Showing posts with label digital marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital marketing. Show all posts

Thursday, January 6, 2011

The Ice Underneath the Surface


As I recall, about 90% of an iceberg is under the surface of the water. Is the digital industry like an iceberg?

Recently I was asked to put together a presentation outlining the key trends and stats for digital in 2010. As I made my slides, I was struck by the tremendous level of activity in areas we don’t talk about very much.

Part of my approach was to divide the industry into nine sectors, and analyze each in turn. My cuts were:
· Affiliate and Lead Gen
· Content Publishers
· Data and Insight
· The Giants
· Mobile and Digital Out of Home
· Networks, DSPs, and Exchanges
· Search
· Social
· Video

You can argue with my “cuts” and I’ll just make a W on my forehead. It’s my presentation, and it makes for some pretty salient and telegraphic sector trends. But however you cut it; it’s plain that there are huge sectors of our business that get very little attention, at least from the “branding” side of the pundit world.

Take Digital Out of Home. Bad enough that I am making it share a category, the reality is that it is an absolutely enormous business, eclipsing some of the hotter sectors by factors of five. Or more. The CPMs they get would make pub and network sellers need adult undergarments if they could match ‘em.

Or affiliate. Affiliate has a sort of grey reputation because there are some bad actors in the fray, but there are also thousands and thousands and thousands of companies making great, honest money as both affiliates and brand marketing organizations.

And then there’s Search. If press ink (electrons) were divvied up by share of total spending, there would be five Search stories a day on page one of every marketing journal. Now, there are those who feel that the topic doesn’t warrant that much press attention because it is a one and two tenths horse race. I won’t comment on that here, other than to say that paying more attention to Search could probably yield more dividends for many marketers.

There is of course, a fallacy to my point of view – that quantity of press is a surrogate indicator of planner or marketer attention. My suspicion is that it is, at best, a weak surrogate indicator. After all, maybe most marketers have all the sectors but social and mobile all figured out.

Yeah, right.

But if we really are spending much of our time focusing on a couple of the smaller business sectors, we are not taking a strategic approach to digital. I’m not suggesting we should talk about Social or Mobile or Video less. I am simply asserting that we need to consider other, less “sexy” sectors more. Because I’m guessin’ there’s gold in them thar segments.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Eight Marketing Blunders to Avoid

History lessons

While the world economy has been bouncing back of late, we are all more than aware that the recovery is fragile -- and so are many of digital's companies, small and large. Thus, it's more important than ever for us to be smarter and learn from our own mistakes, as well as the mistakes of those around us.

The beauty of digital is that there have been so many initiatives in this fragmented arena that history's lessons come fast and furious. And yet, it's human nature to assume that our individual situations are somehow unique. We are, of course, wrong.

I say "we" because I have made such mistakes many times over the years, dashing down the seductive path of feeling my challenges are unique, only to realize some months or years later that, nope, my situation was not at all special -- and that I am at square one just like those who came before me.

There's an adage that says the essence of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. Here's my take on eight things we all need to avoid doing again.

1. Trying to Outcool Apple

Can't be done. There are ways to compete with Apple. But "outcooling" isn't one of them.



2. Shiny Object Syndrome

Oh, where to begin on this one? Remember when every brand and its mother were launching widgets?

Remember when most brands sites were trying to be destinations? When chatrooms were popping up on toilet paper sites? None were bad ideas per se; the problem was that we ran into these shiny spaces willy nilly, without a reason or a strategy.

Are brands still doing this? Sure. But fewer. Let's keep that trend going.

3. Fostering consumer control without guidance

Usually it's not what people want. I once worked at a startup that boasted that its database was so big, consumers could search for something and get 1,200 options in results. Wouldn't they looooove that?

Of course, people don't want 1,200 options. They want the best outcome for them. Most of the time, they want three options or so to choose from, with a big blinking arrow over one of the choices that says, "Best value!"

OK, that was comment bait. But I assure you I don't think consumers are stupid. They are smart. Smart enough to realize that three choices are about all most decisions are worth when you have to decide and run and buy the Dragon Tattoo book for book club and pick up your daughter from Scouts. All in 30 minutes. Most things just don't matter more than three choices' worth. And the human mind can only process so many choices anyway. Heck, ask a realtor about the advisability of showing someone 30houses.

There's more to this point, though. Consumers want control of outcomes, not process. Witness MySpace. MySpace gave people total control of their pages. Here's the result:



And here:



What people wanted were profiles that allowed them to express themselves. Without guidance, they got profiles no one wanted to visit out of fear of visual and audio assault.

The new MySpace profiles address this issue rather well. We'll see if it reverses the slide.

4. Trying to make up for it in volume

Lots of yummy morsels here. Let's start with Kozmo.com, the company that would deliver virtually anything to your house for nothing. What's wrong with this picture?



Or Webvan, the company that -- oh, I'll let Wikipedia tell you:

While Webvan was popular, the money spent on infrastructure far exceeded sales growth, and the company eventually ran out of money. For example: Webvan placed a $1 billion (USD) order with engineering company Bechtel to build its warehouses, bought a fleet of delivery trucks, purchased 30 Sun Microsystems Enterprise 4500 servers, dozens of Compaq ProLiant computers and several Cisco Systems model 7513 and 7507 routers, as well as more than 80 21-inch ViewSonic color monitors, and at least 115 Herman Miller Aeron chairs (at over $800 each).

You've got to sell a lot of Cookie Crisp to make up for those costs.



Or, my personal favorite, Pets.com, which thought it would be good business to ship 40 pound sacks of dog chow by UPS and beat retail prices. During one period, according to Wikipedia, they spent $12.8MM in advertising and sold $600K in pet supplies. And the pet supplies went out the door at 1/3 of the price they went in for.

But on the other hand, consider Amazon. Now the world's largest bookseller, I have the personal satisfaction to tell you that during 2000, I don't think I ever paid more than a nickel for a hardback. I became expert at getting $25 off $25-plus purchases and ringing up totals of $25.05 with shipping.

Now, Amazon survived this largesse -- God knows how -- and in the end I became addicted to receiving daily deliveries of boxes with smiles on them. Since that time, I've spent more than $20,000 with Amazon over the years -- so perhaps that strategy wasn't so dumb after all. Though I'd never say giving me "Nothing Like It in the World" for a nickel was a smart thing. But it was a mistake the company survived, to flourish in the end.

5. Marketing on attributes versus benefits

Much hardware and software promotion focuses on data points indicating attributes that are expected to serve as sufficient inducement to purchase. There are certainly segments of the audience that already understand the benefit of something and find the data valuable as a way of distinguishing between items.

But history shows over and over that benefits and brands can trump attributes in most B2C businesses, including hardware. Which of these two players do you think will make your music sound better?

Player A:



Player B:



In fairness, some of the sharpest big companies in the Valley have figured out how to make attributes into benefits.



It can be effective, but it often costs a ton of money to do it.

6. Thinking "better" is always better
In digital, lots of time and energy gets spent building that better mousetrap. Which is excellent. But by what person's definition is "better" defined? In our industry in 2010, trash bins are full of the stationery of defunct startups that focused on things that people didn't actually care about.

Henry Ford once said, "If I had asked consumers what they wanted, they would have told me a faster horse." So it's important to innovate in areas that aren't necessarily things people are clamoring for. But at the same time, having a rich understanding of the target's problems and tastes is also important.

7. Confusing your needs with target needs

Recently a publisher tried to sell me a heavily male-skewing site as a great place to connect with women. Now, I get it that technology makes it possible for a site to predict gender reasonably well, but do you honestly expect me to say, "Hmm. I could message on sites that attract 90 percent women and have relevant context. Or! I could choose a venue with 15 percent comp that has nothing to do with my category. Hmm. What to choose? What to choose?"

8. Ignoring privacy concerns

Two years ago, two companies called NebuAd and Phorm launched services in conjunction with ISPs that tracked every activity of customers for the purpose of gathering data for ad targeting.

In the U.K., Phorm was partnered with three ISPs -- BT, Virgin, and TalkTalk -- which make up a large portion of total U.K. connectivity. As part of the process, the company quietly worked with BT to test its platform on thousands of consumers who were not informed of the test. Consumer anger and regulatory ire ensued, and all three ISPs have dropped out of the plan. The company has shifted to a consumer content personalization strategy (eventually including ads) and an opt-in versus opt-out model. According to The Register, it has lost more than $100 million, with little possible revenue for the foreseeable future.

Today, consumer groups and the FTC are voicing concerns about cookie-based targeting, especially behavioral targeting. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz has demanded industry action. While our industry has made efforts in the past to address privacy concerns with regard to ad targeting, these measures have been widely viewed as inadequate. Now a cross-industry coalition has proposed a self-regulation program centered on the "Power i," an icon that will appear on ads. Clicking on the icon will offer consumers information about the companies collecting and using data to target, along with choices in how they participate (or don't.)



Our industry would do well to embrace this program and raise its level of vigilance regarding privacy and ad targeting.

Conclusion

People far wiser than me say that if you don't make mistakes in digital, you aren't doing your job right -- because there are no certainties in a medium that changes hourly. And because part of the magic of digital is that innovation requires tons of trial and tons of error.

I once heard a speaker say we should rejoice in our mistakes. I am too much of a boomer to rejoice in anything other than hard work that leads to incremental success. But I do believe that failure should not be a source of shame. The decision to rejoice in errors is entirely yours. But we can all agree that it makes sense to concentrate on making new mistakes rather than repeating old ones.

But should Amazon ever want to repeat its $25 off $25-plus purchases couponing...

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

White Paper Wednesdays: Digital Marketing for Pharma

Manhattan Research is offering a very good white paper about the ins and outs of marketing pharma brands in digital environments. This is a must for people working in pharma as those Mr. Curiouses and Ms. Curiouses out there that are interested in ways to address absolutely fascinating marketing challenges.

Find it here.

The exact title of the white paper is: Catch the New Pharmaceutical Marketing Wave:
Trends & Strategies for Reaching Today's Healthcare Consumer.

Registration is required, and worth the info share.

Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Here's An Idea: Distributed Development, Centralized Distribution

This Ad Age article points out what more than a few people were whispering about Web 2.0 start-ups, that there may simply be not enough ad money to go around for all of them. Here’s an excerpt:

"My concern is the really great concepts that are features, not companies," said Ross Levinsohn, former CEO of Fox Interactive and partner in Velocity Interactive Partners. "There isn't enough advertising to support all those features, and in compression times, advertisers tend to flock to safe names and sites that have real traction." One could excuse the latest crop of start-ups for their undue optimism; almost all were conceived, funded and began operating in boom times.

Online advertising rebounded from three years of negative growth in 2003 and has grown at more than 20% a year (actually, more than 30% in 2004, 2005 and 2006) in the five years since. But onetime hyper-growth is coming to an end. If trends hold, online advertising will grow in the low double digits or high single digits this year, driven largely by search. While declining growth seems unlikely, the venture-capital community is preparing its portfolio companies for coming years of lesser incremental growth.

Now surely this does not shock the people who read OLDMTA. But one thing I really do want to point out is that these 2.0 companies are truly driving the lion’s share of innovation. No shocker there.

And frankly, innovation is what they are good at. What they are NOT good at is being viable businesses.

What that means, in my view, is that we may need to think about these companies in terms of more realistic multiples and valuations. As someone who started in the regular business arena – you know the kind of company, one where 12% growth would be a fine year instead of the preamble to a run on cyanide, I don’t understand how people can continue to expect everything to be worth a billion dollars.

Why can’t the model be more focused on distributed development but centralized consumer media properties; a smaller number of major properties that buy the features developed by start ups for a reasonable price that gives innovators compensation for their risk and still lets the buyers make enough money by improving service for consumers and marketers.

Or another alternative, centralized selling for a variety of innovations under a common rubric that provides the scale and convenience brands need.

One way that our space has not caught up to itself is that media fragmentation has been viewed as a problem for marketers rather than for the start-ups. But the reality is that fragmentation also significantly reduces the odds of a billion dollar payout for a feature innovation. Billions of views doesn’t necessarily translate to billions in revenue. Ask Google about YouTube.

In sum, what’s wrong with a $30,000,000 selling price, instead of a $300,000,000 one, if you can simplify your org and reduce the payout timing? You can forego the complex sales and other organizations and do what you want to do anyway – innovate and change the world.

Thanks for reading, and don’t forget to write.