wanted them to send you 'great deals and offers' through e-mail (what were you thinking?).

Example: This week, I received a notice from Eurosport (a soccer catalog) offering 20% off certain jerseys. I love jerseys, too, but, damn........ they're expensive. I get a little extra off for being in their Goal Club, which I've been in since I was 14 or something. It's actually one of the better such programs I've seen. They cut 10% of the purchase price typically *and* let you accrue points for free items for later. And it's only a one-time fee; I have it for the rest of my life. I've been to other places that offer similar loyalty programs, and they actually make you pay annually for something you're unlikely to get the value of back through purchases in that year. Makes no sense.

And more to the point, it continues to make me look extra hard at e-mail offers I receive like this, knowing there's a little extra incentive.


Even with junk mail there's the occasional bright spot. So it is, too, with e-mail marketing.


(Even though I won't be buying any jerseys this time around.)




www. Eurosport.com