According to a study by eMarketer, online advertising is expected to generate $39.5 billion in sales this year, which is a 23% increase from 2011.  Magazines and newspapers combined are projected to generate $33.8 billion in 2012.

Print publishers have continued to push their online products onto their current advertisers with little success. I've found that many print publishers are not competitive enough with their digital products.  Most of the features they bring to the table are unable to target by demographics, and because of this, they are far less desirable than their competition.  Facebook, Google & Microsoft Advertising can offer solutions that come at a lower rate with less waste. When we aim to reach multiple markets  it's more effective and efficient to go with a Facebook, Google or ad network because they can effectively drill down to the selected demographics and at a much lower cost than running a banner ad with multiple print pubs.

In comparison, consumers are spending more time online than with print because it's at their fingertips.  This is nothing new.  For print publishers to keep advertising dollars, and to avert advertisers from handing their dollars over to other online groups, they should expand their targeting capabilities.  I have had this conversation with multiple sales reps when they ask why we're not buying their online offerings. My response has been that their targeting is not as sophisticated as other options that are available to advertise online. My thought is that publishers should emphasize their print products less and spend more time devoted to advancing the capabilities of their digital products. It's time for publishers to jump on board to prevent their advertisers from jumping ship.

In September, the Columbus Dispatch and Cincinnati Enquirer will shrink.  Not the number of subscribers or number of employees this time, but rather the actual size of the papers.

The Columbus Dispatch will begin printing the Gannett-owned Cincinnati Enquirer and sister publication, the Kentucky Enquirer on their new 3-around press, which is the first press to print three sheets in a single revolution, rather than the traditional two.  The new press is said to result in up to a 33% reduction in newsprint consumption.

In addition, this will also reduce the size of both papers from 22” x 11.5” to 14.6” x 10.5”.  The Dispatch has conducted several focus groups on the subject and report that the feedback from “loyal users”, or adults 45+ who read the newspaper seven days per week, is that the smaller design is easier to read, easier to transport and more appealing than the current larger version.

From a consumer standpoint, perhaps this is revolutionary and will help publishers hold on to the current subscriber base.  On the flip side, however, I don’t think that current advertisers and their agencies are nearly as excited.

It simply won’t be feasible to incorporate as much content in 14” as you previously could in 22”.  Will more advertisers purchase two pages side-by-side?  The pricing structure will certainly have to be completely revamped as well.  My experience is that newspapers have been doing advertisers a “favor” by holding rates for the last few years, despite declining circulation.  While the cost per ad has stayed the same, the CPM has risen.  Essentially, advertisers are paying a flat rate but reaching fewer consumers.

The rest of the newspaper world seems to be holding their breath and waiting to gauge how this transition fares for the newspapers in Columbus and Cincinnati.  I, for one, am glad that the Courier Journal is not the test product.  They are a Gannett property, so we may not be far behind the Dispatch and Enquirer.

Unless my beloved Kentucky Wildcats are playing, I rarely find myself captured by a television. I am not one to follow television shows. Through college I could never understand friends who would lock themselves in for the night so they could catch a new episode of whatever the hottest medical or cop drama on TV was. “That’s not living,” I always thought.

Then a TV series hit home. Literally.

“Justified” is a hard hitting series on FX that shoots to kill, because after all, that’s what guns are for. It’s the story of Deputy US Marshal Raylan Givens and takes place in Harlan County, where I was born. When I first heard there was a show being produced that was based in Southeastern Kentucky I rolled my eyes and braced myself for a nationwide mocking of my birthplace.

I reluctantly watched an episode. The characters are rough around the edges and have slight accents, but they come off as witty and educated – yet, still mostly criminals – in their way of life. I’ve yet to be insulted enough to stop watching the show, and I’ve actually become addicted enough to follow it through social media. As well as the writers of “Justified” have produced a show about Kentucky that doesn’t shame it, the network has done equally as well at promoting it.

While it’s become commonplace to have a custom hashtag for a show in the corner of your screen with the bug, “Justified” has taken its social media to an impressive level. They recently released several GetGlue stickers, one of which shows Raylan, the main character, leaned back in a chair with his famous Stetson hat and a hand gun pointed ahead. The show’s blog, incorporated into their Facebook page, is updated often and isn’t promotional swill. The writers give insights to their writing process, they give viewers easter eggs to look for in the coming episodes and provide insights into Kentucky’s culture.

Their social media team does a great job of being informative, not just promotional. It brings to the show to life for viewers. I know the writers have done their part to make sure they understand the area’s often-misunderstood culture, because they actually ran into some of my family during their most recent trip to do research for now-airing Season 3.

My cousin was outside of her home when a strange car pulled up and a man leaned out the window and said, “Ma’am, do you know where I could find a ‘holler’?“ She just looked at him and said, “Honey, you’re in a holler.” It was about this time when her husband came barreling out of the front door with a shotgun, ran down the steps and continued around to the back of the house. She just looked at the fellow and said, “Don’t worry, he just thinks something is messing with his chickens.”

It turned out, this was one of the writers from the show, “Justified.” He was in the area for research to write Season 3. They invited him in for dinner and he stayed for a couple of hours. When he left they sent him with a few items that may be featured in Season 3, one of which was a pair of praying hands made out of coal.

The show has done a good job of presenting Kentucky culture without shaming us or lumping us all into that “barefoot and toothless” category that so many people can’t get past. With shows like “Call of the Wildman” popping up left and right (no disrespect to the Turtleman himself), it’s nice to have some Kentucky representation that breaks the mold, even if it’s still slingin’ a gun or two.

Disclaimer: I have seen Season 2 & all of Season 3 thus far, so if I’m missing a season chocked full of stereotypes please leave me be until I find out for myself.

No matter how you feel about Rush Limbaugh, you can’t deny that he’s the biggest radio talk show host in America. He’s also the most popular, and for three hours a day, five days a week, he commands the attention of 14 million loyal listeners who trust him, agree with him, and are willing to buy whatever he’s selling.

So it was kind of a big deal when, thanks to some less-than-gentlemanly comments made a couple of weeks ago, he sparked a national controversy so fiery that several of his largest advertisers decided to jump ship, forsaking the buying power of all those millions of “Dittohead” listeners.

While such a move is hardly unprecedented, the scale and quickness of the exodus was notable. And as the story continues to dot national headlines, many advertisers remain weary about getting too close to el Rushbo.

So the question is, does Limbaugh’s most recent faux pas actually rub off on his sponsors? Is Rush Limbaugh really radioactive?

I say yes. For now.

Even though the half-life of mid-level controversy is shorter than it used to be, there’s still a lot of anger over Limbaugh’s comments. Just today, CNN.com featured a front-page commentary questioning whether or not Limbaugh should be taken off the air for good; it only makes sense for sponsors to keep their distance until the drama subsides.

In the meantime, though they might face a minor backlash from dedicated Dittoheads, these companies can avoid any large-scale PR headaches like brand boycotts, twitter bashing and phone bombing. Heck, if they get lucky, they might even find themselves in the profitable graces of freshly activated Rush haters, which would be a win-win.

Once things will calm down, these sponsors can return to Rush and, with his $incere endorsement, again win the hearts (and pocketbooks) of America’s largest, most loyal radio audience.

So what do you think? If your business were running ads on the Rush Limbaugh Show, would you pull them? Or would you ride out the storm, hoping that the average consumer doesn’t hold your company accountable for the host’s views?

Please share your thoughts.

comScore recently released a whitepaper entitled “It’s a Social World: Top 10 Need-to-Knows About Social Networking and Where It’s Headed."

The number eight “need-to-know” is that social networking leads in online display advertising in the US, but lags in share of dollars.  In fact, social networking sites account for 27.7% of US online impressions and 20.7% of page views, but only accounts for 14.8% of estimated display ad spending.  Why is this?

There are a few reasons, I believe.  First, let’s consider how consider how display and social impressions are sold.  Most display impressions are purchased from a publisher site or through a network and the buyer works with a sales person.  There are salaries and other administrative costs to account for, therefore those costs are built into the cost paid for each impression.  Most social impressions, however, are purchase through a self-administered online marketplace that does not have as many overhead expenses.  It’s my opinion that the lower administrative costs are passed along to the advertiser, which results in a lower CPM and lower spending.

We should also consider that the social marketplace is still not as mature as the publisher marketplace.  If we think back to the mid-2000s, there was not much demand for impressions and almost every site gave impressions away as added value.  Once the sites did require payment, it was usually a low CPM, until demand drove the costs to the current levels.  I believe that social impressions are going through the same life cycle now.  For buyers, if you examine your campaign CPMs or CPCs for the same campaign from one year to the next, or even one flight to the next, you’ll likely find that the costs have increased by 20%-50% over a short period of time.

Lastly, certain publisher sites, specifically sites that have companion print products, are likely charging more to make up the ground they are losing from declining revenues on the print side.  Print revenue and circulation has been in deep decline since 2008.  Many publishers have made significant adjustments, in terms of paper size, frequency of publishing and staff reductions to stay afloat over the past several years.  The demand for the same digital products have grown, therefore this revenue channel has had to support more than it has had to in the past.

Over the next three to five years, I expect the gap between social display ad spending and the social display ad impressions to narrow.  I don’t expect, however, that the social display ad spending will ever equal the number of display ad impressions because I think the costs will always be more competitive than other display advertising options.

Well, another BIG GAME (no copyright infringement here) is in the bag, along with the year’s cavalcade of ads....both good and bad. Okay, mostly bad. Too many cars. Too much beer. In the ads, that is.

Here’s a quarter-by-quarter breakdown for your sweet, innocent eyes.

Legend:
Mannings = Standouts. Yay. Ads I liked.
Bradys = Zeroes. Boo. Insults to the ad world. Ads I didn’t like.

Pre-game Mannings:
Styler: Although I’m not really the target audience, I dug the Ocean’s 11 feel of this spot, particularly with Adrien Brody in tow.
Hyundai Rocky: Knowing what it took to script, time and shoot this spot, I have a great appreciation for the payoff.

Pre-game Bradys:
NFL Wind Beneath My Wings: The NFL is not touching, in any way. And this spot is not funny, in any way. Five thumbs down.
Verizon Droid: I don’t need more overdone spots about the poor man’s iPhone. Hey! We have more colors! We should get a cookie! Nope.

First quarter Mannings:
Chevy Apocalypse: Great effects, spot-on music choice, zippy punchline and Twinkies. LOVED it. So did Woody Harrelson.
First quarter Bradys:
Audi Vampires: I’m equally bored with vampires and car ads. This one didn’t stand a chance.

Second quarter Mannings:
Budweiser Prohibition: Out of all the beer ads, this one is the standout. That’s not saying much.
GE Turbines: Another nice spot in their Big Game package. BUT, is it “turbins” or “tur-bines?”
VW New Beetle Exercise Dog/Cantina Scene: CUH-LASSIC. From start to finish. I love Volkswagen’s marketing and I know I’m not alone. And the New Beetle is, as Pat says, my best friend. My favorite ad of the whole game.

Avengers Trailer: Normally, I exclude commentary on movie trailers. Seems like cheating on an advertising blog entry. Buuhhhh-tttt. AVENGERS. AVENGERS! AHHH-VENNNN-GGGGERS!
Second quarter Bradys:
Go Daddy: Hate this as much as I hate their ads every year. Insulting to BOTH men and women. And Geeks! Go Daddy thinks all men are stupid. And all women are floosies. Yes, I just used the word “floosies” on our blog. First time for everything.
H&M: Just as sexist as Go Daddy. If you buy your knickers at H&M because David Beckham does, I suspect you’re as smart as David Beckham is.
Cars.com Confidence: Just too creepy. That extra head looks like something out of Total Recall ala Kuato.

HALFTIME LOCAL BREAK ALERT!

Halftime Mannings:
Madonna. She’s 53??? Really? That stage was amazing and she rocked it.
The Voice: I loves me some Betty White. But, Miss Thing is getting close to over-exposed, IMHO. Thoughts?
Halftime Bradys:
Cee-Lo. Enough said.
Padgett (local): So, you bought the big spot, but you couldn’t invest in a little video production? Animated stills? Probably outta Powerpoint? Nice “blur” on the logos on Papa John’s Cardinal Stadium. I can tell that’s a Pepsi logo, guys. We’ll be calling you soon.

Third quarter Mannings:
Dodge Clint Eastwood Detroit: Beautiful. Harsh. Real. So well done.
Darryl Isaacs (local): He caught 6 footballs! SIX! This one may not have stood out for a good reason. Could have easily landed in the Bradys. Then again, 6 FOOTBALLS!
Fiat Abarth: Yeah, yeah, yeah...sex sells. That car is so sweet. Sex didn’t sell it to me. Cleverness did.
Acura NSX Seinfeld: Perfection. One of only 2 car ads I’ve liked so far. Second favorite ad of the whole game, although it could be because Seinfeld is one of my all-time heroes.

Third quarter Bradys:
Smash: Anybody else want NBC to just get this over with?
McDonald’s: I think we’re all done with “a little somethin’ somethin’” as a useful turn of phrase, don’cha think McDonald’s?
Camry Reinventied: Good lord. Tenuous connection much? This spot was an exercise in mental you-know-what (yeah, you know what - don’t pretend like you don’t) for Toyota’s ad agency.

Fourth quarter Mannings:
Chase: Drew Brees Mobile Banking. Smart celebrity endorsement. Concrete illustration of how mobile banking works for people who don’t understand/don’t trust mobile banking...which is most of us.
CareerBuilder.com: Whatever, PETA. This spot is super fun. CB.com never fails to delight.

Samsung Galaxy Numb: The Darkness!!! Gospel Choir!!!! BMX Stunt!!!!! Human Canon!!!! Who cares that it has a stylus? I believe in a thing called love! But, I’ll still keep my iPhone.

Swamp People History Channel Promo: Tight spot - tightly written, tightly shot, tightly edited. Tight.
Fourth quarter Bradys:
Ferris Bueller: After much pre-game blog hype, I was a little disappointed. Maybe it was that there wasn’t really much surprise here. And it could have been any car in that spot, so the C-RV didn’t really stand out that much.
Go Daddy: Ugh. Double ugh. Triple ugh. Quadruple ugh. Need I go on?

Comprehensive Mannings:
(Ad series throughout the game that caught my attention)
GE: I love the brand extensions of “Imagination at Work.” Cancer diagnoses, turbine production and testimonials from real people in a gritty light. Loved it.
Hyundai: Great writing. If the people who make these cars are as smart as the people who make the ads for these cars, then I’ll at least consider buying one.
Doritos: Great Dane. Granny Kid Boomerang. Doritos always has great Big Game spots.
Bridgestone: The idea of making sports equipment out of tire synthetics. With celeb appearances. Me likey.

So, there ya have it. Thoughts? Agreements? Disagreements?

A study from Ypulse, a youth-focused research firm, finds that 46 percent of college students watch TV on a television set most of the time, and the other 54 percent are watching online or on a mobile device. The study also found that more than 80 percent of college students said they can't live without music, while less than a third said they couldn't live without TV.

More college students are watching television online because their social lives take precedent over watching their favorite programs. With night classes, parties, studying and exams, minimal time is left to watch a breadth of television programming. Instead of accommodating their social lives to their favorite shows, they watch their favorite shows online whenever it's convenient. However, high-schoolers are less likely to view programming online because their schedules are far less demanding and they are usually home from their extra-curriculars in the evening in time for primetime programming.

It's no surprise that these young people can't live without music.  Music is a huge variable in self-discovery and reflects their personality and how they are perceived by their peers, which is most important in those teenage years.  Music is something that students take with them wherever they go, whether it be on their commute to school, while waiting for class to begin, or just hanging out with friends.

TV is a less involved form of entertainment and they don't have the ability to customize a television channel with all of their favorite shows like they can do on their iPods with their favorite artists and songs.

The study doesn't state that college students are not watching TV, but how they're watching is definitely changing with the times.

For a media buyer, this information can be useful when reaching college students. With the advancement of streaming on the web, thru mobile devices and game consoles, the ever changing media landscape has provided us with other avenues to impact this audience.

If you’ve ever been to a capabilities presentation with a top publisher site, you’re all too familiar with the claims that they have the most unique monthly visitors, have the highest number of monthly page views and offer the most prestigious site list.  Even more a seasoned buyer, there is a lot of data to consider and the comparisons are not always apples to apples.  So, how can you rate one site above the others?

comScore, a leader in internet audience measurement, conducts monthly performance audits and publishes the results.   The results are available on a national level, or you can subscribe to their Media Metrix service, to further break down the results geographically or demographically.  This is a great tool, which levels out the playing field and analyzes based on the same information.

I thought it would be interesting to share the October 2011 results, since some of us don’t regularly have the ability to look at these rankings.

The top 10 US properties are: Glam Media (10), Wikimedia (9), Turner Digital (8), Ask Network (7), Amazon Sites (6), AOL (5), Facebook (4), Microsoft Sites (3), Yahoo! Sites (2) and Google Sites (1).

There are a few pieces of data, that I find interesting, that I’d like to point out.

First, are the retail sites including #12 Apple (79,942,999 unique visitors), #23 Wal-Mart (45,203,000 unique visitors), #46 Target Corporation (27,086,000 unique visitors).  I expect traffic to these three sites to grow in November and December, as we approach the holiday season.

Several important social media sites are ranked highly as well, including #4 Facebook (166,000,000 unique visitors), #30 LinkedIn (35,732,000 unique visitors), #31 Twitter (34,809,000 unique visitors) and #40 MySpace (28,439,000 unique visitors).  MySpace is dead to a lot of people, but these site statistics prove otherwise, as it is alive and well, perhaps just targeting a different audience that the younger, early adopters.

It’s also notable to point out that WedMD and The Washington Post each jumped 5 positions from their previous locations in September.

Ratings like this give us a lot to consider in the marketing world.  For instance, if a company is hesitant about setting up a branded Twitter account, they may be convinced otherwise if they see just how much traffic the site generates.  Also, seeing how highly ranked Amazon is, could make a strong case for a bricks and mortar retail location to expand their offerings to a national target on Amazon.

During a recent visit with my Grandmother, Mary Swan, she let me comb through her vintage clothes that had been delicately stored in a bedroom closet for the past 40 years. As we poked through all of the nooks and crannies for treasure, we found an inconspicuous box on the top shelf that held what I consider to be the jackpot of all finds. In this box was a Cosmopolitan magazine from November 1911!

As I very carefully turned the fragile pages, I saw what Cosmo used to be, “...a publication for aspirational women.” Women with hopes and dreams of being more than the predetermined stay-at-home-mom (which is definitely a full-time job on its own).

I was amazed to learn Cosmopolitan began as a family magazine, launched in 1886 by Schlicht & Field as The Cosmopolitan. Sadly for Schlicht & Field, they were only in business for two years before they had to close their doors.

John Brisben Walker acquired the magazine in 1889 and, with the help of E. D. Walker, The Cosmopolitan became the go-to source for fictional short stories, novels and series until around 1950.

In 1965, Helen Gurley Brown took over as editor in chief. In an effort to rouse sluggish sales, Brown decided to give The Cosmopolitan a facelift. The magazine was renamed Cosmopolitan and the publication became more about single women and their sexual liberation--a much different kind of aspiration than Schlicht & Field had in mind, I’m sure.

In a time when women were trying to liberate themselves, I find it interesting that Brown’s attempt--intentional or not--to “sexually liberate women” ended up sending a message that in order for a woman to lead a full life, she needed a man.

And what is Cosmo today? Well, by looking at the cover of the November 2011 edition, it’s a magazine for women who are only interested in pleasing their man rather than themselves, being stick thin in order to please the public and their view of “beauty” and wearing the latest fashion.

So much for being liberated.

When comparing the early 1900’s version with today’s, it’s amazing to me how one person can dramatically change the way we market to and for women. Even though Brown didn’t singlehandedly change the view and status of women, she played a big part. Although I don’t agree with the message today’s Cosmopolitan (Cosmo) sends, knowing the full story of Cosmo shows how much impact one person-- or advertiser--can have.  Pushing the envelope and doing something different might be uncomfortable but it also might change the whole game.

I recently read an article on ComScore’s blog, entitled “Planning for the Future of Media Planning.”  The article asks what will happen to the human-side of the planning and buying process, as we move closer to utilizing real-time buying and optimizations and algorithm-based formulas that dictate trading and buying of ad time and space.

Tools, both digital and traditional, are absolutely necessary to massage all media buying numbers into a common denominator that allows buyers to look at the data and easily compare it to other media or the competition.  This is true regardless of whether we’re looking at GRPs, CPPs, impressions or SOV.

While these tools increase efficiency and productivity, the human element, simply cannot be removed.

Even if an agency subscribes to the best and brightest digital buying software (f.e. one that sends RFPs, automatically imports the proposals, analyzes them and then prepares a recommendation for a buyer to approve), some strategic opportunities are still inevitably missed.

The best sales rep doesn’t know the client as well as the buyer.  They may put a site list together that misses a small, but key, segment of your target audience.  In many instances, sales reps can’t describe the content all of the sites within a customized list they propose.  A digital tool can’t research each site and approve the content before our client’s ad begins running on it.

The best planning tool also can’t set up negative keyword parameters surrounding a buy.  If your client is a discount airfare company, you want to be sure that your ad is in front of consumers reading editorial articles about travel.  The worst placement would be in the middle of an article about a recent airline crash.  There simply isn’t a line item within a planning tool to account for the strategy about where you do not want your ads to be displayed, which can arguably be just as important as where you do want your ads to be displayed.

Finally, there are some circumstances in which a buyer may wish to pay a higher CPM that would be deemed efficient by a planning tool.  For example, if a small niche audience is difficult to reach, you can expect to pay a higher CPM.  If that audience is extremely valuable, the high cost is justified, although a planning tool wouldn’t recognize that as acceptable.

Tools are absolutely a necessity and tremendously help to improve the efficiency of buyers, which allows agencies to take on more clients.  We aren’t to the point yet, and I’m not sure that we’ll ever be, to completely allow a digital tool to take the place of the human strategy that goes in to all media decisions.