Last week, Madison+Vine reported that “Anheuser-Busch’s fledgling Bud.TV drew 253,000 visitors during its inaugural month.” According to the article, that’s just one-tenth of the audience Anheuser-Busch ultimately hopes to draw. Tony Ponturo, vice president of global media for A-B, reportedly said that the web-based TV network, which Anheuser-Busch spent more than $30 million to develop, is waiting for the “wow factor” to kick in.
With Bud.TV, Anheuser-Busch aims to reach adults between the ages of 21 and 27. In an interview last year with Brad Berens, editor-in-chief at iMedia Connection, Ponturo suggested that the objective of the venture was to follow this group online. Because of the online habits of these young adults, Ponturo said, “we needed to continue to move more of our marketing, and specifically media resources, as we try to reach the consumer, into the digital space.”
Suggesting that Anheuser-Busch has done a good job of connecting with the desired demographic in traditional media, Ponturo said that BudTV “will be using the internet in a way that 21- to 27-year-old consumers will appreciate.”
In producing Bud.TV, Anheuser-Busch needed to clear two big hurdles.
First, they needed to move from being a sponsor of content to being a creator of content. Producing a 30-second TV commercial for the Super Bowl is a light year different from producing a 24/7 online network. As I highlighted in a recent Point of View on branded content, the production of branded content of any sort usually requires specialized help. That does not come cheap, as the $30 million price tag confirms.
The next hurdle is about mindset. Do Anheuser-Busch and its partners really understand what people are looking for online?
The initial traffic report by Madison+Vine suggests not. It also validates many of the initial reviews of the site. Pundits panned the site, not just for its registration process – forced upon A-B by legal requirements – but the content, too. “These sketches are awful. Awful!” reports Burt Helm in a review titled, “Bud.TV: So lame I’m angry.”
Jackson West at newteevee.com suggests that the content can only be described as “forcibly viral by committee.” West goes on to suggest that a lot of money has been spent on “cheap and cheesy” production that is so self-centered and inauthentic that it will turn off the intended target audience.
None of this sounded good to me, but then I wondered if maybe these guys were beer drinkers, or even in the right demographic, so I decided to get some qualitative feedback from people who would qualify as A-B’s target audience.
Unfortunately for Bud.TV, it seems that the pundits were not alone. While money can buy you content, it can’t, apparently, buy you respect.
Of the five males aged 21 to 27 who viewed the site for me, none found the content compelling enough to add it to their destination sites or recommend to friends. So what, according to them, is wrong with Bud.TV?
First, logistics. Apart from the frustrating registration process, viewers found the navigation counter-intuitive (I am glad it wasn’t just me!) and struggled to view the content. Given that ease of navigation is a key element of any successful online property, if this feedback is representative, then Anheuser-Busch needs to address the issue immediately.
Second, content. My impromptu focus group seemed to agree with the pundits. The moderator, Alex, reported that “the content itself did not elicit any response that would merit more visits. A few chuckles here and there, but when I probed to see whether the respondents would come back to watch a new episode, the answer was no. Most people said there was nothing truly original on the Web site. Everything seemed to be a recycled concept to appeal to the younger demographic.” In other words, just the reaction anticipated by Jackson West.
But apart from the reaction to the content, there is a fundamental mismatch between Bud.TV’s presentation style and the interactive experience many younger people are looking for online: it doesn’t offer a sense of discovery or a means of self-expression.
Alex contasts the TV-like presentation of Bud.TV with the freestyle presentation of YouTube. On YouTube, ratings, comments and suggested videos allow users to easily explore the labyrinth of content, finding new and exciting things along the way. It is an active, lean-forward environment where people can share their thoughts and ideas. “Bud.TV, on the other hand, has no central focus and no way to find something new and exciting,” says Alex.
Anheuser-Busch’s agencies have produced some great TV commercials over the years: think “Wassup!” and the frogs. Those executions were ideally suited to engage a lean-back audience watching TV. By contrast, the online environment is only very slowly morphing from a 100% lean-forward medium, where people actively search for content of interest, to one where people may be willing to sit back and watch what’s presented.
To that degree one could argue that Bud.TV may simply be ahead of its time. But on the other hand, bad content has never been in vogue. Contrary to Tony Ponturo’s statement last year, it seems to me that Bud.TV proves that Anheuser-Busch has a long way to go before it will really ” be using the internet in a way that 21- to 27-year-old consumers will appreciate.”
So, do you agree that Anheuser-Busch has missed the mark in this online venture? If so, are they the first to do so? Can you think of any other advertisers who have failed to understand want their target audience wants?
Nigel Hollis Millward Brown Bud.TV branded entertainment branded content
(34 votes, average: 3.74 out of 5)
Loading ...
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:09 am
“ Why Bud is trying to control the channel “
Bud has to control brand consistency and of course they have legal implications with regards to age to consider, but why force people into yet another myopic portal is anyone’s guess.
On the delivery
They would have been far better at partnering with the likes of YouTube / Joost to handle the access to their content with some for of co-branding, each brand would also add something to the mix.
On the content
TV along with many things is formulaic – therefore you cannot criticize them for opting for celebrity endorsements and sex to promote their brand – this is after all a lifestyle they are trying to sell us. I think there mix is wrong – I would plumed for the team from Jackass for the ‘ stunts ‘ and as for Spacey – does not really call out ‘ bud drinker ‘ – more of a hot chocolate person ( especially considering his dog walking habits )
What about the fastest growing medium
Mobile, missed completely - going back to my point above, a simple tie up with MyWaves would have solved that problem and also positioned them correctly with a content aggregator ( which as the amount of dispersed video increases will be the future most of us will take to access.)
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:05 am
Hi Trevor, I definitely agree with your comment about mobile. It would seem a natural medium for Bud to provide content their target audience. Maybe there would be more difficulty in “enforcing” the age restrictions? Thanks, Nigel
April 6th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Just as for Tv ads, it is important for brand marketers to keep in mind that their online presence would be successful only if their sites / blogs have a strong “attention hook” which is linked to the brand and its proposition.
Here’s an example of a brand which did so with great success in India - http://www.axeunlimited.co.in
The site had a million hits, and thousands of downloads, and post this Axe captured nearly half the deo market here.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:06 am
First, Praveen, belated thanks for the comment and example. While clearly successful I suspect that Axe may have benefited from two things: the nature and familiarity of its proposition as a “girl magnet” and the younger nature of the audience.
It is of note that Ad Age now reports Bud.TV’s dropped by 40% in its second month. Unless they can come up with more compelling content it looks destined to fizzle.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I also agree with Trevor on comment about mobile.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Hi Nigel
I’ve read your POV on Branded Content, where you pointed out that gratuitous highlight of brand benefit would detract from the appreciation of both brand and content. Hence my take-out is that the branded content, playing a well-integrated role in the content, will mainly help build emotional hook with the consumers - which I expect works better as enhancement for established brands, like Pepsi.
While for a market like Japan, where consumers still look for functional or specific product related messages as the initial layer of the relationship with the brand, plus the fact that TV still remains a dominant media channel, branded content will be used more as a complementary component to build brand awareness, along with launch campaigns. Then coming from the cost efficiency point of view (given the understanding that content development will take up a major part of the budget, esp. when airing through mobile/digital channels), it might be suggested to consider branded content after the launch stage.
What’s your opinion on this?
Thanks
August 28th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Hi Yvonne,
My apologies for not answering your question sooner but as you may have seen I have been on vacation.
The simple answer is yes, I suspect that branded content will work better for brands which are familiar and which integrate seamlessly with the content. Obviously, special interest products and shows would be the exception to this, e.g. golf or fishing, because the audience would value opinions offered on new products that are integrated into the content.
Nigel