A new study from research and strategy outfit Insight Strategy Group illustrated the no-win situation brands face when it comes to marketing on Facebook:

• 53 percent of respondents believe brands must maintain Facebook pages for relevancy, but
• 64 percent said they “hate” when they are targeted via their social network profiles, and
• 58 percent find marketing via social media to be invasive.

Continuing the mixed messages sent by consumers, 54 percent like when a brand has a Facebook page or presence on another social network, but 60 percent find it annoying when brands communicate with them via Facebook or Twitter.

Consumers view their relationships with brands on social media as purely one-way, as 58 percent of respondents indicated that they liked or followed brands in order to receive special news and deals, and 55 percent mentioned giving feedback to brands.

Other findings from the study by Insight Strategy Group include:

• 53 percent of respondents agreed that it is not clear to them who can see a comment or post they write on Facebook
• 55 percent feel that they can have a strong impact on a company by writing about it on a social networking site
• 55 percent believe writing about a product, service, or show on a social networking site is the best way to give a company feedback
• 47 percent agree that Facebook allows them to be who they really are
• 51 percent feel that Facebook does not capture the “real me”
• 64 percent disagree that you can learn more about someone online than you can in-person

Insight Strategy Group Founder and Chief Executive Officer Boaz Mourad said:

Consumers are definitely of two minds when it comes to a corporate presence on social media. They seem to have an instinctive aversion to a brand’s invasion of their social space, yet much of that resistance falls away when they perceive that there is something in it for them — a deal or an exclusive offer, for example. This study shows that the consumers’ relationship to companies and social media is complex, fluid, and difficult to generalize.

Readers: What are your feelings on marketing via Facebook and other social networks?

http://www.allfacebook.com/facebook-page-consumers-2012-02

In other words, it doesn't go 'poof'.  Here's slide 5 from the morning presentation, which shows solid uptake on streaming services like Spotify but still-dominant positions on physical formats and downloads.

But why such a high percentage on physical?  We've noticed that consumers still like tactile stuff, tangible objects, and non-thumbnail-sized artwork.  But this taps into a much deeper, psychological reason for ownership: control, security, reliability.  Because if music is your life partner, do you really want it to walk out that door?

But wait: Spotify is huge in the UK, people seem super-comfortable with access and non-ownership!  But maybe that's just one crowd, or one aspect of a complicated music audience.  Because instead of finding resistance towards streaming platforms, eMusic found that streaming offered the perfect gateway towards ownership.  But an astonishing 70 percent refused to pay for streaming on its own.

The study was administered by Insight Strategy Group and involved 1,400 UK-based music purchasers 18-64. 

 http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120221emusic

Transmedia “_____.”  At iKids, Stacey Matthias, co-CEO of Insight Strategy Group, presented qualitative research from depth interviews conducted with a small sample of kids (aged 7-14, across 8 US states) on how they would define “transmedia” (abridged version PDF available here.)  Two notable points from Matthias’ presentation:

1. Developmental differences in how children ages 7, 10 and 13 described how their experiences with character-driven narratives across different media story worlds “helped them do the work of growing up,” as Matthias described
2. That none of the children they interviewed entered the story world of their favorite media property through that franchise’s original media (e.g. Harry Potter, not through the books or even the movies, but through Lego Harry Potter)

In relation to the work I am doing with my advisor, Prof. Henry Jenkins, and Erin Reilly, Managing Director of the Annenberg Innovation Lab, I’d caution that if “transmedia” in its most basic sense means “across media,” then we need to be more specific about what “transmedia” means in very different mediated contexts.  Matthias’ presentation primarily focused on children’s “transmedia” as branding and storytelling, but understandably less so (given the setting) on transmedia’s potential applications aslearning, ritual, performance or activism (such as the work of the Harry Potter Alliance).

Non-digital game app inspirations.  David Kleeman moderated a “hypothetical app” creation challenge between Andy Russell of Launchpad Toys, Jason Krogh of zinc Roe Design, Carla Fisher and Anne Richards of No Crusts Interactive and Juliet Tzabar of Plug-in Media.  David’s rules were that the app had to 1) Be targeted to 5-8 year-olds, 2) Promote “pass back and forth” between children and caregivers, and 3) Use as many possible affordances of smart phone and tablet computers.

The result was a number of apps with non-digital counterparts.  One type of app was the digital version of the “exquisite corpse.” “Le cadavre exquis” was a parlor game favored by French Surrealists, involving players making a contribution to the whole (be it an image or set of worlds) without having knowledge of anyone else’s contributions. This “pass along” game involves one person writing or drawing on a piece of paper, folding that paper over to hide all but one piece of their creation, and then passing it along for the next person to add, fold, and pass along again.  The completed “corpse” (revealed when the paper is unfolded) can be the basis for collective creation and creative communication, regardless of language.  No Crusts also drew inspiration from analog games like Telephone, and the panel discussed the possibility of incorporating non-digital elements from improvisational theater games with their “Yes, And” philosophy.

One area into which the panel did not get a chance to dig deeper was the distinct qualities that separate the physical folding and unfolding of paper from the “metaphorical” folding and unfolding of an app (e.g. a child’s fine motor and metacognitive skills needed to choose and fold a select portion of their drawing to pass along.)  It is differences such as this that leads me to another note of caution for fellow children’s media researchers.  Just because one has knowledge of child development, and even how children learn from pseudo-interactive television, does not necessarily apply whole cloth to an understanding of how children learn from apps, nor how to research and design user interfaces (UI) and user experiences (UX) for this age group. Nor, on top of that, how to account for cultural differences in child development.  As David Kleeman stated at the conclusion of the panel (and I apologize for paraphrasing), “The more functionality there is in these devices, the harder it is to separate what’s possible/fun/cool from necessary/usable.”

Monetizing “digital natives” rhetoric. “Co-creation” with young “digitally native” media audiences is a rather warm and fuzzy notion that was shared over the course of the conference, but there needs to be more open and honest discussions about the ethical implications of monetizing crowd sourced user generated content from kids under 13, as well as the serious social, economic and educational consequences for children across the globe who do not fit the ideal consumer profile.  Under the umbrella of what counts as “content,” there’s more than just posting YouTube videos.  Do children’s anonymous click-through data, collected and delivered to advertisers, count as “user generated content” too?  “Gamifying creativity” could end up, and perhaps already is, what Georgia Tech games rhetoric scholar Ian Bogost calls “exploitationware.”  Surely, an understanding of children’s media literacy in the 21^st century involves a critical understanding of what goes on under the mostly-opaque hood of our increasingly networked society, such as how Wikipedia pages get edited, how data is collected based on each badge-like goal obtained on a website, and how electronics get made in China.

More youth in the US may be viewing video on YouTube (as noted in research presented by Dubit Research at iKids), but that doesn’t mean by virtue of the year they were born that all these young people have the opportunities (e.g. free time to spend on the Internet, informal mentorships) to gain the cultural capital, knowledge and social skills to participate, learn and engage in their world.  Young people can find incredibly innovative ways to overcome some of these inequalities, but in order to learn more about these strategies, the first step is to stop pretending that all kids have, or even will one day soon have, iPads both at home and at school.

Readers, do you have any thoughts, comments or feedback you’d like to share below?

Meryl Alper is a Ph.D. student in Communication at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California, as well as a Research Assistant at the Cooney Center-partner USC Annenberg Innovation Lab. She attended the iKids Conference and Kidscreen Summit, the largest annual children’s entertainment industry event in the world, in NYC on February 6-10.  Meryl shares some of her thoughts on the event here (and the original post appears on her blog,teething on tech).

http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/Cooney-Center-Blog-204.html

Many of the KidScreen Summit seminars and sessions seem to be cleverly related spin-offs of the theme introduced by the Key Note Speaker.  For example, at the preceding panel, "Like a Boss: Honing Your Leadership Skills," Executive Leadership Coach Kate Ebner offered some complementary advice: "Lead as yourself.  Lead as who you are and be smart."  At other sessions, speakers echoed repeatedly the importance of believing strongly in the power and benefit of the property or idea you are pitching.

The series of lectures categorized as "Kid Insight Track" armed property creators with age group specific research, stats, and favored trends:  

Stacey Matthias from New York-based Insight Strategy Group profiled the evolving needs and social patterns of 9-12 year olds: their need to laugh, feel smart, indulge in playfulness, test out teen social behavior, test boundaries, and strive to emulate hyper-talented role models.  

Tomorrow's Child's Jacqueline Harding provided insight about the brain function and development of 2-9 years olds.  As computers do more and more of the left-brained work for us, she stressed the need to create children who are creative, right-brained thinkers; children who have "the emotional resilience to be able to find the right solution to the world's problems."  

The packed "30 Minutes with..." sessions offered a unique opportunity to hear Network-specific tips and tricks from Acquisitions and Development Executives in an intimate setting.  As a comprehensive companion piece, KidScreen once again offers its resourceful Global Pitch Guide.  Do yourself the favor of a shortcut and download it.
  
In addition, this year's “Mentor Meetings”, where you could drop by for professional advice from industry experts, offered guidance on a number of business-related topics:  co-producing & financing, distribution & sales, licensing, interactive, and development and pitching.  "Speed Pitching" granted property creators ten minutes at a time to pitch their ideas to a series of broadcasters and investors, and the audience favorite "Pitch It!" allowed four pre-selected project creators to pitch in front of a panel of development executives (and also this year a diverse team of parents) and hear feedback.

Breakfast and lunch was served, coffee and tea were in constant supply, and between or in lieu of sessions and panels, attendees could take a break, conduct meetings (both scheduled and impromptu), and visit sponsor booths. 

Each year, the entire lounge area is sponsored by a particular partner and decorated richly with logo-laden cut-outs, pillows, screens, etc.  The 2012 lounge offered an opportunity to mingle not only with a gamut of cultures and countries, but also with a number of different species, as the sponsor was SeaWorld Kids.  Many were at first baffled by the major SeaWorld interest in KidScreen, but along with the two penguins, lemur, eagle, and spoonbill, SeaWorld revealed a new division directed to venture into just the kind of multi-platform media KidScreen is famous for shepherding.       

So, should you be going?

It depends on what you do and what you're trying to achieve.  Taken directly from the KidScreen Summit website, here's who attends:  TV Programming, Acquisitions & Development Executives, Producers & Creators, Distributors, Retailers, Licensors & Licensees, Marketers, Digital Media Content Creators & Distributors. 

If you don't fall under one of those titles, all is not lost.  There is certainly plenty to be learned at the panels and sessions.  KidScreen, however, is not like the Ottawa International Animation Festival for example, where attendees pack their days trying to make every screening and somehow eat in between, and the major hobnobbing is done at casual, planned events like the picnic.

To get the most out of KidScreen, you need to set up as many meetings as you can ahead of time and on the fly with other delegates and/or companies.  In order to have meetings, you need to have something to talk about and that's usually a property you'd like to pitch or an idea of what you'd like to option and with which you'd like to partner.  The opportunities are there, but dance cards fill up quickly.

Before entering that credit card, ask yourself if you're ready to make the $1,395 you spend on your KidScreen Summit pass count. 

It really comes down to whether or not you have the hustle.

http://www.awn.com/blogs/animated-travels/2012-kidscreen-summit-key-market-those-hustle

So what makes SpongeBob so beloved? What separates SpongeBob from other forgotten 90s cartoons, such as Animaniacs, Darkwing Duck, or Ren and Stimpy? “We have a brand-new generation of kids interacting and joining a group of [existing] fans. We want to be sure we know what’s happening with the current audience,” says Nickelodeon’s Jane Gould. As a result, Nickelodeon and market research agency Insight Research Group have teamed up to identify the “Tao of SpongeBob:”

Relatable: “He lives in a pineapple under the sea. Relatable is not the first term to come to mind when talking about SpongeBob,” says Nickelodeon’s Andrea Strauss. Yet this term is consistently cited by both adults and children as a top reason for liking the character. They aren’t relating to SpongeBob on such a literal level, but they do find something to identify with in his adventures.

“We constantly hear people say that SpongeBob showed them how to deal with situations,” says Insight Strategy Group’s Sarah Chumsky. “One women was dealing with a family member with Alzheimer’s, and she told us how a simple joke in the show allowed her to laugh at her own situation.” This emotional connection is essential in creating an enduring entertainment brand, says Gene Del Vecchio, author of Creating Blockbusters. “All of the successful properties have characters for everyone. The Smurfs does it brilliantly. There are 100 personalities to choose from.  Look at The Simpsons or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.” These characters have defined, but different, personalities. It’s the kiss of death to be deemed boring, says Del Vecchio. “You have to push them to corners so you have the extreme: the hero versus the villain; the responsible one versus the irresponsible one; rebel versus conformist. You need to create the excitement and humor.”

Multilayered humor: SpongeBob is frequently likened to Bugs Bunny, in that both properties employ multilayered humor that appeals to all ages. “The physical humor appeals to young kids, and the wit and more sophisticated humor is appreciated by adults.,” says Del Vecchio.

Innocence: Iconic and enduring characters must be worth emulating, and upbeat is more profitable than cynical.  Nickelodeon has even created a term — persistent positivity — to summarize SpongeBob’s essence. “No matter what happens to SpongeBob, he always remains happy,” says Strauss. As with humor, SpongeBob’s positive attitude has different kinds of appeal for different ages. Kids enjoy his obliviousness when the odds are against him; adults appreciate the reminder to look on the bright side.

Be everywhere: SpongeBob-branded merchandise generates more than $8 billion in retail sales. There are band-aids, baking pans, pet food containers, bathroom décor, and SpongeBob-shaped TVs. There’s a reason for saturating the market, says Strauss. “People don’t want to ‘fish’ for SpongeBob. They want him everywhere they already are.” As a result, Nickelodeon explores the obvious and less-obvious opportunities to keep SpongeBob front-and-center. One potential product currently in discussion is a pool liner that mirrors SpongeBob’s undersea world.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larissafaw/2012/02/14/the-tao-of-spongebob/