There are 49 million 8 to 18 year olds in the United States today. They love music, clothing, movies, and television. They worry about their future, privacy, and safety, and they have opinions about politics and religion. They’ve also embraced technology to an unprecedented degree. In fact, technology has been integrated into every aspect of teenage life, from connecting with their friends through wireless communications (calls and text messaging), accessing the Internet, downloading music, and television entertainment. It’s even infiltrated the other quintessential teen activity—defining their own unique identity. Phones have custom ring tones and photo albums. Facebook pages, Habbo rooms, and Bebo pages are means to express their individuality. Try this one on: Today’s teens have never known a time when television was their primary means of entertainment. This is a generation that never had to learn phone numbers off by heart! It’s speed dial, or a quick search of the address-book. The answer to every question is literally seconds away. It’s truly Information at your fingertips and not in your brain.

When we marketers look a bit closer at the 8 to 18 year olds, two key tribes appear: teens and tweens. From a brand marketing perspective, tweens tend to be more brand loyal and teens more brand apathetic. Being the old-time sales guy that I am, I know this means endless opportunity. If tweens are brand loyal, then we need to find ways to either keep them or switch them, depending on what their brand is. If teens tend to be more brand apathetic, it means they are going to be more easily swayed by what they see and hear—so we need to find a way to reach them through entertainment like TV, film, and music, or through conversations with friends or brands online. It all becomes about timing.

Either way, they have a disproportionate amount of spending power for their personal income. Studies have shown that although today’s teens have been pretty vocal about their concerns for their future, education, and the economy, it hasn’t affected their actual consumption at all. According to a recent WeeWorld survey, the economy is not affecting teen spending power. In fact, 31% of respondents said they were getting more allowance money now than in the past; 26% said they get an equal amount. That translates into more buying power, not less. What I have to say to marketers today is: There are 49 million 8 to 18 year olds in the United States today! Take a page out of any parenting magazine and learn how to communicate with them now!

I’ve accumulated some interesting data below that might help your plight.

Teens vs. Tweens
• Teens are more independent in their decision making and behaviour, and the opposite applies to tweens
• Teens are transitioning into adulthood; tweens are transitioning from childhood
• Family and safety is more important to tweens
• Teens and tweens both wish to be seen as individuals; however, teens tend to skew toward independence while tweens skew toward the group
• They both love music, TV, and movies, but not the same programming

Individuality
• Both teens and tweens have embraced technological innovations as a means to create their own forms of individual expression
• Social networking and unique content creation is on the rise—more than half of teens and tweens in America have created some form of content This includes
• blogs,
• Web sites and pages,
• artwork,
• mashups or remixes of popular music, and
• self-created video.

Relationships with Parents
I don’t buy that today’s parents are still the “enemy.” The gap between parents and teens is collapsing, and the new relationship is more teamlike than antagonist. Commonalities create relationships.
• They have similar tastes in music, movies, clothing, and communication (devices and mediums like social networking, IM, etc.).
• Marketers who acknowledge this new allegiance will see themselves delivering better results than those that don’t.

The Messenger
• 84% surf the Web during their leisure time, and it’s their favourite leisure activity.
• TV ranks fourth TV becomes less important with age, with just 60% of teens saying they “love” TV, compared to 80% of tweens. Either way, they’re loving it on their laptop or mobile device more and more.
• If teens were forced to choose between giving up cable TV, the Internet, or their cell phone, 48% would choose to live without cable TV.
• If tweens and teens were forced to choose only one medium, 69% would select the Internet, far more than any other single option.

The “Right Now” Factor
Teens want immediacy, in other words, instant gratification. Online buying of physical product is hard for them because it takes too long. I’m only in my thirties and I remember waiting for everything. I waited to go to the store. I waited for sales. I waited for catalogues to come out. I waited for my birthday or Christmas to get anything. Today’s teens can’t even tolerate shipping time.

• 85% of teens have a cell phone and use instant text messages to reach friends.
• Anywhere. Anytime. A majority of kids watch favorite shows online, whenever they want to watch.
• The Internet makes any friend or piece of information available to them, immediately. And 99% of teens use social networking sites to interact with friends.
• Teens are avid users of on-demand entertainment, with fewer than 1 in 10 exhibiting no on-demand behaviours at all.
• Over 50% of teens and young adults download music in a given month.
• 10% download music videos.
• 75% of online teens opt for instant messaging rather than e-mail due to the greater immediacy associated with IM.

The mall—really?
• Despite the high-profile role of technology in their lives, teens and tweens continue to value personal, face-to-face relationships.
• More than 2/3 of teens visit a mall weekly—not just to shop, but to socialize.
• Malls and retailers are capitalizing on this fact by creating destinations for young people where they can relax, buy products, listen to music, and socialize with other teens.
• Brand marketers also realize the importance of the mall, often creating teen- and tween-targeted experiential marketing initiatives for that environment, typically coupled with music, video games, or other entertainment activities. A couple examples that come to mind are the mall within Habbo and games within Facebook that enable friends to play within their friendship group.

The following are the critical components of success in media planning for teens and tweens:
1. the opportunity to personalize, customize, and self-create (i.e. “user-generated content”);
2. a mean for teens and tweens to network, communicate, and organically generate word-of-mouth;
3. a reflection of teens’ and tweens’ need to multitask and receive content through multiple media;
4. a concession to their 24/7, on-the-go lifestyle through portability, on-demand access, and convenience;
5. a personal touch through experiential marketing support;
6. the integration of music and entertainment into all facets of a campaign; and
7. an acknowledgement of teens’ and tweens’ parents as allies rather than adversaries.

Regardless of the individual strategies and tactics used in ad campaigns, teens and tweens prefer brands with messages that are tailored to them and that authentically speak their language. The most important point to remember is that teens and tweens know what marketing is and will resent any effort to disguise it. Many marketers have fallen into this trap by unwittingly alienating their target audience, most often by appearing condescending or by pandering to them. On the other hand, teens and tweens will embrace products, brands, and marketing messages that are a good fit with their lifestyles and identities. Know your teen from your tween, learn the language, and be authentic. Remember, there are 49 million 8 to18 year olds in the United States today.

* * * * *

Chris Patheiger is a Vice President of Business Development at Redux Media, a leading international online publisher network of top-quality, specialty websites and media representation firms. Chris is responsible for Communications, Sales and E-Publisher of the Redux Blog. He can be reached at chris@reduxmedia.com

Over the last four years, we have seen the birth and rapid assimilation of the advertising exchange across the industry. The ad exchange model, for those of you who are new to this, is a marriage of an ad serving solution for networks with a marketplace. This enables all advertisers and publishers connected to the marketplace to share both inventory and sales, thus increasing their reach and eliminating unsold impressions. The major players in this arena are Yahoo!’s Right Media Exchange and Google’s DoubleClick Ad Exchange.

The real question ad agencies and direct content publishers have to be asking themselves is, why do I need an ad network to have access to exchange dollars? The answer is, many don’t.

The agency business has always been slow to adapt to industry innovations—for really good reasons, mind you. The stakes are much higher when you’re working directly with brands. Quick change is often encumbered by hesitation and vacillating, and this tends to discourage early adoption of new ideas or behavior. With Google’s purchase of DART and the launch of the Next Generation of the DoubleClick Ad Exchange, agencies and advertisers have a system they’re already familiar with and they’re able to increase their reach while either maintaining or decreasing the cost of their previous media spends. The easier it is to adopt, the quicker the uptake. In time, the agencies that take the biggest chances with their media spend and strategy will be the clear winners for both their clients and their bottom line.

Does this mean the ad network will disappear? We don’t think so. As anyone in the ad network business will tell you, the agency and direct advertiser line items only represent one part of their business. The impact will be greater on some ad networks than others. On the whole, they are pretty resilient competitors with a diverse range of revenue options. In the long term, they will take a hit to their ability to brokerdisplay media across non-proprietary, brand named sites. The network(s) that will rise above the feeding frenzy will have either developed vastly superior targeting capabilities, acquired the skills to present their agency clients with integrated media options along side their typical display pitch or built or acquired their own content.

Either way, the line between advertiser and publisher is going to get progressively blurrier as time goes on—and speaking as a publisher and someone who sells media, I’m going to make focusing my points of differentiation an even higher priority than before. Kirk out.

* * * * *

Chris Patheiger is a Vice President of Business Development at Redux Media, a leading international online publisher network of top-quality, specialty websites and media representation firms. Chris is responsible for Communications, Sales and E-Publisher of the Redux Blog. He can be reached at chris@reduxmedia.com

The Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB), in conjunction with PricewaterhouseCoopers, recently released its account of 2008 US Online Advertising Full-Year Revenue results and the news is GOOD. The industry grew by a 10.6% in 2008 which represents a slow down on the average pace of 30.75% rate of growth set in the previous four years. Not bad for the “newbie” of all media.

Internet advertising is sitting squarely in third place in the spending race behind Newspapers and TV Distribution and is closing the gap as it continues to outpace growth of Cable and Broadcast Television (based on Internet’s first 14 years). Internet has already eclipsed Radio, Consumer Magazine, Directory and Out of Home.

Here is a quick summary of the key findings:

• Full year Internet advertising revenues of 2008 totaled $23.4 billion, up 10.6 percent from the $21.2 billion reported in 2007

• Search revenue continues to lead representing 45% or $10.5 billion of 2008 full year revenues, up ~4% from 41% or $8.8 billion reported in 2007

• Display advertising revenues continue to see growth (contrary to industry pundit and guru predictions) of nearly 8% to $7.6 billion or 33% of 2008 revenues. Media formats contributing to this number break out as follows:

• Display banner ads represented 21% or $4.9 billion

• Rich Media represented 7% or $1.6 billion

• Video up to 3% or $734MM

• Sponsorship at 2% or $387MM

• Online Classified revenues accounted for 14% or $3.2 billion, down 4% from the $3.3 billion or 16% composition in 2007

• Lead Generation revenues grew 6% from $1.6 billion reported in 2007 to $1.7 billion or 7% of 2008 full year revenues

• Performance based pricing models have maintained strong sequential growth and have emerged as the most prevalent pricing model since 2006. It’s followed by CPM or impression based pricing.

• Hybrid pricing models have seen the largest loss in %/rev over recent years, dropping from 17% in 2004 to 4% in 2008

David Hallerman, Senior Analyst with eMarketers’ early estimates for 2009 is that the industry in aggregate should come in around $25.7 billion, about 8.9% higher than 2008 – like with the Canadian market, not bad considering global economic conditions. 2009 revenue estimations is a “best guess” at this point and by now means considered “take to the bank”. Not only are 2009 estimates the lowest year-over-year increase for online advertising ever, they still represent a marked increase compared with nearly all other forms of media. $25.7 billion for all intents and purposes will be optimistic.

For more information on 2008 US Online Advertising Revenue and eMarketer News check out www.iab.net and www.emarketer.com respectively.

* * * * *

Chris Patheiger is a Vice President at Redux Media, a leading international online publisher network of top-quality, specialty websites and media representation firms. Chris is responsible for Communications, Sales and E-Publisher of the Redux Blog. He can be reached at chris@reduxmedia.com

IAB Canada released its best estimate of online advertising revenue in Canada for 2008 earlier this week. Along with 2008 stats, it produced a prediction of what will likely to happen in 2009. This data and research supports what Forester Group already identified a few weeks ago.

Here’s the jist of it:

• 2008 Canadian online marketing grew to $1.6 billion and beat out radio as a medium of choice – this includes all vehicles within the medium rolled in together (search, email, display, etc). Search continues to lead the lead the charge accounting for 38% or $608MM. Search represented ~38% last year as well.

• Display advertising holds on to the number two spot with 35% of all revenue or $560MM – Like with search, no change in % composition from last year.

• Online Classifieds was 30% or $480MM up from 25% last year.

• Email revenue topped out at $18MM in 2008 as it did in 2007. Where search, display and classifieds market share was unchanged in the last two years, email marketing actually shrunk.

• The big winner was video advertising growing from 1% / $9MM in revenue in 2007 to an estimated $33MM or 2%.

• French Canadian online media represents 20% of the above. Down 1% in composition from last year but the market has seen its revenue base grow from $260MM in 2007 to $317MM in 2008 – a 22% increase.

• Revenue composition associated with Financial, Technology, CPG and Travel/Leisure remained relatively unchanged from last year. The industry saw a decline of 3% in Automotive, 2% in Entertainment and 4% in Retail ad spend while Telecom grew by 2%. This leaves 32% unaccounted for – growing from 26% in 2007.

The early estimates for 2009 is around $1.75 billion, about 10% higher than 2008 – not bad considering economic conditions. Keep in mind that these numbers are based on companies that disclosed their revenues to Ernst & Young LLP. Take this with a giant grain of salt as not all companies can be depended on to submit accurate revenue numbers and some companies don’t submit any. That said, the IAB has provided a pretty decent indicator of the state of the nation and I think the message for all is positive.

For more information on 2008 Canadian Online Advertising Revenue and more IAB Canada News check out www.iabcanada.com

* * * * *

Chris Patheiger is a Vice President at Redux Media, a leading international online publisher network of top-quality, specialty websites and media representation firms. Chris is responsible for Communications, Sales and E-Publisher of the Redux Blog. He can be reached at chris@reduxmedia.com

The more we talk about the perils of smoking the more we remember to light up. Peer-reviewed studies show teenagers are heavily influenced by tobacco advertising – positive or negative.

Posted by Chris Patheiger

Anyone got a smoke?

There have been major changes, not only in behavior, but also in the level of public tolerance towards environmental tobacco smoke. This, of course, is a result of increased social awareness about the risks of smoking to our personal health. In North America, smoking rates have decreased by half since the mid-1960s, falling to 23% of adults by 1997. Meanwhile, in the developing world, where mass media is less prevalent, tobacco consumption is rising annually by 3.4%.

Increasingly, North American smokers have had to observe government policies or face severe social backlash, if not financial penalties. Go on. Try smoking at your desk at the office and let me know how it goes for you. Media: 1, Smoking: 0. Right? I’m not so sure.

I don’t believe that it’s about education anymore when it comes to anti-smoking ad campaigns. People know smoking is bad for you – that message is so pervasive that it’s crept into our subconscious and is now part of the zeitgeist. So what’s the deal? Why are 1 in 5 teenagers between 13 and 15 years old across the world still puffing away? We know the usual suspects are still at work, like following in our parents’ footsteps, our immediate environment and peer pressure. Along side of that, I strongly suspect that anti-smoking ads, namely those sponsored by tobacco companies not only fail to deter young people from smoking, but in fact encourage them to take up the habit. Nothing is more alluring than the thing you’re not supposed to do. And that allure increases the more often you’re reminded not to do it.

What’s the bottom line? The more we talk about the perils of smoking the more we remember to light up. Peer-reviewed studies show teenagers are heavily influenced by tobacco advertising – positive or negative. Whether it’s the objective or not, the product of most anti-smoking advertising now is simply keeping the topic of smoking on the brain. Young people get exposed to more than four youth-targeted ads per month and a study published in the American Journal of Public Health states that there was a 12% increase in the probability of Grade 10 and 12 students becoming smokers if they watched prevention ads – particularly those aimed at their parents. The message of most of those ads being that parents should talk to their children about smoking, and no reason other than “being a teenager” is offered for why youths should not smoke.

Is today’s anti-smoking advertising at all effective or is it simply keeping smoking top of mind? Are our attempts at discouraging our youth from smoking by using the media making it too enticing to resist? Anyone else feel like we should be shooting the messenger because this time it is their fault?

Some great anti-smoking ads – http://anti-smoking-ads.blogspot.com/

* * * * *

Chris Patheiger is a Vice President at Redux Media, a leading international online publisher network of top-quality, specialty websites and media representation firms. Chris is responsible for Communications, Sales and E-Publisher of the Redux Blog. He can be reached at chris@reduxmedia.com

I had an interesting thought this afternoon triggered by an email exchange around some work we are doing at Wild Apricot.  It got me to thinking about the possible differences between the ideas of “permission marketing” and “inbound marketing,” two terms that I had heretofore used pretty much interchangeably.

The thought struck me when we were discussing the relative merits of taking a piece of downloadable content — for the sake of explanation let’s say it was a white paper — and putting it behind a registration form, so that if someone wanted to download it they’d have to fill out the form, including an email address.  The person arguing in favour of doing this claimed, I’d say rightly, that since we were offering them some valuable information, it was only fair that they give us an email address so we might send them more information directly in the future, which hopefully would ultimately lead to a sale.  This person felt this was well in keeping with the concept of permission marketing whereby, as author David Meerman Scott explained in his book The New Rules of Marketing and PR:  “…if you’re asking for someone’s e-mail address … you must provide something equally valuable in return.”

My counter-argument to this was that, as company trying to practice good inbound marketing (in the sense of “getting found by customers” which is how the term is used around the Inbound Marketing Summit) the best approach for us would be to allow as many people as possible to download the white paper, with the minimum possible barriers to allowing them to get and spread the information.

I think there may be a subtle but important philosophical difference in these two different kinds of marketing, which even Wikipedia treats as essentially the same.  Within permission marketing, there’s an inherent requirement to make ‘asks’ at each stage to move to the next stage of the relationship, whereas inbound marketing seems to imply the ball is much more in the court of the customer — it’s up to them to come (back ) and get more information or to make a purchase, rather than saying ’send me more.’

What do you think?  How do you use these terms? Do you see a difference between them?

*     *     *     *     *

Jay Moonah is the Vice President of Marketing for Wild Apricot (http://www.wildapricot.com), web software that helps nonprofit associations manage their website, members, events and donations.

Pizza Hut Fan Page on FaceBook

Since the beginning, the Internet has been the “great equalizer.” Big brands no longer need to invest huge budgets into broadcast media to get the word out. Online creative was cheap and online media cheaper. For the first time, small basement-run companies could compete or even beat out their larger, slower counterparts to win business. Many of us who were working for Internet startups the nineties remember the excitement that came along with helping to birth the first new form of media since television in the mid forties. Everything was about to change.

Well… everything has changed, again. Fast-forward ten short years and the children of the Internet are growing up FAST. Big brands are looking for ways to personalize their online presence. As “traditional online media” can attest, the focus has moved from the carpet bombing of the old days to one-to-one communications and building more intimate relationships between brands and consumers. Social media has given brands the ability to shake hands and kiss babies on an international scale.

I’ll give you an example: The Pizza Hut fan page on Facebook is close to having one million fans which has given the fast food chain the ability to regularly communicate offers, event info and, well, advertising. All the while, those same million people are judiciously gluing “No Flyers Please” signs to their mailboxes at home. I think it’s equal parts novelty, environmental awareness and the new way we choose to digest our information. As far as engagement goes, having a consumer post on the Pizza Hut fan page wall is a marketer’s dream come true. That said, we’re moving so fast now that this is already yesterday.

Today brands are looking for ways to crack mobile advertising, develop social media and Twitter strategies, etc. The new way to advertise has to be personal, permission based and succinct enough to get its point across in the five seconds of attention span we’re willing to invest. I’m really curious to see what’s next. It reminds me of when we all got BlackBerries, when the technology enabled you to respond immediately and the subsequent social trends demanded you do so.

How do you get any faster then this? How do we get any more personal then being “friends” with Pizza Hut? We’ll soon see because the next wave is definitely on its way.

* * * * *

Chris Patheiger is Vice President of Marketing for Redux Media, an international online web publisher network of specialty sites and channels. Chris is responsible for Marketing, Sales and E-Publisher of the Redux Blog. He can be reached at chris@reduxmedia.com