Recently, I was introduced to an interesting approach to
the “infotainment” trend. Sensationalism was a huge thorn in my side
during my time in Journalism School (second only to the inevitable
demise of the newspaper). However, Infotainment does offer PR
professionals a surprising opportunity to help promote a public health
message. Could Infotainment really have a positive impact on a marketing and communications strategy?
Think about it this way – the best way to market a
product is by getting a celebrity to endorse it, right? So why not make
an important health message the main topic for a popular sitcom or
reality TV show? Find out what shows your target audience is watching
and then put the message front and center where they can’t miss it!
I
found a great example in The Guardian where a local news outlet found a
way to use reality TV to make a real difference. This past summer,
Channel 4 in the United Kingdom hosted a show called World’s Maddest Job
Interview. One of the candidates in the group had a mental health
illness, but the employers did not know who this was. Would they hire
him/her any way? The point was to combat the stigma, “hoping to get a
mass audience engaged in thinking about the nature of mental health
problems.” The show aired on a large number of networks, infiltrating
the market. Mental health charities were happy that the subject was
tackled on primetime television. Although the success of the show was
controversial for some, this form of infotainment provided education and
better understanding among viewers.
Infotainment is a
double-edged sword. It’s fun, happy, and often “sexy” in the sense that
it amuses the viewer – taking him/her away from the problems of the real
world. On the downside, this can make current events and hard news
stories seem depressing and dead beat in comparison. That being said,
more and more we are seeing challenging health issues like obesity, drug
addiction, and depression making their way into mainstream media via
reality TV. It is important that we provide education to viewers, if
these issues are going to receive such an emphasis on TV and that’s
where we come in. As PR professionals, we can offer the health
messaging, health care experts, and important background info that the
show might lack. That way, we educate the viewers and increase
visibility for our health org. Might make for a non-conventional pitch,
but why not give it a try!
This
article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my
graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both
healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better
understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key
role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to
me: camorous@gmail.com.
Sources:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228381/dawn-new-era-infotainment/jonah-goldberg
http://www.advantech.com.tw/promotion/edm/medical/download/Advantech_Medical_Case_Study_May09.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/jul/16/4-goes-mad-mental-illness
10.10.2012
10.09.2012
Power in Numbers
I love the connection that Anne Driscoll (contributor to Mashable.com) makes in her article “5 Tips for Sparking a Grassroots Movement Online.” She says that social action is easy for those who understand the value of service and helping others. They already devote themselves to making the world a better place and overcoming the odds. What Driscoll says the real trick is “turning that personal motivation into a widespread and impactful movement.” This is where in 2012, social media comes into play big time. Grassroots communities are a way to get actionable success even with limited budgets and resources. If you can make these communities go viral, on a global level, you can increase the power of the movement exponentially.
If we take a look at the recent Occupy Movement, it is apparent that the powerful tool of social media is no secret to grassroots movements. The Occupy group did a fabulous job utilizing social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and Google to rally Americans across the nation to congregate in large cities (and smaller ones) and to fight Wall Street, the wealthy “top 1%” – in other words, “The Man.” There is no question that the effort made an impact from a numbers standpoint. Thousands of people gathered in public parks or other locations in major metropolitan areas like San Francisco, New York, Boston, Miami, and Los Angeles to make their voices heard. Social media played many roles here: gathering people to one location in their region, encouraging a rigorous dialogue, and grabbing the attention of members of the media – both traditional and new.
According to Twitter, “over 100K different hashtags have been used to discuss the Occupy Wall Street movement and similar ‘occupy’ tactics.” Twitter reported the following (sample stats for Occupy Movement):
• Top occupy-related hashtags: #occupywallstreet #ows #occupywallst #occupy #occupyboston
• Up to 330K total hashtags /day, 17K different hashtags daily
• Top cities tweeting occupy hashtags, in order: NYC, LA, DC, SF, Boston,
• Top cities outside US: London, Cairo, Toronto
In my opinion, these high numbers are so absurd, but at the same time very exciting. This shows the power of social media to give momentum to a movement. The following question arises…if the movement was this popular and powerful, why was there so much controversy over media coverage? People argue that the movement got too much, too little, and not the right kind of coverage. They make every argument under the sun. I happen to agree with Capital New York’s Joe Pompeo in his article stating that the movement has received its fair share of publicity. Despite the back and forth quarrel about whether the Occupy movement deserves “top story” status, the fact remains that Google News indexed over 2,000 articles and news stories in the first 10 days of the movement. The A.P. published 30 photos, a half-dozen stories and at least one video in that same time period. Finally, CNN broadcast the story on Newsroom, The Situation Room, Piers Morgan Tonight, and CNN International. If that’s not coverage, I don’t know what is.
The real question here is why the controversy in the first place? What makes the media uncertain about the Occupy story? This boils down to the fundamental elements to a grassroots movement and leveraging the social media tool properly. Like any media story, the Occupy movement needed to have substance, meaning: authenticity, a clear message, and it needed to tell a story – not simply raise an issue (according to Driscoll). Perhaps this final item is what was lacking. Although the Occupy movement did tell a story (it told many, actually) it did not always do so in a clear manner. Facts were not always accurate and the stories did not present one, united message. Much of the time, the movement appeared disorganized and lacking leadership. Without a clear communications team working the front lines, reporters in the media got caught up in many of the smaller side stories and the message was mixed. Of course the average story was important; the entire movement was centered around every day people. However, these people needed to understand why they were doing what they were doing—they needed some guidance. The lack of organization also put the movement at a disadvantage when countering negative PR. I don’t believe that there was manipulation of the media coming from the movement itself, but I do think that there was a bit of anarchy and chaos within the movement that resulted in a lack of control or strategy from a PR perspective. I believe that the media can only be “manipulated” as much as it allows itself to be.
There are many success stories and examples of grassroots movements embracing social media in the world of healthcare. One very interesting example is the interactive healthcare movement led by physicians, themselves. “Interactive Health is transitioning clinical care from real-world, costly encounters to virtual, inexpensive, cloud-based care.” This means that the patient/doctor conversation happens virtually, in a safe online space like HealthTap, instead of in-person as health care delivery has traditionally be done. Ron Gutman points out that when looking at this movement, interactive healthcare is supported by three pillars: quality, access, and care. If these can be sustained at a low cost to provider and patient through an online social movement, all the more reason to move forward. There is great potential for social media to support health movements such as these, especially in areas like global health where access to care can be a great obstacle. I would predict that the challenges here would be the human inclination to resist change, as we move away from traditional care, as well as the legal risks affiliated with Patient Health Information (PIH) and HIPAA laws.
This article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to me: camorous@gmail.com.
Sources:
http://mashable.com/2011/08/26/grassroots-online-tips/
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/is_occupy_wall_street_getting.php?page=all
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/09/29/occupy-wall-street-12-days-and-little-sign-of-slowing-down/#ixzz1ZLnzPK5c
http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/10/21/over-100k-different-hashtags-have-been-used-to-discuss-occupy-wall-street/
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2011/09/3533389/occupy-wall-street-media-blackout-myth-plenty-stories-none-them-big http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/02/21/a-new-grassroots-movement-by-doctors/
If we take a look at the recent Occupy Movement, it is apparent that the powerful tool of social media is no secret to grassroots movements. The Occupy group did a fabulous job utilizing social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and Google to rally Americans across the nation to congregate in large cities (and smaller ones) and to fight Wall Street, the wealthy “top 1%” – in other words, “The Man.” There is no question that the effort made an impact from a numbers standpoint. Thousands of people gathered in public parks or other locations in major metropolitan areas like San Francisco, New York, Boston, Miami, and Los Angeles to make their voices heard. Social media played many roles here: gathering people to one location in their region, encouraging a rigorous dialogue, and grabbing the attention of members of the media – both traditional and new.
According to Twitter, “over 100K different hashtags have been used to discuss the Occupy Wall Street movement and similar ‘occupy’ tactics.” Twitter reported the following (sample stats for Occupy Movement):
• Top occupy-related hashtags: #occupywallstreet #ows #occupywallst #occupy #occupyboston
• Up to 330K total hashtags /day, 17K different hashtags daily
• Top cities tweeting occupy hashtags, in order: NYC, LA, DC, SF, Boston,
• Top cities outside US: London, Cairo, Toronto
In my opinion, these high numbers are so absurd, but at the same time very exciting. This shows the power of social media to give momentum to a movement. The following question arises…if the movement was this popular and powerful, why was there so much controversy over media coverage? People argue that the movement got too much, too little, and not the right kind of coverage. They make every argument under the sun. I happen to agree with Capital New York’s Joe Pompeo in his article stating that the movement has received its fair share of publicity. Despite the back and forth quarrel about whether the Occupy movement deserves “top story” status, the fact remains that Google News indexed over 2,000 articles and news stories in the first 10 days of the movement. The A.P. published 30 photos, a half-dozen stories and at least one video in that same time period. Finally, CNN broadcast the story on Newsroom, The Situation Room, Piers Morgan Tonight, and CNN International. If that’s not coverage, I don’t know what is.
The real question here is why the controversy in the first place? What makes the media uncertain about the Occupy story? This boils down to the fundamental elements to a grassroots movement and leveraging the social media tool properly. Like any media story, the Occupy movement needed to have substance, meaning: authenticity, a clear message, and it needed to tell a story – not simply raise an issue (according to Driscoll). Perhaps this final item is what was lacking. Although the Occupy movement did tell a story (it told many, actually) it did not always do so in a clear manner. Facts were not always accurate and the stories did not present one, united message. Much of the time, the movement appeared disorganized and lacking leadership. Without a clear communications team working the front lines, reporters in the media got caught up in many of the smaller side stories and the message was mixed. Of course the average story was important; the entire movement was centered around every day people. However, these people needed to understand why they were doing what they were doing—they needed some guidance. The lack of organization also put the movement at a disadvantage when countering negative PR. I don’t believe that there was manipulation of the media coming from the movement itself, but I do think that there was a bit of anarchy and chaos within the movement that resulted in a lack of control or strategy from a PR perspective. I believe that the media can only be “manipulated” as much as it allows itself to be.
There are many success stories and examples of grassroots movements embracing social media in the world of healthcare. One very interesting example is the interactive healthcare movement led by physicians, themselves. “Interactive Health is transitioning clinical care from real-world, costly encounters to virtual, inexpensive, cloud-based care.” This means that the patient/doctor conversation happens virtually, in a safe online space like HealthTap, instead of in-person as health care delivery has traditionally be done. Ron Gutman points out that when looking at this movement, interactive healthcare is supported by three pillars: quality, access, and care. If these can be sustained at a low cost to provider and patient through an online social movement, all the more reason to move forward. There is great potential for social media to support health movements such as these, especially in areas like global health where access to care can be a great obstacle. I would predict that the challenges here would be the human inclination to resist change, as we move away from traditional care, as well as the legal risks affiliated with Patient Health Information (PIH) and HIPAA laws.
This article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to me: camorous@gmail.com.
Sources:
http://mashable.com/2011/08/26/grassroots-online-tips/
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/is_occupy_wall_street_getting.php?page=all
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/09/29/occupy-wall-street-12-days-and-little-sign-of-slowing-down/#ixzz1ZLnzPK5c
http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/10/21/over-100k-different-hashtags-have-been-used-to-discuss-occupy-wall-street/
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2011/09/3533389/occupy-wall-street-media-blackout-myth-plenty-stories-none-them-big http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/02/21/a-new-grassroots-movement-by-doctors/
24 Hours or Less
We live in an impatient world. With technology by our side, we have come to demand things ASAP; sometimes this means that we compromise quality for speed/convenience. When it comes to news, we cannot wait for the official 6 pm evening news hour. Instead, we will use our mobile device to find out the latest on Google or check our iPhone newsfeed to catch up. We do this while walking to a meeting, eating lunch, or commuting home on the train at night. We do not wait until we are sitting in front of our TVs at home; we make the news come to us. For this reason, I would agree with Twitter's Adam Sharp in a recent article by the Houston Chronicle. He says that the "24-hour news cycle has become a 140-character one." (1) Meaning that social media has revolutionized the news since we adapted the phrase "24-hour news cycle." News is no longer considered "fresh" when it falls within a 24 hour window of time. It has to be immediate -- like a 140 character tweet. It has to be in real-time.
Just four years ago, I remember having a conversation with one of my broadcast professors at BU. We were discussing the term "timeliness." I remember wondering whether I could use a story from the previous day (something on the Celtics -- not my forte). The fact that I was even considering this is stunning. Now yesterday's story is so old, it's already decomposing in the trash. The lifespan for news has changed dramatically. Now, due largely in part to social media, breaking news has a lifespan of a couple hours at most.
The New York Times did a great piece back in May 2012 that focused on a man Joe Weisenthal who blogs for one of the top financial insider magazines on Wall Street. As with other journalists and media pros, Weisenthal works in an extremely competitive field. In order to survive, he "stands apart by starting earlier, writing more, publishing faster." (2) This illustrates what we all know is the rat race of our society and media culture. It allows us to be very well informed, but what are we losing when we get our information so quickly? Is the quality of the content that we read always up to par? Would it be worth waiting a couple extra hours to read something of greater value?
In response to the NYT article, HousingWire interviewed Federal Reserve Chief Richard Fisher about the quality vs. quantity conundrum. Fisher said that he has a problem with journalists who give “too much of a focus on the immediate and the short term.” He said, "This 24-hour news cycle 'often will lead to greater volatility, not just in terms of market activity, but in emotions in the way people supposedly analyze things. There is a lot of information but very little clarity.'" (3) Needless to say, sloppy journalism for the sake of speed is silly. Why put information out there if all it does is confuse and frustrate people? This is counterintuitive to the purpose of journalism. However, I do think that there is a way to maintain a reasonable pace and stay out front with the news, without losing accuracy or depth to a story or message. And there are definite perks to speed...
When looking at the current presidential election and the recent RNC and DNC conventions, it is easy to see how social media has taken over the show. On Tuesday night I tweeted my way through the Democratic National Convention (and stayed up way too late). I had promised myself to watch both party conventions and I was bitten by the Twitter bug, big time! Using hashtags such as #dnc2012, #michelle, and #forward2012, I commented on the speeches and interacted with journalists, friends, and strangers. We were all watching the folks down in Charlotte (I was watching via @MSNBC) and we all had similar questions to debate or discuss. The dynamic and immediate interaction was extremely satisfying. I was invigorated and inspired. Because the conversation was in real time, I ended up making a business connection with a producer for CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta. She tweeted about #MichelleObama and the military presence, noting that we need to do more for our #vets. I chimed in using the hashtag #vets and introduced her to the program that I work for at Massachusetts General Hospital. These valuable connections make real-time news quite effective.
Overall, I think that it will not matter how busy our lives get; we will find time to read the news and when we do, we will expect fresh, reliable content. The 24-hour news cycle expectation is now transformed to what we know as real-time news. The challenge for media professionals is to provide stellar stories and news content, without jeopardizing the quality. I think that this is possible and entirely doable. Social media sites and the internet in general have enabled the everyday citizen to play a much greater role in the media landscape. PR Professionals, journalists, and citizens alike need to work together to maintain a balance between real-time news and valuable content. It is our obligation to ensure quality at all costs. Integrity is the foundation of good journalism.
This article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to me: camorous@gmail.com.
Sources:
1.) http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/24-hour-news-cycle-has-become-a-140-character-3822397.php
2.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/joe-weisenthal-vs-the-24-hour-news-cycle.html?pagewanted=all
3.) http://www.housingwire.com/rewired/24-hour-cycle-vs-quality-journalism
Just four years ago, I remember having a conversation with one of my broadcast professors at BU. We were discussing the term "timeliness." I remember wondering whether I could use a story from the previous day (something on the Celtics -- not my forte). The fact that I was even considering this is stunning. Now yesterday's story is so old, it's already decomposing in the trash. The lifespan for news has changed dramatically. Now, due largely in part to social media, breaking news has a lifespan of a couple hours at most.
The New York Times did a great piece back in May 2012 that focused on a man Joe Weisenthal who blogs for one of the top financial insider magazines on Wall Street. As with other journalists and media pros, Weisenthal works in an extremely competitive field. In order to survive, he "stands apart by starting earlier, writing more, publishing faster." (2) This illustrates what we all know is the rat race of our society and media culture. It allows us to be very well informed, but what are we losing when we get our information so quickly? Is the quality of the content that we read always up to par? Would it be worth waiting a couple extra hours to read something of greater value?
In response to the NYT article, HousingWire interviewed Federal Reserve Chief Richard Fisher about the quality vs. quantity conundrum. Fisher said that he has a problem with journalists who give “too much of a focus on the immediate and the short term.” He said, "This 24-hour news cycle 'often will lead to greater volatility, not just in terms of market activity, but in emotions in the way people supposedly analyze things. There is a lot of information but very little clarity.'" (3) Needless to say, sloppy journalism for the sake of speed is silly. Why put information out there if all it does is confuse and frustrate people? This is counterintuitive to the purpose of journalism. However, I do think that there is a way to maintain a reasonable pace and stay out front with the news, without losing accuracy or depth to a story or message. And there are definite perks to speed...
When looking at the current presidential election and the recent RNC and DNC conventions, it is easy to see how social media has taken over the show. On Tuesday night I tweeted my way through the Democratic National Convention (and stayed up way too late). I had promised myself to watch both party conventions and I was bitten by the Twitter bug, big time! Using hashtags such as #dnc2012, #michelle, and #forward2012, I commented on the speeches and interacted with journalists, friends, and strangers. We were all watching the folks down in Charlotte (I was watching via @MSNBC) and we all had similar questions to debate or discuss. The dynamic and immediate interaction was extremely satisfying. I was invigorated and inspired. Because the conversation was in real time, I ended up making a business connection with a producer for CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta. She tweeted about #MichelleObama and the military presence, noting that we need to do more for our #vets. I chimed in using the hashtag #vets and introduced her to the program that I work for at Massachusetts General Hospital. These valuable connections make real-time news quite effective.
Overall, I think that it will not matter how busy our lives get; we will find time to read the news and when we do, we will expect fresh, reliable content. The 24-hour news cycle expectation is now transformed to what we know as real-time news. The challenge for media professionals is to provide stellar stories and news content, without jeopardizing the quality. I think that this is possible and entirely doable. Social media sites and the internet in general have enabled the everyday citizen to play a much greater role in the media landscape. PR Professionals, journalists, and citizens alike need to work together to maintain a balance between real-time news and valuable content. It is our obligation to ensure quality at all costs. Integrity is the foundation of good journalism.
This article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to me: camorous@gmail.com.
Sources:
1.) http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/24-hour-news-cycle-has-become-a-140-character-3822397.php
2.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/joe-weisenthal-vs-the-24-hour-news-cycle.html?pagewanted=all
3.) http://www.housingwire.com/rewired/24-hour-cycle-vs-quality-journalism
My Advice for Mr. Romney
Last month, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the media on NBC New's "Meet the Press" that he would not do away with healthcare reform entirely, if he were to be elected into office. (1) Instead, he would plan to keep some of the most popular aspects of the president's healthcare law, including provisions for coverage for those Americans with pre-existing conditions.
This statement marks a slight change in Romney's stance on healthcare reform and was received with varied skepticism by the members of the media. The New York Times quoted Romney as saying, "“I’m not getting rid of all of health care reform...Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.” (2) The article put the facts out front and then made a point to highlight a hidden piece to Romney's plan: "Mr. Romney did not explain a significant feature of his proposal: he would explicitly guarantee insurance for people with existing conditions only if they have maintained coverage without a significant gap. That could exclude millions of Americans with medical problems like cancer, heart disease and asthma." By introducing this caveat to Romney's promise, the NYT opens up a door to further discussion of Romney's intentions and his overall agenda. However, the article does this in an effective, non-biased manner -- sourcing health experts from both Democrats and the Republican parties, as well as quoting a more neutral authority figure, health economist Joseph P. Newhouse, at Harvard.
An article in the Washington Post written by Eugene Robinson looked at Romney's NBC interview in a different light. (3) Titling the piece "Romney's health-care dither," the author immediately states that he is confused by Romney's statements over the weekend regarding his stance on President Obama's healthcare reform law. The article implies that Romney, himself, is confused on this point. "So Romney wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with Obamacare, or at least the consumer-friendly parts of Obamacare that Romney knows are popular," writes Robinson. He makes several glaring assumptions right off the bat, pointing out how he sees Romney contradicting himself and totally missing the boat. "To review, Romney was for Obamacare before he was against it before he was for it again..." Robinson mocks Romney for his indecisiveness and apparent lack of intelligence, reminding the reader that the element of Obamacare that Romney wants to get rid of (the individual mandate) is the very key to the problem of "so-called free riders" that Romney himself solved back when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Robinson's criticism of Romney leaves the reader with one side to the story. Robinson says, "My advice is that before making a serious attempt to understand what Romney might actually do, make sure your health-insurance policy covers whiplash."
Business Week reported on the same topic, choosing to highlight Romney's less partisan tone/approach to Obamacare. (4) By doing this, they presented the story with less bias, while still highlighting the differences between the two parties. However, similar to coverage by other news outlets, the article did not let Romney off the hook saying that Romney "has made opposition to the health care law a central theme of his campaign" and that he has been clear from the beginning that one of his first acts in office would be to repeal Obama Health Care Law. Without drawing too many conclusions in the article itself, Business Week presents that facts and lets the reader make a judgment. Of course, which facts they choose to present is subjective and can often lean in one direction or the other. Nevertheless, this publication effectively gives the reader a synopsis of the facts and trends in the current campaigns, in order to better inform their audience from an economic standpoint.
Finally, in contrast to the two more balanced pieces by Business Week and the NYT, NPR's Julie Rovner reported a much more opinionated piece called "Mitt Romney's Shifting Stance on Health Care." (5) The piece has a critical tone from the very beginning, making Romney sound childish and stupid. Rovner points out that when Romney said that he might not want to repeal all of the Affordable Care Act, he is in express violation of his own Party's platform. She makes a strong case against Romney by simply making him appear ignorant and dense; like a child who makes a mess that his parents have to then clean up. Rovner says, "Not surprisingly, it was only a matter of hours before the campaign walked the candidate's comments back."She brings up several other points to add to the less than intelligent picture that she is painting of the candidate, reminding her audience -- like Robinson did in the Washington Post -- that Romney is opposed to the very type of mandate that he himself implemented when he was Governor of MA.
Similar terms/themes are used throughout all of the media coverage above. Namely, these are terms that are specific to the 2012 presidential campaign and/or healthcare reform, such as: "coverage for people with pre-existing conditions," "central theme of his campaign," "keeping some of the pieces," "where Mitt Romney stands on health-care reform." If I were pitching this story to the media from the Romney camp, I would first go back and clarify my message internally with my Communications team. Looking at this from a strictly objective angle, my first thought is that Romney's track record as former Governor of MA is going to make him look contradictory. I have some previous experience working on a political campaign and the one thing that I know holds true is that a candidate must have a clear approach to an issue.
The American people need to know exactly where he/she stands -- the more black and white the better. Of course, sometimes the approach is to purposely put oneself in the gray area, but this should not happen unless intentional. After clarifying Romney's position, I would find 1-3 things about Obamacare that he cannot accept as part of his platform and use stories to explain why. I would pitch the story, leading with the positive: Romney is enthusiastic about these aspects of Obamacare, but cannot accept this health care law in its entirely because...name reasons that really hit home for the American people; stories that they can relate to or scenarios that they can envision for themselves. This is not an easy task and one that I would not welcome at the moment.
If I were to report on this story as a member of the press, I would probably go back to Romney's campaign team and tell them outright that his willingness to keep some of Obamacare, but to eliminate the mandate from the law seems very contradictory. I would tell them the issues that I had with it, but want to sit down to dig deeper into their approach. Better to be straight forward and honest; they may actually give me an answer that I can work with and one that will clarify things for my audience (my ultimate goal). This article touches on something so much more meaningful than a candidate's public image. We are talking about a law the affects every single American and an upcoming election that will determine the next President of the United States. As a reporter, I would see the situation as demanding as much of my in-depth review as my deadline allows.
*For the purpose of this post, I am using the terms "healthcare reform," "health-care law," "Obamacare" and "Obama Health Care Law" interchangeably.
This article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to me: camorous@gmail.com.
Sources:
1.)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
2.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/us/politics/romney-adopts-softer-tone-in-critique-of-obama.html?_r=1 2.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/us/politics/romneys-pledge-shows-repealing-health-law-to-be-complex.html?_r=1&ref=politics
3.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-romneys-health-care-dither/2012/09/10/6e9044e4-fb67-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html
4.) http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-10/romney-says-he-would-keep-parts-of-obama-health-care-law
5.) http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/09/10/160898409/mitt-romneys-shifting-stance-on-health-care
This statement marks a slight change in Romney's stance on healthcare reform and was received with varied skepticism by the members of the media. The New York Times quoted Romney as saying, "“I’m not getting rid of all of health care reform...Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.” (2) The article put the facts out front and then made a point to highlight a hidden piece to Romney's plan: "Mr. Romney did not explain a significant feature of his proposal: he would explicitly guarantee insurance for people with existing conditions only if they have maintained coverage without a significant gap. That could exclude millions of Americans with medical problems like cancer, heart disease and asthma." By introducing this caveat to Romney's promise, the NYT opens up a door to further discussion of Romney's intentions and his overall agenda. However, the article does this in an effective, non-biased manner -- sourcing health experts from both Democrats and the Republican parties, as well as quoting a more neutral authority figure, health economist Joseph P. Newhouse, at Harvard.
An article in the Washington Post written by Eugene Robinson looked at Romney's NBC interview in a different light. (3) Titling the piece "Romney's health-care dither," the author immediately states that he is confused by Romney's statements over the weekend regarding his stance on President Obama's healthcare reform law. The article implies that Romney, himself, is confused on this point. "So Romney wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with Obamacare, or at least the consumer-friendly parts of Obamacare that Romney knows are popular," writes Robinson. He makes several glaring assumptions right off the bat, pointing out how he sees Romney contradicting himself and totally missing the boat. "To review, Romney was for Obamacare before he was against it before he was for it again..." Robinson mocks Romney for his indecisiveness and apparent lack of intelligence, reminding the reader that the element of Obamacare that Romney wants to get rid of (the individual mandate) is the very key to the problem of "so-called free riders" that Romney himself solved back when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Robinson's criticism of Romney leaves the reader with one side to the story. Robinson says, "My advice is that before making a serious attempt to understand what Romney might actually do, make sure your health-insurance policy covers whiplash."
Business Week reported on the same topic, choosing to highlight Romney's less partisan tone/approach to Obamacare. (4) By doing this, they presented the story with less bias, while still highlighting the differences between the two parties. However, similar to coverage by other news outlets, the article did not let Romney off the hook saying that Romney "has made opposition to the health care law a central theme of his campaign" and that he has been clear from the beginning that one of his first acts in office would be to repeal Obama Health Care Law. Without drawing too many conclusions in the article itself, Business Week presents that facts and lets the reader make a judgment. Of course, which facts they choose to present is subjective and can often lean in one direction or the other. Nevertheless, this publication effectively gives the reader a synopsis of the facts and trends in the current campaigns, in order to better inform their audience from an economic standpoint.
Finally, in contrast to the two more balanced pieces by Business Week and the NYT, NPR's Julie Rovner reported a much more opinionated piece called "Mitt Romney's Shifting Stance on Health Care." (5) The piece has a critical tone from the very beginning, making Romney sound childish and stupid. Rovner points out that when Romney said that he might not want to repeal all of the Affordable Care Act, he is in express violation of his own Party's platform. She makes a strong case against Romney by simply making him appear ignorant and dense; like a child who makes a mess that his parents have to then clean up. Rovner says, "Not surprisingly, it was only a matter of hours before the campaign walked the candidate's comments back."She brings up several other points to add to the less than intelligent picture that she is painting of the candidate, reminding her audience -- like Robinson did in the Washington Post -- that Romney is opposed to the very type of mandate that he himself implemented when he was Governor of MA.
Similar terms/themes are used throughout all of the media coverage above. Namely, these are terms that are specific to the 2012 presidential campaign and/or healthcare reform, such as: "coverage for people with pre-existing conditions," "central theme of his campaign," "keeping some of the pieces," "where Mitt Romney stands on health-care reform." If I were pitching this story to the media from the Romney camp, I would first go back and clarify my message internally with my Communications team. Looking at this from a strictly objective angle, my first thought is that Romney's track record as former Governor of MA is going to make him look contradictory. I have some previous experience working on a political campaign and the one thing that I know holds true is that a candidate must have a clear approach to an issue.
The American people need to know exactly where he/she stands -- the more black and white the better. Of course, sometimes the approach is to purposely put oneself in the gray area, but this should not happen unless intentional. After clarifying Romney's position, I would find 1-3 things about Obamacare that he cannot accept as part of his platform and use stories to explain why. I would pitch the story, leading with the positive: Romney is enthusiastic about these aspects of Obamacare, but cannot accept this health care law in its entirely because...name reasons that really hit home for the American people; stories that they can relate to or scenarios that they can envision for themselves. This is not an easy task and one that I would not welcome at the moment.
If I were to report on this story as a member of the press, I would probably go back to Romney's campaign team and tell them outright that his willingness to keep some of Obamacare, but to eliminate the mandate from the law seems very contradictory. I would tell them the issues that I had with it, but want to sit down to dig deeper into their approach. Better to be straight forward and honest; they may actually give me an answer that I can work with and one that will clarify things for my audience (my ultimate goal). This article touches on something so much more meaningful than a candidate's public image. We are talking about a law the affects every single American and an upcoming election that will determine the next President of the United States. As a reporter, I would see the situation as demanding as much of my in-depth review as my deadline allows.
*For the purpose of this post, I am using the terms "healthcare reform," "health-care law," "Obamacare" and "Obama Health Care Law" interchangeably.
This article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to me: camorous@gmail.com.
Sources:
1.)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
2.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/us/politics/romney-adopts-softer-tone-in-critique-of-obama.html?_r=1 2.) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/us/politics/romneys-pledge-shows-repealing-health-law-to-be-complex.html?_r=1&ref=politics
3.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-romneys-health-care-dither/2012/09/10/6e9044e4-fb67-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html
4.) http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-10/romney-says-he-would-keep-parts-of-obama-health-care-law
5.) http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/09/10/160898409/mitt-romneys-shifting-stance-on-health-care
The Burning Question: Traditional or New Media?
There are many perks to "new media," or the term that we used to use in reference to social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, blogs, video sharing, interactive marketing, etc. According to Nielsen's "State of the Media: the Social Media Report" for the end of 2011 (1), 4 out of 5 active internet users visit social networks and blogs -- and most do so from their mobile device/phone (40%).
What is even more interesting is that internet users over the age of 55 (many of the baby boomer generation) are driving the growth of social networking through the Mobile internet. Although new technology can present a challenge for older generations, baby boomers are often associated with a tendency to redefine traditional values, so this makes perfect sense to me. Many adults are now using social sites for online dating, scheduling and administrative needs, cloud apps for storage, and social media sites like Facebook as a way to stay connected to family and communicate to children and grandchildren. Social media is no longer a "young person's" activity. The phenomenon is growing and becoming a very tangible aspect of every day life.
One reality remains: as our society becomes more reliant on social media, are we subconsciously replacing older, traditional media such as newspapers, magazines, and TV news? Recently, many news outlets have focused on this exact topic. Bill Moyers posted an interesting infographic (2) that supports this argument that new media is, indeed, replacing the traditional and this is the year that it becomes official. Many current media efforts are now geared towards the method of dissemination -- mainly, social media. We use the title of our press release as the subject line for our email, our tweet, and our FB post that links to the press release, living on our website. According to the Moyers article, 50% of Americans have learned of a breaking news story from social sites, rather than from TV or the newspaper. About 46% of Americans get their news online at least 3 times per week. Finally, this year online revenue surpassed that of print newspaper revenue in 2012.
I think that this is a phenomenal development; I say that as an engaged user who manages a social media platform for my brand, as well as my own personal accounts. I am on social networking sites on average 5 times per day -- for monitoring purposes and for pleasure in my free time at night. I do not see this as a negative for my personal life (I maintain strong face to face relationships, am an avid reader, and an athletic runner). However, some people do find that social media has a negative effect on our society -- making our "friendships" and communication too dependent on online relationships.
Another negative (listed in the above infographic) is the drawbacks that social media sites have when they act as a place to share important news stories. Often, inaccuracies lead to misinformation (that is shared quickly through networks to reach thousands of people in a few seconds time); amateur reporters can compromise integrity or exploit subject in a story; and length restrictions can some times take away from the depth of a piece. However, all of these arguments against social media can be true of any news outlet (traditional or new) and I don't find that they make for a compelling case. I also disagree with the argument that social media detracts from personal relationships (para above) as I find that it connects me to many more friends and acquaintances than before, and enables me to communicate with them to set up an "in-person" time to meet.
Social media has the potential to do wonders for a marketing platform, as it can be a tool for sharing info and also the glue that connects campaigns within an overall marketing strategy. As a media relations professional, I can share content via social that send traffic back to a website where I have hosted a Youtube video that can, subsequently, link people back to the brand Youtube channel. All of these efforts can happen organically, without investing budget dollars, yielding a huge return on investment. In the field of healthcare, the Mayo Clinic has proven that social media can be an effective, low-cost mechanism for recruiting patients for clinical trials (3). Social media helped recruit larger, demographically diverse populations (ideal to reduce biases)for specific studies. This is something that we are currently doing at Home Base to help recruit for our studies focused on post traumatic stress (PTS) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) research. I will post research content to social media once a week, linking back to the section of our website that explains Research at Home Base http://www.homebaseprogram.org/general-information/research.aspx. All language is pre-approved by the IRB and carefully crafted to ensure clarity and comprehension.
The challenge with social media is to keep a professional legitimacy for your brand, as there is a distinct difference between personal and professional use. For many, the social sphere is still unknown territory and people are still figuring out how to best utilize the tool to reach a targeted audience. See this article today from Boston Magazine (4) on a study that the Boston Globe did looking at Bostonians and their use of Twitter. In my mind, it is all about content. Follow people who provide good, quality links, comments, and posts. If they don't make the cut, you can remove them with one fast click of the mouse.
This article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to me: camorous@gmail.com.
Sources:
1.) http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports-downloads/2011/social-media-report-q3.html
2.) http://billmoyers.com/2012/04/23/how-social-media-is-replacing-traditional-journalism-for-breaking-news/
3.) http://blog.pharmexec.com/2012/02/13/patient-recruitment-via-social-media-lessons-learned/
4.) http://blogs.bostonmagazine.com/boston_daily/2012/09/17/boston-intellectual-twitter/
What is even more interesting is that internet users over the age of 55 (many of the baby boomer generation) are driving the growth of social networking through the Mobile internet. Although new technology can present a challenge for older generations, baby boomers are often associated with a tendency to redefine traditional values, so this makes perfect sense to me. Many adults are now using social sites for online dating, scheduling and administrative needs, cloud apps for storage, and social media sites like Facebook as a way to stay connected to family and communicate to children and grandchildren. Social media is no longer a "young person's" activity. The phenomenon is growing and becoming a very tangible aspect of every day life.
One reality remains: as our society becomes more reliant on social media, are we subconsciously replacing older, traditional media such as newspapers, magazines, and TV news? Recently, many news outlets have focused on this exact topic. Bill Moyers posted an interesting infographic (2) that supports this argument that new media is, indeed, replacing the traditional and this is the year that it becomes official. Many current media efforts are now geared towards the method of dissemination -- mainly, social media. We use the title of our press release as the subject line for our email, our tweet, and our FB post that links to the press release, living on our website. According to the Moyers article, 50% of Americans have learned of a breaking news story from social sites, rather than from TV or the newspaper. About 46% of Americans get their news online at least 3 times per week. Finally, this year online revenue surpassed that of print newspaper revenue in 2012.
I think that this is a phenomenal development; I say that as an engaged user who manages a social media platform for my brand, as well as my own personal accounts. I am on social networking sites on average 5 times per day -- for monitoring purposes and for pleasure in my free time at night. I do not see this as a negative for my personal life (I maintain strong face to face relationships, am an avid reader, and an athletic runner). However, some people do find that social media has a negative effect on our society -- making our "friendships" and communication too dependent on online relationships.
Another negative (listed in the above infographic) is the drawbacks that social media sites have when they act as a place to share important news stories. Often, inaccuracies lead to misinformation (that is shared quickly through networks to reach thousands of people in a few seconds time); amateur reporters can compromise integrity or exploit subject in a story; and length restrictions can some times take away from the depth of a piece. However, all of these arguments against social media can be true of any news outlet (traditional or new) and I don't find that they make for a compelling case. I also disagree with the argument that social media detracts from personal relationships (para above) as I find that it connects me to many more friends and acquaintances than before, and enables me to communicate with them to set up an "in-person" time to meet.
Social media has the potential to do wonders for a marketing platform, as it can be a tool for sharing info and also the glue that connects campaigns within an overall marketing strategy. As a media relations professional, I can share content via social that send traffic back to a website where I have hosted a Youtube video that can, subsequently, link people back to the brand Youtube channel. All of these efforts can happen organically, without investing budget dollars, yielding a huge return on investment. In the field of healthcare, the Mayo Clinic has proven that social media can be an effective, low-cost mechanism for recruiting patients for clinical trials (3). Social media helped recruit larger, demographically diverse populations (ideal to reduce biases)for specific studies. This is something that we are currently doing at Home Base to help recruit for our studies focused on post traumatic stress (PTS) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) research. I will post research content to social media once a week, linking back to the section of our website that explains Research at Home Base http://www.homebaseprogram.org/general-information/research.aspx. All language is pre-approved by the IRB and carefully crafted to ensure clarity and comprehension.
The challenge with social media is to keep a professional legitimacy for your brand, as there is a distinct difference between personal and professional use. For many, the social sphere is still unknown territory and people are still figuring out how to best utilize the tool to reach a targeted audience. See this article today from Boston Magazine (4) on a study that the Boston Globe did looking at Bostonians and their use of Twitter. In my mind, it is all about content. Follow people who provide good, quality links, comments, and posts. If they don't make the cut, you can remove them with one fast click of the mouse.
This article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to me: camorous@gmail.com.
Sources:
1.) http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports-downloads/2011/social-media-report-q3.html
2.) http://billmoyers.com/2012/04/23/how-social-media-is-replacing-traditional-journalism-for-breaking-news/
3.) http://blog.pharmexec.com/2012/02/13/patient-recruitment-via-social-media-lessons-learned/
4.) http://blogs.bostonmagazine.com/boston_daily/2012/09/17/boston-intellectual-twitter/
8.13.2012
Rich Media Ads Bring Home the Bacon
Rich media ads are a
popular trend in the world of online advertising. Over the past couple of
years, online advertising has moved away from the more conventional, static
textual ads and now leans more towards interactive, dynamic content that can be
highly customized for the brand and user experience.
Although they may not look
like anything special upon first glance, rich media ads often come to life the
moment that you move your mouse over the image. Each ad is different and
created for a unique purpose, but many have similar characteristics. They
expand up or expand down; they have a short animation that loops to repeat
itself; or the entire homepage will become customized for the user in what is
known as a "homepage skin." These rich media ads can include
everything from video to online games and they can also include content from
Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook streams, according to Evelyn Rusli on Tech
Crunch. (1) They are defined as those with which users can interact as opposed
to solely animation, and they include such formats as transitionals and various
over-the-page units such as floating ads, page take-overs and tear-backs. (2)
These ads are regulated by
the Internet Advisory Board (IAB) is a committee charged with overseeing all
internet marketing activity and upholding established industry standards. The
IAB plays the role of "sheriff" in the wild west of the world of
Internet marketing. With recent growth of rich media advertising over the past
several years, the IAB has amended its guidelines to better suit this growing
trend.
In general, the IAB
guidelines provide clarity for online advertising and many of the major
stakeholders in the online ad industry, such as AOL, Walk Disney, Condenast,
and Google, have joined the IAB as project partners in the effort to regulate a
fair industry. Guidelines include: ad definitions, acceptable counting methods,
and guidelines for filtration, cacheing, auditing, and disclosure. These
guidelines are “intended to cover on-line browser or browser-equivalent based
Internet activity." (3) They do not cover wireless, off-line cached media
and Interactive-based television because of differences in infrastructure
and/or delivery method. Another important thing to keep in mind is that the
metrics continue to change with the industry; therefore, these guidelines will
probably continue to evolve over time.
Ad formatting allowances
for host sites often varies. The easiest way to better understand the IAB
guidelines is to compare ad specs for popular web publishing companies. I
looked at Media Kits for Martha Stewart Weddings and the New Yorker. Both
companies accept rich media ads; however, the New Yorker is more specific in
their ad specs.
The New Yorker accepts
interstitial (full-page ads that appear before the actual webpage), push down
ads, and video. Ads must less than 30 seconds in length, if video or animation
is used (the price of the ad varies depending on the length and features used).
Video ads can loop up to 3 times, but they can never rollover to replay. Interstitial
ads are limited to 640x480 dimensions, whereas push downs can expand up to
970x418, but they must collapse to 970x66. Push down ads are set by the vendor,
but must push content down and cannot expand over preexisting content. All ads
must be hosted by an approved rich media vendor, which I assume helps the New
Yorker (and really Condenast at large) maintain a standard of quality and
legality. (4)
At Martha Stewart Weddings
site, rich media ads must be hosted by a third party vendor, as well. Martha
Stewart sets some standard sizing limitations, but is less stringent on exact
sizing for each combined advertising option. Instead, this company stresses
that all ads must be user initiated –including audio. The X button must be
visible at all times, enabling the viewer to exit out of the ad at any
time. Any in-banner ads must be
hosted on the homepage; videos can only loop once and must not be longer than
30 seconds. Ads cannot solicit funds or deem the viewer a “winner” for a
particular contest. Any click through feature must open the URL in a new
window, so that the viewer can return to the host site more easily and does not
feel as if he/she has left the page. (5)
The above sites illustrate
the industry guidelines established by IAB, and also the individual allowances
that each company has made for their online media marketing. In general, the
goal is to protect the consumer and to make online advertising a helpful,
enjoyable feature – not something that creates frustration. If that were the
case, it would prove to do more harm than good and would sabotage any campaign
whose goal was to make a profit.
These options are popular
with advertisers because they are popular with consumers. As long as it is not
annoying, the interaction between the user and the ad feature can be a very
positive experience; one might argue that it is reflective of the culture of
the current "social graph" on the web. Simply put, people are more
inclined to pay attention to a product that demands their attention, versus one
that lies flat on the page. The ad directs more traffic to the landing page,
which subsequently results in a higher conversion rates and sales/revenue.
Rich media online
advertising is not only more effective, but it provides the marketing brand
with a much richer data set on its user demographic than the average static ad
with text only. Tech Crunch says that the real value of a rich media ad is
hidden in a store of valuable user data. Not only can you capture the number of
impressions, but the brand can discover how a user is interacting with the ad
and which tabs/services are most popular. It’s a window into the consumer,
his/her online habits and a way to gauge the success of a social media
strategy. (6) This insight allows that brand to refine overall strategy,
messaging, and target audience.
All of these things will
allow for a more cost-effective and successful marketing campaign. Adding video
to a rich media ad is something akin to inserting the "special sauce"
ingredient to a dish. Rich media drives purchase intent, brand awareness, brand
flavorability, balance, and helps better craft overall messaging for the
campaign. When a brand chooses to invest more dollars into video, aligning this
format with the proper target audience (with evidence based research back it
up), it is bound to see an increase in performance rate across the board.
A Double Click research report
released in 2009 says that exposing audiences to a single rich media with video
ad results in an average 1.16% increase in purchase intent among exposed groups
compared to the control group. Using rich media without video results in an
average 0.50% increase over the control group. Simple Flash shows the poorest
results at driving purchase intent. When your goal is to sell, use rich media
formats. (7)
Although it seems obvious
that rich media advertising is the best choice, it is also the most expensive
and is not always an option for a brand, due to budgetary or scheduling
limitations. The price of customizing the ad creative and the cost of
advertising a rich media ad with a host site is much greater than when using a
static ad. For this reason, it is important to carefully choose the ad format
that you use -- and do this on a case to case basis. What works for one
campaign, may not work for another. The most important thing is to plan ahead
and remember that first impressions count. (8) Start by delivering a rich media
ad with video to expose your audience to the best possible snapshot of your
brand. However, if cost is an issue, keep it simple. The ad doesn't have to be
interactive; use static messaging to drive the campaign, but choose video when
possible. Most important, put the message front and center. Don't rely on people
to click on the ad, in order to get the message.
This article is the part of a series of posts that I will make throughout my graduate studies in Marketing and Communications. With a focus on both healthcare and interactive marketing, I hope to gain a better understanding for effective health messaging--which I think plays a key role in a happy, healthy society. Please leave your comments or write to me: camorous@gmail.com.
Resources
(1,6)
Rusli, Evelyn (2010). ClickTurn: Build Rich Media Ads In Half An Hour.
Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/24/clickturn-build-rich-media-ads-in-half-an-hour/
(2, 3)
IAB - Rich Media Creative Guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.iab.net/guidelines/508676/guidelines/Rich_Media_Measurement,
http://www.iab.net/media/file/IAB_Rich_Media_Measurement_11_12_07.pdf
and http://www.iab.net/guidelines/508676/508767/Rich_Media
(4)The
New Yorker - Rich Media Ad Specifications. Retrieved from http://www.condenast.com/brands/new-yorker/media-kit/web/ad-specifications
(5)
Martha Stewart Weddings- 2012 Media Kit. Retrieved from http://www.marthastewartweddings.com/sites/files/marthastewartweddings.com/MSW_2012_Media_Kit.pdf
(7,8)
Cole, Spaulding, and Fayer (2009). The Brand Value of Rich Media and Video Ads.
Retrieved from http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/doubleclick/pdfs/DoubleClick-06-2009-The-Brand-Value-of-Rich-Media-and-Video-Ads.pdf
Washington
Post - Media Kit Ad Specs. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/media_kit/adspecs/index.html
New York
Times Ad Intro. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/ads/Intro.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)