A Brief And Pointless Rant About The Use Of GIFs and Emojis

I Haz No Idea

Today in the New York Times, there was a trend piece about how The Kids Today are using GIFs (shocking!) in their smartphones, and how some companies are making fine bank from this.

Now, I personally don't have any great problem with this, or even the chuckle-worthy news aspect of a less than fresh trend; the Times is here to set history, more than be the first to act. Most digital conversation is, by its very nature, ephemeral and transitory, and the use of some looping image to describe your reaction is fine, honestly. If it starts creeping into communications that seem to be out of touch with its standing, well, that is what happens with new forms of technology. It takes a while for these things to shake out.

I'm also fine with, in all likelihood, being beyond the event horizon for the trend. I'm not a huge fan of everything that smartphones have done to the world in the first place, but railing against the tides is pointless, and the pros outweigh the cons. I've also made my peace, or at least I thought I had, with the ongoing devaluation of the writing skill and the reading muscle. The future is visual, and the age when the Internet was a word-driven medium is leaving, and fast.

But what goes beyond the pale? These pull quotes.

“I’m able to express these really complex emotions in the span of two seconds."

This, from the act of pulling a mass-produced GIF, one that in all likelihood, has been seen and used by the recipient.

Really complex emotions? No, no, a million times, no. Really complex emotions require the use of words that express these thoughts. Really complex emotions require really complex thoughts in the first place. You don't get to claim emotional depth from picking a freaking emoji or GIF. You just don't.

Annoyed enough yet? I wasn't. Adding fuel to the fire...

“I’m not that great with words. But if I find the perfect GIF, it nails it.”

Nails it. A five second loop of the Seinfeld cast dancing spastically was cited in the NYT story as being one of those GIFs that nails it.

Now, perhaps I'm being less than kind. Perhaps the unexamined life is best left, well, unexamined. Perhaps people who have made the choice not to spend their days and nights trying to bend words into phrases should not be mocked for finding some other way to get through the day.

And then again, well, no.

Use your spine-friendly imagery all you want. Take over the world with them. There's no point in pushing back against the ocean.

But please, for the love of your own humanity, and the sanity of my fellow word monkeys?

Do not claim the freaking high ground over your lack.

* * * * *

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.

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.