Ideas

Q: How I will find another company with whom I will share a co-op commercial?
A: Well this service would find possible matches and list companies trying to target the same type of audience. Ex. The company would fill out a form for what type, time, target audience, etc... Then an algorithm would match the similar companies up with each other.

Q: What about conflicting companies?
A: Conflicting messages and branding are not going to be a problem. If there is a situations in which you don't want a particular advertiser to co-op with you. Ex. Your leading to competitors. You can simply get pared with another group of advertisers.

Q: What about long names?
A: If this is a problem a separate page can be made with all of the co-op advertisers links for each commercial with a short domain address.

Q: What are the sources for your statistics?
A: Just to name a few:
Zenith Media: http://www.zenithmedia.com
Nielsen Media Research: http://www.nielsenmedia.com
Readership Institute: http://www.readership.org

Q: Is this going to be a bunch of short ads or one long ad.
A: The main idea is to make one coherent long ad that will fit the entire regular time slot or ad space. There will be multiple companies advertised and each showings there message. However they will flow, it is not just a bunch of short clips. Although nothing is stopping it from being a bunch of short clips if the advertisers so chose.

Q: How much time would each advertiser typically get?
A: Depends on the media type, costs involved and number of contributors.

Q: Is the service web-based?
A: Most likely it will be a web based service to make it convenient for advertisers.

Q: What are the costs currently for these types of ads?
A: Average Price Ranges
--------------------------------------
Television:
Local: $10-$500
Regular TV: $90 to $2,500
Cable/Satellite: $10 to $2,000
Prime Time: $20,000 to $300,000
Super Bowl: 2 to 2.5 Million
Infomercial: $20,000 to $250,000 (1/2 Hour to Hour+)
--------------------------------------
Radio:
Average Time Slot: $5 to $120
Prime Time Slot: $200 to $400
--------------------------------------
Magazine:
Single-Page: $500 to $30,000
Inside Front/Back Cover:$750 to $60,000
Other Premium Position: $600 to $50,000
--------------------------------------

Q: Can an individual company get to pick who it's branded alongside, or is it mix and match, or is that option chosen (by price)?
A: They are matched up by what they are looking for in an ad. So lets say one company wanted a TV ad that targeted a certain audience or TV show and they sell widgets. Then the site would match up as many similar thinking advertisers. From there they could either get a list and chose or just receive the assortment they are given.
One other idea is to just list them all and let the advertisers form their own group all together.

Q: How will you marshal the resources to be in the ad business?
A: The same way current companies control resources. Obviously the model is not going to be exactly the same. But, for the most part it is run in a similar manner.

Q: Why do you think your shared idea is a breakthrough?
A: It lets more people enter the market that would like to get in on the action. Because with the current system they can't enter in and play with the big boys.

Q: Why would any small businesses want such large audiences?
A: When you are a business growing is a good thing, making sales is a good thing, more customers is a good thing. Companies want to grow and make money.

Q: How will order be arranged, who goes first, second, third?
A: It depends on they type of message they are trying to make. There are several way to arrange the order in a way that all advertisers can agree with.

For example:
You could have all of them featured at the same time or make them bid on the available percentages or parts. That way there is no more disputes and if they want to they can work-out a reasonable price they all agreed on. (Currently this is the way traditional ads work.)

Q: What are some other ways this can save money compared to a company going in for itself.
A: One major thing to point out is: Most media publishers give discounts for larger ads and more frequent ads. This would help benefit us because with cooperative ads we could take full advantage of this discount rate.

Q: Will existing TV, radio and magazine companies lose money?
A: No, they actually have more customers that are buying the same ad format for the same price they charge normally.

Lets say you are a magazine and you have a few pages for ads.
You use to have one customer: A big company buys each page for $1
But, now with because of us you have two customers:
A big company buys each page for $1 and a group of small company's buys each page for $1

Q: Will existing TV, radio and magazine companies have to change there system?
A: No, they don't have to change a thing.

Q: Is there anything that stops major corporations (like Google) from taking over?
A: There is nothing stopping them, but is there really any market major corporations can't monopolize or buy out.

Q: Do you think there will be enough exposure time for all involved advertisers to make a memorable impression?
A: I think there will be a chance for it to work it seems like it would be plenty of time to make a memorable impression.

Q: Will you be producing the ads for people as well?
A: Yes, in-house or outsourcing the development to other marketing production companies.

Q: Dividing a spot dilute you campaign?
A: In the advertising world it is a double edged sword. It depends a lot on the style and format on the ad.

Small companies would see improvement because there image is more drawn out and coherent There small company can act like a larger company.

Larger companies would benefit from repetition. Because there ad can be spread out longer and reinforce there key points.

It all will come down to the style format of the campaign. This idea will only work for certain sets of campaigns if you are trying to upscale the target market.

Q: Can we establish that each and every prospect for this project is small and local player?
A: I would say most are smaller players, Our bread and butter will be Internet sites and small business. Also, a large majority of internet based companies would like national campaigns. While the small companies not on the internet are more local.

(in the previous submission you wrote)> The idea is to make a solid concept of singular coherent design ((...)) not make them look like a bunch of small ads ((...)) Big company's can spend the same amount and actually get more exposure

That's promising but you don't explain how such magic will be accomplished. Enhancing audience impact is what existing advertising companies do. Doing so by timing repetitions and have some spots somewhat "interact" with others (the first one is intriguing, another explains...) is already done.

If an efficient scheduling of a set of ads optimizes its impact we can say that, maybe up to a limit, longer sets are better ones. As your customers will not want to pay more in order to occupy more time/space in a set (the limit, for them, is the cost of an individual spot) you will have to shove more customers in a set, which will increase 'collisions' between competitors.

> make one coherent long ad that will fit the entire regular time slot or ad space. There will be multiple companies advertised and each showings there message. However they will flow, it is not just a bunch of short clips.

From what I know many advertising producers have hard time satisfying the customer, when it comes to define exactly what will be broadcasted. The customer insists upon weird things, refuses clever and known-to-be-efficient tricks, and so on. Some have to realize numerous versions. If this is true you may have very hard times obtaining multiple-customers green lights for the same spot.

> Will existing TV, radio and magazine companies lose money?
> A: No, they actually have more customers that are buying the same ad format for the same price they charge normally.

Your co-op buys sets of ads slots, somewhat wholesale, therefore it pays less than the very same bunch of announcers each buying his own slot. Moreover the co-op probably has to benefit from all this, and obtaining a margin by negotiating a lower price for the set of ad slots makes sense. No seller likes co-op replacing individual buyers!

> Q: Why would any small businesses want such large audiences?
A: When you are a business growing is a good thing, making sales is a good thing

Most small biz just cannot compete at the national level (supply chain, sheer volumes therefore price tags...) and exist because they are near their customers. Therefore your customers will be smalls willing to become big. When you will claim, for them, ad space where usually only the big boys rent space, the broadcaster will probably decline (or, more probably, disclose it to the big boys as a threatening menace, in order to raise his price tag) because he does not want to indispose the big boys for a new customer who may quickly disappear.

My idea, posted in your previous submission ("we need something between mutualisation and co-branding. We need to orchestrate the fact that the website of one of your customer will promote the website of another one.") stands, IMHO.

New idea, more compatible with your concept: most movies are now somewhat sponsored by various brands, and the audience sees the products in action. Let's say that the ad is... not an ad, but a short (film or narrated/played audio story), where the products are displayed in surprising ways, action-packed and occupying multiple slots during ad time (maybe separate for each other, as a courtesy to other advertisers because the audience focus will be aroused). A partnership with a scenarist and director (movie, TV) will do.

"That's promising but you don't explain how such magic will be accomplished."
There are two parts to this first part "singular coherent design":
Imagine a pretty girl walking down the street, wearing calvin klein designer products then she looks at a guy in a shop and asks for a Pepsi?

What is she selling the clothing or the soft drink? The answer is none of the above because she is selling a concept. Both products share the same thing the concept.

There are many ways to share the same concept. It just has to be linked to a single theme. It need not even be linked so closely as I described.

I will see if I can make some prototypes to show more about what I am talking about. It is kind of hard to explain with words alone.

Now, the second part "spend the same amount and actually get more exposure" If you are a big company you could make one ad and have your message shown one time. But, if you spend that same amount of money for a part of three separate ads. You can reinforce your message to the viewer. It is a lot like pablo's dog.

"No seller likes co-op replacing individual buyers!"
If you are a seller then you want to move as much of your product as fast as you can. Sellers want to sell in bulk. Because it benefits them more to sell in larger amounts.

"hard times obtaining multiple-customers green lights for the same spot."
Well, there are many levels of just how close the products have to be linked. I think it might be a little harder if it was very close. But, I think as long as they keep just a little distance between the ads it will work. It is hard to say for sure just how easy or hard it will be without doing a market test.

"Most small biz just cannot compete at the national level"
Internet company's all ready play on the global level. While this might be true for small company's (non-internet based). They can still use this idea for there local market. Because all Television, radio and magazines are distributed through a drop down of scales. For example, your local news is not broadcast on the national channel. But, it is really in affiliation with the national news channel. (broadcast nationally)

> a pretty girl walking down the street, wearing calvin klein designer

It is a good idea, but it is already used, as I wrote: "most movies are now somewhat sponsored by various brands, and the audience sees the products in action". Moreover people pay and move to see a movie, therefore they focus on it.

> if I can make some prototypes

I will be happy to comment them

> f you spend that same amount of money for a part of three separate ads

It is already done. While not being an avid TV watcher I know for sure that many advertising campaigns are coherent sets of short spots.

> Sellers want to sell in bulk

That's true... for sellers producing the goods. A broadcaster has no machines to push up in order to produce more. He "rents audience brains", stated by someone. He cannot create time nor audience brain-time (most TV shows may in fact fossilize it), therefore his trade has nothing to do with a purely agricultural or industrial one, he HAS to avoid bulk selling.

>> "hard times obtaining multiple-customers green lights for the same spot."
> there are many levels

Those difficulties arise when things get more complicated, when the amount of 'levels' is raising.

> as long as they keep just a little distance between the ads

This implies that a fair proportion of the ad running time will not be useful for the announcer. You have to be very good to convince him.

>> "Most small biz just cannot compete at the national level"
> Internet company's all ready play on the global level

On niches, with few clients already knowing them. But on the common-goods trade justifying some national advertising there is only big boys.

> They can still use this idea for there local market

Do the advertising-time cost on those justify such ordeal? Are they ready to cease simply being filmed, butt on a car's hood and saying "hey, I'm Bob, your sturdy and cheap future second-hand car is there, come see us!" to start ordering elaborate composite and multi-level spots?

"Moreover people pay and move to see a movie, therefore they focus on it."
Movies use products as passive advertisements. It is similar in some sense, but not what I want. Think of it like the movies product placement approach but more direct.

"It is already done."
I have yet to see it get done the way I am thinking. I have seen a few co-branded advertisements. Except they use a few different concepts. There is no agency aimed to make what this idea provides.

"he HAS to avoid bulk selling."
I seriously don't think that is true. Every advertising kit from broadcaster or publishers I have seen incurages buying in bulk and the buying of larger spots. Because if they can't sell the spots they can't produce.

"as long as they keep just a little distance between the ads"
I am talking more about how the image is preceded by the audience. Not a literal void in space.

"ordering elaborate composite and multi-level spots"
It is not much more elaborate.

> Movies use products as passive advertisements

True, and as far as I know this approach is much more efficient, but I may be wrong. Is there any reader knowing this field?

> already done

I fail to see any new approach in your proposal, but again may simply be unable to understand it.

Here is why some broadcasters prefer bulk sales: they are either very low-end or have too much space to rent (or, reciprocally, a too small market). As far as I know all efficient national broadcasters have no problem selling single spots, and the average price tag raise is above inflation rate.

> how the image is preceded by the audience

I can't grok that. Is it some subliminal approach? Or some artistic way to show things (existing advertisers are pretty good at it)

Product placement in movies is vary efficient for movies. But, this idea is not for movies its for a completely different format. In other words what works for the movies can't make the transition to efferently sell in this format.

All national broadcasters push bulk sales and the sales of larger ad formats. They will give you discounts for buying larger formats and buying in bulk. If you wish to test this pick any national broadcaster or publisher and ask for there advertising kit.

I would say it is part artistic and part how things would be phrased. I just posted a simple prototype that might kind of show what I am talking about. Vector art courtesy of rogie king and ben.

The main approach is to split the costs. Instead of each company hiring a graphics artist and copy writer. They can both share the cost of one. In addition they can get more prominent placement at less cost.

Kevin,

I like the idea and voted for it. It will be interesting to see how this works. I followed this debate closely but can't determine which side will proove out.

Your FAQ lists would be more effective and concise if formed as bullets, outline, and very short paragraphs, but I will try leave that argument for a forum post later on.

I think that google are also geting into print and radio ads. A blog posting I saw the other day indicated that you could even pay to have a graphic designer work on your print add.

Good idea but you might have to move quickly.

You must be thinking of one of the Google beta projects. They are just using traditional ads and traditional campaigns. They are not co-opting the ads with other company's.

Pablo didn't have a dog. He had a iguana.

Edit Correction: Pavlov's