The word Nimby seems to accelerate its meanings these days, so I will hereby join the choir and extent its reach to the planning sphere. So I’ll introduce the concept of Nimby planning. Everybody working with advertising know the  situations in which  co-workers or clients agree fully on the strategy. They nood at the insights on the need for a digital strategy or a creative media plan. You feel that the meeting was beneficial and that we all moved a step further into a bright future. You sleep well that night.

Next morning the “nimpy” feel steps in. You get a call; “Ohh we just talked about the strategy for next year and about blogging we don’t think we have the ressources. And by the way the creative outdoor campaign; It’s really great, but can we get the same reach as TV gave us last year?, and the thing about activation the social networks; our chief of sales says trade won’t accept it”

Ten days later you take last years strategy and copy paste it to 2008. That’s really a nimpy feel. We all know what’s right; but not in my backyard (or with my marketing budget) . Nobody ever get fired for recommending TV. (But they will in the future!)

So this is Nimpy planning. Here is wikipedias explanation of NIMBY:

NIMBY (an acronym of Not In My Back Yard) describes the phenomenon in which

residents designate a development as inappropriate or unwanted for their local area, even if the development is clearly a benefit for many.

NIMBY and its derivative terms NIMBYism, NIMBYs, and NIMBYists, refer implicitly to debates of development generally or a specific case, and as such their use is inherently contentious. Also, it is a relatively recent term, the first printed usage of which the Oxford English Dictionary identifies as being in 1980 in the Christian Science Monitor, and the nuances of which are still disputed. The term is usually applied to opponents by advocates of a development, implying that those opposing the debated development, or at least their viewpoint in such regards, is narrow, selfish, myopic, hypocritical or otherwise limited.

This is really really funny… An ironic approach to my everyday work…. It’s funny – all the prejudice about the media industry collected in one video…..

Spending some time exploring all the new emerging technologies challenging the traditional TVviewing and bringing the TV experience online, combining the best of both worlds, I am a bit confused about the lack of keeping the feeling of flow TV. Watching Youtube, dailymotion, currentTV, Jalipo and Joost I miss something. Even though it seems as there are a tendency towards on-demand viewing I see plenty of possibilities of keeping the aspect of flow and live at the same time as the possibilities of control. Especially at Joost where they very nicely have combined chat functions and viewing it doesn’t make sense that there aren’t a flow to gather around with? Have I missed something. It would be obvious to be able to invite somebody to view content simultaniously as re-creating the feeling of shared viewing across space and context. But can’t find out if I’m just a newbie in Joost or if online TV just is killing flow TV.

We often discuss if the future media user is willing to pay for high quality on-demand content. The creators of Jalipo must think so, and after a while browsing the (still limited) content and interface I think I’ll agree for now. If the pricing is right – as it seems here – and the interface is easy to access, have a smooth feel and appeal I think it will be able to attract customers. Can’t find much content there yet, but it works and if they manage to broaden the catalogue I’ll definitely be back…

The thing I admire most and which seems most innovative is the idea of paying per minute which leaves the opportunity to quit something I really don’t wanna see anyway..

Watch here….

These days I’m really curios about Joost. I think this project has possibilities of growing big anf hopefully helps solve some of the problems connected to TV-ads. I don’t know enough about it yet, but I know what I would like these guys to do with my TV and I have a feeling that it’s the right way their heading.

BUT – my biggest problem right now is that I don’t have an beta account so I can explore and test it… so anybody out there – give me an invitee? please?  

On adrants today a case from Colle+McVoy shows  how TV ads from the Minnesota State Lottery are directly used to drive the audience online and start interacting with the content. It’s still TV, but the main objective (and interaction) will take place online. It’s interesting and a way to make TV meet online ads.. Will it work? Or are the two media consumption situation too differenten. It will be interesting to know the recent numbers on how many people actually sits with a laptop while watching TV.

 See the spot here 

Now it’s running. How’s the User- generated-ads doing? Right now it looks pretty damn good for “me and you” being ad agnecy of the year.

This moment this one is leading the race….

Per Mikael TV2 had his 15 minutes of powertalk at the brunch seminar. Talking about visions for the future for TV2 he focused on the news staff and how the coverage of news in Denmark are being stronger by the investments made in high quality content and staff. Most interesting was it though that he briefly talk about the strenght in launching a news story in different media. In the daily discussion on transmedia planning these days it came very naturally to think  about how a launch of a new story in a media house like TV2 is actually very close to the planning process we are working on refining everytime a new media is included in the communication of a product release or a brand story.

After Henrik Dahls very positive talk Anker Brink Lund from CBS talked about the opposite trend being consumers paying less attention to TV commercials. He raised up an inattention index being the medium crossed with the level of other activities normally carried out during mediatime. TV and Phones were often dual-media-use. ABL did a good job in shaking up the discussion and taking the Hymn of TV on the ground of reality. A well used friday morning….

A really great morning in Charlottehaven in Copenhagen with an interesting debate on the future for the TV medium. Henrik Dahl Explora started out with something like a hymn to TV as being center of social context, with the ads as a common denominator for the public agenda as well as the content is. A special point was his differentiation between attitude and behavior. Is it really true that we all hate commercials on TV. Attitude says yes – behavior no. But after that he drew out some points on how to lower the hatred towards TV ads. Interesting and most of all a solid base for further discussion.