It appears as though the media industry is on top of the world: a vibrant industry ripe with promise and financial upside.  Actually, I’m not so sure.  The media, themselves, have long operated under a model that is based upon two foundational variables: 

• Distribution: the definition of the term, medium, in the first place.  The idea that a medium represents a unique distribution pathway that enables content to flow from its source to an audience.    
• Audience: the medium’s ability to aggregate an unduplicated audience that is highly desirable to marketers. 

Historically, distribution pathways were relatively fixed and a bit more proprietary.  Newspaper circulation networks were required to disseminate news to a particular community/market.  Network television affiliates were required to broadcast television signals across a coverage area (Designated Market Area).  The technology was not particularly “friendly” to redundant systems.  Thanks to digital/mobile technologies, new distribution platforms can and will spring up with limited cost or infrastructure required.  Much like the human body that can generate a new blood flow when an arterial route becomes clogged, new media will find new distribution pathways to avoid any “clogs” in a metaphorical sense.   Distribution pathways are no longer proprietary.

The same holds true for audiences.  Historically, audiences were much more proprietary than they are today.  Media consumption tended to be more concentrated around particular vehicles/properties. Today, in a world of hyper media consumption, it is quite rare that any particular medium can and will attract a truly unduplicated audience that cannot be found elsewhere.  Ask any media buyer, and they’ll agree that no single media property is a ‘must buy’ anymore.  A buyer can literally ‘buy around’ any property and still accumulate audience reach.

The old model is broken:  any medium that defines its strategy by virtue of either its mechanism for content distribution and/or its ability to aggregate an audience will, likely, fail.  There is nothing proprietary or particularly compelling in distribution pathways or audiences.  The media, themselves, are becoming a commodity.

The commoditization of media will open up an opportunity for those who understand classic Brand Management and can apply these timeless principles to the media business. Media Brands must live by the same rules as any other ‘Brand’.  

Some media brands truly understand the essence of what they promise to their audiences, and they can do so without having to name the ‘who’ or the ‘how’ in their promise.  A few favorites come to mind:

• HBO:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  In a Cannes Case Submission, HBO was referenced as a ‘Brand of Preeminent Storytellers’.  This promise creates a clear sense of purpose that can take the HBO  brand across any media platform and appeal to any audience that wants to engage with a good ‘story’. 
•  Martha Stewart:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Promises to “Enrich Everyday Lives”.  In her Mission Statement, she then goes on to describe the ‘who’ and the ‘how’.  But the promise is clear, and can stand alone.
•  Real Simple?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Enough said!  The name speaks for itself.  The promise is clear, relatable, and applicable across platforms and audiences.

 True media brands are, unfortunately, the exception and not the rule.  From the below examples, it’s clear that the media industry has a fair amount of Brand Management work to do! 

• ESPN:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Do you exist in service of the “Sports Fan”?  ESPN is definitely on the right track: they created White Space in the highly cluttered sports media universe, by promising a ‘service’ to a high value customer segment.  They have been able to expand their promise seamlessly across a broad array of media platforms.  I would like to see them go one step further:  can they remove the audience “The Sports Fan” from their Mission Statement and still make the brand promise work?  Even ESPN cannot own “The Sports Fan”.  But, they can own what makes ESPN unique, and attractive to The Sports Fan.
•  CNN:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Are you a ‘Cable News Network’?  Let’s face it: the CNN brand was originally built around a unique and provocative distribution platform for news.  Clearly, this positioning is no longer unique or compelling.  Today, CNN claims to be the ‘most trusted name in news’.   The notion of ‘trust’ is an outcome: it’s earned.  So, what ultimately sits at the core of the CNN brand to earn the trust of the audience?   The promise is unclear and the health of the CNN franchise reflects this ambiguity.
•  More:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Are you ‘For Women of Style and Substance’?  I like to call myself a ‘Woman of Style and Substance’ and I happen to read More Magazine.  But what does More’s new positioning statement promise me?  It tells me I’m in the right place: but why?

 Getting the Brand ‘right’ is only half the battle.  How do you flawlessly execute your Brand Behavior to consistently reinforce your Promise?   Can you make the hard call and edit out activity that may be appealing from an audience or revenue perspective, but is clearly ‘off brand’?   

Why does this matter?

In a world where new technologies can spring up overnight, and no one can claim ownership of its audience, your only hope is a powerful Media Brand that can move where the marketplace will go, and do so while remaining true to its Promise.

* Multi-Tasking:  the art of doing several things at once.  Meaning, I am not fully engaged in any one task.  My attention is divided, and chances are I am only receiving bits and pieces of content from any single source.

*Multi-Plexing:  the desire to experience a body of content across multiple channels, concurrently.  In this instance, I am deeply engaged and I seek out additional media channels to enhance my overall experience.  

While I multi-task in both ways,  my multi-tasking is increasingly becoming more of an immersive phenomenon.  Two recent examples come to mind:

* American Idol:  I am a passionate fan of American Idol.  I try to view the shows ‘live’ (okay, I admit I start watching appx 20 minutes into the broadcast so that I can skip all the boring commercials).  But, my ‘live’ viewing also includes my laptop or my iPhone.  I connect with Facebook friends who are also Idol fans to converse in real-time as the show unfolds.  In essence, I have created a virtual ‘living room’ through these additional media devices. 

*NCAA March Madness:  It’s lonely being an MSU Spartan in my North Shore Chicago household.  But, thanks to NCAA.com, I was able to connect to other MSU fans live and follow the chatter while watching the game.  All of a sudden, my lonely living room became transformed into a Spartan Sports Bar! 

These two experiences point to an important theme: the idea of  multi-plexing as a means of compensating for the individual nature of media consumption, today.  Our desire is still to seek out and be a part of social, communal experiences.  Television viewing used to be a multi-person phenomenon.  Hence, the Nielsen term VPVH (viewers per viewing household) used to define the composition of viewers in the living room.  What I describe above is a desire to create a VPVH once again.  Except in this current scenario, the social network experience becomes the VPVH. 

Why is this so important?  As marketers, we need to understand the interplay between media in creating a more holistic experience for ‘fans’.   If people are using multiple  media concurrently to enhance a single experience, our messages across multiple media platforms should also reinforce a single experience.  This has profound implications for how we build commercial content.  Currently, we create messaging for each medium in isolation.  What if the messages worked more like Transmedia Stories (Source: Henry Jenkins Convergence Culture)?  In essence, each message, while still making sense on its own,  would also provide a deeper experience.  This assumes that brand messaging can evolve from ‘ads’ to ‘stories’.  A topic for another day…

Spoken like a true Sage, Tim Gunn instructed the designers of Project Runway to carefully consider the resources available to them as they embellish their creations.  I believe there’s a powerful marketing lesson in Tim’s words.   Open access to resources cannot turn into a “free for all”.  We must carefully edit our choices:  to ensure that the experiences we put out are “thoughtful”. 

Let’s explore this idea on two levels:  first, from a content development point of view and next, from a channel planning point of view.

* Anyone can create and post content!  I don’t need to sell an editor (insert any type of content gatekeeper here) on my ideas: I can post them to my blog, and if you’re so inclined you’ll read and share my posts.  But, with the blog comes a big responsibility.  I owe it to my followers to edit my ideas “thoughtfully”.   Otherwise, I have shifted the burden to you, “the follower” to do the editing yourselves.   You have limited time, and unlimited access to content.   If you have to spend too much time “editing” my work, I will lose you.  Unfortunately, many content creators are missing the point: they are opting for frequency over quality.  Channel capacity is far greater than available, high quality content that is worth your time.  Now, more than ever, we need to “edit” ourselves:  only put out ideas that are truly “thoughtful”.   The  old adage “less is more” holds even more weight when the potential is boundless.

* The same holds true when it comes to integrated channel planning.   The Macy’s accessory wall is a great metaphor for the vast menu of brand touchpoints that exist in a multi-channel world.  To paraphrase Tim Gunn, brand experiences must be planned  ”thoughtfully”.  I can’t think of a single brand that belongs “everywhere”.  Yet, many confuse integrated marketing with 360 degree ‘stalking’.  The discipline of Integrated Channel Planning involves the “thoughtful” selection of those touchpoints that can create contextual relevance:  a brand experience that is both important and meaningful in the consumer’s life.   Not all brand experiences can hold such power.  And, it’s dangerous to assume that consumers will simply edit out those experiences that do not hold relevance.  Despite the vast footprint available, brands should opt for quality over quantity.

Don’t think that because my hearing is compromised, you should ‘shout’ at me to be heard. Rather, if you have something important to say, I will use every sensory avenue available to me so that I can truly ‘hear’ you.

1. True hearing involves multiple senses: your voice, your eyes, your expressions/gestures and most importantly: your intentions. The old expression ‘actions speak louder than words’ is profoundly true. I may not clearly hear every word in a literal sense, but your behavior will speak to me on multiple levels.

2. True hearing takes effort on the part of the listener. I no longer ‘passively’ hear a conversation. I actively engage in order to hear. It takes extra effort, and I expect to be rewarded for my effort: either inform me, touch my heart, spark my passion, acknowledge my words, and/or show me that you care. Otherwise, I’ll become frustrated that you put me through such effort when you really had nothing valuable to say. And…I’ll tune you out!

3. Conversations require empathy. I shamefully recall becoming frustrated with my mom when she couldn’t hear me. It wasn’t her fault, but as a child I didn’t understand that I had a responsibility to help her hear what I had to say. Instead, I would mutter under my breath, “Forget about it, Mom.” And, I would move on. We are all accountable for our conversations, and we must do ‘what it takes’ to be heard.

I believe that consumers, today, are hearing impaired in a metaphorical sense. It is no longer easy to ‘hear’ anything above all the noise that bombards consumers. And, while technology can enhance hearing, it can easily become the catalyst of hearing ‘loss’ in the everyday lives of consumers. Consumers are expected to take in multiple conversations through multiple channels (often concurrently) and hear what we have to say to them. As marketers, we tend to ‘shout’ and we expect that consumers will listen to us on our terms.

What if, as marketers, we changed our brand conversations to account for such hearing loss? What if we applied the three lessons described above to our approach to being ‘heard’?

1. All of a sudden, a brand’s behavior will become more powerful than it’s words. And, when we do choose to ‘converse’ with consumers, we will use multiple channels to create a holistic and engaging sensory experience.

2. We will acknowledge the effort that consumers make to engage with brands, and we will continuously reward them for their efforts by providing valuable brand experiences that meet their needs and desires as opposed to our own.

3. And, finally, we will approach marketing with greater empathy. We will openly acknowledge that being a loyal consumer isn’t easy. We will treat the consumer with the respect he/she deserves and make a concerted effort to ensure that he/she heard us on their terms, not ours!

In my search for some plausible explanation, I revisited some of the fundamental laws of nature. And, low and behold: I stumbled across something that may just explain what is truly going on out there. Can the notion of “Symbiotic Relationships” explain what is truly happening in the media ecosystem?

*First, what exactly is a “symbiotic relationship”? According to the collaboration of the Wikipedia, the term symbiosis (from the Greek: σύν syn “with”; and βίωσις biosis “living“) commonly describes close and often long-term interactions between different biological species. The term was first used in 1879 by the German mycologist Heinrich Anton de Bary, who defined it as “the living together of unlike organisms.”

If we agree that a “symbiotic relationship” is one where two separate (and uncommon) entities are reliant upon each other for their survival, can we find such relationships in the media? There are several:

*Think of YouTube and the “Tube”…aka television. YouTube was supposed to be an internet forum for creative self-expression. Hence, the tagline, “Broadcast Yourself.” But, what wound up happening? YouTube became an online destination for repurposed television content: memorable scenes from television shows, commercials we like/dislike, and then the plethora of parodies from this content. If you stripped away the content that is some form of a television derivative, what would be left to view? Probably, not much! We can, therefore, propose that YouTube and Television exist in a symbiotic relationship.

*This week, I read of new generations of “Kindle-like” devices that will be suitable for newspaper and magazine content. The articles positioned these devices as “saviors” that will stave off the demise of the newspaper industry. But, what if we looked at the situation through a different lens? What if these new devices can only exist if consumers want their newspaper and magazine content in a portable, electronic form? Can these devices succeed without the content? Probably not. What is truly at stake? Maybe we can argue that the “paper” itself is becoming unnecessary; but the stories, the photography, and the craft of a brilliant journalist is still in demand. So, we may choose to download a subscription of a newspaper or a magazine onto a screen. A new, symbiotic relationship exists!

This phenomenon isn’t new. Think back to the advent of the motion picture film. This transformative medium gave novels a voice. Instead of leading to the demise of the written story, the film industry became another medium of expression for great stories. Numerous films, too many to even mention here, were borne from great novels. They introduced these stories to a whole new generation of consumers. Again, the two media have co-existed for decades and both are doing just fine.

So, what should we do with this thinking? The book “MEdia Generations” by Martin Block, Don Schultz, and BIGresearch call for more intermedia comparison. And, they’re right. We tend to fixate on media platforms as single, distinct, and discrete entities. We measure their growth/decline/engagement in isolation. When, in reality, media work in symbiotic ways with strange, and often unrelated partners. I am looking forward to a time when we measure a true “cumulative effect”…across symbiotic relationships. Imagine a television commercial rating that is an accumulatiion of exposure on television and derivative exposures on YouTube all wrapped in one! That will signal a time when we stop “killing” things and we celebrate what is truly happening in our dynamic and complicated media world.

Enter the “push vs pull ” media debate. In our obsession to classify media channels, we have once again created a line. I will submit that the line is faulty…not a “fault” line in a geological sense, but “at fault” as in somewhat flawed thinking. I do not believe we can distinguish between “push” and “pull” media. Thanks to technology and the convergence that comes along with it, good “push” media has several “pull” attributes and vise versa.

Case in point: let’s take a look at American Idol. As a “broadcast” property, shouldn’t American Idol fall on the “push” side of the line? But, wait…the broadcast show commands direct response from its fans in the form of voting: a “pull” behavior. The show enables fans to engage with both the contestants via fan sites and their music through a relationship with iTunes. Again, these points of engagement are clearly defined as “pull”. If we attempt to cume the impressions generated by the American Idol experience across “push”/”pull” platforms, we will most likely discover an experience that is much more balanced than any label we can apply to the property.

Now, let’s look at the flipside: In The Motherhood, a web-series written by Moms, about Moms. On the surface, this concept is a brilliant example of “pull” media that draws consumers into a true community and invites them into the content creation experience. But, wait! Now the web-series has been picked up by ABC who plans to air 13 episodes in primetime! Can we still classify this property as a “pull” play? Again, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

What can we make of all this? Any good media platform should have “push” and “pull” characteristics attached to it. Where do we draw the line? I have an idea: let’s create a clear line between good and bad content. In today’s age of convergence, any “good” idea will quickly become “mass” as people find it, celebrate it, and perpetuate it. Also, any “good” idea will command involvement by default. It’s virtually impossible not to create “pull” around a compelling experience. On the flipside, it’s equally impossible to “push” or “pull” bad ideas: they just tend to fall through the cracks.

I guess we just discovered the proper use of a fault line!

Pardon my simplicity here, but when you boil the story of the Euro down to the basics it may go something like this, “European countries see the benefits of creating a uniform monetary system to create a common basis (aka shared belief system) on the value of goods and services. A base of common understanding and acceptance will open up markets for the benefit of all.” The Euro did not homogenize the unique experiences, goods, and services bought and sold in each country that converted its unique monetary system to the Euro; rather, the Euro created a more universal alignment regarding the relative value of those unique goods and services.

Why do marketing services agencies go to such great lengths to make their brand and/or channel valuation processes proprietary while they give away their ideas? I’ve been scratching my head over this one for quite some time now. Every agency (creative/media/marketing services) is fueled with the intellectual capital and the data analytics to measure outcomes. But by keeping our “valuation” processes so close to our own vests, we are, in essence, creating a closed economy that cannot truly ascertain the value of our work. Wouldn’t we be better off with our own version of the Euro that measures brand value in a way that all can admire the outcomes of our brilliant ideas? At the end of the day, isn’t the business of integrated marketing an “idea” business? I would rather hold ideas as the most highly coveted and proprietary element of our commerce and give away the analytics.

This idea isn’t new. There already exist certain common standards for measurement and commerce in the industry. The Audit Bureau of Circulations is a prime example where industry leaders from all sides of the business came together to set standards for measuring the integrity of magazine circulation. And, we all benefit. The principal mission of The Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) is “to improve the practice of advertising, marketing and media research in pursuit of more effective marketing and advertising communications.” What if we shifted the mission of the ARF? Can we and/or should we use this body similar to the ECB (European Central Bank) that sets monetary policy for the Eurozone? Is our pursuit of research purism stifling our ability to focus on the commerce of our business: the valuation of brands that are fueled by brilliant ideas?

Imagine measuring the power of a brand idea in our own version of Euros! All of a sudden, a broader marketplace will take notice. And our business of ideas and solutions will be all the better for it!

I exercised my right to celebrate both the right and the left sides of my brain. You see, I am equally comfortable expressing my sense of creativity while weight-averaging cpm’s in my head! What’s wrong with that? Why can’t we be both analytical and creative at the same time? Why do we have to choose sides? Oftentimes, the business world forces us to declare only a portion of our talent; especially in the marketing industry that is separated along fault lines: creative/media, ad/edit, content/contact, mainline/digital, above -the -line/ below -the- line, etc. All the while, the world isn’t so black and white. Life happens in the grey area.

When you study consumer behavior, you will find that consumers are much more adept at “mixed media” than we are as professionals. Consumers will often blur the lines between good advertising and good edit in their favorite magazines. Both are extremely valuable to them. Yet, in a mini survey I conducted with magazine editors and ad agency creatives, the two saw little value in collaborating with each other. Isn’t that odd? Then, let’s look at the recent Sarah Palin/Saturday Night Live phenomenon. More viewers watched Tina Fey on YouTube than on NBC. But, we don’t even put these two distribution mechanisms for the same piece of video content on the same plane: one is called “network television” while the other is a “viral video”. Are we creating a divide that simply doesn’t exist? The truth, again, exists in the grey area.

So, the next time you ask the question, “Are you a Mac person or a PC person?” celebrate the person who struggles with answer and wants to declare “both”. Our industry needs to create a place and a space for shades of grey.