I want to focus on an insight that came out of the 2nd Screen Society‘s CES 2nd Screen Summit, where I was a moderator on one of their panels last week. Over 400 professionals from the tech, brand, agency and content provider industries were in attendance, providing a variety of opinions on a number of topics.

One of the more intriguing issues I was focused on was: Who will win the 2nd Screen app battle? In 2013 I expect that 2^nd Screen engagement will start to become a money-maker (for some) as sponsorship opportunities, e-commerce and other channels start to gain traction. As a result, the fight to own the 2^nd screen platform will heat up and right now there is no clear answer as to whom will make the apps that people will download.  Several of the people I spoke with believe that consumers will be downloading literally dozen of apps for the different content they watch. I struggle to see that possibility coming to fruition outside of a small niche of bleeding edge adopters. Having to download, organize and use an app for every show I watch would lead to the creation of a huge amount of little used apps as well as consumer confusion.

But who will develop and publish the apps we’ll use is hard to figure as well. Here’s just a sampling of the types of companies that could lay claim:

Show specific apps: The CSI franchise, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, American Idol… the list is virtually endless. Because fans can be intensely loyal to their favorite shows, you could certainly see this making sense. But again, do I want a different app for every show I watch?

Network specific apps: ESPN, NBC, HBO, Fx, USA, MSNBC… again, plenty of players at this level. The benefit here for the network is obvious: if you love just one of their shows, you’ll get the app and they can run promos for their other shows, driving greater tune-in.

MVPD specific apps: Comcast, Verizon, AT&T Uverse, DirecTV… these are the people bringing you all the content you consume on your primary (and increasingly secondary) sceen. With their app, you’d probably get PPV and VOD promotions as well as other incentives not to switch to another provider.

Alan Wolk, Global Lead Analyst at KIT Digital felt the MVPDs had the edge here. They know the most about you, your household and they have in many cases additional data about you (via Internet and phone usage).

But what about some other players? Could the GetGlues, Shazams and IntoNowsdevelop a deep enough and broad enough suite of utilities and content integration? I suppose so, but again, once the monetization of 2^nd screen gets cracked, I don’t know if the shows, networks or providers are going to let that happen.

Could tech players like Microsoft, Google, Apple or Amazon make a play here? I think they could. Each has some inherent advantages and certainly have their consumer adherents.

Finally, what about brands with great consumer affinity? Could brand-driven lifestyle apps be the gateway to 2^nd screen experiences? Brands have the know-how, the fans and are often the ones most willing to take creative risks. They’re also increasingly getting into the content game themselves.

Here’s my best guess: Yes, an elite group of stand-alone show apps will survive. Big shows like The Voice – as well as sports and awards shows – and those with intense, niche audiences (Sons or Anarchy) will lead the way. But the vast majority of shows aren’t “app worthy.”  The concept of “broadcast networks” probably doesn’t even make sense to people under the age of 15, so I don’t see that working. I could see the MVPDs winning here, by the sheer force of their dominant posistion – they’ll just make the apps and put the cost on your monthly bill.

But the problem with all these is that shows come and go. Or our allegiance to them wanes. Or they switch networks. And people certainly don’t have deep feelings for most networks; and if they feel anything about Comcast or Verizon or Dish Network, it’s probably antipathy. Likewise, nobody talks about their undying devotion to Viggle or the other third party 2^nd screen apps.

But if you’re a sports fan, a Gatorade app that you open with every sporting event you watch could be very compelling. A Pepperidge Farm or Dannon app you open with every reality show you watch makes a lot of sense. You can imagine other brands and content types that might work well together.

Brands continue to more closely resemble media companies, they have huge, loyal fan bases of people who identify the brand with their chosen lifestyle. 2nd Screen apps allow brands the opportunity to engage fans in a compelling and measurable way. If have questions about 2nd Screen apps, please send me a note and we can set up a time to discuss your goals and how this sort of activation can work for you.

This piece originally appeared on The Advertising Week Social Club on January 7, 2013.

Recently I read Umair Haque’s e-book, Betterness, and was deeply affected by the themes and insights discussed within. It was heartening to read as his cri du coeur more eloquently and powerfully articulated sentiments I have been feeling recently.

The book is a call to arms and manifesto for a paradigm shift in the way business, and society as a whole, values and defines wealth. The underlying premise is that by focusing almost exclusively on a financially-driven definition of wealth, we have not only forsaken a more holistic approach to the matter, but have not done a particularly good job of even achieving the financial definition outside of those that are part of the now famous 1%.

I work in the advertising industry, so it’s quite easy for anyone reading this to ask if, before adding my rousing “here, here!” to Haque’s criticism, I have looked in a mirror lately. Indeed, we Madison Avenue-types are the very engine of the more, bigger, faster, cheaper, now society that Haque decries. I get that. But I say the following not to assuage my own feelings of guilt, but to put forth the notion with an attempt to foment conversation around the following:

How can we develop ideas that are measured not by the three dreaded letters: ROI, but rather by the inverse – IOR: INVESTMENT ON RETURN?

What do I mean by Investment on Return?

First, let’s define the term ‘return.’ I don’t mean product sales, gross or net profits or even social media-influenced terms such as ‘follows’ or ‘likes.’  Ultimately all those things are the results of actions taken by people. Notconsumers or target audiences or demographics, but people. The goodwill and patronage of people is the return on investment that brands seek to attract.

So, what sort of investment are brands making on this ‘return?’ On people? Let’s again get clear on what we are talking about, this time pausing to reflect on what we mean by ‘investment.’

Traditionally, brands have viewed returns purely in the financial sense, and so view investment similarly. “How much money are we spending and how much are we making in return?” is the traditional viewpoint of ROI. But if now we decide to view return as equaling people, we need to view investment as something more than money as well.

Investment could mean all sorts of outlay once you step back from the myopic prism of the purely financial. It could mean emotional investment, educational investment, informational investment, social investment, community investment, time investment, political investment, advocacy investment, environmental investment –and the list could be endless if you think about it.

You get the idea, though.

Do some of those things require a financial outlay?

Yes, but that is secondary to the deeper human investment these other forms carry.

You may point to the charitable and philanthropic work that many companies do –  and those certainly have meaning. But I think there is a difference between donating $1 from every sale to a worthwhile cause, or selling your product in the color that represents support for a specific disease research – both of which are good things – and thinking about how you are investing in the very people that make your company a success.

How many companies measure that as they do ROI?

So, what role does the agency play in this?

We don’t make the products people buy, but we do play a significant role in the way people perceive brands. And now we must ask ourselves, in the current era in which we live, how much longer will simply touting the more, bigger, faster, cheaper, now approach be tolerated by people? How much longer will they be satisfied with nothing more than that from the companies to which they are giving their money?

If you believe, as Haque does, and as I do, that that time is nearing an end, then you must ask yourself the following question: How am I helping to position my client to succeed in the future? Not in a ‘how can we fudge this,’ ‘how can we merely change the perception,’ ‘how can we fool folks for another couple of years,’ sort of way, but in a way that truly shapes the very business of our clients? In a way that doesn’t just hype the notion of whiter teeth, fresher laundry and shinier floors, but in a way that clearly states that the brand is based on the fundamental premise that making an investment on the return is a critical pillar of their business.

The truth is, brands that live by the Betterness ethic know that being committed to people and making a profit are not mutually exclusive. Companies as diverse as Stonyfield Farms, Interface Carpets and TOMS shoes have all found ways to make compelling products that consumers want to buy, while also making a positive impact on the lives of dairy farmers, managing a gentler carbon footprint and providing footwear to impoverished children, respectively.

This sort of approach should be a boon for agencies as well as powerful stories can be built on such foundations. The ad industry need only look to the 2012 Cannes Lion Grand Prix-winning effort from Chipotle to see how rich this territory can be.

As is regularly pointed out, ours is a world in which the individual increasingly has greater voice and the collective public have shown a willingness and ability to publicly punish those brands who do harm. So why couldn’t a brand start an initiative like Apps to Empower?

It would (and will) be the wise company that invested (and invests) in the idea of IOR.

Yesterday I mentioned that I’ll be at the 2nd Screen Society’s first 2nd Screen Summit of 2013 while I’m here in Las Vegas. With tech companies such as Microsoft, Google and Nintendo, as well as all the major content players betting big on 2nd screen, this continues to be a huge potential area for agencies. How big? Big enough for Mashable to declare the 2nd screen revolution their #1 Big Tech Trend for 2013. It made Ad Week’s list of Digital Trends for 2013 as well, and Venture Beat put 2nd Screen among its Five Trends That Will Define Design in 2013. When media leaders in technology, advertising and tech finance all point to 2nd Screen as something to look for in 2013, it’s time to take action.

Ed Haslam is SVP of Marketing at YuMe, a multi-screen video brand advertising software and solution provider, and here’s what he sees:

“The fragmentation of consumer attention across screens, day parts, and content channels is driving brand advertisers to extend their TV campaigns to multi-screen digital video. The opportunity to enhance that creative with digital interactivity thereby extending brand engagement on 2nd screens is one of the major opportunities we see emerging in 2013.”

If you’re a brand marketer, the challenges Ed outlines are front and center. It’s not just a numbers game anymore – how many people, how often. You need to engage them, and you must do so in a compelling way.

Last year’s Super Bowl saw a handful of ads that featured a Shazam call to action, taking consumers on an extended journey of brand engagement through unique and exclusive content. I think you’ll see a significant increase this year, similar to the spike in Social TV conversation that occurred from 20111 to 2012 (a 600% increase!). But while Social TV is primarily a consumer-driven activity, 2nd Screen is brand-driven. In 2013 the brands that will hit home runs with 2nd Screen will be the ones that understand how to put the viewer/fan/consumer first, and provide real value to the 1st screen viewing experience. The other key to success is bringing all the parties involved to the table from the very beginning. Having the creative agency, tech vendor, media agency, brand and content partner all work together is the difference between a winning activation and just another quickly forgotten shiny new object in the marketing arsenal.

Media Industry thought-leader Chuck Parker, Chairman of the 2nd Screen Society, recently laid out 10 predictions for the industry in 2013 that touches on the breadth of consumer touchpoints that 2nd screen will effect, from m-commerce to gamification.

With mobile and tablet adoption skyrocketing, we have entered a fundamental shift in the way content is not just viewed, but engaged with. Consumers are increasingly leaning forward in search of additional content and experiences rather than passively sitting back and letting the viewing experience wash over them. This is especially true for programming such as live sports, reality shows and awards ceremonies. But 2nd screen engagement has a wide range of entry points and is not limited to television. Video-on-demand, DVD and even in-store and out-of-home all present opportunities for brands to create compelling content.

I’ll be at the 2nd Screen Summit all day on Monday (check the program here). If 2nd Screen is something you feel can help your client/brand let me know and we can discuss the best way to reach out to the right people and move this forward for you.

It’s Sunday night and I’ve arrived in Las Vegas, here for dual, yet related purposes. First, on Monday I’ll be moderating a panel at The 2nd Screen Summit @ CES, specifically looking at Advertising and 2nd Screen. As the Chair of the Advertising Subcommittee for the 2nd Screen Society I’m always eager to participate in these sorts of things and I’m excited to initiate the conversation. The whole program for the Summit is filled with outstanding topics and speakers so I recommend you follow the action on Twitter with @S32Day and myself, @RickLiebling as well as #S3CES.

On Tuesday, CES proper will kick off and it will no doubt be a madhouse. From Ultra HD TVs to the latest in automotive tech, this show has it all. It’s overwhelming in its breadth, the amount of attendees and in the sheer volume of awesome innovations. But faster, thinner, brighter and bigger (or smaller) won’t be the metrics than impress me.

I’m looking to see which companies are introducing products, not because they have the ability to do so, but because the products truly meet consumer needs. What brands and products are making things easier or better for people. Which ones are creating products that help people reach their full potential. Those are the products I think will have the greatest chance for success.

I saw Skyfall this weekend and was a little disappointed. I won’t go into great detail, but it’s the usual criticisms – over the top stunts, pauses while the villain chomps the scenery (oh for Christ’s sake, James, just shoot him). Yes, that’s always been part of the James Bond franchise, but as the world has moved on, in some ways Bond hasn’t. Nevertheless, that’s not really the point of the movie worth talking about.

SPOILER ALERT - While I’m won’t be going into the main plot points of Skyfall, I do want to talk about elements of Bond’s backstory revealed in the movie. If you haven’t seen the movie, you might want to just bookmark this post and come back at a later time. - SPOILER ALERT

Right then, here we go.

The movie I saw this weekend featured:

• An anti-hero…
• Who is an orphan…
• That grew up in a mansion…
• That has a secret, underground cave…
• Under the watchful eyes of a kindly caretaker…
• Only to grow up to fight ridiculous, over the top villains…
• By operating just outside the law…
• Often using an alias or secret identity…
• While wearing a custom-made suit, and…
• Reporting to a boss who sends him on missions (and was in the Harry Potter films)…
• Has a colleague who makes cool gadgets and weapons for him…
• Gets entangled with beautiful, dangerous women…

So, yeah, I guess I saw a Batman movie this weekend.  No, I’m not the first to make this comparison. This Summer, when The Dark Knight Rises came out, The Economist said, in referring to the Batman character:

He was James Bond in a mask—a secret agent with a Q (Morgan Freeman’s Lucius Fox) to manufacture his gadgets, and an M (Gary Oldman’s Jim Gordon) to send him on missions. (Meanwhile, in “The Quantum Of Solace”, Daniel Craig’s James Bond had become a brooding, brutal outsider who didn’t have time for jokes or women. He seemed to be turning into Batman.) 

More recently, the website Cinema Blend connected the dots as well, with a piece entitled, How Skyfall Proves That James Bond is the British Batman. 

But I’m going to take it a step farther. Rather than discuss the similarities between the two characters, let’s talk about what would possibly be the most anticipated movie of all time: A James Bond – Batman cross-over.  I’ll pause for a moment while you let that idea sink in.

Yeah.

So, before we start talking about plots and so forth, let’s just clear up some logistics. Bond is MGM and Batman is Warner Bros. But, a precedent was set with the 2nd Star Wars trilogy which was a Lucasfilm / Fox joint. Also worth noting, and something comic book heads will know – Batman had certainly done non-DC team ups before. One notable example being the Batman – Grendel books. And bringing unrelated fictional characters together has precedent as well: Aliens v. Predator (good example, poor execution) and the Wold Newton Universe show the way.

Whatever, we’ll let the legal boys solve those issues. Let’s get down to business. What would a Batman – Bond movie look like? I think the possibilities are myriad. The criminal empire of Ra’s al Ghul be investigate by James Bond. You could certainly imagine Bruce Wayne and James Bond being at a high society gathering anywhere in the world. Surely Lucius Fox and Q run in the same Black Ops covert war circles. Bringing the two together would be easy.

How would two “lone wolf” operators work together? Tough to say, but one can envision the two would have admiration and respect for each other, even if in the beginning Bond viewed Batman as a potential threat or enemy. They would surely have much to talk about on a personal level, with similar childhood experiences. Get some talented writers and an A list director, and I think this could be fantastic.

But more importantly, I think both franchises need, not a reboot, but an injection of something really disruptive. Nolan ended his Batman trilogy in a place that is prime for a departure, not a revisiting. And the Daniel Craig Bond, which had a ton of promise (and delivered) with Casino Royale, seems to be simultaneously sliding backward and digging for deeper understanding of the Bond character.

This piece originally appeared on Digiday.

William Gibson.

If I were hiring at an advertising agency, in addition to looking at VCU Brandcenter or Miami Ad School I’d be looking for graduates of the MFA programs at universities like Iowa, Michigan and Texas; they are turning out the next generation of great writers.

Having written content for a variety of platforms and channels, award-winning science-fiction author and noted scientific consultant David Brin understands the challenges facing advertising-industry pros. He suggests that “in times of very rapid change, a good source of ideas can be the literary genre that’s all about change and its effects on human behavior.”

I’ve read more than my fair share of books on marketing, advertising, branding and the like. But sometimes I read fiction to escape from the demands of the job. Science fiction, in particular, is an area of the bookstore (or section of Amazon) that I frequent more than others. What sparked this idea comes from some of the science-fiction books I’ve read recently.

The “Bigend” trilogy by William Gibson, for example, features a woman who is a marketing consultant, or possibly even a planner, as the heroine. “IQ84″ by Haruki Murakami follows a math teacher and part-time novelist embroiled in a mystery surrounding a fantasy novel and its author. “REAMDE” by Neil Stephenson centers around a cast of characters that have created, work for or play a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG), similar to World of Warcraft. Not a space alien, laser beam or rocket ship in sight. These are three of the biggest names in science fiction, and their worlds are contemporary, their characters just a shade or two removed from what we in the marketing industry do every day. But perhaps more importantly, what the writers themselves do is becoming closer and closer to what we have to do every day.

The role of the brand steward has always been to tell stories — to make the customer believe a lie, as Seth Godin famously wrote in his “All Marketers are Liars.” But the method of the storytelling has changed, and it more closely resembles the intricate plots and complex narratives so masterfully crafted by the likes of Brin, Gibson, Murakami and Stephenson.

With the explosion of platforms, channels and technologies available to marketers now, a new skill set is required. Simply having

On Mad Men, it was account exec Ken Cosgrove who wrote Science Fiction. But in real life, sci-fi writers would make great creatives like Don Draper.

a presence on five different social networks, three blogs and two websites to go along with an advertising campaign takes into account neither the sophistication of consumers nor their hunger for a cohesive story. Steven Johnson, in “Everything Good is Bad for You,” explains how storytelling on shows such as “Lost” or “The Sopranos” has risen to meet the needs of consumers who have come to expect, and demand, these densely packed narratives filled with a host of characters and interwoven subplots.

So why, if video games like Bioshock, movies like “Inception” and books like “House of Leaves” are so popular, do we not demand the same type of sophistication from our marketing efforts? Why do we, as an industry, not strive for the same level of complexity and depth in creating a story with which consumers want to engage?

Yes, in some cases we do see transmedia storytelling efforts, usually in the service of big films (and often these are science-fiction or comic-book movies), but why can’t a car company or a mobile carrier have a deep narrative structure running through all of its consumer touchpoints? The answer surely isn’t that consumers don’t want this. The answer, more likely, is simply that people in the advertising industry haven’t been formally trained in creating these sort of plot structures. But professional writers have.

If this notion seems a bit far fetched to you — science-fiction writers employed in the service of a brand — here’s who didn’t think it was crazy: Intel. In trying to better understand how its products might be used by, and benefit, consumers in the future, it created the Tomorrow Project, enlisting the help of scientists, and science-fiction writers, to come up with plausible scenarios for the future.

As elements such as video content and social media interaction continue to play a larger role in consumer-facing efforts by brands, the opportunities for people who can create characters and plots, who understand pacing and dramatic tension, will grow and there will be a talent war for these people among agencies. Now is the time to start finding these future advertising stars.