Lastly, (what’s changed is) what algorithms bring to the forefront in a lot of these channels. You flip through TikTok for 10 minutes and it keeps feeding you stuff. The algorithms are (suggesting) things you may like, and as an advertiser, it’s a much more complicated space to move across. So, moving into more testing and learning is ever more important and no longer just building campaigns and setting it and forgetting it.
Media
Jungle Media’s Brock Leeson on the might of local media
Agency Partner touts ‘power of putting our message… within local Canadian ads’ when publishers offer content that engages audiences
What has stayed the same?
The strategies are the same. We want to reach people, we want to make an impact, we want to get our clients’ brands out there and we want to hit their business objectives… That hasn’t changed. The other piece that hasn’t changed is the people. We’re bringing in people with new skills versus five or 10 years ago. But people are the constant in all of it and they’re the ones who need to bring the passion for that more complex puzzle.
As media channels have increased, how are brands capturing consumer attention?
That’s one of the biggest challenges. It feels like we have all these new channels and we’re trying to replace what a big TV campaign had done in the past, when that audience is dropping, and where the 30-second commercial that has wonderful storytelling abilities isn’t reaching the same amount of people. So, how do you solve that or how do you replace that? Essentially, we’re all trying to prove out new channels and develop different strategies and processes that can help us replace that impact that worked very well 10 years ago.
As it relates to other challenges, it’s about stitching the data together… There are hundreds of sources that we have to all figure out how to build in (to a campaign), so that we can have a clear view on exactly what is happening and what’s working and what isn’t.
Article content
What are brands that are breaking through the noise, so to speak, doing right?
They’re willing to test and learn, they’re willing to invest in the space, buy ads when they’re not totally sure how they will perform, and have a good buying team behind them that can measure exactly what’s happening. When you do a strong test-and-learn approach, you can decide whether to increase that investment or lower it.
Can you weigh in on Bill C-18 and Google and Meta’s decision to block Canadian news links from their platforms?
We’re a Canadian-owned agency. We’ve always felt a connection to our local publishers. We’ve always seen the power of putting our message directly, contextually within local Canadian ads. Maybe the good that could come from this is it wakes up our industry a little bit to that strategy because it does work. And hopefully some increased advertising dollars for the local publishers can help offset any traffic loss if Meta and Google continue to turn that off. But there’s some onus on (Canadian publishers), too. They need to provide engaged audiences, so they need to build platforms and content that engage people, where if we run ads there, they work. If they don’t work, those dollars will drift away.
Can you share a prediction on what’s next for the industry?
At a high level, I think digital media in general will create a new back end, so to speak, meaning the ability to process, consume and analyze massive amounts of data. That’s basically what’s allowing things like AI or VR or the birth of what is called the metaverse. But the reason those things will take time to develop is because the back end isn’t currently ready. We can see the bubbles of these things, but they’re not ready to be fully functioning yet. What’s holding those back [could be] government controls or regulations, the sheer expense of processing all that data, or frankly, antiquated systems that companies are not ready to move on from.
But once those things start to shift, we’ll have a new foundation in four or five years that allows this explosion of new stuff. It’s hard to predict what that explosion will be, but the foundation will be there. As those new things come in, that will again [cause] a major shift in how consumers behave, which then will affect how marketers need to behave to reach them. A rough metaphor is it’s like a cruise ship crashing into a dock, except it takes four to five years. So, you’re slowly watching it, wondering if it is going to happen, and then all of a sudden you look up and it’s total chaos and everything has changed.
Continue Reading
[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Bayo Onanuga battles yet another media Punch Newspapers
Source link
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes, you just have to return to the classics.
That’s especially true as Halloween approaches. While you queue up your spooky movie marathon, here are 10 iconic horror movies from the past 70 years for inspiration, and what AP writers had to say about them when they were first released.
We resurrected excerpts from these reviews, edited for clarity, from the dead — did they stand the test of time?
“Rear Window” (1954)
“Rear Window” is a wonderful trick pulled off by Alfred Hitchcock. He breaks his hero’s leg, sets him up at an apartment window where he can observe, among other things, a murder across the court. The panorama of other people’s lives is laid out before you, as seen through the eyes of a Peeping Tom.
James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Thelma Ritter and others make it good fun.
— Bob Thomas
“Halloween” (1978)
At 19, Jamie Lee Curtis is starring in a creepy little thriller film called “Halloween.”
Until now, Jamie’s main achievement has been as a regular on the “Operation Petticoat” TV series. Jamie is much prouder of “Halloween,” though it is obviously an exploitation picture aimed at the thrill market.
The idea for “Halloween” sprang from independent producer-distributor Irwin Yablans, who wanted a terror-tale involving a babysitter. John Carpenter and Debra Hill fashioned a script about a madman who kills his sister, escapes from an asylum and returns to his hometown intending to murder his sister’s friends.
— Bob Thomas
“The Silence of the Lambs” (1991)
“The Silence of the Lambs” moves from one nail-biting sequence to another. Jonathan Demme spares the audience nothing, including closeups of skinned corpses. The squeamish had best stay home and watch “The Cosby Show.”
Ted Tally adapted the Thomas Harris novel with great skill, and Demme twists the suspense almost to the breaking point. The climactic confrontation between Clarice Starling and Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine) is carried a tad too far, though it is undeniably exciting with well-edited sequences.
Such a tale as “The Silence of the Lambs” requires accomplished actors to pull it off. Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins are highly qualified. She provides steely intelligence, with enough vulnerability to sustain the suspense. He delivers a classic portrayal of pure, brilliant evil.
— Bob Thomas
“Scream” (1996)
In this smart, witty homage to the genre, students at a suburban California high school are being killed in the same gruesome fashion as the victims in the slasher films they know by heart.
If it sounds like the script of every other horror movie to come and go at the local movie theater, it’s not.
By turns terrifying and funny, “Scream” — written by newcomer David Williamson — is as taut as a thriller, intelligent without being self-congratulatory, and generous in its references to Wes Craven’s competitors in gore.
— Ned Kilkelly
“The Blair Witch Project” (1999)
Imaginative, intense and stunning are a few words that come to mind with “The Blair Witch Project.”
“Blair Witch” is the supposed footage found after three student filmmakers disappear in the woods of western Maryland while shooting a documentary about a legendary witch.
The filmmakers want us to believe the footage is real, the story is real, that three young people died and we are witnessing the final days of their lives. It isn’t. It’s all fiction.
But Eduardo Sanchez and Dan Myrick, who co-wrote and co-directed the film, take us to the edge of belief, squirming in our seats the whole way. It’s an ambitious and well-executed concept.
— Christy Lemire
“Saw” (2004)
The fright flick “Saw” is consistent, if nothing else.
This serial-killer tale is inanely plotted, badly written, poorly acted, coarsely directed, hideously photographed and clumsily edited, all these ingredients leading to a yawner of a surprise ending. To top it off, the music’s bad, too.
You could forgive all (well, not all, or even, fractionally, much) of the movie’s flaws if there were any chills or scares to this sordid little horror affair.
But “Saw” director James Wan and screenwriter Leigh Whannell, who developed the story together, have come up with nothing more than an exercise in unpleasantry and ugliness.
— David Germain
Germain gave “Saw” one star out of four.
“Paranormal Activity” (2009)
The no-budget ghost story “Paranormal Activity” arrives 10 years after “The Blair Witch Project,” and the two horror movies share more than a clever construct and shaky, handheld camerawork.
The entire film takes place at the couple’s cookie-cutter dwelling, its layout and furnishings indistinguishable from just about any other readymade home constructed in the past 20 years. Its ordinariness makes the eerie, nocturnal activities all the more terrifying, as does the anonymity of the actors adequately playing the leads.
The thinness of the premise is laid bare toward the end, but not enough to erase the horror of those silent, nighttime images seen through Micah’s bedroom camera. “Paranormal Activity” owns a raw, primal potency, proving again that, to the mind, suggestion has as much power as a sledgehammer to the skull.
— Glenn Whipp
Whipp gave “Paranormal Activity” three stars out of four.
“The Conjuring” (2013)
As sympathetic, methodical ghostbusters Lorraine and Ed Warren, Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson make the old-fashioned haunted-house horror film “The Conjuring” something more than your average fright fest.
“The Conjuring,” which boasts incredulously of being their most fearsome, previously unknown case, is built very in the ’70s-style mold of “Amityville” and, if one is kind, “The Exorcist.” The film opens with a majestic, foreboding title card that announces its aspirations to such a lineage.
But as effectively crafted as “The Conjuring” is, it’s lacking the raw, haunting power of the models it falls shy of. “The Exorcist” is a high standard, though; “The Conjuring” is an unusually sturdy piece of haunted-house genre filmmaking.
— Jake Coyle
Coyle gave “The Conjuring” two and half stars out of four.
“Get Out” (2017)
Fifty years after Sidney Poitier upended the latent racial prejudices of his white date’s liberal family in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” writer-director Jordan Peele has crafted a similar confrontation with altogether more combustible results in “Get Out.”
In Peele’s directorial debut, the former “Key and Peele” star has — as he often did on that satirical sketch series — turned inside out even supposedly progressive assumptions about race. But Peele has largely left comedy behind in a more chilling portrait of the racism that lurks beneath smiling white faces and defensive, paper-thin protestations like, “But I voted for Obama!” and “Isn’t Tiger Woods amazing?”
It’s long been a lamentable joke that in horror films — never the most inclusive of genres — the Black dude is always the first to go. In this way, “Get Out” is radical and refreshing in its perspective.
— Jake Coyle
Coyle gave “Get Out” three stars out of four.
“Hereditary” (2018)
In Ari Aster’s intensely nightmarish feature-film debut “Hereditary,” when Annie (Toni Collette), an artist and mother of two teenagers, sneaks out to a grief-support group following the death of her mother, she lies to her husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne) that she’s “going to the movies.”
A night out with “Hereditary” is many things, but you won’t confuse it for an evening of healing and therapy. It’s more like the opposite.
Aster’s film, relentlessly unsettling and pitilessly gripping, has carried with it an ominous air of danger and dread: a movie so horrifying and good that you have to see it, even if you shouldn’t want to, even if you might never sleep peacefully again.
The hype is mostly justified.
— Jake Coyle
Coyle gave “Hereditary” three stars out of four.
Read the full review here. ___
Researcher Rhonda Shafner contributed from New York.
News8 hours ago
Canada’s Denis Shapovalov wins Belgrade Open for his second ATP Tour title
News8 hours ago
Talks to resume in B.C. port dispute in bid to end multi-day lockout
News8 hours ago
The Royal Canadian Legion turns to Amazon for annual poppy campaign boost
Investment5 years ago
dynaCERT Inc. Invites You to Join Us at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference | INN – Investing News Network
Sports5 years ago
AP source: Bears acquiring quarterback Nick Foles from Jaguars – Sportsnet.ca
Media1 year ago
12 Bizarre Things People Did Just To Make Social Media Content
-
News23 hours agoFreeland says she’s ready to deal with Trump |
-
News23 hours agoNASA astronauts won’t say which one of them got sick after almost eight months in space
-
News23 hours ago43 monkeys remain on the run from South Carolina lab. CEO thinks they’re having an adventure
-
News24 hours agoFreeland rallies a united front ahead of Trump’s return to White House
-
News24 hours agoDeputy minister appointed interim CEO of AIMCo after Alberta government fires board
-
News24 hours agoMontreal says Quebec-Canada dispute stalling much-needed funding to help homeless
-
News24 hours agoS&P/TSX composite index down Friday, Wall St. extends post-election gains
-
News24 hours agoMitch Marner powers Matthews-less Maple Leafs over Red Wings
