Here’s a sample:

Sure, the Examiner won’t win any awards for ground breaking investigative journalism, but it delivers a simple product effectively.

The success of the Examiner print makes it even more of a shame that their online version sucks so much. The online headline often differs completely from the print version — which I view as a major fault. The print version provides consistently intriguing headlines, like “Mayor steals money from Muni,” that draw your attention to pick up the paper. Why don’t they match? The only reason I’ve ever thought to go to Examiner’s online page is to read the full story when I walked by a paper on the ground with an enticing headline. Duh?

The “top stories” on Examiner’s web page link to other sources. This doesn’t make any sense to me. As of writing this post, the second top story is a link to an SF Gate story about setting a new record for handshaking. Yes, a new record for handshaking. This isn’t a “top story” in real life, nor is it a “top story” in the print Examiner daily, nor did an Examiner writer write this story, nor does clicking this link earn revenue for the Examiner. So, why include it?

The Examiner online team is asleep at the wheel. (Perhaps there is no Examiner online team.) Too bad considering the print daily is spot on.

This is some significant competition for SpotRunner, whose sole purpose is to provide easy-to-use, small scale online TV buying in local markets.

I played with both and noticed one big difference: SpotRunner requires a $1,000 minimum buy, whereas AdWords appears to let you get by at just $150/day. You can get your feet wet with Google’s TV ad buying very, very cheaply. Of course, with both services you’ll still need to create an ad, but these days many savvy small business owners can just whip up something in iMovie.

Meanwhile, in the world of online buying of online video ads, the IAB finally released some up-to-date online video ad guidelines (pdf).

They’re boring to read and surely even more boring to implement, but this is important since finally we’ll have some sort of standardization for fledgling online ad formats like video overlays. I’m a big fan of video overlay ads — a 5-10 second animation on the lower fifth of an online video playback. Overlays combined with a 300×250 companion ad may prove to be a great online video monetization strategy. It punches through the ‘clutter’ of ads — the end-user notices the ad — but it doesn’t get in the way of viewing the desired content. A win, win?

The meta story here is that buying video ads is becoming standardized for online AND offline video content. We can talk all day about the convergence already taking place by end-users watching Lost and the Office on their computers. Now the über-important revenue stream — easy ad buying by the masses — is catching up to the convergence party.

Any analysis I could make is already well reflected in the collected views, so without further ado here it is:
Link

Given all this information, you’d think that Facebook would be able to tailor advertisements uniquely relevant to me, right? Wrong!

I’m not sure how they’ve been messing this up for so long, but for the first time in years I finally saw an advertisement on Facebook uniquely relevant to… ME!

This ad was spot on because, drum roll, I watch this TV show. Genius.

If they keep this up, maybe they’ll be able to justify their bloated valuation!

The WSJ among others reported on Revver’s sale to LiveUniverse for $5 million, a loss from the total of $12.7 MM invested in the project.

What went wrong with Revver?

• Clear overspend: I’m confused as to why they needed $12.7 MM in capital funding. Reportedly they only gave $1 million toward content creators since project inception and this $12.7 MM figure doesn’t include any revenue from ads. Overspend on payroll (people), hardware and office space?
• Lack of differentiation: What does Revver offer that YouTube doesn’t? Higher quality? Perhaps. But since they don’t allow copyrighted content this nixes a huge amount clips provided by YouTube: Network TV and clips from copyrighted films or other media.
• Poor monetization: This is conjecture as these internal figures are impossible to acquire. It seems as though Revver has a hard time commanding high CPMs for its ad inventory. A quick check right now shows they’re running Google network ads on their premium placed content. Didn’t they spend some of that $12.7 MM on ad reps that cater to media agencies? Why aren’t they running premium brand campaigns on their site?
• Inadequate momentum: The network effect or the “oomph” that draws both content producers and end-user viewers didn’t seem to be there. Undoubtedly, this is tough to create, especially when YouTube is the dominant gorilla in the room.

Link

Editor and Publisher says newspapers no longer hold relevance in end-user’s daily lives.

TRUE.

Newspapers cling to their old function as news reporters, but end-users want more. They want to hear about events that affect their lives and their communities instead of tired old stories about shootings, local politics and sports.

For consumers, it must no longer just present news and information, but become the first choice for customers and non-customers alike “to help me know or do whatever it takes to live here.”

Newspapers are losing relevance. This is a golden opportunity for new entrants.

Link

This DTV transition will render analog TV over-the-air broadcasts — those received by TVs connected to antennas — dark when the switch takes place in February 2009, a little more than a year away.

Here is one of the ads:

Note: I couldn’t embed the national spot. It’s available here. (It’s just as bad.)

Awareness ads are necessary as most people don’t understand the DTV conversion and how it affects them. But, these particular ads don’t help. They are confusing and ineffective for two reasons:

• The call to action is indirect. You don’t want people to visit a website, you want them to buy $50 converter boxes. This is not clearly explained in the ad.
• The target audience for these ads are older, old-fashioned consumers that will not connect with these ads. These are the majority of people that still use over-the-air (OTA) TV. They are likely not to have Internet access or be moved by flashy graphics.

Instead, these ads should say: “Your television will stop working February 2009 if you receive TV signals over-the-air. TVs with rabbit-ears type antennas or TVs connected to an antenna on your roof are types of TVs that will stop working February 2009. You need to purchase a $50 DTV converter box available at local electronics retailers before February 2009. If you pay to receive television over cable or satellite, you do not need to purchase this converter box. If you are confused by this message, call this number or visit this website for clarification.” They should have CLEAR, NON-MOTION visuals that are easily processed by the elderly that still receive OTA broadcasts.

It’s odd. You’d think that the NAB with all its elderly staff would be able to understand this. (That was intended as a sarcastic jibe against NAB’s antiquated ways and opinions.)

PS. Here’s the punch-line: I first saw one of the NAB DTV transition ads on CNN — a cable network! I understand the NAB is happy to get as much free exposure it can, but people that can receive CNN telecasts do NOT NEED A CONVERTER BOX! Talk about adding to the confusion.

APM’s Marketplace reports the owners of The Weather Channel, Landmark Communications, are putting the channel up on the auction block. As Marketplace puts it, the forecast: lucrative.

Porter Bibb, the head of an investment company that tried to purchase The Weather Channel a few years back, gushed about TWC as did a few other interviewees.

Why? What makes The Weather Channel such a great deal?

The Weather Channel has excelled at creating excellent cable and online branded utilities, the sum total of which is worth considerably more than if each were operating independent of each other. It’s a rare gem in the evolving world of media.

Why does this synergy work so well?

To answer that question, let’s first take a look at how some traditional outlets failed miserably in the online world.

Parade Magazine boasts having the largest periodical readership rate in the United States. Remember when you used to leaf through Parade along with the advertisement circulars on Sundays at your parents’ house? A lot of other people still do.

But, Parade failed completely to convert this high offline readership to an online audience. At my old job with the ad agency, our ad rep from Parade often lamented that a tiny fraction of their print audience converted to the web. Parade treated the online site as a bastard stepchild. Their main goal was to use the site to increase print readership! How silly! They would go so far as to delay posting articles on their website until a few days after the Sunday edition as to not cannibalize print readership. Their online offerings stank of rotten eggs — old content and Web 1.0 style. Even a year or two ago the stench of Web 1.0 at parade.com was all too strong.

Let’s give Parade a little bit of credit. It’s undeniably tough to convert a weekly periodical to the demands of a never-ending fresh, daily medium like the Internet.

But, how about local TV? They produce hours of local news content everyday. Surely they must be able to serve online audiences well.

Nope. To put it bluntly, local TV websites suck. And they suck BAD. Nearly all local TV station sites are bloated with an unfathomable number of sections. Information overload cripples even the hardiest of online local TV news explorers. That is, if your computer can even handle the 15 simultaneously running flash applets. Loading Indianapolis based ABC affiliate WRTV 6 and San Francisco based CBS affiliate KPIX 5 in 2 Safari tabs brought my computer to an unusable crawl.

I’m not the only one to realize local TV websites miss the mark. Local newspapers generate 2-3 times the online ad revenue compared to their online TV site competitors. (Source, Source)

Having a crappy online site doubly punishes a media outlet. First, the outlet loses out on whatever online ad revenue they could be generating if they didn’t have a crappy site. Second, and even worse, a poorly constructed online offering significantly damages brand perception of the traditional media outlet. Visitors to an online site of a traditional outlet expect the same standard of quality as they found on TV, print or radio. When they show up online and see a half-baked conversion of traditional assets, they lose faith in the overall brand. Not a good situation.

The Weather Channel slam dunks its online and traditional offerings. The weather.com domain is top notch, and offers the same simple utility based functions of its traditional TV channel.

Perhaps most importantly, having top-notch online and traditional presences allows your ad reps to sell lucrative cross-medium advertising packages (read: fat cash). The Weather Channel scores big with moms, both online and on TV. This makes it very easy for TWC ad reps to sell cross media packages to consumer packaged goods marketers, giving it a significant revenue boost. Media agencies plunk down a lot more if they can get the same demographic cross media. And, in my humble opinion, cross media campaigns are much more effective than single medium campaigns.

It takes a lot of initial effort, but if you can arrange your operational processes to develop content for traditional and online mediums at the same time you can make double the ad revenue for the same amount of work. Single effort, double cash. That’s the magic of The Weather Channel.

Link to Marketplace piece (Direct MP3 Link)

On this blog, I often write a quick summary of what happens during my shift as a taxi driver in the City. Sometimes I’ll pick up friendly yuppies going to a baseball game. Sometimes I’ll pick up a transgender prostitute and her customer who soon demands more drugs. I never know what’s going to happen.

Before I started driving a cab, I worked at a media buying agency owned by the Omnicom Group. What would a ‘shift’ blog entry look like from a day in the office? Would people be interested in reading my blog if I wrote about that line of work? (Probably not.)

Here’s what a blog entry would look like from a typical day in the office.

Yesterday in the office

• I ate McDonalds breakfast again. This time I experimented with the two burrito meal. In my early years I would always get a small Coca Cola, but these days it just doesn’t cut it. I need more caffeine to stay awake. McDonald’s coffee is actually quite flavorful. Sometimes I think it’s better than Starbucks.
• Say, speaking of Starbucks, I think it’s about time I did some research on Starbucks. Wow! Who knew the Wikipedia entry for Starbucks could be so long? I might as well soak it all in while I’m eating.
• I guess it’s time to fire up Outlook. I always hope for a large number of new messages. The more messages I have to read, the longer I can procrastinate doing work. Oh nice, 26! Half a dozen are automated notices or ad industry newsletter subscriptions. Those eat up a lot of time. Gotta read the IAB Smartbrief!
• Whoops, here’s something that needs doin’:
  • See, an ad operations person at an online publisher, let’s say NationalNewspaper.com, found out that the new Flash ad for our client’s campaign doesn’t fit their standards (for sizing, kb limit, excessive loops, etc). Oops!
  • So, the ad ops guy contacts the ad rep. The ad rep forwards me this email with a flowery, innocent, “I’m not sure what’s going on here.”
  • I forward the email to a superior, who replies, telling me to whom I should forward the email at the creative agency.
  • I forward the email to the contact at the client’s creative agency (also an Omnicom Group Company), who forwards it to a subordinate, who then forwards it to an a production team supervisor, who then forwards it to the PERSON THAT ACTUALLY FIXES THE AD.
  • This person is usually a contractor and does not receive benefits. I don’t know what they make, but in this market, you can advertise for an entry level Flash developer on craigslist and pay them $20/hr or less.
  • This lowly paid person ACTUALLY FIXES THE AD. Note, they are fixing it because they were not informed when originally creating the ad that they needed to fit this size, kb max, etc requirement.
  • This person forwards the finished creative (Flash file) to their production supervisor, who forwards it to the subordinate of our contact, who forwards it to the contact, who forwards it to my superior, who forwards it to me, who forwards it to the ad rep, who forwards it to the ad ops guy at NationalNewspaper.com.
  • Witness the MAGIC OF THE INTERNETS! Aren’t we efficient?
• Phew, that was a lot of forwarding. It’s time to go make some coffee.
• Checked my voicemail. A couple of ad reps are worried that their sites haven’t been paid by our agency. Now it’s time to do some accounts payable!
  • I receive a bill from NationalNewspaper.com for 4 million impressions. Oops, according to our 3rd party tracking tool, DoubleClick (soon to be purchased by Google), they didn’t actually deliver those impressions. We need a new bill that reflects the actual delivery of 3,806,503 impressions.
  • I send this request to the ad rep who sends it to their finance office who sends it to a lowly paid worker who makes the change and sends it back to the ad rep who sends it back to me.
  • I now enter the amount owed 3 different times in an archaic accounting system designed in the 60′s. It is kept alive via an ssh terminal.
  • Of course, all these figures were entered already on our end when we planned this campaign. And, they were entered a second time on the publisher’s side. So, why are we entering it again into our company’s 1960′s era accounting system? Because it doesn’t interface with anything external to its being. It is easier to keep what works, right? Why, oh why, would we pay a consulting company to design a better IT based accounting solution when we can pay entry level college graduates $15/hour to duplicate the data entry labor?
  • It’s a lot cheaper to pay the cheap college graduate labor.
  • This takes up the rest of my morning.
• I eat lunch for free.
  • An ad rep from a publisher, such as DisplayAdsMiddlemanBroker.com, pays for our lunch for the right to talk to us for 1 hour.
  • Sometimes these reps make outlandish claims, such as, “Our proprietary technology called ‘Instant Page View’ can guarantee 100% page views.”
  • “Gosh,” I say, “this looks an awful lot like a pop-up window.”
  • “No, this is our ‘Instant Page View’ technology.”
  • “Oh, how silly of me. Do go on!”
• This experiment is too painful to continue. Needless to say, the rest of my day does not improve.

UPDATE: This ranked strongly for a while on Google search results for “day in the life of a media buyer”. As such, the following is a special message for recent graduates or soon-to-be college graduates:

Make sure you know what you’re getting into! During the interview process, ask what duties you’ll be doing at your job. Quiz current employees on their day-to-day responsibilities. Ask the other employees, “How well did the job description match your actual duties?” And if worst comes to worst, they’re always hiring taxi drivers in San Francisco.