Can Anything Stop Fantasy Football?

Mainstream / Manning Endorsed

Consider, for a moment, the overwhelming marketing success that is the long-term performance of fantasy football. The entire notion of fantasy sports is a matter of debate in terms of who does it first, but it only becomes prominent in the public eye in the 1980s in baseball. For a long time after that, baseball is much higher in performance, because the day-in, day-out nature of the game leads itself to people who are very comfortable with numbers and statistics, unlike football. But eventually, football works out due to the head to head nature of most casual games, with an ever-growing number of players.

There really has not been a seminal moment in development. No single event occurs to legitimize the practice, assuming, of course, that you consider the practice legitimate. On some level, it's a lot like poker, in that we have made gambling (most fantasy games involve some amount of money, even if it's not very much) palatable by changing the event from a direct win and lose experience, and into more of a long-form tournament. I'm sure there is a corollary where, over a period of decades, an activity becomes just a little more popular every year, to the point now where it's almost harder to find an NFL fan who doesn't have a fantasy team, as opposed to one who does.

As you might guess from any long-term activity, more potent strains are now catching on. Big money leagues draft in casinos, who provide a setting that's more akin to the real-world NFL draft. Daily fantasy leagues, where players are not locked into the players they draft and more or less go off matchups regardless of exclusivity, are so popular that they run mainstream marketing and advertising placements, and have developed high level sponsorships. Wildly complicated variations that take into account real-world salaries, esoteric calculations on statistical performance, and so on, are increasingly common.

Which makes me wonder, given how I run my own league (don't worry, I won't bore you with the details)... how high can this tide rise?

The short answer is, well, despite the sense of fatigue that might be present for people who have done this for years and maybe haven't won very much... we are not anywhere close to done yet. The growing acceptance of the NFL in foreign markets, where casual gaming and gambling is far more established and accepted, will bring new players to market for years. The use of mobile phones to manage teams helps to ensure that younger demographics aren't getting left out at a hardware level. The continuing growth of mainstream reporting and acceptance, with the NFL Network devoting entire programming chunks to fantasy specific copy, will continue to make the hobby more and more mainstream. There's no reason for this to believe that we're done yet, really.

Any risk factors? Well, gambling is still gambling, even if you do it at a low level with remarkably low numbers of public complaints. A class action approach, or a stigma against players for being degenerates or nerds, just does not seem to have legs. The money involved is too varied and split to imagine collusion or conspiracy among players. Maybe a desperate coach or two makes a poor choice to goose someone's numbers, but given the career trajectory and long-term arc in play for those personnel, it seems very far-fetched to get to conspiracy. The same goes for referees.

So the only real gating effect on fantasy football is the same elements at work to potentially gate actual football. Injuries to players getting to the point of public condemnation or distaste. A public backlash on the de facto subsidization of the NFL by non-fans, in the area of public funding of stadiums, and the price fixe nature of cable programming that causes non-sports viewers to pay ESPN over $60 a year. Other sports or interests coming to the fore, or the audience getting aged or priced out, maybe from something as short-sighted as the league trying to copyright statistics, or to try to litigate every player into using their site, instead of the high number of players currently in the field (Yahoo, ESPN, CBS and others).

A mature market with growing acceptance and interest. An audience that seems more and more willing to pay for programming, who also skew to the same attractive demographics that sports benefits from. And the next 2 to 5 weeks of coverage that more or less translates into an advertisement to join or start your own league.

Amazing marketing and advertising success, right?

* * * * *

Please like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. We offer copywriting, direction and strategy, along with design, illustration, photography, coding and hosting. The RFPs are always free. Hope to hear from you soon.

Putting Non-Viewable Toothpaste Back In A Viewable Tube

Note: Not Going Back In

On some level, you knew this was coming -- a backlash, in actual print, against the idea tha advertisers should only pay for viewabale ads. (No, not providing a link the column that inspired this, because rewarding idiocy with traffic is not on my list of things to do.)

Well, as you learn in political science, hear the other side. And there are problems with the sea change in ad campaigns, where KPIs go out the window for the single point about the display nature of the ad. If other performance metrics are being reached, what's the good in insisting on 100% viewability, right? Leave well enough alone! Viewability is a bogeyman! (Yes, this was said in a real live column, on a real live site I respect. And no, still not linking to it.)

Well, um, no... because knowing that any part of your ad buy is, on some level, fraud is intolerable. Has always been, should always have been. And fraud is just not something that any reasonable person can, or should, ignore. Just because it was how the industry did its business for a very long time doesn't mean that it was right then, or will be right now.

Does that mean you should only run a campaign if the ad impressions are 100% viewable? Well, that should be the goal... but there should also be a correction in rates, because 100% viewable online banner ads are intrinsically more valuable than other ad formats. Some non-viewable impressions are legitimate, because search bots are how the Web works, and just part of doing business. There is also no such thing as a 100% viewable outdoor or print ad. All radio and television spots have some aspect of non-delivery, because they are subject to channel surfing, inattentive viewers, second-screen distractions, and so on.

If you are only paying for 100% viewability on a million impressions today, you are getting a dramatically better list and deal than you were before. As well as something far more impactful than other mediums.

In the long run, the market will do what the market always does: correct itself. People who argue for the old standard of widespread malfeasance will be drummed out of the business by clients who are not willing to be victims, which is to say, they'll be drummed out of the business. After a significant period of make-good and adjustment to new performance standards, prices might even rise.

What will not happen, however, is toothpaste going back into the tube, or victims of fraud signing up for the same old con. That ship has sailed, never to return.

Now, if we could only get to the magical realm where increased traffic from viewers who saw an ad, but didn't click on it (because, well, other tabs and windows exist, and so does brand awareness, and all of the other aspects that marketing used to get credit for)...

Well, we might actually have a business that more accurately reflects the reality of an ad buy. Sounds like a great new day, doesn't it?

* * * * *

A great new day begins when you like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. We offer copywriting, direction and strategy, along with design, illustration, photography, coding and hosting. The RFPs are always free. Hope to hear from you soon.

Ad Blocker Stockholm Syndrome

You Will Believe It's Fun

On my radar today, there's a piece in Ad Age (no, not linking) which talks about how the rise in ad blocking software shouldn't result in people trying to block the blockers... but to make ads better.

I'll give you all a moment to blink slowly at this spectacular embodiment of Stockholm Syndrome.

But getting back into the gist of the clickbait...

1) It's a big problem! Ad blocker usage has doubled since 2013!

Um, 2X of not a very meaningful amount is still not a very meaningful amount. Besides, if you really want to sound the alarm, talk about mobile, which is where the traffic growth is actually happening. Oh, and it might also be relevant to note how younger demographics are leaving TV in droves, which kind of means that the Web is winning, at least in comparison. Sky? Not falling.

2) People hate advertising!

Gosh, that's new. Imagine if online ads were actually intrusive, say, in 30-second unskippable audio and video chunks. Or printed on paper and placed in a mailbox that you had to clean, or on billboards that you can't help but look at, or... anyway. Online ads are certainly so uniquely onerous as to encourage scofflaw tech.

3) Let's focus on improving the advertising experience!

Shockingly, this is kind of what ad pros have been, well, trying to do all this time. We have to conform to a wide range of conditions, mostly based around brand standards for our clients, sizes and other restrictions... but I've never been in a creative meeting, in over 15 years in the field for an unspeakable number of clients, when anyone spoke to a desire to have a terrible advertising experience.

4) Because at the end of it all... advertising is a form of content!

By this logic, I am a form of NBA player, because I watch a fair amount of it.

Um, no. Advertising is adjacent to content. It may be, with targeting and relevance, something that is appreciated or valued by the user, but it is, well, trying to sell something, either directly or indirectly. That's not content.

5) We need to invest in creativity!

News that we haven't been doing that, actually.

I could go on, but you hopefully get the point. People who block ads are breaking a de facto social contract, and making everyone else pay more for their malfeasance. They do not need to celebrated or coddled. Advertising does not need to get better because of them; advertising needs to get better because it is advertising, and advertising always needs to get better, because there is no other way to beat a control, or improve how you are telling a brand's story.

Ad blocking is just another aspect of how tech exists that lets us do something that we really should not do. Blaming the tech, or the conditions that led to the tech, is bass ackwards. And that's all I've got to say about that.

* * * * *

If you've got something to say, let's continue the conversation. Please like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. We offer copywriting, direction and strategy, along with design, illustration, photography, coding and hosting. The RFPs are always free. Hope to hear from you soon.