HJ : all in one way or another refer to web 2.0, but has the phrase gradually lost meaning, its underlying assumptions not clearly articulated? What does it mean to you now in 2008?

AW: Recently part of a think-tank on web 2.0 and business at HBS, had trouble defining, so tried to focused what I'm working on, retail media. So, what about web 1.0? pushing it out there. telling people what to buy, suggesting. web 2.0 is two street, affect, change that message, even share it. not necessarily about a community

AE - means very little at this moment. defined in so many ways. compared to 1.0m tend to use new media the way we use old media. early TV ads looked like print ads. web 1.0 is internet as traditional media, 2.0 is trying to move past that and use affordances of internet

RD - move from pushing to participation, mash-up different kinds of content, not about defining but about harnessing the dynamics - losing control moving toward how do you understand the dynamics to

AW - exactly. doesn't have anything to do with the internet.

RR - web 1.0, loss of control being a bad thing. from a philosophy standpoint, pendulum swinging - not about losing power in the face of consumer empowerment

HJ: rishi, value?

RD: the power of the medium is that you basically measure anything. how many times do they bvisit, do they hover. it's about making metrics so that they can be transactive. criteria is to find out what is relevant. what is actionable? how do you compare that to what's out there? so what ever you're trying to push out there and transact upon. the internet is not used in isolation. think about things that are comparable cross medium.

HJ:

RD: out metrics in 3 buckets - standard across media - funnel from reach to engagement, how many saw it, what engagement
in web 2.0 - reach changes a bit, not just about seeing, but the "true" reach - mashups, consumer-created, good, bad, whatever
engagement - time spent, frequency with which someone had interacted with it

AE - big fan of their product - advertises have no idea about effectiveness. favorite example - Kobe Bryant jumping over the Aston Martin - can get by the frame whether people are engaged - fast-forward, go back, is it real? insurance issue? its' impossible to measure that on TV

RD: what are the metrics that matter? we can measure ff, rw, fwd to friend. The question is, what are the metrics - holistic view - the clip was - people putting hillary's face, take that true reach to assess

HJ: slide toward the idea of attention economy - buyers market or sellers market? what is the value being attached to attention

RR: whether there is bad attention and good attention. in luxury brands, not all attention is wanted. trying to get a certain group trying to maintain a level of exclusivity. the worst thing that can happen is attention coming from the wrong groups. consumers are saying that it doesn't matter whether or not you want me to and use in ways about horrific example of Cristal - urban hip hop or french luxury?
I didn't mean to talk to you, but let's figure out why this is happening, why you're giving me attention,
qualitative - what is the relationship, what does this brand mean to them? what does it mean beyond what producers think it should mean
should you panic about drag queen barbie?
circumstances under which unwanted attention is good for the brand
circumstance through which they can become brand advocates

RD - how to harness negative attn into a conversation
tiger woods video game - user uploaded a bug, isn't it funny. EA harnessed that with a commercial with him walking on water - if you don't understand the sentiment, how can you harness it? to shield from negative attn is to have your head in the sand

HJ - attention creates values, but also surplus audience - fans come from surplus audiences - women who like action, adults who like HP, men who like soaps - those who have to work harder to

RR - add to that, over 2.5 years followed consumers who bought counterfeit versions - purse parties, upper middle class suburban women. not intended to be fashionista, gained access through backdoor means. had to work harder - what happens when they earn that it's not so easy to get in the door

HJ - minority report - future of target, share some of the insight - how close we're getting

AW - try to make the message relevant and also increase to what level would that relevancy exists - played a clip - mass media but targeted - minority report - read character, tom cruise, is on the lam, running for his life through a shopping mall. "John Anderton, you could use a Guinness right now!" irony of the targeting, he's trying to anonymous right now - needs an escape? yeah. triple whammy of working in place-based media. typical advertiser approach of demographics. supermarket for example - a woman, 35-45 - typical marketing advertiser terms for knowing - where is she? what is the psychographic profile at that moment in time? we can all relate to standing in line? annoyed. What can be on the screen for giving you an advertising message that you're able to receive in that situation? how can it be expresses. A certain disconnect in MR, not wanted to escape in the way that AE thinks that he is? Retinal scans? yeah, but is that really the way... RF tags, targeting audio in the cone that goes directly to you, wall of video, triggered by presence, can tell if male or female. can you read the frame of mind, not really...

RD - technology for delivery mechanism that exists today. demographic, behavioral technology. falls apart re; the economics of doing it - how do we do it on scale? really expensive.

AW - divided screen - reaches a broad audience - can be targeted down to a store level. Florida vs. Minneapolis. know whether there's a branch within three blocks, use the side panel to target it happening, but not frame of mind. interested in perspective. how targetted is it?

AE - with all knew technologies, advertisers still crave mass audiences. Olympics, Superbowl - grappling with this - how might potentially change in new economy. no in Superbowl, car dropping out, beverage companies might as well. might force advertisers to rethink, targeting, part spend online is growing, but need these large scale

AW - depends on goals - if you can reach thought leaders and taste makers and the people who spread the word, they take that message out there. don't have to ad to everyone, but figure out to whom

AE - agree, but who? research show inconclusive about who are opinion leaders" in social networks, is it people with lots of friends, strong connections, who?

AW - starts with passion - vans, Jones soda, passionate audience in niche

AE - how do I recognize, on facebook, who is passionate? what are the characteristic? as long as we can't measure that,

RR - chime in on the social network - are a lot of unawnsered questions. whether or not parituclar tastemakers make the most sense - use non-tastemakers and come out with the same results - not neccessarily one group who is the end all, also there is the structural whole - who are the people who are most adept at bridging the gaps? very nuanced... wonderful that we're getting to this point of HOW people are interacting and some hoard and same share - I want to be the only one who knows. drilling down into why there are these different behaviors. exciting

RD - superbowl has x million impressions, but how do you find potential reach? highly targeted to a handful to get the reach that makes the economics work. descriptive of past, but hard to become prescriptive - what makes something viral is still elusive..

AW - there is no one way to do it. either advertise on internet or billboard? hard to think about alternatives because of budget buckets. should be putting it everywhere, but not the same creative in the same way. that's what adverts are missing

RD - one device or highly targeted, for each device - iphone vs. tv - very different

HJ - one theory of generate value - long tail - target specific audiences -

AE - good business book - vague as possible. arguing two basic things- internet makes it possible to offer goods far more cheaply, transaction cost down and searching accommodate - more stuff available. amazon millions of titles - supply-side argument. fundamentally disagree- as we make these things available, see the taste change - previously consume the artificially created hits, now can find whatever we were craving and can better match our preferences - not seen any data that backs that up. more we see the tastes converge - it's depressing. it turns out we all want to listen to Britney. that's what we see in data. LT is very optimistic and democratic

HJ - does that gel?

RR - it does gel with democratization vs. distinction - if you fear that you don't have control because there are lots of imitations, democratization will occur - not the case. what happens when high status brands are appropriated - almost tragic. lost of groups, "darling, I can tell by the rest of your outfit that your LV is fake" the more you try to gain access - the most you clamor to imitate, the more the target moves. boundaries get reified - redefined by the consumers, not the brand manager.

AE - majority of YouTube videos not watched even once. hard to breakthrough the clutter. some people can't get trough despite all efforts - intent makes it harder, not easier

HJ - flood market, oversupply, what is the value of attention -it's the same attention/impression model seen all along? what is the value of participation

RD - when you can measure everything, how do you measure sentiment, etc.? so many different answers to what is it engagement. use advanced measurement techniques, but use a language that advertisers can understand - bring them into two media, and layer on more complex metrics - advocacy and sentiment - enables the harness of the long tail - holistically, what is being said

AW - also surprised with traditional reach and engagement, frequency - ad do pay a lot of money to be on television for the perception of reach and engagement, even though they don't know - but are willing to spend money to put their ad up there- or clicks or proof - and then you have in a retail media - you're there next to products, so measured by how well the products sell - positive, enhance the shopping experience - job NOT to annoy them. advertisers aren't willing to pay for checkout- leaving the store - you don't even know what's going on with the TV

AE - stage on measurement - you have to talk the advertisers language first - give them what they're looking for before introduce fancy thing

RD - exactly - first phase to convince that this is even a viable medium - no now understands how to values it -

HJ - audience seems to be clamored - to the backchannel -
everyone keeps saying viral - didn't we get rid of that term? is that a viable model? Does wanna defend it?

Faris - metaphor is very likable - properties have the ability to spread themselves - why is that biological metaphor so popular

AW - I don't use it - like HJ's spreadble - stickiness - sticks in your mind, want to tell someone else - TV land - longtail - wanted to be on the checkout network - not to do traditional advertising, but to do something contextual. Food for thought mini-show - clips from show to support "Viral concept" something that sticks your head and you want to tell others bout it. Evil twins - doesn't' say watch star trek or TV land, it;s just funny - it was pretty amazing - it's something that you want to go tell someone about

HJ - more specific examples of KPIs across transmedia metrics?
RD - GRP - currency by which media is bought and sold - line by side by side - try to compare apples with apples - enables the agency that makes the buys across media - equate to traditional to create an overall perspective

AW - multiple agencies, internal, a lot of special projects are internal - so fragmented

RD - even in video - you don't just make a campaign and put it on youtube

AW - anyone thing that does it

RD - video bucket - whether through multiple agencies - do it across other media

AE - marvel - movies to advertise toys and advertising - measure brand reach - movie is not a standalone - comic books to test concepts, measure objectives differently- not just to sell comics

AW - challenge of determining the value

question - are we ever going to see a space where everyone can agree? how do we assign a dollar figure for something that's a derivative work? or is it always going to be fragmented

AW- marketing portfolio - you have to think about all - figure out appropriate balance

RR - there hasn't been one size fits all, diverse marketing strategy - very difficult to have one size fits all, dynamic - you want it to be something that consumers are so engaged with that the playing field changes.

RD - reach is reach, advocacy is advocacy - but what is the value of each in different kind of campaigns?

HJ - ??? from backchan

RD - I pay for it, you pay for it, someone else does - some mediums that led themselves to be ad supported - little predictability about the quality of the product - uncertain about value exchange

AE - argue the same for HBO, hard to predict whether we'll like he next range of shows - I haven't seen aside from entourage a great reason, but doesn't cancel

AW - certain type of programming that you enjoy, youtube everything, but are there ways to do psychographic subscriptions

RD - digital studios making short from content - funnier guy - very hit-driven - the landlord - not necessarily hit driven, but predictable amounts of eyeballs - haven't driven big hits - heavy.com not hugely successful but you know what you're getting - HBO model, when I subscribe, I know what I'm going to get

HJ - public not being willing to pay online because free - HBO complicates that - what do we learn from looking at that example

AW - consistency - I know I'm going to find something there, might be willing to pay for it

AE - an element of what we're used to - an enormous jump to say let me start paying for it - radiohead - still people went to bit torrent - free pricepoint is enormously compelling

AW - might pay for convenience

AE - with HBO, there was never a time of convenience to get HBO for free before

HJ - 20-30 years of watching TV without paying, satisfaction of receiving to subscribe to cable

AE - a different product than regular TV - it's not the same - with music it isn't - same album - why wold you all of a suddent pay for it. Not sure if analogy

RR - authenticity - what compels someone - can it be measures - consumers will decide to pay for HBO or real products when they feel authenticity is important, embedded within the brand - being the type of person who can discern between quality - have access of authenticity of the brand - this notion of I want to support something with authenticity - take the money they have and buy authenticity

Q - consumption value - sense entitled to free media - downward spiral of quality of content - huge franchises or crap -

AW - not necessarily and either or... smart content creators created different quality, quality does not mean the same thing - low rez run and gun episodic related that can play on a mobile phone AND a network standard thing - has to do with the pipeline

RD - not all content is magnetizable, and that's okay - what are they models of monetizing/? took us a while to get to that point with TV - same evolution needs to happen with social media - ways to integrate message better - hockey game ads on boards - in nascar on the car, integrated with the experience - again, how to integrate into the experience - product placement is different - castaway - FedEx is PART of the story - hopefully it

L - What is the value of qualitative consumer research?

RR- employ quite a bit - undervalued - it is important that it be the first step, grounded - you don't even know what variables to use - one example - detergent mass brand to do different targeted iterations of the campaign - dirt - mud festival - washer and dryer - among African Americans - went into home in Louisiana - modest living conditions -only by going in home and seeing how consumers use the products - what the DEFINITION of clean - never would this audience be covered in mud. EXTREMELY clean and put together - became more about the scent. - would never have gone that way without knowing the meaning - would never think that consumer - something you have to fight for, may sound nebulous but has a crucial role

AE - why certain content emerges as a hit - can't look at a qualification - lesser content is lesser, Pavarotti - still doesn't explain britney spears - once you have one version, you can reproduce - we like to talk, share, water cooler - frustrated when seeing a great movie

HJ - Board - balance of economic value and social benefit

RD - about making advertising relevant - a ways away from that, then it really make sense - facebook - you can vote on whether it's relevant - gotta make money some how - we want to make you part of that experience - media properties itself alongside the

AE - relevance is key - more logical for certain brands to provide a social value - soap brand is harder than nike for sports fans.

HJ - enhance the experience of shopping

AW - it's about the relevance of it - retail media, there is a real estate business - a lot of screens are invasive - everyday researching quant and qual - how can we bring more content and technology so that it's not annoying - an enhancement not intrusion - a lot of people abusing the space - optimist - through great measurement, creative thinking - if there's a new product and it's of interest to a shopper, wouldn't you like to know about that? a different use for something that you usually buy? has to be done correctly and responsibly

question - you still see companies taking down youtube?

AW - microlevel, paid creative to come up with that for a specific medium, they are liable for it coming up online because they have not paid for it... writers strike - in some cases, corporate giant saying OMG, i"m going to get sued by all these people

JG - question about that - HBO, how we transition content into those space - youube is reach based by but success is not about 3 of views - stats on tiger woods video - things about how to monetize reach - situated - deal with content as if it were in a tv environment - shift reference

AE - traditional, but broadcaster would be concerned about rights issues - intermediary popping up, don't want youtube to be a powerful phenomena - I can control the branding - on a number of levels, I want to stay away from youtube - it's great if SNL is passed around and you tune in more - it's still scary for the reasons -

JG - you should carve off the unprofitable bits - music industry - work out which are the bits that it's not responsible for anyway, instead tried to make a new media space act like an old one - that's not

AE - hulu is an example of them trying to of that successfully

HJ - will the state of the economy negatively impact web 2.0 development?

RD - definitely see a shrinking of budgets - fight that by understanding the value of it. but a lot of things we can't fight

RR - we wont' necessarily see things on the consumer side - trying to get around some of the obstacles to different kinds of consumption experiences - you might see innovation on that side increase of consumer generated content

AE - the more transparent the medium, the more conservative, the innovative will get cut in the short term

Q - what role are the media agencies providing? access to money and counsel to give to brands - why not create better quality content for the brands?

RD - still in an innovation phase. tough to do that, impose a standard, when we don't even know what should be measuring

AE - CAA is playing a huge role online and most people have no idea.

Q - counterfeiting - prices are very important determinant - data across product categories - non-price, like budget - negotiate time and money - co-production of value - how do you consumers produce value, reject marketers setting value. consumers do not like boundaries - PlayStation - how to find a way around it - ownership model not the way to look at it - but access models

AE - shakes up pricing models and conditions, only consuming one or two songs from an album - interpretation we find different model more fair

RR - where is the ownership of the brand? Who owns it? Have to get away from the model where the manager owns the brand. Consumers are huge stakeholders - they also own the brand. In terms of price, Gap in price between originator and imitator - how that gap in price changes willingness to pay for one or the other - quality would be vastly different - once we get away from assuming that all of this is bad, and also understanding the difference between publicly consumer items and privately consumed item

HJ - consumer buy-in - barter exchange - ratings as a way of arbitrating anger over cancellation. How do we maintain the same level of credibility?

RD - for us, huge challenge - people use Nielsen's but hate them. the metrics that matter vs. currency, you have to go for less nuanced methods - when advertisers buy, they try to buy. Not about measuring content but understanding audience