A recent news item highlights the dangers of experimenting with new communication channels. Don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with experimentation. But all too often that word is used to justify ill-considered and expensive forays into new media which do the brand little good, but which might look good on a brand manager’s resume or an agency’s pitch presentation. Real experimentation usually requires a well-considered rationale for conducting the test, and some tangible results.
Regular readers of this blog will know that I have not been a fan of Anheuser-Busch’s move into the realm of online branded entertainment. (See my previous post here.) To cut to the chase, I think it is a classic example of the right strategy and the wrong execution. Anheuser-Busch does need to engage 21+ consumers online, but the walled garden, TV-style presentation of Bud.TV does not match younger people’s expectations of freestyle content and self-expression.
The article by Jeremiah McWilliams in May 23rd edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Anheuser-Busch is looking to spur growth and cut costs. The article also reports August A. Busch IV, president and chief executive, as saying “We thought we had a fantastic idea,” but that Bud.TV will “probably fade a bit” this year.
In saying so, Busch may be admitting that last month’s figures show a continued decline in interest in the site. The number of visitors was reported to be 253,000 in its first month, dropping to 146,000 in the second. Lately MediaPost reported the April numbers as “too low to be measured.” I am not sure what the measurement cut-off might be, so let’s give Bud.TV the benefit of the doubt and assume that the number of visitors settles down to around 50,000 per month by June. That gives an annual total of around 950,000 visitors in year one (assuming no duplication). Given there are 20 million people aged 21 to 25 in the U.S. then the site will have reached 5% of the young adults to which it was designed to appeal.
McWilliams reports that “A-B spent about $12 million to create 2,000 minutes of proprietary content for Bud.TV, which launched on Super Bowl Sunday in February.” Ignoring support costs that works out to $12.66 per visit. Judging by responses from people who have visited the site, that is a lot of money for relatively little reach or engagement. Given the cost, it seems to me that A-B would be better off giving away free beer in bars and clubs. It seems hard to believe that so much could have been invested without a better understanding of what young adults are really looking for online.
News items like these simply make me wonder whether “new media” is being used as an excuse to make old mistakes. Any seasoned marketer knows that you have to start with the brand idea and then figure out what communication channels have the best chance to deliver that idea. But you cannot just assume that an idea is “fantastic,” particularly when you are not a member of the target audience. You have to test the concept with the intended audience and anticipate problems and issues.
Jim Schumacher, who heads the digital marketing team overseeing Bud.TV admits in an interview with MediaPost that the success of new efforts to save the site are uncertain, saying, “They wanted us to take a risk, and we’re definitely taking a risk.” But surely that risk could have been reduced or avoided? In the A-B press conference, Busch focused on the stringent sign-up rules as the reason for Bud.TV’s failure but I think he was missing the main reason: the fact that the content and style of presentation did not meet the expectations of the target audience. The issue of sign-up should not have come as a surprise given U.S. legal regulations. The issue of content could have been anticipated with some basic research.
You might think that I am unfairly picking on A-B and its venture into branded online channels. It is certainly not the only “new media” venture out there which I think is ill-judged. However, the ambition and scale of Bud.TV help it stand out from the crowd.
Rather than discuss Bud.TV further, can you point us to some new media ventures that have avoided making basic mistakes and been successful? Nike’s Joga.com comes to mind, but what others are there out there? And, to provide balance, what other sites have failed the test? Opinions are fine but backing them up with some facts would be even better.
Tags: Millward Brown, Nigel Hollis, Bud.TV, Anheuser-Busch, new media
(21 votes, average: 3.43 out of 5)
Loading ...
June 9th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Hi Nigel. There aren’t many/any for exactly the reason you’ve outlined that it should start with the idea not the media channel. If only some of the superbrands would begin with ‘we’ve got a bunch of ideas and things we’re interested in’ and then seed them in ways that built micro communities which then talked to each other as outlined in Faris Yacob’s model of transmedia planning.
Making lots of little mistakes in relatively low cost environments is the only way to foster the environment for a success. Alas the top down marketing model of ‘here’s our idea’ you’ll like it still results in big flops like AB’s bud.tv. Then again the marketing model of Brand managers in marketing positions for a year or two doesn’t encourage this model and is only ever looking to create short term sales efficacy over long term product interest.
I can’t urge people enough to read Nicholas Taleb’s Black Swan about this idea for managing risk spread over a much wider base, for more chance of creating a hit.
June 11th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Hi Charles,
Thanks for pointing us to Faris’s post. Very interesting and I note that he uses Audi’s Art of the Heist as an example which also caught my imagination as a great example of “deep media.”
Faris writes of transmedia planning:
“In this model, there would be an evolving non-linear brand narrative. Different channels could be used to communicate different, self-contained elements of the brand narrative that build to create an larger brand world. Consumers then pull different parts of the story together themselves.”
A couple of years ago I was a participant in a workshop at a major brewer where the objective was to define “360 marketing”. The conclusion we came to was very similar to the definition above. When talking about 360 many people assume one idea that is executed across different media or connection points. Instead what we should be doing is presenting different ideas but complementary ideas in different media so people develop a deeper understanding of the brand. If those ideas are attractive enough to create a sense of community and generate WoM it will create a multiplier effect.
I think there is some risk with this approach that the brand narrative does become a coherent story rather than a bunch of disjointed paragraphs. Not everyone will encounter all aspects of the story and it needs to make enough sense or intrigue them enough that they want to learn more. The example of “The Matrix” is a good analogy but most brands don’t have the luxury of a feature length movie to set the scene!
Nigel
June 21st, 2007 at 12:04 pm
totally agree - transmedia surely a case of emperor’s new clothes.
http://interactivemarketingtrends.blogspot.com/2006/11/transmedia-planning-my-arse.html
June 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Hi Giles, thanks for the comment, although I did nearly trash it along with the body part spam!
Yes, it does seem like the emperor’s new clothes but as you say in your post:
“That said there is some interesting thoughts on designing executions on mulitple layers. Each different layer or detail could appeal to a different group of people, who could compare stories, and thus continually be getting new perspectives on the same thing.”
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 am
Hi Giles. I know you Ogilvy guys get a little hot under the collar with Transmedia Planning because of 360 within Ogilvy group but there are some considerations that have a different emphasis. Transmedia planning implies that although the idea promulgates the communication, distortion is actively encouraged by the different media apertures and furthermore communities are encouraged to create momentum by interacting with each other.
Faris will need to say for himself if that’s a correct interpretation but its a little bit bigger than ‘integrated’ marketing or 360 precisely because there are not really many examples of it. Otherwise Ogilvy could give us 50.
And anyway when I was at HHCL in the late 90’s, we had something called 3D. I’m sure that was before 360 wasn’t it?