Is MTV still twerking?

It’s 1981 in the middle of Summer and something new, different and unique has come to the attention of the teenagers and young adults of America. Although not necessarily new (The Beatles has mastered music video previously in A Hard Day’s Night) the concept of Music Television hit the small screen and took off in a big way, leaving the US buzzing about the brand and the birth of music video.

Fast-forward 30 years later and MTV continues to attract a young market audience communicating to them through new and exciting media channels. The young demographic has always been seen as fickle, promiscuous and insecure, thus notoriously difficult to please, however MTV has always maintained itself as a stable in the teenager’s media consumption diet.  When times are tough and the brand begins to fall under scrutiny MTV almost always finds a way of breaking through the controversy to once again return to a dominant state. Take for example the 2011success of Jersey Shore which returned MTV its highest ever ratings for a TV series at a time when many felt the brand had lost touch with its audience.

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/110220/the-party-is-over-for-mtvs-jersey-shore

How does MTV continue to come up with material that consistently appeals to the younger audience? Is it by chance that they just so happen to know what the market want to see and when they want to see it? And why has the target audience seemingly shifted from 18 to 25 to 14-17 year olds resulting in content in which some people feel displays the downfall of civilization?

http://twitchy.com/2013/08/26/are-the-mtvvmas-a-sign-of-the-decline-of-civilization-some-twitter-users-say-yes/

Of course none of this is by chance! For years MTV have been tailoring content around a firm and fundamental understanding of not only their target audience but also the changing demographics, trends and habits of the market at a whole to understand exactly whom they should be targeting and what the message should be. Put simply MTV put insights and data at the heart of decision-making that influence creative content and strategic direction. Generational studies are key to the process and help MTV marry up the all-important need for art with the science that helps everyone make sense of it all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/business/media/longing-to-stay-wanted-mtv-turns-its-attention-to-younger-viewers.html?_r=0

 This science is partly the reason why the MTV Video Music Awards managed to pull in an increased audience this year leading to positive impacts not just to MTV but also the artists who appeared at the event. It is the reason why MTV have successfully ploughed through the generations of teenagers and pre-teens maximizing as much of their disposal income as they can and it should be the reason why they continue to grow.

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/08/28/mtv-awards-proves-ratings-and-sales-hit-even-for-miley/

So a little different from The Brand Avenger this week in the sense that this is not an attack for poor decision making but rather a demonstration of how doing customer insight right can impact a brand. So what’s next for MTV to ensure they can keep up with today’s audience? Well clearly the biggest challenge will come in the form of Youtube and the relationship with this platform as it continues to grow in influence. If MTV can continue to adapt its media platform to relate over multiple levels it will continue to grow, meaning we might not have seen the last of Miley Cirus’s twerking for some time. If you thought it was bad now wait until 

What does McDonalds have to do with the Cleveland kidnapping?

Cleveland was well and truly the setting of the miracle this week when three kidnapped girls including Amanda Berry were found alive and well. Charles Ramsey has become an overnight internet sensation following his interviews for the press after his heroic actions. If you have not seen it yet you can watch one here but be warned that it is impossible not to take an instant liking for what the edit describe as an unlikely hero.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5ZzXSYUYrQ

After watching the video you probably don't need to ask me what McDonalds has to do with this? Recognising a viral marketing opportunity when they see one the company have been proactive via their social media tools to reach out and gain some positive, public awareness from the ordeal. This is just another shining example of how viral and real-time marketing techniques can well and truly help build brand reputation and positive brand perception.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-mcdonalds-cleveland-kidnapping-20130508,0,3282572.story

When some of the more forward thinking companies aren't looking out for the next internet sensation to create a viral marketing campaign around they are focusing their efforts on real-time marketing. A recent example of a company embracing real-time is Adidas. It doesn't surprise The Brand Avenger that Adidas are investing more into their efforts to invest in real-time marketing but it does surprise me that more companies have not followed suit. Put pure and simple real-time marketing gets you ahead of the curve and in pole position compared to your competitors when it comes to marketing strategies. There is no better example of this than the YouGov BrandIndex rating for Adidas during the 2012 Olympics which had the sports company as the clear winner in positive sentiment for brands out of all the companies who decided to invest during the Games.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/adidas-to-maximise-real-time-marketing-opportunities/4006566.article

In a day in age where the general public are increasingly skeptical and somewhat bored with the traditional 'build it one size' marketing communication, real-time provides more than ample opportunities to surprise and delight the population. What a way to capitalise on positive public opinion and an overall feeling of adulation and ecstasy of The Olympics then to create a marketing campaign from conception to broadcast in a matter of days as opposed to months.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/12/team-gb-rocks-to-queen

Real-time marketing has also been used across the pond in the US to capitalise on news worthy content generated from sporting events to critical acclaim and positive public opinion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/oreos-super-bowl-tweet-dunk-dark_n_2615333.html

Full credit must go to 360i for a campaign which was turned around within 37 minutes of the blackout that engulfed the most watched sporting event in the world. The campaign was smart, innovative and some would argue the most remembered piece of marketing communication that was produced during this years Superbowl. It is for all intents and purposes a prime example why real-time and viral fully complemented with the perfect mix of social media can work to the advantage of brands.

If you are going to build a successful viral or real-time marketing campaign you of course need a adequate infrastructure to carry the message to the masses. You could argue that this places smaller companies at a disadvantage. If marketing investment is already a struggle to obtain from senior management how on earth can you begin to build a team around some of the newest forms of marketing communication? Well The Brand Avenger would argue that you don't have to be a big brand to capitalise on a specialised team of social supporters to carry your viral message. HP are a prime example of a company who use their most loyal customers to carry the brand on their social sites and this article provides great tips on how even small brands can build similar success.

http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/social-support-team/

If you are a regular reader of The Brand Avenger (and if you are not welcome and you should be;) please enjoy my other blogs) then you have come to realise that there are two sides to every story. Just as it can make perfect sense for companies to look to respond to viral or real-time marketing as soon as possible it can also have some negative connotations. McDonalds may very risk treading on egg shells by looking to reach out to the internets flavour of the month. Charles Ramsey himself has multiple convictions and a substantial criminal record and may bring a considerable amount of baggage with him once the respect and admiration fades; baggage that will be traced back to the fast food big boy.

http://business.time.com/2013/05/08/the-charles-ramsey-mcdonalds-episode-how-a-viral-marketing-opportunity-can-backfire/

We will have to wait and see if there is any negative backlash from McDonalds viral backing of Ramsey. Although we can certainly say McDonalds may risk negative perception  as a result of the activity we can also say that there are plenty of safer ways of embracing viral and real-time strategies. All it takes is a quick idea, the use of a social media tool and a relevant support base to bring the idea to life. If you didn't think you would ever associate someone with the surname Ramsey with McDonalds before then you certainly do after the Cleveland miracle.

hip hop and brand segmentation

Since its humble origins in the the streets of New York in the 80's there is no doubt the hip hop movement has shaped the face of not only the music industry but also fashion, dance, art, so on and so forth. Not only has hip hop influenced so many different aspects of western society but it has also made companies billions of dollars. Not only has it made companies billions of dollars but it has also given The Brand Avenger many a frustrating Friday night trying to simultaneously fight crime and memorise the words of a fresh new beat, ranging anywhere from Eminem's 'lose yourself' to Mystikal's 'shake that ass'. But enough about me and back to the point- Hip hop is big business or 'bizznesss' as some in the industry would put it, therefore the branding artists have created for themselves deserve special attention.

Hip hop's growing influence as a valuable source of marketing investment is testament to a constant evolution of what it meant to be a hip hop artist over the last 30 years. If we think back to the turn of the 21st Century although there were clean signs of growth there were also considerable barriers which were decelerating the chances of an association with big companies and the mainstream. Market leaders have always spent considerable money on understanding how to appropriately market their brands and will use a number of mechanics to carefully alter brand reputation, positioning and image as they see fit. But what do you do when your cash cow is a volatile self proclaimed gangster with the tendency to occasionally start a riot in a night club every now and then?

That's right folks-  the rap industries branded talent assets was also the root cause of its constraints in realising true investment potential. Lack of diversification, controversy and unpredictability are not stable foundations for anyone to even try to build firm brand foundations on. There is no doubt hip hop stars popularity stretched far across a world of young adults but at the same time this created a scenario where hip hop brands like 2 Pac, Ja Rule, Notorious B.I.G, Eminem and Dr Dre consistently appealed to one 19-34 demographic. Simply put the industry was in danger of polarisation and completely cutting itself off from any kind of long term financial stability across other demographics.

Now you might say who cares? What's the issue with hip hop brands only appealing to a certain demographic especially when you consider how valuable that demographic is. Check out a great blog on hip hop segmentation and the power of the 19-34's across the world here.

http://www.audiblehype.com/blogs/business/2008/aug/04/the-no-bullshit-guide-to-hip-hop-demographics-part-one/

This article contains two of The Brand Avenger's all time favourite stats...

1) The collective spending power of the 19-34 year olds is $500 billion annually in the U.S. alone.

2) 37.1% of 15-25 year olds in China love hip hop, the point being that globally there is a potential audience for hip hop in China of 296 million.

Powerful stuff and a great argument for focusing on one demographic across the world, especially when you consider the size of this segment in emerging markets such as China (although I would imagine censorship might play a small issue here). What is undeniable is the fact that hip hop should always see a large chunk of its sales growth attributed to the youth of the times. The themes of rebellion, partying, independence and overcoming adversity tie in well with the general state of mind of this group. Nothing wrong with that right? A significant number of entertainment companies realised a long time ago that if you are going to focus your product on one group of consumers it is best to target those with the highest levels of disposable income.

However, as I am a symbol of brand value, diversity freedom and justice let's consider the other side of the argument. One thing all big manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, and anyone who has anything to do with branding knows is that if you want to maximise your sales you have to offer a rich and diverse brand portfolio. Taking this as an universal marketing truth you could therefore argue although hip hop was successful within one demographic it was also missing out on what could truly be realised through targeting the mainstream and what comes with the mainstream... The vast majority of the corporate investment pot.

This was a legitimate issue and concern for a number of years until something amazing happened. You see through that mysterious process of human ageing the artists began to grow up, the content began to clean up and with it came opportunities for a hip hop segmentation if you like- brand diversification, mainstream acceptance and corporate investment.

Right in front of our eyes the hip hop industry has fragmented and it isn't only the hip hop artists who have benefited from the expansion.

Let's use record label The Island Def jam as an example. Now chances are you might not have heard of Def Jam. Formed as part of a merger in 1999 the entity is a relative new comer to the music scene. However, if you aren't familiar with them check out the Island Def Jam artist page to see how many of the 'products' in the brand portfolio of the company you do recognise...

http://www.islanddefjam.com/artists/default.aspx?labelID=74

Let me pick out a couple of names in case you may have missed them, specifically what I like to call the big three.

Jay-Z

Jay-Z reported earnings from 2012 was $38 million dollars. This year every major festival he will be headlining has already sold out, the key word here being 'headlining'. There is no doubt that as Jay-Z's rap content has evolved around his experiences as a 40 plus male so to has the demographic who buy his product. 10 years ago Jay-Z couldn't dream of headlining Glastonbury; now it is a regular occurrence. Add this to lucrative sponsorship deals with Duracell and Budweiser and you can begin to see how big manufacturers like P&G now use hip hop brands to engage their own consumers.

Rihanna

Rihanna earned $53 million dollars in 2012 thanks in part to a non stop touring schedule but mostly down to the spend generated from her loyal fan base of 12-30 year old male and females. Rihanna's brand is supported with a fully integrated social media strategy which last year saw her rank 2nd in social media influence. Through careful PR guidance and sublime brand management Def Jam has created a brand which can cater for a wide audience while at the same time attract engagement from all industries.

Nas

Although not a top earner Nas deserves an honourable mention as an example of a man who has evolved his brand to cater for an older audience. Songs which deal with the complication of divorce 'Bye Baby' and the difficulties which come with raising children 'Daughters' saw his album 'Life is Good' sail to number 1 in the US Billboard and has so far sold 349,000 copies across the world according to Nielsen SoundScan.

You can't easily determine how much Universal Music Group (the owners of Island Def Jam) have made over the last few years. But when you consider 6 months ago they purchased EMI for $1.6 billion let's just say it's not small change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/business/global/universal-takeover-of-emi-music-is-approved.html?_r=0

There is no doubt that the diversification of Universal's artist portfolio under Island Def Jam and the evolution of individual artists brands has been a major contributor to the bottom line. Whereas there will always be a fresh supply of new brands to cater for the 19-34 year olds the question now becomes will the older demographics continue to rap along with Jay-Z and wipe that dirt off our shoulders whilst grasping to our Zimmerframes in 40 years time? But then again that's more your problem. As i'm immune to ageing I've got 99 problems but getting old aint one.