The Metaverse and the rise of Homo Virtualis

 

Since Mark Zuckerberg rebranded Facebook as Meta Platforms six months ago, the share has lost over 30% of its value. Maybe shareholders are less sanguine than Zuckerberg about developing the metaverse to attract a new younger audience? Yet many others remain bullish on this space with about 3.1 billion regular gamers in the world today, growing at 5.6% annually.¹

The metaverse is a digital world that co-exists with our physical world having similar features and attributes but no physical manifestation. It is a place to live a second life (also the name of a metaverse/game), socialising and transacting through an avatar of our own creation.

Like our own universe, different worlds exist in the metaverse. Each “world” is created, managed, and branded by a different corporate owner. A popular virtual world such as Roblox, has 220 million users, while another, Sandbox, recently sold a plot of virtual real estate for USD $4.3m. Africa too has its first virtual world, Ubuntuland, where MTN purchased 144 plots for an undisclosed sum helping to get the party started. These virtual worlds are leading the convergence of physical and virtual lives with activities such as games, concerts, art exhibitions and fashion shows. 

Adding to the use of the metaverse is the rise of crypto bringing commercial viability and the birth of the NFT², a new digital asset class. Now the things we can do in the metaverse go beyond chatting and hanging out. We can go to concerts, buy food, and accessorise our curated avatar with items advertised on digital outdoor hoardings. This is the rise of homo virtualis.

The Fortnite platform, recently hosted a concert featuring Travis Scott an American rap artist. The event drew over 12.3 million concurrent guests setting a new metaverse concert attendance record in the process. For those attending, mainly in the 16-20 age group - those born with mobile devices at hand - the virtual experience was visceral. 

Moving back to our consumer roots, imagine the possibility of your favourite real world fashion retailer showing up with a virtual 3D store from where you can buy real merchandise delivered later to your real-world home. This changes everything and companies like Gucci, Calvin Klein and Nike are leading the way.

And then there’s business. Bill Gates sees the metaverse as a benefactor to business efficiency, improving meetings, presentations, conferences and other engagements. Microsoft too has already launched Mesh for Microsoft Teams under the enigmatic banner “Here can be Anywhere”.

With real world commercial investment in a metaverse comes advertising and the search for branded interaction opportunities. Already the world’s leading agencies are strategising how this might be developed and what the ad product might look like in a metaverse. Tom Hostler, head of brand experience at Publicis.Poke says: “They (brands) have to be there in a different way than display advertising around content. They need to be much more participative, collaborative and understand the culture. Whether that will take the form of what we currently think of as an advert is hard to say. I think it will be closer to brand activations and experiences.”³

It is likely that brand communication in the metaverse will lean strongly towards incentivised immersion drawing on a gaming heritage. Recently Chiptole in the USA opened a metaverse store on Roblox, encouraging visitation with a coupon for a free burrito redeemable in a real physical outlet but only after completing an in-game quest.

Notwithstanding a lack of current certainty on the ideal metaverse ad, a new genre of metaverse specific agencies are springing up much like specialist social media agencies a while back. Don’t think only creative, there are already exclusive metaverse media agencies creating the infrastructure to extend virtual brand presence, build avatar brand advocacy and create activations. Global gaming and metaverse adspend will almost treble from $47bn in 2021 to $131bn in 2025 according to Statistica.

Ocean Outdoor, a UK media specialist, made headlines recently selling 3 digital billboards to metaverse ‘landowners’ for over $100 000. Working with Admix, they aim to offer advertisers a seamless presence across physical and digital worlds with consistent real-time communication.

Going further, the question of ad verification and audience measurement is getting early attention in the virtual environment. Companies like Bidstack and Anzu.io that place ads in games and metaverses are already working with Nielsen and Comscore to bring viewability verification tools to the virtual space.

The metaverse is not fully formed yet. The big breakthroughs may lie ahead. Optimists envision strong growth pointing out features and benefits that will forever change humankind. As an example, the simple creation of an avatar is interpreted by some as a process that will positively impact people across the world at a personal inter-relational level. As we design and clothe our avatar we are able to step beyond our physical limitations and explore new personalities, cultures and genders. We may create an avatar very different from our real personas. Through this discovery our virtual interactions can heighten tolerance and understanding of others. Learnings in the metaverse could make us better people on earth.

And then there are naysayers. Elon Musk sees little use for the metaverse, “I don’t see someone strapping a frigging screen to their face all day” he explains, and later “I currently am unable to see a compelling metaverse situation”.⁴

Even at a subconscious level some are concerned that the metaverse gives a false sense of agency. We have stronger autonomy in the metaverse. But how useful is this?  Our lives in the real world are littered with challenges or disappointments from which we sometimes do not recover. The metaverse masks this, acting as a palliative, and reflecting nirvana. This, some say, could cause withdrawal, addiction, and eventual depression amongst players. But doesn’t this happen in the real world too?

 

1. https://financesonline.com/number-of-gamers-worldwide/

2. Non-Fungible Token

3. The Drum: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2022/01/21/what-s-the-role-ad-agency-the-metaverse

4. The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/22/22849717/elon-musk-metaverse-web3-more-marketing-than-reality

 

The Rise of Brand Empathy in a Polarised World

  

 Yesterday’s boxes can’t hold the future. Those railing for a return to conspicuous consumption, endless motoring, the roll-out of urban sprawl and the long-term security of home ownership in bucolic suburbia may have missed a few pointers.

Life’s Signals do not Confirm the Mainstream Story

There is a disconnect between what we are told and what we know through experience. The disconnect may be strongest only at the fringes of what we see, but a growing schism in truth remains. Our lived experience is contrasted with increasingly binary dialogue. There are only two available sides to every story, every issue, every event. Our beliefs are driven to polarity. You are either for it or against it. Left or Right. Diversity, gender fluidity, Critical Race Theory, vaccination, universal basic income, sustainability, global warming, fats, meat, free education, free trade, quantitative easing, modern monetary theory, crypto, colonialism, the socialisation of debt, the meaning of work and even the pursuit of happiness, are all more polarising than prone to constructive adult debate.

 

Our Online Experience Drives our Disassociation

Many argue that our online experience and communication is a factor driving this change. Social media has been criticised for furthering a loss of empathy, alienation, and even anger. Empathy loss is attributed to a lack of visual contact, a lack of nuanced exchanges, the aggregation of complex emotions in simple emojis and the asynchronicity of exchanges on social media. There is no consequence for “incivility” as Christopher Penn calls it. This is the “disinhibition” effect of social media described by Dr Suler¹ - dissociative, anonymous, invisible.

 

The Internet is an Echo-Chamber

Online communications create an echo-chamber of attitudes, beliefs and feelings. Social media and online algorithms encourage feedback loops that reinforce who we are through limited exposure to thinking outside our immediate group of friends and colleagues. It is known as “out-group” exposure with “in-group” referring to those close to us. Our ability to see and understand differences in people around us is reduced to binary stereotypes. In fact, it has been shown² that persistent exclusive “in-group” proclivity is not only factionising but also economically constrictive. In-group exchanges are risk-averse and preclude exposure to outsized pay-off possibilities. The global growth in populist politics and protectionist economic policies bears witness to growing in-group myopia. This phenomenon “divides populations into belligerent groups with rigidly opposed beliefs and identities that inhibit co-operation and undermine the pursuit of the common good”². With the absence of a common good and the polarisation on issues and politics we witness trust as a casualty.

 

Our Binary Dialogue Mirrors an Erosion in Trust

Loss of trust has reached an epidemic scale. The global Edelman Trust Barometer tells us that trust in government, institutions, business leaders and media is lower than ever, in part exacerbated by the Covid pandemic. Three years ago, the 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer recognized the ‘Battle for Truth’, in which people selected media that reinforced their views. They now observe a further degradation of the communications infrastructure, resulting in a lack of quality information to enable the public to make fact-based decisions. The Edelman 2020 Barometer says: “As a result of this daily diet of distortions and counter-factual narrative, we no longer believe our leaders. Fifty-seven percent of respondents say government and business leaders purposefully try to mislead us.”

 

“Gated Institutional Narratives” are Unassailable

Professor Freyd goes further in raising the uncomfortable spectre of Institutional Betrayal. Using Trauma Theory she links the failures of institutions to deliver as promised, to anxiety and depression³. This she calls a “betrayal of trust”. (Viz police brutality enforcing covid lockdowns).

A new phenomenon of Gated Institutional Narratives (GIN) is emerging. First coined by Eric Weinstein, head of Thiel Capital, the GIN articulates the outcome of often heavily generalised institutional narratives as presented by the media and other commentators. Without access to “in-group” approval we have little ability to counter the GIN even with valid proven information. Much of the Covid vaccination programme roll-out has been advanced with this type of uncontestable sector narrative.

 

How do we Make Sense of Our World?

The world is not like it used to be. A genie has escaped the bottle and we cannot push it back. More and more, we know this.

Our challenge is sense-making. The institutional narratives, governmental failure and absence of leadership feed a myriad of issues and questions we grapple with daily. Staccato social media bursts, asymmetrical media “information” and the aggressive censoring of any voice outside the gated narrative exhausts us.

We try to decode the world on a daily basis as we re-think our role in the productive fabric of society. It is in this world too that each brand’s narrative is summoned to resonate as aptly as it did a short while back. Many brands realise this. Many do not.

 

A New Brand Leadership is Needed

Brands need to add to sense-making by building assurance and security while acknowledging the uncertainty of our times. Naive positivity falls short in this environment and is seen for what it is – insincere, even fatuous. The tone of voice brands need now is rooted in authenticity and inclusivity. The message essence, wrapped with a little humility.

Advertising has evolved through several phases and styles. We have seen the use of feature-benefit messages, to solution-based advertising, and most recently the emergence of the Challenger brand that seeks to change a mindset. It is in the Challenger typology that the next brand construct will likely emerge. The idea of challenging a mindset (or any known opponent) will morph into a stronger need for customer allegiance and partnership in world where we face uncertain outcomes. Building a brand in the future will be more about an acceptance of unknowns than a conviction that we need to change something.

 

Brand Authenticity in Action

Brand authenticity starts at a foundational level in the brand narrative or construct. It will manifest in visible communication. A good example is the Allan Gray campaign claiming that you should “Throw Time at Your Money”. The profound truth in this message is that all the expertise of money managers is less powerful than time itself. The essence is humility that speaks volumes to audience intelligence. Contrast this, as an example, with the countless other growth promises from financial managers who know, as do we (and Magnus Heystek), that South Africa is trapped in a low growth environment.

 

The Brand as a Confidant

The successful brand as a challenger will morph into the brand as a coach or compatriot or confidant. Empathetic brand leadership will rise. The promise of brochure style benefits that fit the boxes of the past are set to ring hollow. Brands embracing adult-style discourse will recognise the need for flexibility, accessibility, and responsivity in their core narratives. Promises of a product-feature laden tomorrow will ring less true than assurances that, even though we face uncertainty, we do so together.

 

References

1. Psychology of the Digital Age: Cambridge University Press. Suler. 2016.

2. Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline: Alexander J. Stewart, Nolan McCarty, and Joanna J. Bryson.  Published Dec 2020.

3. Institutional Betrayal: American Psychologist. Smith, C.P. & Freyd, J.J. 2014.

 

Sources

https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/institutionalbetrayal/

https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer

https://brandgenetics.com/human-thinking/empathy-statistics-for-business/

https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Gated_Institutional_Narrative_(GIN)

https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer/insights/declaring-information-bankruptcy

https://www.christopherspenn.com/2016/09/subduing-incivility-online/

https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2021/07/trust-public-institutions/

https://truecenterpublishing.com/psycyber/disinhibit.html

Changes in Dispositional Empathy in American College Students Over Time: A Meta-Analysis. Michigan U

Do Hunter-Gatherers Notice Advertising?

Optimists are predicting a V-shaped economic recovery after the Covid-19 crisis. This is unlikely. Henceforth many people will hesitate before visiting shopping malls, will think twice about eating in restaurants and forego airline flights where possible. Not all economic sectors will be equally constrained but on average the V-shaped recovery will not happen.

Compounding the improbability of a V-shaped recovery is the fact that at an aggregate level we are all poorer now. Many people have lost incomes, many more have increased debt levels, and still more are dealing with business closures.

Despite the optimist’s claims, trends show that the loss of affluence in SA is not new. This trend, even while “lumpy” at times, has been underway for a couple of decades. Research shows that white-collar wages have declined in real terms over the past 10 years* while middle class growth has stagnated**. Personal debt levels have inched inexorably higher, the residential property market has stagnated and the precariat (those living precariously from day to day) has mushroomed with our perverse cheerleading for the new entrepreneurial class, the wastepreneurs. 

Image from New York Times

In this environment of diminishing discretionary choice is it wrong to suggest that we are the emergent nouveau hunter-gatherers? Are we not the 99 percenters with an ever-narrowing economic horizon? Whether we are able to plan one day ahead or one month ahead we face similar limitations on what we buy.

Choice is a luxury that poverty does not tolerate. In the branded arena it means avoiding experimentation and the disappointment of underperformance. We use price points as proof of diligence while acknowledging silently that our money might just get us to month end when the cycle starts again, but not always. This is the modern interpretation of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle which is true for nine tenths of our time on earth as bipeds. But with a little advertising thrown in.

Our recent branded past was significantly different. The 1970’s and 1980’s witnessed the emergence of truly inspired creative advertising and with the birth of the Cannes Lions Awards, the advertisement became the celebrated objet d’art. If ads were liked the brand was bought. A simple straight-line correlation was in play with massive investment underpinning the creation of brilliant brand vignettes used in media channels you could count on one hand. 

The industry rewarded creativity almost to the exclusion of any other measurable marketing gain while globalisation peaked and cheaply made goods flooded the freshly built western suburbia.

Delayed-cost economics was embraced with fervour and dictated advertising best practice where the words of the late actress Carri Fischer ring abundantly true: “Instant gratification takes too long.”

This is changing very quickly now. Covid-19 brings new marketing challenges into stark relief. The time-tested mantra instructing brands to maintain a share of voice during the crisis is questioned. What about brand presence? Does the fact that your brand is in the store staring back at you with commensurate devotion not count for anything during this crisis? Professor Byron Sharpe at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science has made it clear that brand presence is critical - “showing up” as he calls it. Similarly, what is the role of clutter-busting creative adverts at a time most people just want to get to the end of the month in one piece with some joy in assured regular brand performance?

The answers are not clear. Advertisers have used and dismissed many insights on why people buy and how they relate to brands. The importance of factors such as humour, relevant news, and liking have all proven to be essential in advertising at one time or another. Most of these, however, were underscored by a period of excess, of overconsumption and the cult of consumerism.

Covid-19 might bring us closer to our genetically imprinted forager roots. Marketing goals have morphed into the pursuit of engagement rather than exchange, story rather than instruction, empathy rather than aspiration. The brand, as an abstraction, is now a conversation and wider brand investment extends to CSI, CRM, CTA, SEO, B2C, and so on.

The search continues for the advertising holy grail – the thing that works best. In this time of declining affluence and risk aversion the actual moment of purchase, the instant of selection, still offers scope for marketing encroachment. At the point you choose one brand, the seduction by another is most likely. It’s an instant when, as the hunter-gatherer, you might pause and switch to another fruit. “In the moment” marketing invades this instant with increasingly powerful technology. It explains why SEO is important, why pop-ups work, why digital connected billboards are appearing and why the measurement of attribution is more important than before.

At this time, albeit of crisis, marketers have a wider range of tools and new frontiers to explore and develop their craft. It seems unlikely that what worked well 30 years ago will work equally now. While ad creativity was a pre-eminent goal in the past, the frontier has moved to media and tech. These are the creative playgrounds of today as the luxury of surplus and choice escape most consumers.

* Broll Research

** Professor Murray Leibbrandt, Southern Africa Labour & Development Research Unit (Saldru) at UCT.

By Andrew Barnes - andrew@noted.co.za

Brand Insights: How to Get Them

Brand research is a staple element of any marketer’s toolkit. This is the starting point for building insights that are used to develop a strategy or a plan. But many of these terms are generic these days and even experts tend to use them without careful attention to their actual meaning. In fact, “insights” is such an overused term these days that it has clearly usurped the often more applicable term, “observation”, in use and meaning.

Brand research insights are not a given outcome. They are not easily accessible and in most instances are not provided in research reports. Research provides observations - a record of behaviour rather than an explanation for observed behaviour - although some qualitative brand research techniques do provide deeper answers and insights.

Often a research dataset will provide countless data points. These are observations or findings. To link these findings in such a way to create new questions and generate new answers is the process of arriving at the elusive insight. Many researchers and advertising people will say “we have an insight” but in truth they are often describing an observation. They might say … “we know that more people engage with our posts in the evenings” or “the value of the average shopping basket is R550”. but they are merely repeating what is already known.

Insight generation is a process of connecting disparate datapoints and unlocking new questions that in turn, with effort and digging, may generate an elusive insight. This process is time-consuming, often self-defeating, and relies on a deep sense of curiosity. It also relies on an ability to spot something new in an otherwise mundane occurrence. Mankind waited centuries for Newton to figure out that there was something bigger happening when the apple fell on his head.

An insight can also arrive as a eureka moment or from careful observation of behaviour, but in truth it is mostly the result of hard work and relentless data scrutiny and tinkering.

The essence of an insight is that it answers the “why?” rather than the “how?” or “what?”

Upon unlocking a new insight it is often relatively easy to move to the action stage which is the point at which recommendations are made. Recommendations could involve anything from creative direction, media or strategy.

The different steps are described as:

Finding - Something that is apparent from the data

Insight - A conclusion drawn from a finding or a combination of findings and observations

Recommendation - An action taken/to be taken from the insight

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's an example of the process as it unfolds in real life.

A large B2C retailer was looking at transaction amounts. They expected a normal distribution with the number of transactions peaking in a typical bell-curve.

But when the actual data was interrogated this was observed:

The ‘hmm’ needed investigation.

It turned out that these transactions weren’t made by their typical shopper — young moms shopping for their kids. They were made by people who would travel from abroad once a year, walk into a store, buy lots of items, take them back to their country and sell them in their own stores. They were resellers who had no special relationship with our retailer.

This modest “discovery” set off a chain reaction of interesting questions on what sorts of products these resellers were buying, what promotional campaigns may be best suited for them, and even how this data could inform multi-national expansion plans.

Source: www.datascience.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insights are hard to get. If everyone had great insights great advertising would be prolific. But in most instances, there are probably not many new things to learn about how brands perform. This is when the emphasis shifts from brand performance to emotional reaction and to value alignment.

For instance, we know how the average washing powder works. There is not much new to say about what it does. But we might find something new about the emotions it unlocks in loyal users, and better still we may discoverer a link to a deep set of cultural value norms such as trust, honesty and loyalty. These are the insights that might then inform a new distinctive and engaging communication campaign.

Make no mistake, while it’s easy to spell out the process it’s very tricky to generate valid insights. Insights can emerge at any point and are frequently ignored if a receptive and imaginative person is not attuned to these triggers. And this is why research data remains a good starting point because diligence and persistence can suffice for creative genius in unlocking a break-through insight.

And finally, in closing, be aware of those recounting mere facts and findings as insightful “discoveries”. More work may still lie ahead.

Retail Trends: Are People Still Buying Stuff?

Seeking Signal in the Noise

Climate Change, Ranga Myneni, Foetus, Colonialism, “Fees Must Fall”, Gramsci, Fanon – what is the link between  these issues and names?  I admit - I have an agenda.  Throwing these “randoms” at you is an attempt to buy your engagement. I am trying to engage you in a “meaning-making” exercise as an exercise in agency and  citizenship of this fantastic country.

The common link is an intended emotional  fruit that is, in my opinon, diabolical. This is a strong word but I am happy to use it. For, if you stay with the programme over this series, you will connect the dots and understand what we believe are the  pathways to undermine your identity, and by extension your agency.

There is an intentional assault on a way of comprehending life. The goal is to  destroy. This is done by trashing history and criminalising those who are the carriers of the defined disease - labelled “colonialism”.   The next step is to demoralise and suck people dry of hope creating visionless men and women. This  leads to a kind of death where,  in  the land of your birth, you have no “agency”  and the irony is not lost on us.  This is precisely the accusation levelled against “the colonial” who are the creators of the initial dispossession. The way of redress is what is being navigated right now. It is anything from retribution to restoration. But Gramsci, who we will introduce you to next time round,  does not allow restoration. It is good  you know why.

The Oliver Tambo vision of  South Africa is anathema to a new Nike-wearing marxist generation. They harbour a visceral intolerance, even hatred, for any  approach that leverages ALL our past, using ALL our social, technical, psychological  and spiritual complexities that comprise our  common heritage. This is their narrative: Mandela, Tambo and the 1994 leader cohort are deeply compromised.  They were bought out by colonial capitalists.

The activists  feed, even rely on, the  toxic bacteria of grinding poverty, injustice, resentment, entitlement, disappointment, covetousness and a generationally fuelled impatience with the pace of change.  Corruption doesn’t help either.

A sense of “denied justice” is a  powerful motivator that  legitimises anger. The target of this hatred are the perceived originators and now the current “owners” of this misery - the “colonials” - which is code for, in generic terms, the individualised world view asociated with northern hemisphere, western thinking and practice. Its embodiment just happens to reside in people with pale skins.

But in our first blog, as a scene set weʼll look at some key actors and their “virtue signalling” with comments. It is important to note and understand the branding. Nothing is insignificant. All actions are intentionally choreographed and grounded in deep ideological and psychological thinking.

Julius Malemaʼs “red beret” garb  looks to be borrowed from the failed Equadorian President,  Hugo Chavez. Chavez probably has minimal resonance here other than reducing his nation to squalor.  Fanon provides the intellectual component to the EFF uniform. The intention is really to offend - what can be more offensive to the more stoical mindset than watching the dignity of Parliament disregarded by worker clothing? The EFF are smart operators and superb virtue signallers. Their “parliamentary uniform” - the “Easyjet” orange jumpsuit is an effective visual hook, ideal for the TV camera. JuJu is a conditional democrat -  he lauds the Constitutional Court because it sides with him against President Zuma. This is further “virtue signalling” - at the SONA address as the Cheif Justice and his Bench parade in to Parliament the EFF cohort signal their respect with silence.   He is a consummate political operator where all influencing options are open. The end justifies the means.

Consider Mcebo Dlamini, the 32 year old Wits LLM student activist/apparent leader. He frequently sports the   PLO Arafat-famous, Keffiyeh Scarf at all major public events. This is intentional virtue signalling which,  interestingly, links him to the progressive student “rent a mob” currently rampaging the streets of major US cities protesting  Trump’s election.   Violence is always an option. The end justifies the means. The angry students he incites are really just useful potential cannon fodder - where the choreography requires   a few to go and collect a bullet at the hands of the police - and create an outpouring of national mayhem that will bring down Zuma’s government.

Chumani Maxwele, the UCT  management student who tipped excrement over UCTʼs Rhodes Statue is a colleague of Chumani. They drink the same koolaid.  The intention  is to offend colonialists by  attacking symbols of colonial aggression - burning paintings of Hall Founders at UCT, tipping excrement on Rhodes’ Statue and so on. The goal is to both enrage and demoralise. He succeeded in evoking the psychological response that Fanon urges. He is driven by racial hatred generated out of, and no more compelling than  the same psychological/spiritual swamp that drove PW Botha, HF Verwoerd, Eugene Terreblanche and their ilk - notwithstanding the irony. But, it feels as if , “progressives” and radicals are a humourless bunch.

That Maxwele inhabits the same behavioural excess as the “colonials”  is nevertheless good news. Evil, we suggest,  is not racial but universal, available, by choice, to all.   Because he is “on the right side of history” though, his racialism is acceptable or tolerated.

In our next blog we will introduce you to Gramsci and if there is space, Fanon (who got a passing mention this time round).

Simon Middleton

Partner at Noted Thinking

www.noted.co.za

The Olympics: Does it still have a ring to it?

Will the Olympics die? After Rio, there are strong forces working against this longstanding, iconic event.

Rio TV audiences were down between 17 and 20% depending on which figures are quoted. Alarmingly the opening event attracted 30% fewer viewers than that recorded for the epochal 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics which were seen by 4.7 billion people (minimum 1 minute watched).

Media industry heavyweights bravely explained the decimation of TV viewers as a technical shift: “Audiences have migrated to streaming” they said, pointing out that live viewing on computer and mobile screens had in fact climbed substantially. However the new online adopters accounted for 5-10% extra daily viewers. They did not compensate for the steep decline in traditional TV viewers*.

NBCSN: NBC Sports Network - a cable and satellite channel

Furthermore, there is no advertising revenue from much of this new type of viewing including ‘time-shifted’ viewing (the watching of pre-recorded footage). The current paradigm relies on traditional TV audiences because big TV audiences justify high advertising rates which translate into broadcast rights fees paid to the Olympics organisation (IOC). This remains their chief revenue source. No audience - no Olympics.

Source: www.olympic.org

Paying big fees to the IOC is what NBC has done. In a fit of optimistic joie de vivre NBC paid $4.4bn to secure the global TV rights for the Olympics up to the year 2020, and then went back for more, forking out a further $8bn for rights until 2032. That fewer people watched the Rio Olympics is now an open secret. This drove NBC managers to offer clients additional free prime-time advertising slots to make up for the unrealised Rio audiences.

Source: Nielsen

However, a simple decline in monetisable audiences may not tell the whole story. There is an easily overlooked generational development. The steepest audience declines were in the key youth segment where up to 30%**of those aged 18-34 simply evaporated. The “future” vanished. Analysts were again quick to point out that younger viewers did engage with the Olympics via non TV media but we know that much of the claimed youth interest had little to do with traditional athletic prowess. For instance younger profiled Buzzfeed suggestions included “How many athletes ‘hook-up’ in the Olympic village” eliciting shock and dismay amongst IOC officials. TV risks becoming irrelevant in the younger, connected world. A post-Olympics media news headline pertinently read: TV has seen the future of TV.

Re-inforcing the youthful migration away from TV are their strong peer group bonds that seem to be impervious to top-down messaging and branded role models offered through traditional media. While the youth may be interested to know that androgynous Caster Semenya won a medal and big-footed Phelps many more, they are not on the verge of a new wave of idolatry such as that which followed Mark Spitz’s victories a few decades ago. The world has changed.

Young people have a greater level of self-confidence under-pinning a stronger sense of identity than recent generations. Modern youth identity is diverging from external figures, labels and commercial abstractions. (See  http://noted.co.za/work-and-advertising-did-marx-foresee-this/ )   

With the Olympics producing a repetitive inter-nation big-media athletic circus it risks becoming tomorrow’s anachronism as youth interests and communication preferences diverge.

There are other forces acting against the Olympics – well known to us. The exorbitant costs and losses that befall host cities, the drug and performance enhancing scandals, the politicisation of the event including boycotts and national grandstanding, even the branding police. These coalesce to diminish the compelling spectacle it once was.

Finally there’s the Seneca Cliff. Yes, Lucius  Annaeus Seneca was a Roman Stoic philosopher that amongst many things described how complex systems decay faster than they develop. Put differently, things that take a long time to develop will often collapse rapidly. (This has been subsequently demonstrated mathematically):

At a basic existential level, survival of the Olympics will be threatened by its size and “complexity”. The combination of forces listed above suggest the IOC needs to embrace the attitudinal and value shift occurring in the emerging future audience. Yes, the Olympics can die, yet more so without rapid innovation and readiness to adapt.

Andrew Barnes

Partner at NOTED Thinking

September 2016

*Audience measurement is not directly comparable across traditional TV where audiences are measured in people versus streaming where the measurement is “minutes” viewed or available, with no comparable estimate of people actually watching. Audience estimates are for the USA.

** Some estimates claim a higher figure.