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.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
