Monday, February 26, 2007
Academy Award Commercials
Interesting how different the commercials are between the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards. Aside from the price difference for a 30 second spot, $2.3 million vs. $1.5 million, the hype, the audiance, the type of commercial are all different. According to USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/movieawards/oscars/2004-02-23-oscar-ads_x.htm, there are standards for commercials at the Academy Awards:
"• No feminine hygiene products.
• No mention of Oscars, the Academy Awards or any kind of awards show. Robertson forced one advertiser whose script included people sitting in the Oscars audience to remove the reference.
• No use of an Oscar nominee or presenter in any ad. Catherine Zeta-Jones' telephone company commercials, for instance, were forbidden when she was a nominee last year.
• No ads that mention or use clips from nominated films. In fact, the Oscars prohibit all movie ads; the academy doesn't want any questions raised if a studio that advertised heavily wins a lot of Oscars.
• No mixed messages. The academy accepts ads from only one car company — this year it's Cadillac — so no other advertiser can show any other car in its commercial."
Personally, I think this is great and a mark which should be repeated more often. The content is the driver, as advertisers don't want to be associated to certain types of content, content should also set policy.
I wish these policies occured with online advertising. What happens more often than not is publishers selling themselves out to the nearest ad network. What that means for most is their content is commoditized under run-of-network (RON) and run-of site (ROS) media buys. This practice provides publishers with no control over who is advertising. Worse, advertisers are targeting content types which often lowers the value of the content and certainly raises the illusion of paid for editorial.
Further hurting publishers is the lowered value of their CPMs. Which typically causes publishers to post multiple ad units on every page making the above problem significantly worse. A downward spiral to say the least.
"• No feminine hygiene products.
• No mention of Oscars, the Academy Awards or any kind of awards show. Robertson forced one advertiser whose script included people sitting in the Oscars audience to remove the reference.
• No use of an Oscar nominee or presenter in any ad. Catherine Zeta-Jones' telephone company commercials, for instance, were forbidden when she was a nominee last year.
• No ads that mention or use clips from nominated films. In fact, the Oscars prohibit all movie ads; the academy doesn't want any questions raised if a studio that advertised heavily wins a lot of Oscars.
• No mixed messages. The academy accepts ads from only one car company — this year it's Cadillac — so no other advertiser can show any other car in its commercial."
Personally, I think this is great and a mark which should be repeated more often. The content is the driver, as advertisers don't want to be associated to certain types of content, content should also set policy.
I wish these policies occured with online advertising. What happens more often than not is publishers selling themselves out to the nearest ad network. What that means for most is their content is commoditized under run-of-network (RON) and run-of site (ROS) media buys. This practice provides publishers with no control over who is advertising. Worse, advertisers are targeting content types which often lowers the value of the content and certainly raises the illusion of paid for editorial.
Further hurting publishers is the lowered value of their CPMs. Which typically causes publishers to post multiple ad units on every page making the above problem significantly worse. A downward spiral to say the least.
Labels: advertising 2.0, online advertising, web 2.0
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
AppleTV
I've purchased an AppleTV device for the purpose of seeing podcasts on TV. I'm somewhat interested in TV and Movie content moving from the computer to my larger screen.
For me, I'm curious of two outcomes from AppleTV: 1. will this be the market making device for TV and movie purchases? 2. will this be the market making device for video podcasting? By market maker, I mean will there be a new critical mass of people buying/subscribing to video content or will this just be a niche device like the Mac mini.
I'm also not sure how high the quality factor can go. I'd guess a single HD TV show would fill the HD. What about sports content? Will AppleTV be the 'IT' for buying sports content?
After I set up, I'll post some results and thoughts.
For me, I'm curious of two outcomes from AppleTV: 1. will this be the market making device for TV and movie purchases? 2. will this be the market making device for video podcasting? By market maker, I mean will there be a new critical mass of people buying/subscribing to video content or will this just be a niche device like the Mac mini.
I'm also not sure how high the quality factor can go. I'd guess a single HD TV show would fill the HD. What about sports content? Will AppleTV be the 'IT' for buying sports content?
After I set up, I'll post some results and thoughts.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Outlook 2007, Re-setting the standard for e-mail to 1995 - The Impact?
In my last post, I outlined a few reasons why it makes sense for MS to take the action of retarding the e-mail experience back to 1995. But, this action is at the expense of User Experience. 'Throwing the baby out with the bath water.'
Will the public stand for this? I don't think time will tell as I hope MS will not see the end zone. A Gartner Research study predicts the majority of businesses will not upgrade for 3-5 years. In the mean time, better solutions will appear. Where will these solutions generate from?
ESPs
Well, one population that will certainly fight back are e-mail service providers (ESPs) such as Exact Target, Constant Contact, Responsys, SubscriberMail, etc.
Their business is delivering e-mail. Therefore, the single most important statistic to their livelihood is the Open Rate. The open rate is now rendered uselessly low. In order to track an open, the viewer must have images turned on.
Since the stat is erroneously low, but still active, customers will, over time, begin to lose the first level ROI for ESP vendors. The second level ROI for ESPs is based on conversions, but as you'll read below, conversions will drop too. ESPs will lose business. ESPs have money and shareholders and they will fight back.
Marketers
Another group will be legitimate e-mail marketers from big brands to their agencies like Performance Communications Group. The goal of e-mail marketers is to increase or maintain sales using e-mail as the channel. Despite people who claim to be 'e-mail purists,' E-mail is a legitimate sales channel. As the messaging opportunity decreases, so does the conversion rate. As an impact, the cost of doing business will go up and so, consequently, will the total number of e-mails sent. An unfortunate outcome adding to the downward cycle of e-mail.
Internal Business Process Guys
A group that has been gaining power, typically in conjunction to corporate IT, are the business process guys. In the e-mail arena, IT and Business Process are or soon will be at odds with each other. As happy as IT is about MS's move, Business Processes should be angry. Why? Because e-mail is used in corporations for more than simple conversations. E-mail is used to increase productivity and workflows. These e-mails require the use of forms, and other actions which may never go outside the corporate firewall. Its Process guys that I think MS underestimates and its these guys that will eventually put forth the business case to leave Outlook.
For your viewing pleasure, Apple's latest commercial about MS Vista:
http://images.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple-getamac-security_480x376.mov
Will the public stand for this? I don't think time will tell as I hope MS will not see the end zone. A Gartner Research study predicts the majority of businesses will not upgrade for 3-5 years. In the mean time, better solutions will appear. Where will these solutions generate from?
ESPs
Well, one population that will certainly fight back are e-mail service providers (ESPs) such as Exact Target, Constant Contact, Responsys, SubscriberMail, etc.
Their business is delivering e-mail. Therefore, the single most important statistic to their livelihood is the Open Rate. The open rate is now rendered uselessly low. In order to track an open, the viewer must have images turned on.
Since the stat is erroneously low, but still active, customers will, over time, begin to lose the first level ROI for ESP vendors. The second level ROI for ESPs is based on conversions, but as you'll read below, conversions will drop too. ESPs will lose business. ESPs have money and shareholders and they will fight back.
Marketers
Another group will be legitimate e-mail marketers from big brands to their agencies like Performance Communications Group. The goal of e-mail marketers is to increase or maintain sales using e-mail as the channel. Despite people who claim to be 'e-mail purists,' E-mail is a legitimate sales channel. As the messaging opportunity decreases, so does the conversion rate. As an impact, the cost of doing business will go up and so, consequently, will the total number of e-mails sent. An unfortunate outcome adding to the downward cycle of e-mail.
Internal Business Process Guys
A group that has been gaining power, typically in conjunction to corporate IT, are the business process guys. In the e-mail arena, IT and Business Process are or soon will be at odds with each other. As happy as IT is about MS's move, Business Processes should be angry. Why? Because e-mail is used in corporations for more than simple conversations. E-mail is used to increase productivity and workflows. These e-mails require the use of forms, and other actions which may never go outside the corporate firewall. Its Process guys that I think MS underestimates and its these guys that will eventually put forth the business case to leave Outlook.
For your viewing pleasure, Apple's latest commercial about MS Vista:
http://images.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple-getamac-security_480x376.mov
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Outlook 2007, Re-setting the standard for e-mail to 1995
I've heard two 'public' MS responses for changing the way Outlook handles HTML e-mail:
1. Due to increased security risks, MS has replaced the Internet Explorer HTML rendering engine with the MS Word rendering engine.
2. Due to inconsistencies between HTML e-mail authoring via the Word engine and HTML e-mail rendering via the IE engine, Outlook is going to use a single engine being Word.
The result of which translates to the following:
* Images Off as default
* no support for background images (HTML or CSS)
* no support for forms
* no support for Flash, or other plugins
* no support for CSS floats
* no support for replacing bullets with images in unordered lists
* no support for CSS positioning
* no support for animated GIF
Consistency?
I think this is MS Spin as I don't accept that a company with resources, market share and vision would allow a lessor feature set to replace a greater feature set for something as soft as inconsistencies. And if it were really the case, you'd build to the better feature set. What I find interesting is the open acknowledgment that there are two engines, that they don't work much alike and its become a problem. "Left hand meet right hand."
IE is Dangerous?
If it is really due to increased security risks, then IE is the root of these security issues and should not be trusted. That's bad considering how dependent Windows is on IE. And what about people that use IE on the web? Are these security issues left unchecked?
Legal Liability?
The legal buff in me says MS is taking a path of least resistance by not fixing security but rather limiting its liability. E-mail is received and Windows users could be exposed to security threats by no action of their own - a bad legal scenario. While browsing is an active action thereby relieving MS of legal liability. "Hey, you should know better than go to a web site which had mal-ware associated to it." If you recall, previously to last year's Gif Vulnerability, users had to actually choose to open an attachment in e-mail. But those simple days are gone and MS's legal liability could be the motivating factor.
Patent Infringement?
Its possible that last year's IE 'upgrade' for handling plug-ins, which is a direct result of a MS's patent infringement, could not be translated to Outlook. Although the weakest explanation, still a possibility.
Anti-competition?
One blogger I read posted the idea that this was the only way to keep revenue from Apple Outlook customers since MS stopped supporting IE for Mac last year. Why did MS stop supporting Apple IE?
Forced Upgrades?
In all the reading I've done, I have not found anyone that has been able to answer the question of "what if someone does not have Word?"
I like this perfect storm scenario: force upgrades to a faltering product line in Office and reduced liability all in the guise of security. Good enough for Washington, DC or Redmond.
-- Web Conferencing - Sign up for a free trial at http://www.isatvideo.com.
1. Due to increased security risks, MS has replaced the Internet Explorer HTML rendering engine with the MS Word rendering engine.
2. Due to inconsistencies between HTML e-mail authoring via the Word engine and HTML e-mail rendering via the IE engine, Outlook is going to use a single engine being Word.
The result of which translates to the following:
* Images Off as default
* no support for background images (HTML or CSS)
* no support for forms
* no support for Flash, or other plugins
* no support for CSS floats
* no support for replacing bullets with images in unordered lists
* no support for CSS positioning
* no support for animated GIF
Consistency?
I think this is MS Spin as I don't accept that a company with resources, market share and vision would allow a lessor feature set to replace a greater feature set for something as soft as inconsistencies. And if it were really the case, you'd build to the better feature set. What I find interesting is the open acknowledgment that there are two engines, that they don't work much alike and its become a problem. "Left hand meet right hand."
IE is Dangerous?
If it is really due to increased security risks, then IE is the root of these security issues and should not be trusted. That's bad considering how dependent Windows is on IE. And what about people that use IE on the web? Are these security issues left unchecked?
Legal Liability?
The legal buff in me says MS is taking a path of least resistance by not fixing security but rather limiting its liability. E-mail is received and Windows users could be exposed to security threats by no action of their own - a bad legal scenario. While browsing is an active action thereby relieving MS of legal liability. "Hey, you should know better than go to a web site which had mal-ware associated to it." If you recall, previously to last year's Gif Vulnerability, users had to actually choose to open an attachment in e-mail. But those simple days are gone and MS's legal liability could be the motivating factor.
Patent Infringement?
Its possible that last year's IE 'upgrade' for handling plug-ins, which is a direct result of a MS's patent infringement, could not be translated to Outlook. Although the weakest explanation, still a possibility.
Anti-competition?
One blogger I read posted the idea that this was the only way to keep revenue from Apple Outlook customers since MS stopped supporting IE for Mac last year. Why did MS stop supporting Apple IE?
Forced Upgrades?
In all the reading I've done, I have not found anyone that has been able to answer the question of "what if someone does not have Word?"
I like this perfect storm scenario: force upgrades to a faltering product line in Office and reduced liability all in the guise of security. Good enough for Washington, DC or Redmond.
-- Web Conferencing - Sign up for a free trial at http://www.isatvideo.com.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Seeing Is Believing
As printed at Smart Biz
Adding video to a website isn't too expensive or complex. It can be a big hit, however: Some companies see a ten-fold increase in responses once they visualize their message.
Seeing Is Believing
Have you tried all the traditional marketing avenues and been disappointed by the return on investment? Maybe your marketing program was successful out of the gate but has stalled lately? Perhaps, you need a novel way to reach your audience that conveys emotion better than current direct marketing strategies.
Internet Video may be your answer. Adding video content to your online marketing mix delivers two to 10 times better response for sign ups and purchases than traditional online marketing efforts. It's also both easier and cheaper than you might think.
New Orleans-based Tulane University is a great example of how video can be used to reach your audience in a memorable and captivating way.
Four months after Hurricane Katrina hit, forcing Tulane to close and its students to flee the area, Tulane needed to tell students, faculty and staff when it was time to return to class. Unfortunately, many no longer were reachable at the postal address the university had on file. Some lost their homes in the storm and were living with friends and relatives; others had just moved on.
Tulane decided to use its e-zine (online magazine delivered via email) to reach students and faculty, figuring that most people hang onto their email address even if they’ve moved locations. A video message from Tulane President Scott Cowen was included to make the e-zine more captivating.
The placement of the video player in the upper right of the e-zine allowed recipients to read a welcome message, view a calendar and post comments while a heartfelt video was playing. In addition, buttons under the video enabled recipients to contribute to the Tulane rebuilding fund and read about the rebuilding progress.
The newsletter can be viewed at tulane.isatnewsletters.com
The e-zine worked: the average viewer read 75 percent of the pages, watched the video at least once for nearly 20,000 total minutes of video and caused one in three viewers to click to the Tulane online donation area.
In addition to using video in e-zines and email, think about using video on websites, in banner ads and in podcasting (a multimedia file that viewers download to their computer or iPod).
Big Impact, Small Cost
Incorporating video on your website and in banner ads is an inexpensive way to compete with larger companies with bigger budgets.
Newhomesource.com, a site for home builders and owners, uses video to educate viewers and sell building products. User interaction time has increased by over one minute per screen since including video. This is about 30 percent longer than traditional websites. In general, original video with very direct messaging and training videos have greater impact than repurposed commercials.
If you are an expert in your industry, a video podcast provides an interesting venue for your message. Subjects you can talk about include industry trends and forecasts, industry news, new methods, etc. This works especially well in commoditized businesses in which it’s difficult to create brand awareness without spending a fortune.
For example, a mortgage broker (definitely a commoditized business) can break apart from the competition and not compete on price by creating a podcast that gives helpful information about home buying and selling. If he’s good, he might attract advertisers in non-competing businesses that want to advertise on the podcast.
Finally, video can play an important role in one-to-one, private communications to clients and employees. Robert Morris College in Chicago follows up with prospective students using a video postcard that humanizes the college and keeps the relationship alive during the long process of searching for a school.
How to Get Started
Here are some tips for getting started:
State your message. Outline your entire message—words and images. Decide which visuals will illustrate your message points.
Decide how you will present your message. You can use a person to narrate your video or actually “star” in it. Be clear about the tone and feeling you are trying to convey.
Develop a call to action. Like other marketing tactics, a call to action is important. This is what drives someone to act on your offer. Do you want the recipient to call for more information, buy your product, email you? What is the time frame in which you want them to act?
Record and produce the video. You can do this yourself or hire an expert to help you. For professional-looking video, it’s best to hire a specialist. If you decide to do it yourself, you’ll need to record your video with a camcorder, digital camera or your computer’s camera. It is important to pay close attention to auxiliary factors such as ancillary sound, unflattering lighting, irregular volume levels, etc. Manual video editing can be accomplished with software available for both PCs (Windows Movie Maker) and Macs (iMovie or Final Cut). Automated video production can be done on sites such as www.isatvideo.com.
Create a step-down strategy. Make sure your recipients can view your video. Since many people disable images in email, including video, make sure you have an alternative way for them to access your video. This can be accomplished using a live link to a microsite or hiring an expert who understands online marketing.
For more information visit www.performcom.com
Adding video to a website isn't too expensive or complex. It can be a big hit, however: Some companies see a ten-fold increase in responses once they visualize their message.
Seeing Is Believing
Have you tried all the traditional marketing avenues and been disappointed by the return on investment? Maybe your marketing program was successful out of the gate but has stalled lately? Perhaps, you need a novel way to reach your audience that conveys emotion better than current direct marketing strategies.
Internet Video may be your answer. Adding video content to your online marketing mix delivers two to 10 times better response for sign ups and purchases than traditional online marketing efforts. It's also both easier and cheaper than you might think.
New Orleans-based Tulane University is a great example of how video can be used to reach your audience in a memorable and captivating way.
Four months after Hurricane Katrina hit, forcing Tulane to close and its students to flee the area, Tulane needed to tell students, faculty and staff when it was time to return to class. Unfortunately, many no longer were reachable at the postal address the university had on file. Some lost their homes in the storm and were living with friends and relatives; others had just moved on.
Tulane decided to use its e-zine (online magazine delivered via email) to reach students and faculty, figuring that most people hang onto their email address even if they’ve moved locations. A video message from Tulane President Scott Cowen was included to make the e-zine more captivating.
The placement of the video player in the upper right of the e-zine allowed recipients to read a welcome message, view a calendar and post comments while a heartfelt video was playing. In addition, buttons under the video enabled recipients to contribute to the Tulane rebuilding fund and read about the rebuilding progress.
The newsletter can be viewed at tulane.isatnewsletters.com
The e-zine worked: the average viewer read 75 percent of the pages, watched the video at least once for nearly 20,000 total minutes of video and caused one in three viewers to click to the Tulane online donation area.
In addition to using video in e-zines and email, think about using video on websites, in banner ads and in podcasting (a multimedia file that viewers download to their computer or iPod).
Big Impact, Small Cost
Incorporating video on your website and in banner ads is an inexpensive way to compete with larger companies with bigger budgets.
Newhomesource.com, a site for home builders and owners, uses video to educate viewers and sell building products. User interaction time has increased by over one minute per screen since including video. This is about 30 percent longer than traditional websites. In general, original video with very direct messaging and training videos have greater impact than repurposed commercials.
If you are an expert in your industry, a video podcast provides an interesting venue for your message. Subjects you can talk about include industry trends and forecasts, industry news, new methods, etc. This works especially well in commoditized businesses in which it’s difficult to create brand awareness without spending a fortune.
For example, a mortgage broker (definitely a commoditized business) can break apart from the competition and not compete on price by creating a podcast that gives helpful information about home buying and selling. If he’s good, he might attract advertisers in non-competing businesses that want to advertise on the podcast.
Finally, video can play an important role in one-to-one, private communications to clients and employees. Robert Morris College in Chicago follows up with prospective students using a video postcard that humanizes the college and keeps the relationship alive during the long process of searching for a school.
How to Get Started
Here are some tips for getting started:
State your message. Outline your entire message—words and images. Decide which visuals will illustrate your message points.
Decide how you will present your message. You can use a person to narrate your video or actually “star” in it. Be clear about the tone and feeling you are trying to convey.
Develop a call to action. Like other marketing tactics, a call to action is important. This is what drives someone to act on your offer. Do you want the recipient to call for more information, buy your product, email you? What is the time frame in which you want them to act?
Record and produce the video. You can do this yourself or hire an expert to help you. For professional-looking video, it’s best to hire a specialist. If you decide to do it yourself, you’ll need to record your video with a camcorder, digital camera or your computer’s camera. It is important to pay close attention to auxiliary factors such as ancillary sound, unflattering lighting, irregular volume levels, etc. Manual video editing can be accomplished with software available for both PCs (Windows Movie Maker) and Macs (iMovie or Final Cut). Automated video production can be done on sites such as www.isatvideo.com.
Create a step-down strategy. Make sure your recipients can view your video. Since many people disable images in email, including video, make sure you have an alternative way for them to access your video. This can be accomplished using a live link to a microsite or hiring an expert who understands online marketing.
For more information visit www.performcom.com
Sunday, February 04, 2007
SuperBowl Interactive
The videos of all those SuperBowl commercials can be found here: http://adage.com/superbowlspots07/category.php?search_criteria=Super%20Bowl%20XLI
Which is the point of this post. The ads came with an online promotional element. Not only can they be found at Ad Age, but CBS actually had a spot promoting the ads at http://www.cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/postseason/superads. A nice addition to the :30 buy. This way, we'll find all the ads in once place, nicely sorted by quarter - a great user experience. Well, except they don't use flash video so not everyone can view them at CBS, but Ad Age is available.
So, my point here is that the game within the game of commercial watching and scoring has an integral online element. I'd like to see these work their way into more online channels such as banners.
My take on the ads
Best:
Toyota Tundra spots. Well produced, good product demonstration. If I was in the market I'd have to test drive one, what more can you ask from a car commercial.
Best Honorable Mentions:
Coke - Feel good when drinking Coke, nice message and clear presentations
Taco Bell - Not off the wall, but effectively different
Emerald Nuts - It was nuts and it demonstrated a real product value
Heart Association - The most creative of the bunch
Worst:
eTrade. How many spots did they have? What is their message? I'd think trust and reliability would be important for online security trading, not attitude and "it only takes one finger" to flip off the boss.
Worst Honorable Mentions:
Snicker Kiss - The jokes over, now you're just making people angry or uneasy. Neither is a good advertising objective.
GM's car wash - I don't get it. What is the message? Value proposition is...?
Doritos, Bud and Sierra Mist spots were funny but did nothing toward motivating me. In fact, I had to go back through the list to remember these commercials even aired and each brand aired several spots.
Bizarre:
Wild Hogs, what kind of a movie is that going to be?
What are you thinking:
The GM robot. Robot Suicide? Robot line workers getting fired when Human line workers are getting fired everyday?
Not mentioned by anyone else:
Survivor ads. I counted over 5 spots with an internal charge back of over $10 million. Where is the ROI? How many new viewers will be converted to watch the show? How many do they need to justify the cost?
Which is the point of this post. The ads came with an online promotional element. Not only can they be found at Ad Age, but CBS actually had a spot promoting the ads at http://www.cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/postseason/superads. A nice addition to the :30 buy. This way, we'll find all the ads in once place, nicely sorted by quarter - a great user experience. Well, except they don't use flash video so not everyone can view them at CBS, but Ad Age is available.
So, my point here is that the game within the game of commercial watching and scoring has an integral online element. I'd like to see these work their way into more online channels such as banners.
My take on the ads
Best:
Toyota Tundra spots. Well produced, good product demonstration. If I was in the market I'd have to test drive one, what more can you ask from a car commercial.
Best Honorable Mentions:
Coke - Feel good when drinking Coke, nice message and clear presentations
Taco Bell - Not off the wall, but effectively different
Emerald Nuts - It was nuts and it demonstrated a real product value
Heart Association - The most creative of the bunch
Worst:
eTrade. How many spots did they have? What is their message? I'd think trust and reliability would be important for online security trading, not attitude and "it only takes one finger" to flip off the boss.
Worst Honorable Mentions:
Snicker Kiss - The jokes over, now you're just making people angry or uneasy. Neither is a good advertising objective.
GM's car wash - I don't get it. What is the message? Value proposition is...?
Doritos, Bud and Sierra Mist spots were funny but did nothing toward motivating me. In fact, I had to go back through the list to remember these commercials even aired and each brand aired several spots.
Bizarre:
Wild Hogs, what kind of a movie is that going to be?
What are you thinking:
The GM robot. Robot Suicide? Robot line workers getting fired when Human line workers are getting fired everyday?
Not mentioned by anyone else:
Survivor ads. I counted over 5 spots with an internal charge back of over $10 million. Where is the ROI? How many new viewers will be converted to watch the show? How many do they need to justify the cost?
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Free Video Postcards to Bears and Colts Offered by Performance Communications Group
As printed in Digital50.com
CHICAGO-(Business Wire)-February 1, 2007 - Super Bowl fans wanting to wish the Chicago Bears or Indianapolis Colts good luck can do so free of charge by using a video post card service from Performance Communications Group (PCG), an interactive marketing agency located in Chicago.
Fans can log onto bears.isatvideo.com or colts.isatvideo.com, record a short video using their webcam and PCG will forward the video to the teams. Fans also have the ability to send a copy of the video to a friend.
"There is a lot of excitement—especially in the Midwest—about this year's contest between Chicago and Indianapolis. Video postcards are a great way for fans to reach out and feel like they are part of the action," said Scott Madlener, executive vice president, interactive strategies at PCG.
The video postcards are powered by PCG's patent-pending ISAT solution, which integrates multimedia, security, portability and advertisers' eBusiness processes into one online user experience. Video postcards are used often at tradeshows to increase booth traffic for companies wanting to break through the clutter of busy shows, and by companies to send out product demonstrations and training messages to the field.
About PCG
Performance Communications Group (PCG) brings together technology, strategies and services to support a broad range of online advertising and sales efforts. PCG's Internet Secured Application Technology (ISAT) is an evolution in online advertising that radically improves the relevance and usefulness of banners for businesses and consumers. Companies such as Whirlpool Corporation and Sysco Corporation have improved their communications and driven meaningful ROI utilizing PCG solutions and strategies. PCG is based in Chicago. Additional information can be found at www.performcom.com
CHICAGO-(Business Wire)-February 1, 2007 - Super Bowl fans wanting to wish the Chicago Bears or Indianapolis Colts good luck can do so free of charge by using a video post card service from Performance Communications Group (PCG), an interactive marketing agency located in Chicago.
Fans can log onto bears.isatvideo.com or colts.isatvideo.com, record a short video using their webcam and PCG will forward the video to the teams. Fans also have the ability to send a copy of the video to a friend.
"There is a lot of excitement—especially in the Midwest—about this year's contest between Chicago and Indianapolis. Video postcards are a great way for fans to reach out and feel like they are part of the action," said Scott Madlener, executive vice president, interactive strategies at PCG.
The video postcards are powered by PCG's patent-pending ISAT solution, which integrates multimedia, security, portability and advertisers' eBusiness processes into one online user experience. Video postcards are used often at tradeshows to increase booth traffic for companies wanting to break through the clutter of busy shows, and by companies to send out product demonstrations and training messages to the field.
About PCG
Performance Communications Group (PCG) brings together technology, strategies and services to support a broad range of online advertising and sales efforts. PCG's Internet Secured Application Technology (ISAT) is an evolution in online advertising that radically improves the relevance and usefulness of banners for businesses and consumers. Companies such as Whirlpool Corporation and Sysco Corporation have improved their communications and driven meaningful ROI utilizing PCG solutions and strategies. PCG is based in Chicago. Additional information can be found at www.performcom.com
