Over the last few weeks I have heard numerous clients talk about an expectation of softening of the media rates into next year as the economy gets squeezed. But is this a reasonable assumption?
I would argue that it's not and that unlike many previous recessionary periods which have seen media owners slash rates, we may not necessarily see the same trends this time, especially in our two prime media platforms -print and online...why you ask?
We lets start with print media.
In a previous life I used to be a magazine publisher, constantly watching the magazine balance sheet. It was generally tied to one key metric - page yields. High page yields invariably meant higher profit margins but also drove advertisers away when their perception of the magazine's value was not matched by the rates they were offered. As a publisher you could chose to lower yields to chase higher page volumes, knowing that adding pages was relatively cheap and easy and could ultimately drive higher income and total profits even if margin was lowered. It also was critical when in a competitive market to gain market share as a show of strength.
Well in 2008 I think most publishers have established page yields that they feel they must maintain typically calculated to deliver a certain basic issue size. We all know it's no longer about having a big issue size and they are happy to publish the minimum pages needed each week or month to service readers and a core of advertisers. Volume pressures have gone.
Also since publishers now see significantly less income generated from print media compared to other services like events, online and lead gen, magazines are much more easily closed without damaging the overall income model they have established. I know of even profitable magazines that have been closed because they no longer fitted a long term strategy, so advertisers should not expect any loyalty from publishers to their magazines if they themselves do not spend dollars on the ads.
So bottom line is I don't think publishers will feel any inclination to give pages away just to stay afloat. Cutting issue size and closing magazines is more likely in most cases this time around especially where online extensions have been fully established.
Now online.
Well like many I expect rates to hold up. Demand is rising as dollars shift out of traditional media and a recession will only accelerate the trend to spending more on measurable media. It's the safest option for marketing manager. Sites can still sell primary inventory at a decent margin knowing the spare inventory will be snapped up by ad networks desperate for a competitive edge especially in the B2B space. Sure consumer, high volume buys may see a squeeze with networks especially pushing to get onto more media buys, but it's also the case that those media buys are much more 'spray and prey' than most in our space could ever be. Frankly for B2B most networks fall sadly flat.
So while there are certain to be a few deals out there it's unlikely to be the shark frenzy we have seen in years gone by. Expect more consolidation and media closures than a rash of cheap ads. Expect your preferred online sites to be telling you they have sold out of all the good inventory rather than bucket shop deals. And expect your media agency to measure your expectations so that they can still buy the media they feel is effective rather than chase cheap deals.
As always it's just my humble opinion.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Lead fatigue
Last week I had one of those great media lunch meetings where a publishing representative lets rip about the market and offers up insights and views that confirm some of my long held suspicions. Obviously I'll not divulge names but needless to say it was a significant player in the IT space and the discussion was centred around lead generation programs.
The bottom line is lead gen programs are getting harder to fulfill. Good assets from big brands will always do well, but older assets and those items which are badly thought out or simply way too product centric (a client favourite especially from product marketing and therefore an obvious attempt to sell and not educate) are not getting picked up like they used to. It's putting pressure on publishers and creating distrust in the market from users. Opt outs are increasing and more "mickey mouses" are appearing in lead lists. Quality is suffering.
As I have long suspected IT professionals are becoming increasingly jaded at vendor and publisher practices. Traditionally they were subject to online advertising campaigns well before any other B2B segment in the market. This is now being replicated with lead generation programs where users are offered up all manner of enticing white papers, articles, web events and podcasts and simply have to leave a few tit bits of personal information. Bang - next thing they know a random sales person is calling chasing them for meeting and hard selling them a product. This is fine if they are in late stage buying cycle but in so many cases this is simply not the case and the user is left confused and abused. Bad brand experience or what.
However they are not the only ones. Internal vendor sales staff are now biting back. Sales people hate chasing cold or low quality leads. The answer "er I don't remember downloading anything from you" is scarily typical.
So who's to blame. Marketing? Well no. Marketing has simply been instructed to make sure that all investment efforts now deliver leads. In many cases performance bonuses are based on driving ever lower cpl (cost per lead) metrics. This is crazy.
Frankly the system is reaching breaking point and until vendor executives go back to marketing 101 and recall exactly what marketing's entire role should be then it's not going to get better. Just in case anyone is listening lets review:
Firstly marketing should be the brand stewards. That is: to ensure the brand awareness is maintained or improved and most importantly developed in line with current and future business growth plans. It should always be ahead of where the company wants to go not reacting to it.
Secondly marketing needs to provide a range of messages and collateral to help move prospects down the sales cycle. Someone doing high level investigation into a particular subject probably won't react too favourably to a hard sales call. They will likely respond well to a follow up email that offers some more information related to the original download they made.
Thirdly marketing should support sales efforts by facilitating the dialogue with customers and yes creating high value sales leads.
It should not be hard for a vendor to create an asset map with different items available to support both different job functions and buying stage requirements. CIO's need very different information than IT project managers or even technology experts - yet all are vital to the sales process. Vendors should offer up a maximum amount of generic literature for free. They should think about who their sales teams typically engage with most successfully. They should also think about the functions that create barriers to the sale.
Example - a CEO in a major company is unlikely to get involved in the vendor review process but may stop a sale if he's unfamiliar with a vendor. Getting information to him is key but do you really think he's going to register to get it? Same can often be said with more senior IT functions.
Bottom line is this - vendors need to remember that assets should be considered very much part of the brand communication strategy. If the vendor makes a big brand promise, the assets are the proof that the claim is substantiated. They should be provided in a way that reflects the vendors business practice. More subtle communications is what customers expect from vendors offering sophisticated business solutions. Offering a suite of assets reflects an understanding of the customers needs throughout the buying process. Campaigns need to be planned accordingly and in many cases success should not be judged by cpl metrics but by just how many assets got distributed out there into the market.
With economic constraints likely to push more vendors into lead generation obsession, I fear this is only going to get worse before it gets better.
The bottom line is lead gen programs are getting harder to fulfill. Good assets from big brands will always do well, but older assets and those items which are badly thought out or simply way too product centric (a client favourite especially from product marketing and therefore an obvious attempt to sell and not educate) are not getting picked up like they used to. It's putting pressure on publishers and creating distrust in the market from users. Opt outs are increasing and more "mickey mouses" are appearing in lead lists. Quality is suffering.
As I have long suspected IT professionals are becoming increasingly jaded at vendor and publisher practices. Traditionally they were subject to online advertising campaigns well before any other B2B segment in the market. This is now being replicated with lead generation programs where users are offered up all manner of enticing white papers, articles, web events and podcasts and simply have to leave a few tit bits of personal information. Bang - next thing they know a random sales person is calling chasing them for meeting and hard selling them a product. This is fine if they are in late stage buying cycle but in so many cases this is simply not the case and the user is left confused and abused. Bad brand experience or what.
However they are not the only ones. Internal vendor sales staff are now biting back. Sales people hate chasing cold or low quality leads. The answer "er I don't remember downloading anything from you" is scarily typical.
So who's to blame. Marketing? Well no. Marketing has simply been instructed to make sure that all investment efforts now deliver leads. In many cases performance bonuses are based on driving ever lower cpl (cost per lead) metrics. This is crazy.
Frankly the system is reaching breaking point and until vendor executives go back to marketing 101 and recall exactly what marketing's entire role should be then it's not going to get better. Just in case anyone is listening lets review:
Firstly marketing should be the brand stewards. That is: to ensure the brand awareness is maintained or improved and most importantly developed in line with current and future business growth plans. It should always be ahead of where the company wants to go not reacting to it.
Secondly marketing needs to provide a range of messages and collateral to help move prospects down the sales cycle. Someone doing high level investigation into a particular subject probably won't react too favourably to a hard sales call. They will likely respond well to a follow up email that offers some more information related to the original download they made.
Thirdly marketing should support sales efforts by facilitating the dialogue with customers and yes creating high value sales leads.
It should not be hard for a vendor to create an asset map with different items available to support both different job functions and buying stage requirements. CIO's need very different information than IT project managers or even technology experts - yet all are vital to the sales process. Vendors should offer up a maximum amount of generic literature for free. They should think about who their sales teams typically engage with most successfully. They should also think about the functions that create barriers to the sale.
Example - a CEO in a major company is unlikely to get involved in the vendor review process but may stop a sale if he's unfamiliar with a vendor. Getting information to him is key but do you really think he's going to register to get it? Same can often be said with more senior IT functions.
Bottom line is this - vendors need to remember that assets should be considered very much part of the brand communication strategy. If the vendor makes a big brand promise, the assets are the proof that the claim is substantiated. They should be provided in a way that reflects the vendors business practice. More subtle communications is what customers expect from vendors offering sophisticated business solutions. Offering a suite of assets reflects an understanding of the customers needs throughout the buying process. Campaigns need to be planned accordingly and in many cases success should not be judged by cpl metrics but by just how many assets got distributed out there into the market.
With economic constraints likely to push more vendors into lead generation obsession, I fear this is only going to get worse before it gets better.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Olympic experience
Before anyone imagines that I made it out to China, sadly that was not the case but it was still a quite excellent experience and worthy of some comment.
As we all know NBC paid a massive amount of money for the event and they sure did well out of it. However I feel we must recognize they also did a very good job. This was probably the first major sporting event where having HD really paid off big time. Every sport just looked better and was more compelling in HD. The swimming especially stood out for me although the real gain was the ability to see the fine details in terms of the athletic effort exerted by so many of the competitors. These details have been lacking in TV coverage to date. HD makes that possible and is so much more compelling when it's sport after sport after sport (rather than a single ball game or Superbowl).
Tivo (or DVR) service was of course a must to watch the coverage properly. NBC had to make back the dollars and advertising breaks plagued the content and disrupted the flow. Having said that I must applaud the advertisers and agencies who generally did a good job of making ads that fitted in well and were generally of superior quality. Visa particularly did a nice job with the "Phelps" ads - contextually working with their sponsorship of the event.
As regards advertising at the actual event...it really passed me by which either means it was very subtle, or I suspect, somewhat limited visually at the events. Again that's good. The Olympics only come around every four years and it should rightly be about the athletes who put such huge efforts in and not the advertisers.
Being a British, I missed many of the GB medals as obviously the coverage here in the US was skewed but such was the thrilling nature of many of the US efforts that it really did not matter. Human endeavour is what the real Olympic spirit is an as usual there was plenty of that no matter what colour jersey was being worn.
And congratulations to China. No doubting they managed to make the event feel enormous with the scale of both venues and extravaganzas matching the exploits of the sportsmen and women. I don't know what it was like there but they appeared to really deliver on the primary objective required which is to enable everyone to enjoy the experience whether there in person or not.
So next to London. It will be very tough for the UK to match these organizational exploits and given our history of incompetence with major public endeavours (wobbly millennium bridge, London Eye that opened late, Wembley Stadium debacle being just some examples) it's a worry that we will be ready in time. However I expect the Brits to out do the Chinese in one area - that is consistently fill the stadium. Too often the efforts on the ground were not matched by the attendance in the venue. Here's where the real efforts should be made if London is really to respond to the high level set here.
As we all know NBC paid a massive amount of money for the event and they sure did well out of it. However I feel we must recognize they also did a very good job. This was probably the first major sporting event where having HD really paid off big time. Every sport just looked better and was more compelling in HD. The swimming especially stood out for me although the real gain was the ability to see the fine details in terms of the athletic effort exerted by so many of the competitors. These details have been lacking in TV coverage to date. HD makes that possible and is so much more compelling when it's sport after sport after sport (rather than a single ball game or Superbowl).
Tivo (or DVR) service was of course a must to watch the coverage properly. NBC had to make back the dollars and advertising breaks plagued the content and disrupted the flow. Having said that I must applaud the advertisers and agencies who generally did a good job of making ads that fitted in well and were generally of superior quality. Visa particularly did a nice job with the "Phelps" ads - contextually working with their sponsorship of the event.
As regards advertising at the actual event...it really passed me by which either means it was very subtle, or I suspect, somewhat limited visually at the events. Again that's good. The Olympics only come around every four years and it should rightly be about the athletes who put such huge efforts in and not the advertisers.
Being a British, I missed many of the GB medals as obviously the coverage here in the US was skewed but such was the thrilling nature of many of the US efforts that it really did not matter. Human endeavour is what the real Olympic spirit is an as usual there was plenty of that no matter what colour jersey was being worn.
And congratulations to China. No doubting they managed to make the event feel enormous with the scale of both venues and extravaganzas matching the exploits of the sportsmen and women. I don't know what it was like there but they appeared to really deliver on the primary objective required which is to enable everyone to enjoy the experience whether there in person or not.
So next to London. It will be very tough for the UK to match these organizational exploits and given our history of incompetence with major public endeavours (wobbly millennium bridge, London Eye that opened late, Wembley Stadium debacle being just some examples) it's a worry that we will be ready in time. However I expect the Brits to out do the Chinese in one area - that is consistently fill the stadium. Too often the efforts on the ground were not matched by the attendance in the venue. Here's where the real efforts should be made if London is really to respond to the high level set here.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
LinkedIn grows up.
Had a great meeting with the folks from LinkedIn today and for the first time I'm actually excited by the prospect of discussing social media with a client with some actual real solutions that are both realistic to execute upon but leverage the social aspect of the network.
For those not familiar, LinkedIn ,unlike the consumer social networks Facebook and MySpace, is a white collar, B2B social network which allows people to establish contacts and a network with business associates. The key aspect is that users almost entirely avoid out of work contacts (family and friends) and therefor the usage is almost entirely devoted to ones business life with profiles devoid of pictures of kids, partners and strange animals. How refreshing!
From the advertisers perspective this audience is a goldmine. The information is constantly updated by the individuals in question and targeting is possible by all manner of demographics - job, company, industry, etc. The problem has always been how to use this appropriately.
Like most agencies our early clumsy attempts of using traditional ads produced results comparable to running ads on content sites - proving context and general functional targeting are about even in efficiency. However now LinkedIn is providing solutions that really enable to advertiser to get up close and personal and frankly I can't wait to start playing with this.
New items include polls, question and answer programs and highly targeted personalized edm. New group capabilities will be added soon and the site also announced plans to open itself to some very carefully vetted apps (hopefully applying lessons learnt by Facebook).
Finally we may see B2B social networking growing into a youthful child - still innocent and unspoilt but open to fresh ideas and inspiring those around it. Lets hope it remains this way for a while before old advertising hacks like me turn it into a troubled teenage - all frustration, anger and bitterness.
For those not familiar, LinkedIn ,unlike the consumer social networks Facebook and MySpace, is a white collar, B2B social network which allows people to establish contacts and a network with business associates. The key aspect is that users almost entirely avoid out of work contacts (family and friends) and therefor the usage is almost entirely devoted to ones business life with profiles devoid of pictures of kids, partners and strange animals. How refreshing!
From the advertisers perspective this audience is a goldmine. The information is constantly updated by the individuals in question and targeting is possible by all manner of demographics - job, company, industry, etc. The problem has always been how to use this appropriately.
Like most agencies our early clumsy attempts of using traditional ads produced results comparable to running ads on content sites - proving context and general functional targeting are about even in efficiency. However now LinkedIn is providing solutions that really enable to advertiser to get up close and personal and frankly I can't wait to start playing with this.
New items include polls, question and answer programs and highly targeted personalized edm. New group capabilities will be added soon and the site also announced plans to open itself to some very carefully vetted apps (hopefully applying lessons learnt by Facebook).
Finally we may see B2B social networking growing into a youthful child - still innocent and unspoilt but open to fresh ideas and inspiring those around it. Lets hope it remains this way for a while before old advertising hacks like me turn it into a troubled teenage - all frustration, anger and bitterness.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Social media and linear metrics
I read with interest this article on the problems marketers are struggling with in relation to the use of social media at the recent DMA conference.
This highlights well the existing problem faced by social media and indeed online media in general as we move into 2008. The "Google effect" means that marketers are now expected to provide clear performance reports showing that dollars invested can track directly to specific actions - ultimately sales - for every online campaign.
But as we all know, advertising and marketing does not always line up in this way. Social media especially is not set up to work in this way. Even a strong interest from users may not result in any direct measurable sales and in many cases the campaigns are about users enjoying some kind of brand experience rather than a straight 'click, review, buy' model.
So finally online marketers are being asked the same questions that traditional media has suffered from for years...prove this is working !!
It's interesting the article makes reference to seeking out the help of academics. I have no doubt the future for social media campaigns, online brand campaigns and traditional media in general will be measured by clever statistical analytics of: Y% change in brand preference = x% increase in sales. Until this is done no CEO/CFO is going to get the answers they now want. They are also unlikely to back 'brand campaigns' the way they used to without a second thought.
Hey online media community...this problem is only going to get worse before it gets better. As you start pulling higher percentages of media dollars away from traditional media you better start getting ready to answer these types of questions more frequently. Online can no longer hide behind click rates and cpc's. The questions will now get more demanding and we as an industry have set ourselves up to fail by relying on linear numbers to set expectations.
Thanks goes to Google for helping educate executives just enough to become a right royal pain in the backside!!
"linear ROI" - defined (by me) as the directly measurable link between ad and action, typically through a click on an advertisement and subsequent activity on the client website.
"Non linear ROI" - defined (by me again) as the indirect action or responding to an advert - such as hear radio ad...go to store and buy product or engage in online social media activity and three weeks later buy product via online store.
"Google effect" - defined (by guess who) as the expectation by executives that all online media activities will be able to demonstrate a tangible linear ROI metric or clearly defined performance based metric. This effect has resulted from the original pay per click search model, so strongly championed by Google, which has set unrealistic expectations as to what web based marketing campaigns should always be delivering.
This highlights well the existing problem faced by social media and indeed online media in general as we move into 2008. The "Google effect" means that marketers are now expected to provide clear performance reports showing that dollars invested can track directly to specific actions - ultimately sales - for every online campaign.
But as we all know, advertising and marketing does not always line up in this way. Social media especially is not set up to work in this way. Even a strong interest from users may not result in any direct measurable sales and in many cases the campaigns are about users enjoying some kind of brand experience rather than a straight 'click, review, buy' model.
So finally online marketers are being asked the same questions that traditional media has suffered from for years...prove this is working !!
It's interesting the article makes reference to seeking out the help of academics. I have no doubt the future for social media campaigns, online brand campaigns and traditional media in general will be measured by clever statistical analytics of: Y% change in brand preference = x% increase in sales. Until this is done no CEO/CFO is going to get the answers they now want. They are also unlikely to back 'brand campaigns' the way they used to without a second thought.
Hey online media community...this problem is only going to get worse before it gets better. As you start pulling higher percentages of media dollars away from traditional media you better start getting ready to answer these types of questions more frequently. Online can no longer hide behind click rates and cpc's. The questions will now get more demanding and we as an industry have set ourselves up to fail by relying on linear numbers to set expectations.
Thanks goes to Google for helping educate executives just enough to become a right royal pain in the backside!!
"linear ROI" - defined (by me) as the directly measurable link between ad and action, typically through a click on an advertisement and subsequent activity on the client website.
"Non linear ROI" - defined (by me again) as the indirect action or responding to an advert - such as hear radio ad...go to store and buy product or engage in online social media activity and three weeks later buy product via online store.
"Google effect" - defined (by guess who) as the expectation by executives that all online media activities will be able to demonstrate a tangible linear ROI metric or clearly defined performance based metric. This effect has resulted from the original pay per click search model, so strongly championed by Google, which has set unrealistic expectations as to what web based marketing campaigns should always be delivering.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Barmy Ballmer ?? part 2
Following on from my anti Steve Ballmer rant a couple of days ago (see previous post), I got to thinking more about just what will be some of the changes in media delivery in 10 years.
Lets assume for a minute that several things have happened to facilitate IP delivery. Firstly penetration of broadband is now standard for everyone and "super broadband" (with spends suitable for interactive TV viewing) are also spreading fast across the more affluent population centres.
TV's are now linked directly to our IP system which also includes on demand films from NetFlix and a huge DVR hard drive capable of recording multiple channels simultaneously. All TV is fully interactive but most users receive limited advertising because the latest Tivo devices actually record and scrub the ads out. meshing the content into one continuous stream. In an attempt to bypass this consumer exclusion of ads, product placements have become so standard that many programs are simply sponsored by big brands to the exclusion of any major segment competitor.
What TV advertising does exist, tends to target lower and working class consumer demographics, since these are the only audiences who's technology lag means they still have to sit through the standard advertising packages. The TV ad industry is decimated however millions flow in those sponsorship and content deals since without this support great TV content simply does not get produced.
Since most consumer groups, especially middle and higher income consumers now get all digital content via their IP device (here I am on board with Steve), the balance of power has shifted completely towards the audience. The new Google powered computers come with personalized advertising interfaces which allow the consumer to chose which types of advertising they will accept. Thankfully for products like toilet paper, fast food companies and insurance services, every consumer must accept 25% random advertising in order to continue to access free content (would anyone willingly chose to get ads from these companies??).
A new industry has also opened up...the "entertaimercial". This hybrid of ad and content allows those lesser brands to still deliver a message, whilst having to be much more focused on providing a positive consumer experience - generally using either humor or interactive gaming component to draw in the audience.
However the biggest issue of all is gaining user attention. Split screen viewing is now common with most users both communicating online and watching content at the same time. Since the introduction of speech recognition software further revolutionized email/IM and texting into one homogeneous platform, everyone watches and talks at the same time. Blogs get posted in the time it takes for someone to loose their temper but there are so many of them almost no one comments anymore except a few friends and loyal followers. Our social networks pulsate with new contacts who drift in and out of our virtual lives since, in most cases, we never met them and never will.
So in many ways I agree with Steve. There is a revolution coming in media and most importantly in the way it's consumed. And in ten years time the industry debate is not about delivery platform anymore, it's about how we even get noticed.
Lets assume for a minute that several things have happened to facilitate IP delivery. Firstly penetration of broadband is now standard for everyone and "super broadband" (with spends suitable for interactive TV viewing) are also spreading fast across the more affluent population centres.
TV's are now linked directly to our IP system which also includes on demand films from NetFlix and a huge DVR hard drive capable of recording multiple channels simultaneously. All TV is fully interactive but most users receive limited advertising because the latest Tivo devices actually record and scrub the ads out. meshing the content into one continuous stream. In an attempt to bypass this consumer exclusion of ads, product placements have become so standard that many programs are simply sponsored by big brands to the exclusion of any major segment competitor.
What TV advertising does exist, tends to target lower and working class consumer demographics, since these are the only audiences who's technology lag means they still have to sit through the standard advertising packages. The TV ad industry is decimated however millions flow in those sponsorship and content deals since without this support great TV content simply does not get produced.
Since most consumer groups, especially middle and higher income consumers now get all digital content via their IP device (here I am on board with Steve), the balance of power has shifted completely towards the audience. The new Google powered computers come with personalized advertising interfaces which allow the consumer to chose which types of advertising they will accept. Thankfully for products like toilet paper, fast food companies and insurance services, every consumer must accept 25% random advertising in order to continue to access free content (would anyone willingly chose to get ads from these companies??).
A new industry has also opened up...the "entertaimercial". This hybrid of ad and content allows those lesser brands to still deliver a message, whilst having to be much more focused on providing a positive consumer experience - generally using either humor or interactive gaming component to draw in the audience.
However the biggest issue of all is gaining user attention. Split screen viewing is now common with most users both communicating online and watching content at the same time. Since the introduction of speech recognition software further revolutionized email/IM and texting into one homogeneous platform, everyone watches and talks at the same time. Blogs get posted in the time it takes for someone to loose their temper but there are so many of them almost no one comments anymore except a few friends and loyal followers. Our social networks pulsate with new contacts who drift in and out of our virtual lives since, in most cases, we never met them and never will.
So in many ways I agree with Steve. There is a revolution coming in media and most importantly in the way it's consumed. And in ten years time the industry debate is not about delivery platform anymore, it's about how we even get noticed.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Barmy Ballmer ???
So Microsoft guru Steve Ballmer has predicted the demise of media as we know it with some pretty bold statements in his recent interview with the Washington Post.
Steve feels that there will be no media that is not delivered via IP (the web) within a 8-15 year range. His particular point being the demise of print media but also revolutions in the delivery of TV as well. It's an interesting opinion but is it realistic?
Whilst I agree that the web does offer significant opportunities for a revolution in content delivery especially a media like TV, to predict that all print will go is simply crazy. It's a view I think he expresses for two reasons:
1/ Microsoft has a vested interested in trying to kill off non-web based media. They have invested massively in MSN and webmedia in general and have everything to gain by scaring the advertising market into shifting budget out of traditional media platforms.
2/ Steve's views are probably skewed since the print media Microsoft has used - IT, business and newspapers, have been the hardest hit by changes in advertising spend patterns.
Also it's simply not true that readers don't want to read print media anymore.
Talk to any publisher and they will confirm that while there is increases in web traffic, especially covering items like news, sports and social chit chat, the decreases in print magazine circulations and issue sizes is more to do with simple business economics than the readers massively changing consumption habits. It's declining ad spend that kills magazines and page counts not the readers (did you ever call a publication you liked and tell them to print less content?)
Look outside IT and newspaper segments and print appears to be doing pretty well. I recently reviewed magazines in the high household income, luxury lifestyle segment. There are magazines with circulations of less than 40,000 with folio sizes of over 250 pages. IT pubs rarely get above 60! Plenty of advertisers means plenty of pages.
Will IP based devices really replace print. Even today's coolest devices are hardly great platforms for reading long in depth articles, especially when the content is complemented by high quality glossy photography. There's also a generational aspect. Anyone over the age of 30 is still happy to read magazines. Even my younger staff sit down over lunch with trashy celeb magazines rather than continuing to stare a screen. It's just human nature.
So whilst not ignoring some definite trends...mostly driven by advertisers and not readers, the future is not so black and white. Just like TV didn't kill radio, a varied media landscape is here to stay.
As a parting shot, if Microsoft is so in tune with consumers desires, why are they now officially incorporating a "downgrade feature" into Vista . Hate to say I told you so....but I did.
Steve feels that there will be no media that is not delivered via IP (the web) within a 8-15 year range. His particular point being the demise of print media but also revolutions in the delivery of TV as well. It's an interesting opinion but is it realistic?
Whilst I agree that the web does offer significant opportunities for a revolution in content delivery especially a media like TV, to predict that all print will go is simply crazy. It's a view I think he expresses for two reasons:
1/ Microsoft has a vested interested in trying to kill off non-web based media. They have invested massively in MSN and webmedia in general and have everything to gain by scaring the advertising market into shifting budget out of traditional media platforms.
2/ Steve's views are probably skewed since the print media Microsoft has used - IT, business and newspapers, have been the hardest hit by changes in advertising spend patterns.
Also it's simply not true that readers don't want to read print media anymore.
Talk to any publisher and they will confirm that while there is increases in web traffic, especially covering items like news, sports and social chit chat, the decreases in print magazine circulations and issue sizes is more to do with simple business economics than the readers massively changing consumption habits. It's declining ad spend that kills magazines and page counts not the readers (did you ever call a publication you liked and tell them to print less content?)
Look outside IT and newspaper segments and print appears to be doing pretty well. I recently reviewed magazines in the high household income, luxury lifestyle segment. There are magazines with circulations of less than 40,000 with folio sizes of over 250 pages. IT pubs rarely get above 60! Plenty of advertisers means plenty of pages.
Will IP based devices really replace print. Even today's coolest devices are hardly great platforms for reading long in depth articles, especially when the content is complemented by high quality glossy photography. There's also a generational aspect. Anyone over the age of 30 is still happy to read magazines. Even my younger staff sit down over lunch with trashy celeb magazines rather than continuing to stare a screen. It's just human nature.
So whilst not ignoring some definite trends...mostly driven by advertisers and not readers, the future is not so black and white. Just like TV didn't kill radio, a varied media landscape is here to stay.
As a parting shot, if Microsoft is so in tune with consumers desires, why are they now officially incorporating a "downgrade feature" into Vista . Hate to say I told you so....but I did.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Automated media buying...is this the future?
I just sat down and reviewed the new website from our friends at Techweb which is designed to assist in the media planning process for IT marketing professionals. As I play with the tools and consume some of the content provided I cannot help but think that here are the fledgling components that may revolutionize the way media is bought in the not too distant future.
The site http://createyournextcustomer.com/ is a media resource centre with a twist. In addition to all the usual demographic information and research (always useful), is a small application or widget that allows the user to select his campaign type, target audience and preferred media mix. After microseconds of contemplation out pops a recommended media mix suggestion drawn from the portfolio of Techweb's impressive product list.
My initial reaction was mixed. There's really not much in this tool beyond providing a "quick n dirty" media shopping list. Currently the next step of engagement requires getting in contact with a sales rep - so no change there. The suggestions made are hardly ground breaking either - simply some very obvious product selects which play into the publishers bucketed content approach.
However, for all it's obvious limitations at this point, it's a fun tool that may help the publisher facilitate decisions for the marketer who's pressed for time or lacking in imagination. Most importantly it encourages engagement from buyers, which if achieved, is a significant competitive advantage.
But lets think a little into the future here. Imagine for one minute that after buying the suggested media mix (via the sites secure account feature), I run my campaign and upload the performance metrics back into the sites "campaign management tool". This tool using the newly developed "media marketing algorithm" then optimizes the media suggestions by combining my specific data with that from hundred of similar campaigns. Predictive modelling then churns away in the background and out pops my optimized media suggestions for the next campaign.
Wash, rinse, repeat....
Within three/four campaigns the system has accumulated enough information to effectively be turned to 'auto media' function which simply debits my company account and sends me regular reminders as to which creative needs to be sent in and when my team needs to turn up to host the pre-booked events.
Impossible?
I don't think so. Many campaigns with lead goals are already being managed based on simple linear metric analysis and even awareness campaigns, as we have shown with our campaign research, can be measured for effectiveness using hard statistics. It's not too hard to imagine models being produced for each campaign type by clever mathematicians.
So well done to Techweb for giving us a glimpse into a very interesting future with automated media buying practices and automatically optimized budget management. I'm sure the unemployed sales reps and media planners will enjoy the extra time they can spend at the bar talking about "the good old days"!
Hopefully I'll have retired by then.
The site http://createyournextcustomer.com/ is a media resource centre with a twist. In addition to all the usual demographic information and research (always useful), is a small application or widget that allows the user to select his campaign type, target audience and preferred media mix. After microseconds of contemplation out pops a recommended media mix suggestion drawn from the portfolio of Techweb's impressive product list.
My initial reaction was mixed. There's really not much in this tool beyond providing a "quick n dirty" media shopping list. Currently the next step of engagement requires getting in contact with a sales rep - so no change there. The suggestions made are hardly ground breaking either - simply some very obvious product selects which play into the publishers bucketed content approach.
However, for all it's obvious limitations at this point, it's a fun tool that may help the publisher facilitate decisions for the marketer who's pressed for time or lacking in imagination. Most importantly it encourages engagement from buyers, which if achieved, is a significant competitive advantage.
But lets think a little into the future here. Imagine for one minute that after buying the suggested media mix (via the sites secure account feature), I run my campaign and upload the performance metrics back into the sites "campaign management tool". This tool using the newly developed "media marketing algorithm" then optimizes the media suggestions by combining my specific data with that from hundred of similar campaigns. Predictive modelling then churns away in the background and out pops my optimized media suggestions for the next campaign.
Wash, rinse, repeat....
Within three/four campaigns the system has accumulated enough information to effectively be turned to 'auto media' function which simply debits my company account and sends me regular reminders as to which creative needs to be sent in and when my team needs to turn up to host the pre-booked events.
Impossible?
I don't think so. Many campaigns with lead goals are already being managed based on simple linear metric analysis and even awareness campaigns, as we have shown with our campaign research, can be measured for effectiveness using hard statistics. It's not too hard to imagine models being produced for each campaign type by clever mathematicians.
So well done to Techweb for giving us a glimpse into a very interesting future with automated media buying practices and automatically optimized budget management. I'm sure the unemployed sales reps and media planners will enjoy the extra time they can spend at the bar talking about "the good old days"!
Hopefully I'll have retired by then.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Can you trust the web? The story of Spikey Reed
Last weekend a friendly neighbour offered us the opportunity to adopt a pet - an Australian lizard known as a Bearded Dragon. Of course my two young boys leapt at the chance and immediately named him Spikey. I was equally thrilled until forking out over $250 for a tank, lights, hiding log, sand, and various live critters for Spikey to eat.
Within 48 hours we had a problem...Spikey was off his food and looking stressed and so I searched online for additional information that might help me. Turns out there is a lot - 460,000 results according to Google!
And here lies the biggest problem. Almost all the information was contradictory with various "experts" claiming different solutions to my care problem. Indeed when talking to the local Reptile pet experts they immediately said "don't trust the web there's loads of crap out there".
Now this applies to almost every category of 'product'. Type in a search and thousands of experts will give you opinions, many without any of the real depth required to make truly informed decisions. This is only made worse by blogger sites which typically include the rather disparate views of fans on one side and detractors on the other.
The bottom line is who, in this age of information freedom, do we trust? Who's opinions are valid and how do you know where trusted resources lie? One might argue that's what you get from recognized publishers and trained journalists. Given the corporate responsibility to try to maintain quality controls, one would imagine they should vet more closely the content they provide...but do they?
What has been emphasised is the reality of the web's advice on any subject, especially when that information is provided via social media forums. In the B2B space this is critical and highlights how important the balance of social verses traditional emphasis will remain in the future as regards buying decisions.
Oh and Spikey is currently on holiday at the reptile store being encouraged to feed with a little professional coaching and therapy. The free gift has been one of the most expensive I've ever received but we can't wait to get him home - it already feels empty without him.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Is there room for remnant bid model in B2B print space?
Most people have heard me bang on about how much I believe in print media for achieving certain campaign goals. However as print budgets gets squeezed and issue sizes drop, I like many, have concerns about readers continuing to find sufficient content to interest them.
Just looking at a few of this weeks IT publications, we see page counts of 64 pages for Information Week, 60 pages for Network World and 64 pages for eWeek. Each publications had approx 28 pages of advertising so they all fell into the range of the classic B2B mix of 60% edit for 40% ads. Only adding ads will allow more content to be included.
How can these numbers be increased? And more importantly how can smaller advertisers (or even some of the larger ones) be encouraged to do more than they do now? Is the time ready for a bid based B2B print ad model?
Currently a vast majority of the advertising comes from an increasingly smaller pool of companies. IBM for one still does large volumes, as does Microsoft. Below this there's obviously brands like Sun, HP, Dell, our client Fujitsu, Juniper, Epson and Canon. There's even a page from Google in one of the magazines (if ever there was proof that print works this must surely be it).
But here's the rub...where are the smaller companies, the guys who would be print advertisings "next generation"? I suspect they are hand strung, unable to get the print budget past the CFO or at least unable to secure sufficient budget to make a sustainable print campaign work...
For these companies a bid model might be the answer. An independent third party could auction off pages on a blind basis across a range of IT publications. There would be a min bid price and any bid higher would immediately get access to higher circulation magazines and better ad positions. It might be somewhat random in nature but it would certainly allow a more adventurous marketing exec or agency account manager to add more pages into a campaign at lower investment levels. It would be easy to do in today's digital production market as ads could quickly be uploaded to publishers a few days in advance of print deadlines. Adding pages, even randomly, increases reach and frequency - both essential for a strong campaign.
What's more it could also open up the PR/advertorial side of things. Imagine being able to quickly post case study intros, white paper summaries or even product announcements on relatively short notice into a few magazine templates at a fraction of the cost of a traditional high profile ad. Smaller vendors would jump at the chance.
Downside for publishers? Well erosion of rates might be one worry although by making the bidding blind, advertisers will always want to ensure they are present in their core magazines. Bidding also gives publishers more price control over positioning issues and in some cases might actually help lift rates when they regularly sell out. More importantly it may just enable them to cultivate a much more integrated approach. Combining this with a similar bid model for excess online inventory and you start to get some very interesting models indeed. Publishers could even have a published open pricing (like the "buy now" on eBay) so advertisers can see min entry costs of a particular issue should they chose to take that option.
Impossible? Don't bet on it happening any time soon, but never say never in the publishing world. There's still enough excess space to make this a possibility and it might just allow the print format to remain viable a little bit longer and draw in a new batch of active advertisers. Marketers simply need to allocate a "print bid budget" something that's now a more comfortable concept in this Google branded world.
Just looking at a few of this weeks IT publications, we see page counts of 64 pages for Information Week, 60 pages for Network World and 64 pages for eWeek. Each publications had approx 28 pages of advertising so they all fell into the range of the classic B2B mix of 60% edit for 40% ads. Only adding ads will allow more content to be included.
How can these numbers be increased? And more importantly how can smaller advertisers (or even some of the larger ones) be encouraged to do more than they do now? Is the time ready for a bid based B2B print ad model?
Currently a vast majority of the advertising comes from an increasingly smaller pool of companies. IBM for one still does large volumes, as does Microsoft. Below this there's obviously brands like Sun, HP, Dell, our client Fujitsu, Juniper, Epson and Canon. There's even a page from Google in one of the magazines (if ever there was proof that print works this must surely be it).
But here's the rub...where are the smaller companies, the guys who would be print advertisings "next generation"? I suspect they are hand strung, unable to get the print budget past the CFO or at least unable to secure sufficient budget to make a sustainable print campaign work...
For these companies a bid model might be the answer. An independent third party could auction off pages on a blind basis across a range of IT publications. There would be a min bid price and any bid higher would immediately get access to higher circulation magazines and better ad positions. It might be somewhat random in nature but it would certainly allow a more adventurous marketing exec or agency account manager to add more pages into a campaign at lower investment levels. It would be easy to do in today's digital production market as ads could quickly be uploaded to publishers a few days in advance of print deadlines. Adding pages, even randomly, increases reach and frequency - both essential for a strong campaign.
What's more it could also open up the PR/advertorial side of things. Imagine being able to quickly post case study intros, white paper summaries or even product announcements on relatively short notice into a few magazine templates at a fraction of the cost of a traditional high profile ad. Smaller vendors would jump at the chance.
Downside for publishers? Well erosion of rates might be one worry although by making the bidding blind, advertisers will always want to ensure they are present in their core magazines. Bidding also gives publishers more price control over positioning issues and in some cases might actually help lift rates when they regularly sell out. More importantly it may just enable them to cultivate a much more integrated approach. Combining this with a similar bid model for excess online inventory and you start to get some very interesting models indeed. Publishers could even have a published open pricing (like the "buy now" on eBay) so advertisers can see min entry costs of a particular issue should they chose to take that option.
Impossible? Don't bet on it happening any time soon, but never say never in the publishing world. There's still enough excess space to make this a possibility and it might just allow the print format to remain viable a little bit longer and draw in a new batch of active advertisers. Marketers simply need to allocate a "print bid budget" something that's now a more comfortable concept in this Google branded world.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
2007 spend trends for top 50 tech advertisers
As part on my budgeting and planning for agency development, I recently reviewed the advertising spend data for the top 50 tech clients across all US media formats. The data I reviewed was supplied by my good friends at CNET via TNS Media Intelligence.
Without being drawn into obvious discussions about spend data accuracy (I know for a fact it's pretty incorrect due to having several clients in the list) it's main interest for me is reviewing the data trends rather than the specific numbers. Here are some highlights.
In 2007 reported ad spend for these companies was over $1.6 billion. This figure is down 9% over 2006 which shows some strains already appearing on budgets ahead of any real economic pressures, which really will not have been a factor over the measured period.
The spend spread by media was as follows:
All TV 30%
All Newspapers 9%
All Magazines 17%
All B2B Press 17%
All Outdoor 4%
All Radio 1%
All Internet 21%
But where did the redistribution of media dollars go compared with 2006?
All TV down 6%
All Newspapers down 31%
All Magazines down 25%
All B2B Press down 16%
All Outdoor up 45%
All Radio down 10%
All Internet up 20%
Since general spend was down 9% overall, that makes TV and radio pretty flat and confirms the expected main trend of dollars shifting out of print media (Mags, Newspapers and trade press) moving online. However let's just remember that print still makes up 43% of total 2007 spend so one can hardly say "print is dead" despite hearing this mantra on an almost daily basis and many of the top companies quoted as being the leading proponents of this thinking.
I was obviously interested in outdoor lift, which whilst still only a relatively small percentage overall, saw significant percentage gains. Having just come out of a presentation about the rise of digital outdoor advertising, one wonders how this is effecting the rebirth of this media outlet....perhaps this shows that old media can be reinvented for the digital age.
What did I learn? Well we have seen our own spends now exceed 50% of agency billings for digital media - almost double what they were just 12 months ago. It means hiring more media professionals who can integrate online media with traditional media. It also means we have to work harder to continue to promote traditional media platforms as the pressure grows to move everything online...which is simply not appropriate in all cases. It means having more research on campaign effectiveness and not just measuring linear ROI. It means adapting our business to the changing media landscape and being even more professional in the advice we give.
Wonder what 2008 will show?
Without being drawn into obvious discussions about spend data accuracy (I know for a fact it's pretty incorrect due to having several clients in the list) it's main interest for me is reviewing the data trends rather than the specific numbers. Here are some highlights.
In 2007 reported ad spend for these companies was over $1.6 billion. This figure is down 9% over 2006 which shows some strains already appearing on budgets ahead of any real economic pressures, which really will not have been a factor over the measured period.
The spend spread by media was as follows:
All TV 30%
All Newspapers 9%
All Magazines 17%
All B2B Press 17%
All Outdoor 4%
All Radio 1%
All Internet 21%
But where did the redistribution of media dollars go compared with 2006?
All TV down 6%
All Newspapers down 31%
All Magazines down 25%
All B2B Press down 16%
All Outdoor up 45%
All Radio down 10%
All Internet up 20%
Since general spend was down 9% overall, that makes TV and radio pretty flat and confirms the expected main trend of dollars shifting out of print media (Mags, Newspapers and trade press) moving online. However let's just remember that print still makes up 43% of total 2007 spend so one can hardly say "print is dead" despite hearing this mantra on an almost daily basis and many of the top companies quoted as being the leading proponents of this thinking.
I was obviously interested in outdoor lift, which whilst still only a relatively small percentage overall, saw significant percentage gains. Having just come out of a presentation about the rise of digital outdoor advertising, one wonders how this is effecting the rebirth of this media outlet....perhaps this shows that old media can be reinvented for the digital age.
What did I learn? Well we have seen our own spends now exceed 50% of agency billings for digital media - almost double what they were just 12 months ago. It means hiring more media professionals who can integrate online media with traditional media. It also means we have to work harder to continue to promote traditional media platforms as the pressure grows to move everything online...which is simply not appropriate in all cases. It means having more research on campaign effectiveness and not just measuring linear ROI. It means adapting our business to the changing media landscape and being even more professional in the advice we give.
Wonder what 2008 will show?
Saturday, March 15, 2008
IDC Directions- anything new?
Last week I attended the IDC Directions event in San Jose to see what the anaylst community are telling technology marketers.
I guess I was hoping as always to learn something ground breaking. Sadly there was not much new, just an emphasis on the more obvious which apparently still challenges the tech market.
First in the list is the blindingly obvious disconnect between Sales and Markting. Rich Vancil reckons that only about 20% of what marketing produces is actually used by sales which sounds about right. It got me thinking. I have to say that in ten years of working on campaigns I have yet to observe a single case where a senior sales person was directly involved in meetings discussing the plans. I have to hope that my regular requests to get feedback from sales have been genuinely transmitted through the organization. I've always believed that Marketing efforts which are not well publicised internally fail the first test - that is to be internal promotions and motivations.
Second on the list was the requirement for tech companies to follow what is said about them in the social media environments. There is still considerable confusion about this and how it can be done. I heard one frustrated marketing professional asking whether it was sensible to respond to a blogger circulating misleading and incorrect information - the concern being that to do so would give that blogger increased credibility. Thankfully the advice given - to have a CTO/CIO respond rather than marketing or PR was spot on. However when I pressed IDC specialist Clare Gillan admitted that only 10% of IT pro's currently use blogs when assessing tech buys.
Otherwise I found the event somewhat quiet compared to previous years. Strange given the possibility of tightening budgets and the likelyhood that marketers will be required to be even more productive in the future.
I guess I was hoping as always to learn something ground breaking. Sadly there was not much new, just an emphasis on the more obvious which apparently still challenges the tech market.
First in the list is the blindingly obvious disconnect between Sales and Markting. Rich Vancil reckons that only about 20% of what marketing produces is actually used by sales which sounds about right. It got me thinking. I have to say that in ten years of working on campaigns I have yet to observe a single case where a senior sales person was directly involved in meetings discussing the plans. I have to hope that my regular requests to get feedback from sales have been genuinely transmitted through the organization. I've always believed that Marketing efforts which are not well publicised internally fail the first test - that is to be internal promotions and motivations.
Second on the list was the requirement for tech companies to follow what is said about them in the social media environments. There is still considerable confusion about this and how it can be done. I heard one frustrated marketing professional asking whether it was sensible to respond to a blogger circulating misleading and incorrect information - the concern being that to do so would give that blogger increased credibility. Thankfully the advice given - to have a CTO/CIO respond rather than marketing or PR was spot on. However when I pressed IDC specialist Clare Gillan admitted that only 10% of IT pro's currently use blogs when assessing tech buys.
Otherwise I found the event somewhat quiet compared to previous years. Strange given the possibility of tightening budgets and the likelyhood that marketers will be required to be even more productive in the future.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Ever met the Fuck Up Fairy ?
There are some days when just about everything one tries to do seems to turn into ever increasing circles of misery, when even the best laid plans come crashing down and when even the most innocent action has disastrous results...it can only mean one thing..the Fuck Up Fairy has come to visit.
In a business sense, we at the agency do everything we can to keep this darling lady away. She rarely comes a'visiting but when she does she seems to persistently hover around one desk. The poor media person concerned can do no right. Campaigns get delayed, stuff gets missed, publishers drop the ball, audience does not respond, numbers don't add up. It's hell.
Typically Ms FUF will also concentrate all her evil deeds on just one campaign. Multiplying the effect to such a degree that as everything spins out of control one demands what more could possibly go wrong. To exasperate to full the poor soul who's being tormented, all around them is a sea of tranquility. Campaigns perform, clients ooze love, and CEO's like me purr with satisfaction. However when your in the storm it's a blaze of hate and recrimination.
I think about her today not because she's actually come calling (well perhaps my accounts department might disagree) but more because someone asked me exactly what she looked like. "Tinkerbell with horns" I replied.
So next time you have a situation where everything turns to goo, remember it's just the Fuck Up Fairy come to play and soon she will go away !!!
Below is an image I found that looks a lot like her...whoever produced it top marks :-)
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Business predictions for 2008
Happy New Year to all.
So in keeping with a well tried and tested media protocol, it seems appropriate to try and make some predictions for business in 2008 both in general and most importantly as far as Just Media is concerned.
Firstly the general business climate. Well on the face of it the economic signs coming into 2008 could not be more worrying. Low rate for the dollar, record high oil prices, poor end of year consumer purchasing trends, housing market facing collapse and unhearalded crisis of confidence in the global banking community certainly don't make this feel like a great start to the year. It's looking highly likely that the global economy is set for a rocky ride....
However is it also possible that what we will see in 2008 and 2009 is an acceleration of a shift in global market power. Certainly China is experiencing huge growth, matched by other developing markets which are now in accelerated "catch up and pass mode". High oil prices also benefit certain markets like Russia and Middle East and global turmoil can also be a catalyst for economic prosperity within corporate land (see Naomi Kleins new book) with resulting positive trickle down effects sustaining economies despite other downward pressures.
From a US perspective the greatest question will be the political landscape and the resulting impact on the confidence within the market. Already the presidential primary process is becoming too close to call and frankly most of the candidates are still squarely in the "unknown" category in terms of their ability to provide genuine long term economic policy insights that the markets can trust. With Bush in lame duck territory that's less than ideal in the short term.
so I predict 2008 will be a rough year but with plenty of opportunity for success. A recession will hit but with many still making plenty of money. A global catastorophy but with many markets doing "just fine thank you"...a mixed bag with just as many winners as losers. brace yourselves it's going to be a roller coaster ride !!
So where does that leave us...Just Media. Well to be honest it's just as hard to call. Going into 2008 it's looking good. Practically 100% renewal rate with current clients means we have a very solid base upon which to grow. New business opportunities continue to be strong and spend predictions are right now quite solid. However I feel it will be important to diversify even more this year. Extending the client base will be critical to minimizing any effects felt by individual clients who might take a conservative route with marketing dollars.
As an agency we have also adjusted our business. Now more than 50% of all media we buy is online. Much of that is lead generation. Toughening marketing conditions tend to drive customers to focus even more on these skills. It enables us to show value even more. What's more, as budgets tighten the pressures on results and genuine market knowldge increases - both play to our strengths.
I predict a tight but exciting year. Consolidation of existing business and expansion into new areas will be the path to success. Continuing to provide genuine value ahead of vague promises will be key.
For us 2007 was the year of change and growth. With most of the pieces in place, we are ready for 2008.
Let the fun commence !!
So in keeping with a well tried and tested media protocol, it seems appropriate to try and make some predictions for business in 2008 both in general and most importantly as far as Just Media is concerned.
Firstly the general business climate. Well on the face of it the economic signs coming into 2008 could not be more worrying. Low rate for the dollar, record high oil prices, poor end of year consumer purchasing trends, housing market facing collapse and unhearalded crisis of confidence in the global banking community certainly don't make this feel like a great start to the year. It's looking highly likely that the global economy is set for a rocky ride....
However is it also possible that what we will see in 2008 and 2009 is an acceleration of a shift in global market power. Certainly China is experiencing huge growth, matched by other developing markets which are now in accelerated "catch up and pass mode". High oil prices also benefit certain markets like Russia and Middle East and global turmoil can also be a catalyst for economic prosperity within corporate land (see Naomi Kleins new book) with resulting positive trickle down effects sustaining economies despite other downward pressures.
From a US perspective the greatest question will be the political landscape and the resulting impact on the confidence within the market. Already the presidential primary process is becoming too close to call and frankly most of the candidates are still squarely in the "unknown" category in terms of their ability to provide genuine long term economic policy insights that the markets can trust. With Bush in lame duck territory that's less than ideal in the short term.
so I predict 2008 will be a rough year but with plenty of opportunity for success. A recession will hit but with many still making plenty of money. A global catastorophy but with many markets doing "just fine thank you"...a mixed bag with just as many winners as losers. brace yourselves it's going to be a roller coaster ride !!
So where does that leave us...Just Media. Well to be honest it's just as hard to call. Going into 2008 it's looking good. Practically 100% renewal rate with current clients means we have a very solid base upon which to grow. New business opportunities continue to be strong and spend predictions are right now quite solid. However I feel it will be important to diversify even more this year. Extending the client base will be critical to minimizing any effects felt by individual clients who might take a conservative route with marketing dollars.
As an agency we have also adjusted our business. Now more than 50% of all media we buy is online. Much of that is lead generation. Toughening marketing conditions tend to drive customers to focus even more on these skills. It enables us to show value even more. What's more, as budgets tighten the pressures on results and genuine market knowldge increases - both play to our strengths.
I predict a tight but exciting year. Consolidation of existing business and expansion into new areas will be the path to success. Continuing to provide genuine value ahead of vague promises will be key.
For us 2007 was the year of change and growth. With most of the pieces in place, we are ready for 2008.
Let the fun commence !!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
