There is but one picture left, no negative, and I have the photo.
Friday, November 12, 2010
CTRS and One Hundred Thousand Count Von Counts
Thanks to MediaBizBloggers for publishingn this there first!
It's no new observation that digital enables marketers and their agency counterparts to access tons of metrics. So many that for many media people, two days of the week are devoted to collecting and visualizing bajillions of data points in complex reports.
Reports that, let's face it, are often given no more than cursory examination. Why? Because most of the numbers are meaningless, or at least are meaningless until someone takes the time to really examine them, which few actually get around to
Most of us digital marketers have spent years channeling Count Von Count, the affable vampire from Sesame Street who, upon entering any room, would begin measuring virtually every object in his line of vision. 7! Seven apples! 6! Six balls! 1. One Snuffalufagus!
A good way to teach kids numbers, but not a great skill for cocktail party success. Or, for that matter, brand marketing.
Our medium gives us access to data on every aspect of consumer exposure and interaction. Impressions, clicks, interactions. Interaction rates, Interaction times. View through conversions. Interaction rates by spot on the ad. Video views. Video view times. Impressions by in market shoppers. Impressions by metro. Interaction rates by daypart. That ability to count has turned us into 100,000 Count Von Counts.
7 million! Seven million impressions! 6 thousand! Six thousand complete video views! 74 thousand! Seventy four thousand clicks during the period 12-4 PM!
Trouble is, many of these metrics aren't in and of themselves terribly relevant at answering crucial marketing questions. Sometimes some of them have value, but often they don't mean much at all. And the most commonly referenced one of all, CTR, is about as meaningless as they come for most brands.
The traditional side of media often feels smug about our incessant counting. They know that many of our metrics are of little value. But at the same time they aren't offering anything better. For a decade they have been doing jazz hands to cover up the fact that they have few reliable metrics to offer.
The solution to tiresome and irrelevant counting of everything is NOT counting nothing.
As new platforms and technologies raise the value of digital impressions and make TV and Print impressions less passive and transitory, our converged industry needs to take a new approach to measurement. We need to figure out the data points that matter and only count those. With this smaller number of metrics, we can devote more of our time to figuring out brand impacts and optimization strategies to improve effectiveness.
If clicks don't matter to your business objectives, why count them? Having access to them almost inevitably leads to using them as a surrogate measure of brand impact. They are, after all, eminently understandable, and can be boiled down into a simple figure. This makes them almost magnetic.
With the myriad opportunities available for data collection, we can do a lot better than we are now. But doing so requires the time and focus to devise a real measurement strategy.
Finding Your Social Mojo
Thanks to MediaBizBloggers for publishing this first!
I’ve been working on a presentation to give at iMedia Sydney Australia, built around the idea that we need to think about creating relationships with consumers as akin to courtship, nuptials, and married life. In it I am using examples from about 20 countries to show how a variety of brands are courting their customers socially.
And the most salient observation I can make is that the idea of a one-size-fits-all approach to brand participation is patently absurd. Our collective rush to identify and exploit digital magic beans sometimes makes us forget that our brand campaigns have to be as unique as our brands.
For indeed social is simply participatory marketing, not a medium. Social is permeating every media channel, reflecting the truth that consumers prefer personalized experiences across the board, not just on sites where we friend one another.
Preparing the presentation has been a great experience because it has forced me to seek out examples and industry news from across the globe – which is not something I want to do during a typical week. I’ll leave to you to interpret whether that is marketing xenophobia or simply focusing on what matters most in my job today.
In my quest for examples, I’ve learned about Walls, a UK food company that has a multimedia effort showcasing the unique eccentricities of Britons. The campaign asks ordinary Britons to compete to appear in ads where they can showcase their peculiar passions. Mind you, this in a country with a high standard for eccentricity. Where an obscure aristocrat collected thousands of wigs that stuffed every room in his manor house from floor to ceiling. A country where Chelmondeley is pronounced “Chum-Lee”. A place where yeast extract is a delicacy. There is a unique, delightful form of crazy that Britain has a lock on. Tender Britons', please note that I point to your obscure behaviors with loving support. Long live the Belisha Beacon!
But back to the contest. Entries range from “Extreme Ironers” who press clothes while balanced on speeding cigarette boats, to a knitting circle that has created a blanket the size of a soccer field. Where seniors have organized a club in which they compete at pole dancing. Where other people delight in making ginormous versions of snack foods because…well just because. And the whole kit and caboodle of this effort goes far at reinforcing the uniquely British “Proper Food” Walls excels at producing.
The campaign is superb.
And so is the wonderful Australian Tourism effort in which Aussies were asked to submit photos of their favorite hideaways across the country. More than 29,000 people participated, providing what has to be the only travel site that didn’t use (or for that matter, need to use) pro photographers to capture azure ocean vistas and the Opera House at sunset.
Personally, I’d much rather see a snapshot of someone’s favorite billabong.
Another: the fascinating Raymond Weil campaign that asked consumers to describe in their own words what the brand should be in the future. To read these entries is to vicariously experience sincere love.
Which is not to say that good old Yankee ingenuity is dead. Not by a long shot. Pepsi’s Refresh Everything effort and its remarkable charitable overlay are growing that brand as it cures social ills that for whatever reason our government is unwilling or unable to address.
My point is each of these campaigns is wildly different. Each took the essence of its brand and its customers and shaped a participatory initiative around that message. They all recognized that social isn’t a channel. It’s people. People who are anxious to be part of the brands they love.
I for one am delighted to participate in a marketing era where a major national brand is delighted to associate itself with extreme ironing.
I’ve been working on a presentation to give at iMedia Sydney Australia, built around the idea that we need to think about creating relationships with consumers as akin to courtship, nuptials, and married life. In it I am using examples from about 20 countries to show how a variety of brands are courting their customers socially.
And the most salient observation I can make is that the idea of a one-size-fits-all approach to brand participation is patently absurd. Our collective rush to identify and exploit digital magic beans sometimes makes us forget that our brand campaigns have to be as unique as our brands.
For indeed social is simply participatory marketing, not a medium. Social is permeating every media channel, reflecting the truth that consumers prefer personalized experiences across the board, not just on sites where we friend one another.
Preparing the presentation has been a great experience because it has forced me to seek out examples and industry news from across the globe – which is not something I want to do during a typical week. I’ll leave to you to interpret whether that is marketing xenophobia or simply focusing on what matters most in my job today.
In my quest for examples, I’ve learned about Walls, a UK food company that has a multimedia effort showcasing the unique eccentricities of Britons. The campaign asks ordinary Britons to compete to appear in ads where they can showcase their peculiar passions. Mind you, this in a country with a high standard for eccentricity. Where an obscure aristocrat collected thousands of wigs that stuffed every room in his manor house from floor to ceiling. A country where Chelmondeley is pronounced “Chum-Lee”. A place where yeast extract is a delicacy. There is a unique, delightful form of crazy that Britain has a lock on. Tender Britons', please note that I point to your obscure behaviors with loving support. Long live the Belisha Beacon!
But back to the contest. Entries range from “Extreme Ironers” who press clothes while balanced on speeding cigarette boats, to a knitting circle that has created a blanket the size of a soccer field. Where seniors have organized a club in which they compete at pole dancing. Where other people delight in making ginormous versions of snack foods because…well just because. And the whole kit and caboodle of this effort goes far at reinforcing the uniquely British “Proper Food” Walls excels at producing.
The campaign is superb.
And so is the wonderful Australian Tourism effort in which Aussies were asked to submit photos of their favorite hideaways across the country. More than 29,000 people participated, providing what has to be the only travel site that didn’t use (or for that matter, need to use) pro photographers to capture azure ocean vistas and the Opera House at sunset.
Personally, I’d much rather see a snapshot of someone’s favorite billabong.
Another: the fascinating Raymond Weil campaign that asked consumers to describe in their own words what the brand should be in the future. To read these entries is to vicariously experience sincere love.
Which is not to say that good old Yankee ingenuity is dead. Not by a long shot. Pepsi’s Refresh Everything effort and its remarkable charitable overlay are growing that brand as it cures social ills that for whatever reason our government is unwilling or unable to address.
My point is each of these campaigns is wildly different. Each took the essence of its brand and its customers and shaped a participatory initiative around that message. They all recognized that social isn’t a channel. It’s people. People who are anxious to be part of the brands they love.
I for one am delighted to participate in a marketing era where a major national brand is delighted to associate itself with extreme ironing.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
"I couldn't help myself..."
Forgive my occasional typos please as I am still getting used to the iPad.
I have the privilege of having a great deal of contact with event content planners and programmers, as well as sales people in digital marketing. And I hope that sellers know that I luvs them dearly because they make it all possible. But I am also a snarky sumbitch so I gotta say this.
Sellers always complain that they can't get speaking gigs at conferences. And mostly they don't get on stage.
I am going to tell you why. Because so darn many of the sellers that DO make it on stage spend their moments in the sun shilling for their product. I am flying back from adtech right now as I type, and am happy to report that several sellers provided tremendous content and differentiated themselves superbly there. But a few others -- I won't name names -- did nothing but pitch.
It's like you can't help yourselves, and the pitch oozes out like toothpaste. Hence the title of the post.
So I thought I'd lay out five suggestions on how to get on stage, and get asked back.
1. Do not claim you aren't making a pitch and then show us 6 slides from the pitch deck. Regardless of how it makes us feel about you and btw we hate you for it, you will have ticked off the content people. And they have the memories of elephants and you will NEVER appear on stage again.
2. Stay on topic. You were asked to be there for a reason. How can you substantively add to the discussion? Look, we get it that you have something to sell, and that's how you make your living. Actually it's your in market experience that makes you so valuable to us potentially as a speaker. But an opp to speak to an audience is an opp to differentiate your company and self through thought leadership. It is not a chance to broadcast your sales deck. If you have something to sell that adds meaningfully to the discussion, great. Thing is, so many of you are really rather brilliant and have great thoughts on the topics. But we'll never know because as soon as you start selling, we start emailing.
3. Don't poop on your competitors. Nothing looks lamer and we don't believe one word you say after that.
4. When you are pitching yourself as a speaker, explain what is in it for the audience and the programmer. I listened to a seller earlier today, when asked what they would talk about, they said their very cool product of course. Thing is, the industry has far far far too many cool products, and not enough big thoughts and ideas. Helping you spread the word about you is not something that helps the audience or programmer.
5. Tell us what you think. Not what you have to sell. Because what you think will help us, and then we know you have answers and ideas and solutions. We don't need a new fully transparent real time inventory acquisition platform in the cloud. We need your thoughts first. Then, if your thoughts are valuable, we'll want to know more about what a smartypants like you has decided they want to help build.
Again, I really love sellers. I hope those sellers I know feel that. You solve our problems and make us look good. But you are doing yourselves a disservice when you come across as putzes onstage that we need to endure for the next ten minutes until a real speaker is teed up.
Connect what you are saying to the ideas of others that you share the limelight with. As conference goers we struggle to solidify all the thoughts and ideas ideas into a reasonable number of takeaways. Help us, and you will win.
I have the privilege of having a great deal of contact with event content planners and programmers, as well as sales people in digital marketing. And I hope that sellers know that I luvs them dearly because they make it all possible. But I am also a snarky sumbitch so I gotta say this.
Sellers always complain that they can't get speaking gigs at conferences. And mostly they don't get on stage.
I am going to tell you why. Because so darn many of the sellers that DO make it on stage spend their moments in the sun shilling for their product. I am flying back from adtech right now as I type, and am happy to report that several sellers provided tremendous content and differentiated themselves superbly there. But a few others -- I won't name names -- did nothing but pitch.
It's like you can't help yourselves, and the pitch oozes out like toothpaste. Hence the title of the post.
So I thought I'd lay out five suggestions on how to get on stage, and get asked back.
1. Do not claim you aren't making a pitch and then show us 6 slides from the pitch deck. Regardless of how it makes us feel about you and btw we hate you for it, you will have ticked off the content people. And they have the memories of elephants and you will NEVER appear on stage again.
2. Stay on topic. You were asked to be there for a reason. How can you substantively add to the discussion? Look, we get it that you have something to sell, and that's how you make your living. Actually it's your in market experience that makes you so valuable to us potentially as a speaker. But an opp to speak to an audience is an opp to differentiate your company and self through thought leadership. It is not a chance to broadcast your sales deck. If you have something to sell that adds meaningfully to the discussion, great. Thing is, so many of you are really rather brilliant and have great thoughts on the topics. But we'll never know because as soon as you start selling, we start emailing.
3. Don't poop on your competitors. Nothing looks lamer and we don't believe one word you say after that.
4. When you are pitching yourself as a speaker, explain what is in it for the audience and the programmer. I listened to a seller earlier today, when asked what they would talk about, they said their very cool product of course. Thing is, the industry has far far far too many cool products, and not enough big thoughts and ideas. Helping you spread the word about you is not something that helps the audience or programmer.
5. Tell us what you think. Not what you have to sell. Because what you think will help us, and then we know you have answers and ideas and solutions. We don't need a new fully transparent real time inventory acquisition platform in the cloud. We need your thoughts first. Then, if your thoughts are valuable, we'll want to know more about what a smartypants like you has decided they want to help build.
Again, I really love sellers. I hope those sellers I know feel that. You solve our problems and make us look good. But you are doing yourselves a disservice when you come across as putzes onstage that we need to endure for the next ten minutes until a real speaker is teed up.
Connect what you are saying to the ideas of others that you share the limelight with. As conference goers we struggle to solidify all the thoughts and ideas ideas into a reasonable number of takeaways. Help us, and you will win.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Three Ways Privacy Could Go...
Article Highlights:
Ponemon Research found that more than 90 percent of marketers eschew BT out of fear of consumer backlash
With a "do not track" registry in place, the internet wouldn't go away, but some companies and jobs would
When consumers are given real, easy to understand information about BT targeting, they are generally satisfied with the explanations and don't opt out
Well, we're finally talking more about privacy -- a nagging topic for our industry for more than a decade. Increased press attention -- often misleading and over-hyped -- plus a highly-charged and unclear regulatory environment in Washington D.C. are creating consumer fear. That, in turn, is making clients wary of participating in interest-based advertising (better known in the industry as behavioral targeting, or BT) out of fear of a backlash. Digital's incredible ability to understand consumers has brought us better business results; but it seems that the day may have finally arrived when we need to face and address those nagging concerns about how we collect and act on all the consumer information we gather.
This topic is important because BT is important. It drives significantly stronger business results, and the higher CPMs; it drives help publishers better monetize and improve content offerings. Currently, well over a billion dollars a year are spent on behaviorally targeted graphical media. And its growth rate is even faster than that of our industry as a whole.
The BT goose lays, and will continue to lay, golden eggs -- so long as privacy concerns fade and the bird stays healthy. But what happens if tolerance of these methods goes drastically south? No one knows for certain. But it is possible to formulate three possible scenarios about how BT and our industry as a whole will evolve in the next year as a result of different action on the privacy hunt.
Understanding what could happen in the future may help us figure out what to do now. So with that in mind, I offer these three plausible scenarios about how opinions and actions -- of consumers, clients, government, data companies, and media -- could reshape our industry.
Scenario 1: BT = R.I.P
This much has already happened: The Wall Street Journal published a story chronicling their research on ad targeting and privacy. They reported, among many other revelations, that 234 cookies -- including 20 virtually unremovable Flash cookies -- got dropped on their PC during a single visit to Dictionary.com.
Yes. That's 234 cookies!
Even if you think BT is totally hunky dory, that's a crapload of cookies. Enough to make some people even more nervous about internet privacy.
At first, most of the general public didn't really take much notice, but clients and government officials took the article very seriously.
Clients were already pretty nervous. Research conducted in 2010 by the Ponemon Institute showed that more than 90 percent of marketers say they eschew BT or hold back spending out of fear of consumer backlash.
The WSJ piece made them even more jittery, as did the many trade articles that were published in the ensuing months.
Now begins our speculation of what could happen: Soon after, Facebook makes some poorly messaged privacy changes. Again. Privacy advocates counter by putting out some spicy press releases. The cable news kicks in, and then the local news as well. The photographers on Getty One that have keyworded pictures "Big Brother" start making serious bucks. And consumers begin to take notice.
In Washington, Congressional committees and the FTC subpoena the CEOs of data companies and ad networks. We learn that many Congressmen share the concerns voiced by Senator Claire McCaskill in hearings held in July 2010:
"I understand that advertising supports the internet, but I am a little spooked out. This is creepy."
Laws and regs take some time to meander their way through Committee and the FTC. But brands don't wait. They start cutting BT from their plans.
The FTC implements a "do not track" registry, much like the wildly popular "do not call" registry that buried the telemarketing biz. Consumers flock to opt out of being targeted online.
Agency revenue drops a bit because nothing can make up for the performance drops. Then publisher revenue drops. And ad network revenue drops. Certainly the revenue loss deals a blow to many of the data companies, many of whom need BT to make their numbers.
Meanwhile, there are some winners that emerge, such as publishers with high quality contextual content, and network platforms like Vibrant, ContextWeb, and Kontera that offer platforms primarily focused on context. But most publishers take it on the chin. And agencies and brands contend with revenue shortfalls.
The internet wouldn't go away. But some companies would. And some jobs. And it would likely may be more jobs than you would think. Consider:
VCs have flooded the market with money for DSPs and data companies all built on the supposition that the collection and use of data can continue.
The holding companies are creating their own data driven buying platforms -- the value of which is predicated on data.
DM companies are entering the environment in force on the idea that data can empower digital efforts in the same way it does direct mail.
Without data, our well-oiled machine withers.
Scenario 2: In the eye of the storm
As any Floridian knows, hurricanes have odd architecture in that, at their very center, there is often a calm zone.
When the eye passes over your house, you get a few moments respite; but you also know that you then have to get through the second half of the swirling hurricane before it's all over.
In this scenario, our industry gets a year of respite. Consumer interest in internet privacy rises, but does not reach fever pitch. The FTC decides to go forward with some form of regulation, but Washington being what it is, it takes the FTC some time to get it all done. Action's coming, but these things take time.
Many industry stakeholders decide to conduct business as usual, irrationally hoping that the transitory peace of eye signals the end of government and consumer interest in the topic.
But in their hearts, many know that avoidance isn't going to work this time. After all, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz has already added a number of strong privacy advocates to the Commission, including David C. Vladeck, Eileen Harrington, and Joni Lupovitz to his senior staff. And he's also on record advocating for real privacy reform, saying,
"We may explore in the context of behavioral advertising... a do-not-track mechanism that's more comprehensive and easier to use than the procedures currently available. Under such a mechanism, users could opt out of behavioral advertising more easily rather than having to make choices on website-by-website basis."
This scenario assumes that the "do not track" list won't get up and running in 2011. Given the immense popularity of "do not call", it's logical to expect that when such a mechanism gets up and running, it will be inundated with consumer registrations.
But even if the registry doesn't get off the ground in 2011, it is pretty safe to assume that many brands will pull out of BT out of fear of consumer backlash. After all, brands are in the business of satisfying consumers, not ticking them off. This would lead to perhaps a less sudden onslaught of problems for agencies, networks, data companies, et al. But the ultimate results would be the same as in scenario one; the only real difference is the timing.
Scenario 3: Getting our acts together
The third scenario involves our industry following the lead of a coalition of industry trade groups, who have banded together to create a genuine, good faith self regulation platform.
Formed by the 4As, IAB, DMA, CBBB, and ANA, the coalition has created the Advertising Option Icon program that provides notice and choice to consumers. Under the program, ads targeted using advanced techniques like BT would bear a small "I" inside a triangle in their upper right corners. Clicking on the "I" provides information on who is collecting and using data, and provides options on whether the user wishes to opt out.
Significant research conducted by the portals and others indicates that when consumers are given real, easy to understand information about BT targeting, they are generally satisfied with the explanations and don't opt out. In other words, telling the truth in plain English is a good thing for the future of BT.
And here's a picture of the beginning of the post-click experience delivered by Better Advertising, a company founded to give consumers the notice and choice demanded by the coalition and the FTC. You can find this experience on millions of impressions from leading brands like AT&T already.
Better Advertising (disclosure: a CSF client) has been chosen by the coalition to power its interest-based advertising self-regulatory program," Other companies, including TRUSTe, also offer notice and choice mechanisms.
Scenario three assumes that our brands and agencies follow the coalition's lead. As a result, regulation is unnecessary. BT continues to grow, benefiting publishers, networks, DSPs, and data companies. Venture money continues to flow in, creating more opportunities for the kinds of monetary exits we all like to talk about, not to mention helping us all keep our jobs.
Under this scenario, brands and agencies would also see their businesses grow along with the stronger metrics made possible through advanced targeting. Extending clear information and choice also drives overall consumer loyalty because brands are treating them with respect.
Let me quote FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz on why this scenario is a win-win:
"And we have great hopes for self-regulation. Last year, a Coalition including the Direct Marketing Association, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, and the Better Business Bureau proposed behavioral advertising guidelines; these included the recommendation that companies explain their information collection practices for advertising outside the privacy policy using common language and a common icon. So long as self-regulation is making forward progress, the FTC is not interested in regulating in this area... In this case, doing what is right -- respecting your customers' most basic rights to privacy and well-informed choice -- is also doing what is good -- good for business, good for consumers, and good for the growth of an ever-expanding, innovating cyberworld."
Conclusions: No crystal ball here
No one can predict with certainty what will happen in 2011 as regards BT and privacy. Ultimately, a lot of what happens depends upon the extent to which our industry takes this issue seriously.
But it is certain that the world of BT and privacy is going to change in the future. The days of sidestepping this issue are over.
The question is, will we take the right step, or keep our heads buried in sand? Either way, our heads won't be buried for long, because the privacy hurricane will blow it all away and leave us struggling with the level-five aftermath.
Much easier just to do the right thing now. By embracing the coalition's Triangle-I program, the industry can continue to grow while restoring trust among consumers. Privacy disclosure and choice platforms make compliance quite easy, and once you get started it amounts to no additional work on your end.
Ponemon Research found that more than 90 percent of marketers eschew BT out of fear of consumer backlash
With a "do not track" registry in place, the internet wouldn't go away, but some companies and jobs would
When consumers are given real, easy to understand information about BT targeting, they are generally satisfied with the explanations and don't opt out
Well, we're finally talking more about privacy -- a nagging topic for our industry for more than a decade. Increased press attention -- often misleading and over-hyped -- plus a highly-charged and unclear regulatory environment in Washington D.C. are creating consumer fear. That, in turn, is making clients wary of participating in interest-based advertising (better known in the industry as behavioral targeting, or BT) out of fear of a backlash. Digital's incredible ability to understand consumers has brought us better business results; but it seems that the day may have finally arrived when we need to face and address those nagging concerns about how we collect and act on all the consumer information we gather.
This topic is important because BT is important. It drives significantly stronger business results, and the higher CPMs; it drives help publishers better monetize and improve content offerings. Currently, well over a billion dollars a year are spent on behaviorally targeted graphical media. And its growth rate is even faster than that of our industry as a whole.
The BT goose lays, and will continue to lay, golden eggs -- so long as privacy concerns fade and the bird stays healthy. But what happens if tolerance of these methods goes drastically south? No one knows for certain. But it is possible to formulate three possible scenarios about how BT and our industry as a whole will evolve in the next year as a result of different action on the privacy hunt.
Understanding what could happen in the future may help us figure out what to do now. So with that in mind, I offer these three plausible scenarios about how opinions and actions -- of consumers, clients, government, data companies, and media -- could reshape our industry.
Scenario 1: BT = R.I.P
This much has already happened: The Wall Street Journal published a story chronicling their research on ad targeting and privacy. They reported, among many other revelations, that 234 cookies -- including 20 virtually unremovable Flash cookies -- got dropped on their PC during a single visit to Dictionary.com.
Yes. That's 234 cookies!
Even if you think BT is totally hunky dory, that's a crapload of cookies. Enough to make some people even more nervous about internet privacy.
At first, most of the general public didn't really take much notice, but clients and government officials took the article very seriously.
Clients were already pretty nervous. Research conducted in 2010 by the Ponemon Institute showed that more than 90 percent of marketers say they eschew BT or hold back spending out of fear of consumer backlash.
The WSJ piece made them even more jittery, as did the many trade articles that were published in the ensuing months.
Now begins our speculation of what could happen: Soon after, Facebook makes some poorly messaged privacy changes. Again. Privacy advocates counter by putting out some spicy press releases. The cable news kicks in, and then the local news as well. The photographers on Getty One that have keyworded pictures "Big Brother" start making serious bucks. And consumers begin to take notice.
In Washington, Congressional committees and the FTC subpoena the CEOs of data companies and ad networks. We learn that many Congressmen share the concerns voiced by Senator Claire McCaskill in hearings held in July 2010:
"I understand that advertising supports the internet, but I am a little spooked out. This is creepy."
Laws and regs take some time to meander their way through Committee and the FTC. But brands don't wait. They start cutting BT from their plans.
The FTC implements a "do not track" registry, much like the wildly popular "do not call" registry that buried the telemarketing biz. Consumers flock to opt out of being targeted online.
Agency revenue drops a bit because nothing can make up for the performance drops. Then publisher revenue drops. And ad network revenue drops. Certainly the revenue loss deals a blow to many of the data companies, many of whom need BT to make their numbers.
Meanwhile, there are some winners that emerge, such as publishers with high quality contextual content, and network platforms like Vibrant, ContextWeb, and Kontera that offer platforms primarily focused on context. But most publishers take it on the chin. And agencies and brands contend with revenue shortfalls.
The internet wouldn't go away. But some companies would. And some jobs. And it would likely may be more jobs than you would think. Consider:
VCs have flooded the market with money for DSPs and data companies all built on the supposition that the collection and use of data can continue.
The holding companies are creating their own data driven buying platforms -- the value of which is predicated on data.
DM companies are entering the environment in force on the idea that data can empower digital efforts in the same way it does direct mail.
Without data, our well-oiled machine withers.
Scenario 2: In the eye of the storm
As any Floridian knows, hurricanes have odd architecture in that, at their very center, there is often a calm zone.
When the eye passes over your house, you get a few moments respite; but you also know that you then have to get through the second half of the swirling hurricane before it's all over.
In this scenario, our industry gets a year of respite. Consumer interest in internet privacy rises, but does not reach fever pitch. The FTC decides to go forward with some form of regulation, but Washington being what it is, it takes the FTC some time to get it all done. Action's coming, but these things take time.
Many industry stakeholders decide to conduct business as usual, irrationally hoping that the transitory peace of eye signals the end of government and consumer interest in the topic.
But in their hearts, many know that avoidance isn't going to work this time. After all, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz has already added a number of strong privacy advocates to the Commission, including David C. Vladeck, Eileen Harrington, and Joni Lupovitz to his senior staff. And he's also on record advocating for real privacy reform, saying,
"We may explore in the context of behavioral advertising... a do-not-track mechanism that's more comprehensive and easier to use than the procedures currently available. Under such a mechanism, users could opt out of behavioral advertising more easily rather than having to make choices on website-by-website basis."
This scenario assumes that the "do not track" list won't get up and running in 2011. Given the immense popularity of "do not call", it's logical to expect that when such a mechanism gets up and running, it will be inundated with consumer registrations.
But even if the registry doesn't get off the ground in 2011, it is pretty safe to assume that many brands will pull out of BT out of fear of consumer backlash. After all, brands are in the business of satisfying consumers, not ticking them off. This would lead to perhaps a less sudden onslaught of problems for agencies, networks, data companies, et al. But the ultimate results would be the same as in scenario one; the only real difference is the timing.
Scenario 3: Getting our acts together
The third scenario involves our industry following the lead of a coalition of industry trade groups, who have banded together to create a genuine, good faith self regulation platform.
Formed by the 4As, IAB, DMA, CBBB, and ANA, the coalition has created the Advertising Option Icon program that provides notice and choice to consumers. Under the program, ads targeted using advanced techniques like BT would bear a small "I" inside a triangle in their upper right corners. Clicking on the "I" provides information on who is collecting and using data, and provides options on whether the user wishes to opt out.
Significant research conducted by the portals and others indicates that when consumers are given real, easy to understand information about BT targeting, they are generally satisfied with the explanations and don't opt out. In other words, telling the truth in plain English is a good thing for the future of BT.
And here's a picture of the beginning of the post-click experience delivered by Better Advertising, a company founded to give consumers the notice and choice demanded by the coalition and the FTC. You can find this experience on millions of impressions from leading brands like AT&T already.
Better Advertising (disclosure: a CSF client) has been chosen by the coalition to power its interest-based advertising self-regulatory program," Other companies, including TRUSTe, also offer notice and choice mechanisms.
Scenario three assumes that our brands and agencies follow the coalition's lead. As a result, regulation is unnecessary. BT continues to grow, benefiting publishers, networks, DSPs, and data companies. Venture money continues to flow in, creating more opportunities for the kinds of monetary exits we all like to talk about, not to mention helping us all keep our jobs.
Under this scenario, brands and agencies would also see their businesses grow along with the stronger metrics made possible through advanced targeting. Extending clear information and choice also drives overall consumer loyalty because brands are treating them with respect.
Let me quote FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz on why this scenario is a win-win:
"And we have great hopes for self-regulation. Last year, a Coalition including the Direct Marketing Association, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, and the Better Business Bureau proposed behavioral advertising guidelines; these included the recommendation that companies explain their information collection practices for advertising outside the privacy policy using common language and a common icon. So long as self-regulation is making forward progress, the FTC is not interested in regulating in this area... In this case, doing what is right -- respecting your customers' most basic rights to privacy and well-informed choice -- is also doing what is good -- good for business, good for consumers, and good for the growth of an ever-expanding, innovating cyberworld."
Conclusions: No crystal ball here
No one can predict with certainty what will happen in 2011 as regards BT and privacy. Ultimately, a lot of what happens depends upon the extent to which our industry takes this issue seriously.
But it is certain that the world of BT and privacy is going to change in the future. The days of sidestepping this issue are over.
The question is, will we take the right step, or keep our heads buried in sand? Either way, our heads won't be buried for long, because the privacy hurricane will blow it all away and leave us struggling with the level-five aftermath.
Much easier just to do the right thing now. By embracing the coalition's Triangle-I program, the industry can continue to grow while restoring trust among consumers. Privacy disclosure and choice platforms make compliance quite easy, and once you get started it amounts to no additional work on your end.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Brands that made consumers love them forever
Special thanks to iMediaConnection for publishing this piece first!
Building a brand romance
In Italy, there's a principle called la bella figura. It essentially boils down to the idea that you ensure that your public persona always "looks" good -- that you consciously work to control other people's impressions of you. La bella figura has been the driving principle behind brand marketing for decades. We put gorgeous people in ads using hero packages in gorgeous settings, telling our stories in the most flattering ways.
But today we have nuova figuras -- consumers anxious to be a part of brands but also unwilling to simply accept an impression we package and deliver to them. They want to help, but they want their brands to be real. They want to know about the experiences of other real people, and they want to participate in defining and portraying the brand.
As a boomer, I find all this pretty remarkable. When I was little, brand identification was rarer and more subtle. You were proud to wear Levi's or whatever, but buying a T-shirt emblazoned with a gigantic Levi's logo -- that would have been a bit over the top.
Sometime in my formative years -- I think it began when Brooke Shields started talking seductively about her Calvins -- all that changed. Today, kids will engrave logos in their crew cuts. Brands can sell logo shirts for $20-plus, rather than having to give away the shirts to get people to wear them. And Flickr is chock full of photos of people proudly sharing the limelight with their favorite products -- from Marmite to Tide.
This all poses a remarkable opportunity -- but one that requires careful "strategery."
How do we cultivate relationships with consumers that create lifelong loyalty? I think there are lessons in human relationship building -- in dating and marriage. The way we attract, impress, and partner with consumers have strong parallels to the ways in which we find mates. It's a progression, from dating, to marriage, to having babies, to starting to look, sound, and act alike. People don't marry us just because it's what we want. Relationships are joint decisions, and brand relationships are no different.
With this piece I want to take you through four stages of relationship building:
• How brands get consumers to "date" them
• How they get that marital level of commitment
• How we work with consumers to develop new products (our babies)
• And how ultimately we enable our brands to define us, and, to some extent, vice versa
Around the world brands are tackling this concept of brand marriage in unique and intriguing ways. Remarkable brands are jumping headfirst into the relationship pool, finding themselves at different stages on this four-stage continuum. Just as with human relationships, there's no cookie-cutter formula for making a relationship work. The paths to sharing a life together are as different as the brands themselves. Let's take a look at some of these brand romances and see what we can learn.
Dating: Brand meets user
When we're out to meet someone, we try to look the way that they will find appealing. Some brands manage that on their own, albeit with real consumer insights. The Dove campaign is a powerful example from a brand that used substantive consumer analysis to land on an idea with universal female appeal.
But many brands -- and people -- are presentation challenged. In dating, a new book pointing out the fashion and appearance mistakes of men is selling well. Entitled "Undateable," it also has an important metaphorical lesson for many brands. If you want her to be truly happy with your appearance, it's best to just let her dress you.
Hundreds of brands are using digital to do just that. In its simplest incarnation, car banners that allow viewers to try different colors are built around this concept.
More complex examples can be found across the globe. DHTML banners and ads powered by technologies like Linkstorm enable users to drill down and customize their ad experiences. Still more extensive examples of user-customized marketing experiences come in many forms. An Australian supplement company called Blackmores http://www.blackmores.com.au/ has transformed its website into a peer-to-peer community revolving around users' goals and questions.
Rather than hawking jars of supplements, the brand allows users to discuss needs and benefits on their own. Products arise organically in conversations. Perhaps most remarkable is that this community has more than 300,000 members, in a country with about 22 million inhabitants. To give American readers an idea of what that means, if Australia's population matched that of the U.S., the site would have 4.3 million members.If it were in the UK, we're talking about more than a million members. RE-MARKABLE!
Retailers are getting in on the game with virtual mirrors that allow users to customize brands entirely on their terms. Meanwhile, websites like Ray-Ban's have long made it possible for users to try on eyewear virtually, another incarnation of this same concept.
In another example from Down Under, the Australian Defence Force uses multiplayer games -- as does the U.S. Army -- to enable users to virtually sample military experiences of their own choosing.
Since they began using the games as recruiting tools, more than 1.5 million people have registered and played, and thousands have made inquiries from the games.
In short, different brands can find unique ways of enabling consumer customization -- and a program can be devised for virtually any budget.
Getting hitched: Sharing the stage with the consumer
This stage is about becoming a "we" -- about collaborating with consumers to develop marketing messages. The best U.S. example I can think of is the Pepsi Refresh Everything campaign. As we all know, Pepsi spent decades winning sales by juxtaposing stars of the instant with young messaging and a flavor profile best suited to under 18s.
Pepsi entered the new millennium doing what it had for years -- pairing the white-hot celeb with a youthful message. This 2002 ad, starring Britney, pretty much encapsulates the entire campaign -- a bajillion dollar ad with everything that always worked until we entered the social age: celebs, singin' and dancin', massive casts, beautiful settings, and catchy tunes.
The social era made the brand head in a decidedly different direction. The Refresh Everything charity overlay lets consumers determine how Pepsi marketing dollars get spent. Pepsi sales are up, and the web traffic to the Refresh Everything website eclipses that garnered by Pepsi.com.
That's only natural seeing as how there's a decidedly real reason to want to visit.
An English meat brand has launched a multimedia campaign starring its users, who demonstrate that special brand of crazy at which Brits excel. The "Proper Food" rebranding effort for Walls began with ads that show people with deep passions -- for hobbies and Walls products.
The next phase of the effort was a social media program pitting Briton against Briton in a contest to win £5,000 and a role in a Walls ad that showcases their eccentricity. And what sorts of response are they getting? Some examples:
• Chess boxers (a simultaneous fight and chess game)
• Extreme ironers (who iron in unusual venues like on the hood of moving cigarette boats)
• OAPoleDancers (OAP is the abbreviation for old age pensioners)
• Snack pimpers (makers of enormous versions of U.K. junk food)
(Check out these and others here. http://bringitonbrits.wordpress.com/)
Unmistakably British flavors of nuts, from a quirky proud British food company.
Bun in the oven: Making products together
The next logical step is co-creation, the co-defining and sometimes the co-designing of new products. Obviously this takes a higher level of commitment from both the brand and the consumer.
Pizza Hut is using social media globally to devise new flavors to meet local tastes. A recent effort in Brazil unearthed 80 different distinct recipes, thousands of votes, and a hot-selling new item.
In Korea, Pizza Hut did the same on the Korean social net Cyworld.
A mindboggling U.K. start-up called Ucodo http://www.ucodo.com/ actually enables consumers to co-design consumer products online, which are then produced. Within broad parameters the consumer can push, pull, stretch, and twist the virtual design and have their co-designed item delivered to them.
I have never said "Will wonders never cease?" with greater sincerity.
Starting to look alike: Becoming the consumer (and vice versa)
There's a centuries-old meme about couples converging on similar appearance over the years. This is perhaps the strongest evidence of a symbiotic relationship, and a number of brave brands are taking the plunge with great results.
Back Down Under for the first example. Tourism Australia created an amazing effort that asked Australians to upload photos and descriptions of their favorite places across the country to give tourists ideas on things to do. More than 29,000 responded, and the happy would-be traveler can explore this user-generated content in a wonderful visual interface.
This is just one of Australia's social tourism efforts -- a participatory strategy that has garnered it more than half a million likes on Facebook. Compare that to the number of likes for the U.S. on Facebook.
Although spouses might grow to look alike, one of the best things about having a partner is that often one person finds it easier to say things that the other can't. One can speak up while the other might simply endure to avoid a scene.
Consider this effort by U.K.'s Labour Party during the last election. While Labour lost, it's easy to see the power of its social effort that asked Labourites to make parody ads for the super-slick "I am a just a bloke too" efforts of conservative David Cameron. Lefties delighted in mocking Cameron's protestations of folksiness. First, everyman David as Ali G.
And a biting attack on the Tory's defense of fox hunting:
Now, the party couldn't officially print things like this. But its consumer spouse? Why not?
Conclusion: Are you ready for a consumer LTR?
You sort of have to be. With the latest figures from Forrester showing tens of millions of consumers anxious to connect and create content for brands, it's incumbent on you to harness this enthusiasm in light of declining marketing effectiveness for traditional media. These five points offer a starting point for brands hoping to tie the knot with consumers:
1. Just like dating, it's important not to get ahead of yourself. Pick a level of commitment that works for both of you now. Not every brand or every consumer is ready for serious commitment yet.
2. Don't say things you don't mean. Don't promise things you won't go through with. Remember that Chevy Tahoe campaign? Think your program through.
3. In a relationship, the idea is to share decisions -- not be a doormat. It's your responsibility to enhance the brand through participation, not abdicate your role.
4. Marriage is work, and not everything turns out as you expect. Some programs will succeed, and some will fail. You need to be ready for that.
5. Dating the young has a special challenge. Young people expect more of a role. If your target is under 25, be prepared to give consumers a pretty big role.
Finally, whatever stage you are ready for, make sure your campaign reflects your brand as vividly as a TV ad might.
Building a brand romance
In Italy, there's a principle called la bella figura. It essentially boils down to the idea that you ensure that your public persona always "looks" good -- that you consciously work to control other people's impressions of you. La bella figura has been the driving principle behind brand marketing for decades. We put gorgeous people in ads using hero packages in gorgeous settings, telling our stories in the most flattering ways.
But today we have nuova figuras -- consumers anxious to be a part of brands but also unwilling to simply accept an impression we package and deliver to them. They want to help, but they want their brands to be real. They want to know about the experiences of other real people, and they want to participate in defining and portraying the brand.
As a boomer, I find all this pretty remarkable. When I was little, brand identification was rarer and more subtle. You were proud to wear Levi's or whatever, but buying a T-shirt emblazoned with a gigantic Levi's logo -- that would have been a bit over the top.
Sometime in my formative years -- I think it began when Brooke Shields started talking seductively about her Calvins -- all that changed. Today, kids will engrave logos in their crew cuts. Brands can sell logo shirts for $20-plus, rather than having to give away the shirts to get people to wear them. And Flickr is chock full of photos of people proudly sharing the limelight with their favorite products -- from Marmite to Tide.
This all poses a remarkable opportunity -- but one that requires careful "strategery."
How do we cultivate relationships with consumers that create lifelong loyalty? I think there are lessons in human relationship building -- in dating and marriage. The way we attract, impress, and partner with consumers have strong parallels to the ways in which we find mates. It's a progression, from dating, to marriage, to having babies, to starting to look, sound, and act alike. People don't marry us just because it's what we want. Relationships are joint decisions, and brand relationships are no different.
With this piece I want to take you through four stages of relationship building:
• How brands get consumers to "date" them
• How they get that marital level of commitment
• How we work with consumers to develop new products (our babies)
• And how ultimately we enable our brands to define us, and, to some extent, vice versa
Around the world brands are tackling this concept of brand marriage in unique and intriguing ways. Remarkable brands are jumping headfirst into the relationship pool, finding themselves at different stages on this four-stage continuum. Just as with human relationships, there's no cookie-cutter formula for making a relationship work. The paths to sharing a life together are as different as the brands themselves. Let's take a look at some of these brand romances and see what we can learn.
Dating: Brand meets user
When we're out to meet someone, we try to look the way that they will find appealing. Some brands manage that on their own, albeit with real consumer insights. The Dove campaign is a powerful example from a brand that used substantive consumer analysis to land on an idea with universal female appeal.
But many brands -- and people -- are presentation challenged. In dating, a new book pointing out the fashion and appearance mistakes of men is selling well. Entitled "Undateable," it also has an important metaphorical lesson for many brands. If you want her to be truly happy with your appearance, it's best to just let her dress you.
Hundreds of brands are using digital to do just that. In its simplest incarnation, car banners that allow viewers to try different colors are built around this concept.
More complex examples can be found across the globe. DHTML banners and ads powered by technologies like Linkstorm enable users to drill down and customize their ad experiences. Still more extensive examples of user-customized marketing experiences come in many forms. An Australian supplement company called Blackmores http://www.blackmores.com.au/ has transformed its website into a peer-to-peer community revolving around users' goals and questions.
Rather than hawking jars of supplements, the brand allows users to discuss needs and benefits on their own. Products arise organically in conversations. Perhaps most remarkable is that this community has more than 300,000 members, in a country with about 22 million inhabitants. To give American readers an idea of what that means, if Australia's population matched that of the U.S., the site would have 4.3 million members.If it were in the UK, we're talking about more than a million members. RE-MARKABLE!
Retailers are getting in on the game with virtual mirrors that allow users to customize brands entirely on their terms. Meanwhile, websites like Ray-Ban's have long made it possible for users to try on eyewear virtually, another incarnation of this same concept.
In another example from Down Under, the Australian Defence Force uses multiplayer games -- as does the U.S. Army -- to enable users to virtually sample military experiences of their own choosing.
Since they began using the games as recruiting tools, more than 1.5 million people have registered and played, and thousands have made inquiries from the games.
In short, different brands can find unique ways of enabling consumer customization -- and a program can be devised for virtually any budget.
Getting hitched: Sharing the stage with the consumer
This stage is about becoming a "we" -- about collaborating with consumers to develop marketing messages. The best U.S. example I can think of is the Pepsi Refresh Everything campaign. As we all know, Pepsi spent decades winning sales by juxtaposing stars of the instant with young messaging and a flavor profile best suited to under 18s.
Pepsi entered the new millennium doing what it had for years -- pairing the white-hot celeb with a youthful message. This 2002 ad, starring Britney, pretty much encapsulates the entire campaign -- a bajillion dollar ad with everything that always worked until we entered the social age: celebs, singin' and dancin', massive casts, beautiful settings, and catchy tunes.
The social era made the brand head in a decidedly different direction. The Refresh Everything charity overlay lets consumers determine how Pepsi marketing dollars get spent. Pepsi sales are up, and the web traffic to the Refresh Everything website eclipses that garnered by Pepsi.com.
That's only natural seeing as how there's a decidedly real reason to want to visit.
An English meat brand has launched a multimedia campaign starring its users, who demonstrate that special brand of crazy at which Brits excel. The "Proper Food" rebranding effort for Walls began with ads that show people with deep passions -- for hobbies and Walls products.
The next phase of the effort was a social media program pitting Briton against Briton in a contest to win £5,000 and a role in a Walls ad that showcases their eccentricity. And what sorts of response are they getting? Some examples:
• Chess boxers (a simultaneous fight and chess game)
• Extreme ironers (who iron in unusual venues like on the hood of moving cigarette boats)
• OAPoleDancers (OAP is the abbreviation for old age pensioners)
• Snack pimpers (makers of enormous versions of U.K. junk food)
(Check out these and others here. http://bringitonbrits.wordpress.com/)
Unmistakably British flavors of nuts, from a quirky proud British food company.
Bun in the oven: Making products together
The next logical step is co-creation, the co-defining and sometimes the co-designing of new products. Obviously this takes a higher level of commitment from both the brand and the consumer.
Pizza Hut is using social media globally to devise new flavors to meet local tastes. A recent effort in Brazil unearthed 80 different distinct recipes, thousands of votes, and a hot-selling new item.
In Korea, Pizza Hut did the same on the Korean social net Cyworld.
A mindboggling U.K. start-up called Ucodo http://www.ucodo.com/ actually enables consumers to co-design consumer products online, which are then produced. Within broad parameters the consumer can push, pull, stretch, and twist the virtual design and have their co-designed item delivered to them.
I have never said "Will wonders never cease?" with greater sincerity.
Starting to look alike: Becoming the consumer (and vice versa)
There's a centuries-old meme about couples converging on similar appearance over the years. This is perhaps the strongest evidence of a symbiotic relationship, and a number of brave brands are taking the plunge with great results.
Back Down Under for the first example. Tourism Australia created an amazing effort that asked Australians to upload photos and descriptions of their favorite places across the country to give tourists ideas on things to do. More than 29,000 responded, and the happy would-be traveler can explore this user-generated content in a wonderful visual interface.
This is just one of Australia's social tourism efforts -- a participatory strategy that has garnered it more than half a million likes on Facebook. Compare that to the number of likes for the U.S. on Facebook.
Although spouses might grow to look alike, one of the best things about having a partner is that often one person finds it easier to say things that the other can't. One can speak up while the other might simply endure to avoid a scene.
Consider this effort by U.K.'s Labour Party during the last election. While Labour lost, it's easy to see the power of its social effort that asked Labourites to make parody ads for the super-slick "I am a just a bloke too" efforts of conservative David Cameron. Lefties delighted in mocking Cameron's protestations of folksiness. First, everyman David as Ali G.
And a biting attack on the Tory's defense of fox hunting:
Now, the party couldn't officially print things like this. But its consumer spouse? Why not?
Conclusion: Are you ready for a consumer LTR?
You sort of have to be. With the latest figures from Forrester showing tens of millions of consumers anxious to connect and create content for brands, it's incumbent on you to harness this enthusiasm in light of declining marketing effectiveness for traditional media. These five points offer a starting point for brands hoping to tie the knot with consumers:
1. Just like dating, it's important not to get ahead of yourself. Pick a level of commitment that works for both of you now. Not every brand or every consumer is ready for serious commitment yet.
2. Don't say things you don't mean. Don't promise things you won't go through with. Remember that Chevy Tahoe campaign? Think your program through.
3. In a relationship, the idea is to share decisions -- not be a doormat. It's your responsibility to enhance the brand through participation, not abdicate your role.
4. Marriage is work, and not everything turns out as you expect. Some programs will succeed, and some will fail. You need to be ready for that.
5. Dating the young has a special challenge. Young people expect more of a role. If your target is under 25, be prepared to give consumers a pretty big role.
Finally, whatever stage you are ready for, make sure your campaign reflects your brand as vividly as a TV ad might.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Real Winners In Social? Content Publishers!
Thanks to iMediaConnection For Publishing this First!
I have a pet peeve about the term social media. Social is a marketing style, not a medium. The real value of social is helping people talk about things that matter to them, not informing me that my friend Paul is eating bacon right now.
The power of social becomes evident on sites like consumerist, where shoppers’ problems get solved by both exposure and people power.
It becomes evident on HuffPost when a blog post about an issue creates fiery debate. Debate that extends beyond the pages of HuffPost into communities like FaceBook, into Meebo, and wherever else the message can spread.
It becomes clear when people share their POV on what MP3 player to buy, whether to buy an iPad or wait for the Android, and whether to rush out and see that new Jen Aniston movie. Those discussion can occur on brand pages, or in forums on CNET. Or in both. Or in neither. It occurs where it occurs organically.
In my view, the real winners of social are going to be content sites that use social as a way of driving stickiness, community and passion. THESE are the places where important conversations are most likely to take place. And that’s a good thing because content sites will be able to monetize their socialized environments better.
Every time we say social media, I think we enable a misperception that there is a special class of places and sites for social marketing. When the reality is that we need to think about empowering social everywhere, but especially in places that re most likely to attract passionate thought leaders. And THAT means content sites.
I have a pet peeve about the term social media. Social is a marketing style, not a medium. The real value of social is helping people talk about things that matter to them, not informing me that my friend Paul is eating bacon right now.
The power of social becomes evident on sites like consumerist, where shoppers’ problems get solved by both exposure and people power.
It becomes evident on HuffPost when a blog post about an issue creates fiery debate. Debate that extends beyond the pages of HuffPost into communities like FaceBook, into Meebo, and wherever else the message can spread.
It becomes clear when people share their POV on what MP3 player to buy, whether to buy an iPad or wait for the Android, and whether to rush out and see that new Jen Aniston movie. Those discussion can occur on brand pages, or in forums on CNET. Or in both. Or in neither. It occurs where it occurs organically.
In my view, the real winners of social are going to be content sites that use social as a way of driving stickiness, community and passion. THESE are the places where important conversations are most likely to take place. And that’s a good thing because content sites will be able to monetize their socialized environments better.
Every time we say social media, I think we enable a misperception that there is a special class of places and sites for social marketing. When the reality is that we need to think about empowering social everywhere, but especially in places that re most likely to attract passionate thought leaders. And THAT means content sites.
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)