Gamers Watching Gamers Play Games: Twitch & The Power Of Live Viewing

Did you know that video network Twitch has 45 million monthly active users who tune in to watch live streams of people gaming? In fact, there are currently 85,000 tuning into League of Legends right now. Most of these streams are as much about the gameplay as they are about the gamer who simultaneously broadcasts a view of themselves via their webcam. This phenomenon is so prevalent that Google is rumored to be in talks to acquire them for $1 billion.

Is this behavior voyeuristic? Yes. Is it lonely? Possibly. Is it surprising? Not so much. There is actually quite a bit Twitch can teach us about ourselves.

Arcades And Shared Experiences 

At first glance Twitch’s growth seems unfathomable but this behavior is actually nothing new. As Slate does a great job pointing out, Twitch harks back to the old arcades where people would congregate to play games as much as to watch others play, peering over to take in the action of Pong or Pac Man. This is the same behavior as Twitch, but in this case technology is enabling it at a far greater scale. And it’s not social in the same way as Facebook or Twitter. This is about shared experience not sharing your experience and I think that is an important distinction.

The Power of Live Events

What Twitch teaches us is the importance of live experiences. In today’s on demand world there is still a desire, likely more than ever to be “in the moment.” There needs to be that sense that if you blink, you’ll miss out which is exactly what Twitch provides to the gaming audience. And Twitch isn’t the exception. In fact, major events are also experiencing growth like the Oscars which has achieved the highest household ratings in nine years.

Gaming Week On IPGLAB.com

With E3 2014 underway, we focus on gaming developments that are changing the way we consume media and experience brands. Here’s what we have planned.

6/9 : Trigger+ Steam OS

6/10: Best In Class: Twitch Turns Gaming Into Content

6/11: By The Numbers: Perceptions Of Virtual Reality

6/12: Tech Wrecks: Augmented Reality Fails

6/13: E3 Recap

Gen Z Week: By The Numbers

If there’s one thing to know about Gen Z, it’s that their media habits are as fluid as any generation to-date as they relentlessly pursue platforms that suit their needs. Sick of sharing updates with everyone from their Aunt’s cat to their third grade teacher and they’ll hop to a more private network. Tired of data fees for texting and they’ll find an OTT messaging workaround.  You get the picture.

Here are some of the key findings from our latest research with 140 Proof and Pew which speak to this trend.

  •  61% surveyed have unliked/unfollow a brand

These numbers take into account surveys from a wider demographic. Gen Z likely indexes higher, only affirming the need to value engagement over likes. One-and-done campaigns to drive “likes” won’t have sustained impact.

  • Of the 107 million US adults who use two or more social platforms, more than half use four or more.

As marketers, we need to constantly experiment with new forms of media to keep pace with shifting behavior. Each platform has a different use case and warrants distinct strategies and objectives.

  • According to Pew, 19% of 18-29 year old Facebook users have had someone ask them to remove a friend from their network

Interestingly enough, the average Facebook user has 338 friends which is in conflict with Dunbar’s number of 150. You can’t actually having meaningful relationships with your entire social graph, can you? As a result, we’ve seen audience fragmentation as Gen Z moves to platforms like Snapchat and Line, among others.

 

Gen Z Week: A Conversation With Melissa Lavigne-Delville

The following is an interview with Melissa Lavigne-Delville, Vice President Trends & Strategic Insights, NBC Universal. Excerpts from this interview were included in our 2014 Outlook Report

IPG Lab: At the Lab, we often focus on specific tech behaviors; people are moving to messaging apps in mobile, for instance. Can you talk a little bit about the overall mindset or perspective of this Gen Z audience that drives these behaviors?

MLD: One of the things we say is that Gen X’ers, people aged 35 to 49, is that they saw the world with the glass half empty, if you will. They were characterized as a little bit negative and cynical and pessimistic. Gen Y is the very opposite; they have a glass half full, more optimistic and empowered. We say that Gen Z was born into a world where everything from stuffed animals to money to friends had a digital equivalent – not that they necessarily notice the difference between real and digital, but there’s always an assumption that there’s a digital version of anything that they’re seeing in the physical. I think that it’s very surprising to them if there isn’t because they’re two or one in the same.

As for some of the interesting influences tech wise for this generation, we say that they not only have the double vision and they see the world half digital, but also that they have photographic memories. This is a generation that was born at a time where their sonograms were posted on their parent’s Facebook pages, so they have visuals of themselves even before they were born. Their lives were highly documented, and this has happened for a while now even with Gen Y’s lives. Video has taken off so there are tons of photographs in this generation stored up in the Cloud now that could be accessed at any point, but also videos. I think that this is making the generation very self aware in a way that previous generation have not necessarily been.

I think it’s a continuum. I certainly think Gen Y is much more self-aware than Gen X’ers. For Gen X’ers, we have very few visuals to look at. For example, slide shows were big in the 70s when a lot of us were born so a lot of photos of our generation are stored away in these slide boxes and then you had the random portraits to look at. There were shots that you would get taken at the mall but you piece together your life between school photos and big family moments and there were a lot of question marks in between.

Cut through Gen Z, there’s no desk work; its all documented, its all right there for them and in some ways that’s great because they’re so in tune with who they are. On the other hand, it’s really hard to “forget” about this awkward moment or embarrassing situations; it’s all right there.

I also think that it makes the generation highly dependent upon visuals and I think that this is an incredibly important insight because in the same way that you know when  mobile phones all of a sudden emerged and most people had mobile phones and Gen Y’s and Gen X’ers would forget their best friend’s phone number if it wasn’t in their device. We didn’t remember that stuff anymore; we started to rely on technology to give us access to those people. The same thing is happening with photos. It might just be that if someone doesn’t have a photo of something or a visual of something in front of them, they can’t exactly remember what it is; its like the idea of ‘do you forget what your sweet 16 was all about if its not photographed intensely because they’re just used to that type of visual cues.’ That’s an exchange statement, and I think it’s interesting to think about how technology is providing so many visuals and recording their lives and what that will mean for their memories. There are a few things I can rattle on but I’ll stop so you can ask some other related questions.

IPG Lab:  That’s really interesting though. I also think about the fact that we’re always on. We always have such access to information. I often think about Wikipedia for instance. Is that making us more intelligent? Is it increasing our knowledge because it is being readily accessible at the time. I often think ‘are we actually absorbing,’ or is it really a crutch that we can just go to and pull up information and then we can disregard because we know its there?

MLD:  We were talking about this. Wikipedia to me is so interesting because on the one hand, every answer that we want right there in front of us, but I was talking to someone recently about is this type of technology making us more or less curious. If you think about it, I’m a Gen X’er, we didn’t have Wikipedia and we had the encyclopedia, and anytime you got a homework assignment, it was like ‘the assignment begins with L, let me just go find a book that starts with L, page through, find what I’m looking for and rewrite it a little bit, slap it in my paper and its done.’ The interesting thing about that process is there was a real randomness about the way that information was organization. When you got to L, if your topic was a lion, that might be right next to Lionel Richie.

The point is that all that stuff that you found yourself, the same way that people go from link to link. It was a slightly more obscure point of connection because a lot of it was alphabetical. I think it makes you curious. I think now sometimes even though we do go link to link, it can be a little bit more meaningful because you can find exactly what you’re looking for. Its just an interesting idea of now that information is so accessible and so neatly organized, does it make us less curious because we can get to what we want, when we want it right away and we don’t have to go through all of those steps that make us wonder about other things – or have to seek a little bit broader to find the answers that we’re looking for?

IPG Lab:  I actually had a question here about how you would say that this new generation actually discovers content, and you’re saying it’s more of an intentional and directed search.

MLD:  I think its two fold. I think one thing is that it is easier to find exactly what they’re looking for. In some ways people could say ‘its at your finger tips, its so much easier,’ but as you know, any Google search leads to 100 pages of content and its hard to tell when to stop looking, its hard to know what’s the most important. Google’s good but it can’t always get you the exact piece of information the user wanted, and I think its incredibly overwhelming. I think that Gen Z are going to have to be incredible simplifiers of information because there’s just so much of it all the time that its less about finding the information and more about being quick enough to synthesize a lot of information into something that feels intelligent and I think that’s something that will be a skill that more and more is in demand and something that Gen Z are good at.

I also think, on the flip side, that more information just comes to us whether we want it or not. People sending links whether it’s some funny video or an interesting article or whatever. On the other hand, it’s just seemingly like much more incoming whether you ask for it or not. I think in some ways its pretty amazing because it’s a time where we’re flooded with information and then on the other hand a bit overwhelming and stressful to figure out how to not only decide what you want to look at but take everything and piece it together and come out with something other than confusion, feeling overwhelmed or feeling like you want to go down the rabbit hole further.

T-Commerce: Is It Here to Stay?

Thanks to Samsung’s Smart TV and Delivery Agent’s Shop TV platform, T-commerce has just been kicked up another notch; but is it here to stay? According to prognosticators, it is – but the audience may take a bit of wooing first.

Shopping via television has been around since the 1980s, thanks to the creation of the Home Shopping Club (now the Home Shopping Network, or HSN) in 1982, followed by QVC in 1986. A few years later, late-night viewers were subjected to the industry’s first infomercials, which soon became popular enough to infiltrate prime time viewing. Now, thanks to interactive platforms that can run simultaneously through network broadcasts, T-commerce is as simple as a click of the remote.

The potentialities of T-commerce were given a trial run all the way back in 2001, when viewers of the popular sitcom “Will and Grace” were given the opportunity at the end of the show to purchase a $52 T-shirt similar to the one worn in the episode by lead actress Debra Messing. Within the next 18 hours, 3,000 people had gone online to purchase the shirt, resulting in sales of $156,000. Marketers pondered: How quickly would the shirts have sold if viewers could purchase them directly through their TVs?

T-Commerce and Shop TV

One of the biggest players in the T-commerce stakes is Delivery Agent, a company that specializes in interactive platforms for mobile- and web-based commerce. Through its proprietary interactive platform and Shop TV app, which is offered with Samsung’s line of Smart TVs, users can now shop simultaneously while watching their favorite programs. This newly-updated platform got a grand kick-off during Super Bowl XLVIII in February 2014, when viewers were invited to purchase items from the David Beckham Bodywear collection offered by retail giant H&M.

For a number of years now, retailers have used social media marketing to help tie in their products to hit TV shows. During its successful run, the mega-hit Gossip Girl, for example, became a prototype show for modern brand integration by negotiating product placement and spin-off deals with companies as diverse as Birchbox cosmetics, Coca-Cola and Verizon. Consumers bought it – but can this type of marketing be transitioned into a successful interactive TV shopping platform?

What The Numbers Say

According to research conducted by Delivery Agent, 68% of viewers are interesting in shopping via TV, while 82% indicate that they’d be interested in purchasing items tied into their favorite TV shows. With numbers like these, it’s no surprise that Delivery Agent CEO Mike Fitzsimmons has publicly predicted that 24 million US households will be T-commerce-enabled by the end of 2014.

How does this dovetail with current market statistics? According to research firm Parks Associates, more than 42 million households will purchase a Smart TV by the end of 2014, with the number going up to nearly 70 million by 2017.

In a US TV Consumer Survey conducted by analytics provider IHS, however, 73% of those surveyed said that they’re not interested in purchasing a Smart TV within the next year. On the flip side, more than 30% of the participants who knew about Smart TVs indicated that they intend to purchase one within the next 12 months. According to analysts, these numbers show that a demand for the product can be cultivated – which can then open the floodgates for interactive TV shopping.

In the meantime, American Express has already created a connected television app that’s compatible with Smart TVs, and more retailers and service providers are preparing to join the bandwagon as well. Watch ’n shop TV might be taking its time in cultivating the consumer, but there’s no denying that it promises to be the next big media marketing trend.

Advertising Possibilities on Dating Sites and Apps

Dating in the new millennium often starts on a screen measuring no more than six inches across. Social apps and sites like Tinder, OkCupid and a host of others allow users to meet and greet before a first date. Some apps allow chatting after a mutual “like,” while others provide special phone numbers so you can get to know each other without sacrificing privacy. These platforms have a growing following that also offers the potential for advertising opportunities.

Tinder’s TV Advertising

 

Recently, Tinder started testing the response to hosting native ads with a joint project they ran with Fox. These ads work within the app’s platform and appear to be normal content. Posting profiles of characters from the hit shows Suits and The Mindy Project, the ads helped drive interest in the shows as well as build the dating site’s brand identity. This is just one possibility for using dating sites and apps for promoting third-parties.

The real question with Tinder – and most dating applications – is, “What type of app is this?” Is it a social media platform or a dating/hookup site? The answer will help determine which ads are more effective and most appropriate. With a reported $500 million valuation, calling Tinder just a dating app doesn’t quite seem accurate, especially to Match.com CEO Sam Yagan.“I can’t think of a single acquisition of a dating site for more than $10 million by someone other than Match,” Yagan said. “We are the global buyer.” That could soon change, however, through third-party monetization.

Native Ads on Social Media

 

Social media platforms offer tremendous value to marketers, particularly when native ads enter the picture. Studies have shown them to be more effective than banner ads, though some might consider them deceptive. After all, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but turns out to be a parrot, could start getting upset. Native ads look like normal content, sound like normal content but actually serve as advertisements. It’s an ad model that used too brazenly can chip away at an organization’s credibility over time.

OkCupid Combats Ad-blockers

 

OkCupid has taken a different approach to advertising. They use banner ads, and have for a long time. Their model is ad-supported and free to users, the theory being that the free service might generate enough users to offset the profit difference through ads. This worked well, until savvy users started installing ad-block software that cut into the bottom line. OkCupid is owned by IAC, which also owns Match.com. In 2012, OkCupid faced the reality that ad-blocking was becoming a serious problem for them, and they came up with a unique solution. Ad-blockers no longer saw traditional banner ads, but instead saw this:

While $5 per customer for a lifetime of service doesn’t seem like much of a return, when you consider what these users were contributing before the policy change it becomes a solid return. After all, ad-block users are those least likely to click on ads, and normally give little to no advertising revenue to the service. This appeal helped pry a few dollars out of the most resistant consumers.

With nearly every site and app meeting monetization, many consumers are protesting digital advertising overload. Consumers are looking for alternatives like ad-blocking software, even when they understand that ads support their favorite content. Privacy issues also plague marketers, as users become more aware of how much of their browsing is tracked and shared. More native ads may well be the solution. Dating apps like Coffee Meets Bagel have taken another approach to monetizing their service. Users pay for communication privileges, and marketers pay for coupon space. Essentially, users are offered discounts at businesses that might be considered a good place to meet up with a new friend or hookup.

The online ad world is changing. The push to keep the exchange of information as free as possible may never die, and impatience with intrusive marketing has never been higher. Businesses need to stay current on the trends like native ads to continue seeing reasonable gains from monetization.

R/GA, Techstars and the Rise of Connected Devices

The Lab attended a demo day for the R/GA Connected Devices Accelerator at SXSS 2014. Powered by Techstars, the program showcased nine exciting startups that have been incubated and mentored at R/GA’s NYC campus in recent months. The common thread between these startups, as the name implies, is that they are all connected devices, products that have both hardware and software components and are connected to the Internet (and thus, your life). Of the nine companies that presented three in particular were particularly relevant to marketers looking to reach audiences:

Ringblingz

Simply put, Ringblingz is smart jewelry. It is a ring that can light up in up to 300 different colors and/or vibrate. It is meant to make the most important smartphone-based notifications simpler to see and interpret, in that you don’t even need to look at your phone. First you pair your ring with the mobile app. To set up a notification, you simply choose a color, a contact, and an app that will trigger the notification (e.g. Facebook, Snapchat et al.). As the founders put it, a device like this that traverses the worlds of fashion and tech creates “wearable social currency”. Brands could leverage Ringblingz capabilities to deepen engagement with consumers who are using their mobile app and may want to be notified about deals or events.

Hammerhead

Similar to Ringblingz, Hammerhead’s product “Hammerhead 1” seeks to change the way technology visually communicates information in a subtler way. The Hammerhead unit, rather than convey social interactions, is meant to provide directions for bicyclists. You pair the device with the Hammerhead app, which is loaded with crowd-sourced bicycle routes. You then clip the device onto your bike and stow your phone. The app communicates with the Hammerhead device and indicates directions to turn using patterns of flashing lights. This replaces having to look down at GPS on your device screen. Thus this elegantly enhances navigation for those on bikes while increasing safety.

Footmarks

Based on BLE beacons that retailers can distribute around their stores, the Footmarks platforms can beef up both a retailer’s mobile app as well as those distributed to sales associates. In one scenario, someone who has a retailer’s mobile app and walks into the store can be welcomed and served a relevant offer. This might even take the form of a discount especially tailored for that customer based on their loyalty and purchase history. In another scenario, a sales associate with a tablet can be alerted that a particularly valuable customer has entered the store, and can review their purchase history, wish list and other relevant information. While many different companies are duking it out in the BLE (aka “iBeacon”) space, Footmarks aims to make their platform more adaptive and secure than their competitors.

Why Today’s Smart Fridge Is Pretty Dumb

At this year’s CES, it seemed that everything will have a sensor from your dog to your toothbrush. Some of these smart devices provide utility while some…do not. At the top of the list is the Samsung Smart Fridge which could be an amazing innovation when connectivity actually enhances the core product- a unit which stores and refrigerates your food. What we’re actually left with is a refrigerator that can handle a number of functions from answering a call to listening to music, all of which is better suited for other devices.

Touted as perhaps one of the more innovative ways of bringing Internet into the home, it very quickly became apparent that the fridge was made more for the buzz-worthiness of IoT rather than any practical application. The premise is simple: utilize the Internet to give parents and families the best of the Internet on their fridge. And it does deliver on that promise in some ways; the app interface gives users access to Epicurious – which lets users choose recipes based on items in their fridge – and Evernote – which updates shopping lists in real time. But beyond that, the app interface falls flat. It purports to give users music, the news, the weather, and more, via apps like Pandora, AP, and Weatherbug, through what appears to be a familiar tablet interface. Ultimately, the design has resulted in Samsung trying to cram too much tech into too small a space, none of which enhances the basic function of a fridge. Why would someone with the money to buy and install a smart fridge not just play music over speakers, or check the weather on their computer or phone? 

What’s really missing are things like sensor technology to detect the contents of your fridge or when something smells off as well as remote access to see what you have available. Remember when you’re at a store and forgot if you already had milk.  Problem solved. These are real enhancements made through connectivity.