Archive for Advertising

Mobile ads are working for brand advertisers

// September 8th, 2008 // 0 Comments // Advertising, Mobile

Tweak o’ the knob to Gavin Heaton for locating Chris Schaumann’s recent presentation on digital brand advertising in the Asia Pacific region (see the presentation below.) Only 5% of advertising budgets in the region are spent online so it’s no wonder that Schaumann finds 65% of all marketing spend in 2007 had no effect on consumer behaviour.

For me, the numbers that really struck me were on slide 43, which researched 21 mobile branding campaigns and found a 24% increase in brand awareness, 12% increase in message association, 5% increase in brand favourability and 5% increase in purchase intent. I’ve never been much of a believer in mobile brand advertising, preferring instead to apply it to social marketing and click-to-buy. But here’s some clear evidence that mobile brand advertising works – at least, in Asia.

There are some other surprising results to be found in Chris’ presentation comparing YouTube, embedded video and TV for delivering video ads. You won’t believe how well YouTube scored against TV…

Digital Branding 

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: digital branding)

Can crowds create brands as well as the pros?

// June 24th, 2008 // 0 Comments // Advertising, Writing

   


NameThis.com – prone to gaming?

Originally uploaded by thatjonesboy

For a few moments, I loved the idea of using crowdsourcing to brainstorm new brand names, business names and taglines on namethis.com.

The website for the business behind this, kluster.com, is the coolest I’ve seen in months, and everything from the front page to the jobs page has more sharply-defined character than a Raymond Chandler novel.

But can great brands be unearthed by the unwashed masses, or must they always be the domain of marketing genii? I have a half-day brand brainstorm workshop scheduled for a new client tomorrow morning, so this question couldn’t arise at a more pertinent time for me. Especially since I’ve been managing writer’s block by reading about namethis.com on Australian Anthill. (more…)

Don’t trust your ad agency with your social media

// June 17th, 2008 // 0 Comments // Advertising

walk away my friend and ill feed the ducks for ya
Creative Commons License photo credit: ribena_wrath

“…advertising agencies have used social media for people to create relationships with the brand only as long as it happens in the three months that their campaign is running.

… why do advertising agencies think it is okay to do this in social media?

Although you may think it’s a great idea to run a MySpace/Facebook page for a fictional character from your advertising campaign, what happens when the campaign ends?”

From Marketing Magazine

Great opinion from Julian Cole, one of the new marketing bloggers I’ve added to my daily feed reading this week. It’s true: advertising agencies are set-up to manage campaigns, and a campaign by definition has an end date as well as a beginning. Once you step forward into social media, there’s no stepping backward without damaging the relationship with the customer relationships you’ve built online.

Unless, of course, your advertising agency hasn’t built you any new customer relationships online. That too can happen.

Getting an agency to drive your social media can work if they understand social media, but their work needs to be delivered on a retainer basis, not a campaign basis. Otherwise, while they’re pitching you the next campaign, your customers are becoming disaffected and walking away from the online relationship you’ve created.

Another tip of the hat to Julian for this great basketball long shot from YouTube, which Julian uses nicely in an analogy on his blog.

AIMIA speaks out on “inane” advertsing budgets

// May 6th, 2008 // 0 Comments // Advertising

An "inane" amount of money? ;-)

English is a tricky language – so many words that sound alike but mean something very different. A spellchecker is no substitute for a proof-reader, since “inane” was spelt correctly; it was just the wrong word.

In this case, perhaps the graphic of a big neon tunnel sucking everything in is very appropriate?

The future of TV is not on TV

// April 29th, 2008 // 0 Comments // Advertising


My favourite louche photographer, Mike Walsh, has a great new post up on the shaky future of broadcast television amongst a YouTube generation. I couldn’t agree more: the broadcast television companies were corporate giants for the last fifty years, but they will be media minnows in another five to ten.

While the television industry has been focusing on delivering ever-higher resolution and more channels of sound, the new web audience is already proving they don’t care – they are quite happy with the web’s low-res, low-frame rates and crap sound.

Choosing what you want to watch, and when, having it recommended to you or bookmarked by friends, choosing the kind of device you consume it on: who wouldn’t choose that over traditional TV programming in HD?

A big cash investment in a large HD LCD and all the components necessary to provide the HD program input and sound/vision output is something that the >35 generation will do for the bragging rights alone. The <35 generation shies away from spending that much on anything, much less something that can only do one thing – deliver television.

Few of them even aspire to own the home containing the room featuring the wall such a system might be hung on. It makes much more sense to them to also use their laptop as a TV, or their phone.

When I demo my iPhone or my AppleTV to friends – particularly young adults – it is the ability to watch YouTube on it that excites them much more than being able to purchase and watch broadcast programming, even great shows like This American Life, which I predict is about to sweep the world and be as well known outside the US as The Office has been outside the UK.

Broadcast TV will continue but its margins will shrink as big brand budgets continue to move online in order to have more of a targeted, interactive relationship with their customers. That shrinking of margins will force the networks to reduce the average cost of production, reducing the quality of programming, which will in turn drive more users online.

The only way to save a broadcast media company is to admit this is unstoppable and start producing content for the new medium first and foremost, using your broadcast network primarily as a marketing tool to drive your audience there – flip the current network strategy on its head. If you do it first and execute well, you might build a bigger business than the one you have now.

But you won’t: the immediate revenue loss is too hard to justify to shareholders and the ongoing investment in broadcast infrastructure is an oil tanker that takes years to turn around.

So in the future, free to air broadcast television will hold about the same position in the minds of marketers and consumers as talk-back radio does today. Not gone, but not quite the powerhouse it once was. A medium of SMS-to-win single-camera gameshows, of $1,000 giveaways between programs to try and keep you watching, of a thousand insta-celeb lives all trying to out-outrage each other. All these program types are on broadcast now, some of them even in timeslots that were once premium programming. But in the future, they will be all there is to watch on broadcast TV.

Your tax dollars at work: Powerhouse Museum promoting Hotmail

// April 1st, 2008 // 0 Comments // Advertising

Initially I assumed the Powerhouse Museum’s plan to print out and archive hundreds of the ‘best’ emails from around Australia was just an April Fool’s joke.

After all, it’s never easy to sort the real news stories from the pranks on April 1st. Journalists have too little time between deadlines and too many pages to fill to check all of their facts, all the time. And we in the blogosphere, squeezing our blogging into thin slices of our day jobs and housekeeping, have even less motivation to think before we speak. Meanwhile, those of us with time for mischief, such as the most excellent Darren Rowse, keep coming up with plausible prank stories.

In the end, a lot of April Fools prank stories to go press online these days.

Sadly, the Email Australia campaign, announced by ninemsn, Microsoft and the publicly funded Powerhouse Museum, is not a prank. Even worse, it’s a thinly-veiled marketing exercise for Hotmail, designed to temporarily inflate the user registration numbers of Microsoft’s webmail product.

It seems like a prank because the museum is asking everyone in Australia to send in their ‘best’ emails and enter them in one of eight categories (Life and Laughter, Touching Tales, Family, Love and romance, E-mails, Embarrassing typos, Current affairs and Complaints.)

Wouldn’t that be a fun job, sorting through all the entries in each category to decide which were worthy of archiving, which were the best, and which were least likely to lead to get the original author, ninemsn, Microsoft and the museum sued for defamation? That’s not one I’d be putting my hands up for.

Yes, the terms of the promotion state that you not only take on liability for establishing copyright of the material, but also take on the risk of any legal action arising from, say, using someone else’s forwarded email which then turns out to be a snippet from a novel or something that the subject of the email decides is defamatory. Good luck with that.

You’d expect the Powerhouse Museum to choose the best emails in each category, but no – it’s a ninemsn/Microsoft promotion, and ninemsn gets to do the selection, thanks very much. Here’s a tip for contest entrants: try inserting a few references to how great Hotmail is these days, how much you enjoy using MSN Messenger on your new Windows Mobile phone, and how amazing Windows Vista is these days since they shook out the last remaining glitches. Now you know who’ll be judging the entries!

The final pinch-and-a-punch for this particular first day of the month is the news that all emails must be sent from a Hotmail account. And if you don’t already have a Hotmail account, a handy link is provided to allow you to sign up for one.

So now what might at first glance appear to be a misguided but worthy effort to capture a little online culture for prosperity is revealed as a grubby attempt to artificially inflate ninemsn’s Hotmail subscriptions for a month or two.

Not very many people are likely to use that new Hotmail account for anything other than entering the competition, since Hotmail is indelibly stamped with the spammer’s seal of approval. Even if Hotmail is less prone to spam than it has been in the past, most of these casual one-time users won’t stick around to find out.

How sad to see a major Australian museum involved in such a thinly-veiled marketing promotion.  "Marketing is punishment for a bad idea" said Andrew Hyde on Brian Burns’ blog the other day. How very true. If only it had all been an April Fool’s joke.

Obama set to music: Yes We Can

// February 5th, 2008 // 0 Comments // Advertising, Music

I wish there had been a candidate in the Australian federal election who had been as inspiring as this! But America was ever a nation of bigger dreams, wider canvasses, and of late, greater disappointments.

We want change too, Mr Obama. Bring it on!

MySpace shows just how much it cares about kids

// April 4th, 2007 // 0 Comments // Advertising


MySpace shows it cares about kids
Originally uploaded by thatjonesboy.

Nicholas Negroponte’s One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) tech charity initiative has a new competitor from the most unlikely of places – Rupert Murdoch’s MySpace, in conjunction with… gee… well, it seems to be I-Deal Direct, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois, operating under the domain name of ShoppingSaverCenter.biz.

Previously not very well known in charitable circles, it seems that I-Deal Direct is using News Corp’s global youth MySpace audience to help supply free laptops to Australian children previously only able to login to their MySpace homepage via a shared family PC, a PC at school, or perhaps a PC at their local library.

The ad makes it seem like only the one millionth Australian visitor to the MySpace homepage will be given a free laptop, but it seems like I-Deal Direct has since massively broadened the offer to include every young Australian who visits MySpace, since the ad appears again and again, on every MySpace account I created in my testing.

In fact, not content with providing a free laptop to every young Australian, I discovered upon clicking-thru (I will delete my cookies) that I-Deal Direct is also going to supply them with free big-screen LCD or plasma TVs. That’s a laptop, and a free big-screen TV, for every Aussie kid who clicks on the ad… hmm…

When will this extraordinary altruism end, I hear you ask? Well, it would be more accurate to ask: when will this extraordinary altruism begin?

Because of course, reading the fine print on the landing pages, I-Deal Direct is engaged in shady harvesting of email addresses and demographic information.

While stating you need to be 18 or over to participate in its ‘program’, I-Deal Direct leaves that checkbox ticked so you don’t have to untick it, and then when it captures all your name and address details, doesn’t include birthdates after 1989, so there’s no way you could tell them you were under-age if you wanted to. Click on from there and you are presented with a seemingly endless scrolling page of opt-in and opt-out offers from hundreds of different marketers. It seems like I-Deal Direct has aggregated every online offer-based affiliate marketing program in existence and is intent upon walking you through them in succession (including (I add with some considerable embarassment and annoyance) an offer for Quickflix, an online DVD rental business of which I am a shareholder.)

Click ‘submit’ on one and the page refreshes to introduce another offer. I lost count of the pages I clicked through. And when I tried to leave, a bunch of pop-up and pop-under windows tried to dissuade me with just one more (and then just one more) unmissable offer. Who else but a teenage kid is likely to keep entering in their details, those of their friends and family, in the vain hope of qualifying for some of the free stuff they saw in the ad on MySpace?

I don’t mean to pick on I-Deal Direct. After all, there is a sucker born every minute, and this is certainly not the only shonky marketing data collection agency marketing online. It’s just that I’d like to be more certain that I-Deal Direct were waiting until the suckers were over 18 if they weren’t using MySpace so prominently.

And I’m more than a little disappointed with MySpace and News Corp. You’d never expect to see a bottom-feeder advertiser like this on the homepage of news.com.au or foxsports.com.au for a variety of reasons – it cheapens the masthead brand, risks the relationship with the consumer, and lowers your apparent CPM amongst other marketers. It also makes you look just plain shoddy.

If it’s too shonky for Australian adults, we should definitely not be seeing this kind of ‘scamarketer’ on MySpace – the largest single online destination for Australian kids. If I were a premium youth brand marketer, I wouldn’t want my brand anywhere near this on MySpace.

Excuse me, I need to go wash my hands and delete my cookies.

MySpace shows just how much it cares about kids

// April 4th, 2007 // 0 Comments // Advertising


MySpace shows it cares about kids
Originally uploaded by thatjonesboy.

Nicholas Negroponte’s One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) tech charity initiative has a new competitor from the most unlikely of places – Rupert Murdoch’s MySpace, in conjunction with… gee… well, it seems to be I-Deal Direct, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois, operating under the domain name of ShoppingSaverCenter.biz.

Previously not very well known in charitable circles, it seems that I-Deal Direct is using News Corp’s global youth MySpace audience to help supply free laptops to Australian children previously only able to login to their MySpace homepage via a shared family PC, a PC at school, or perhaps a PC at their local library.

The ad makes it seem like only the one millionth Australian visitor to the MySpace homepage will be given a free laptop, but it seems like I-Deal Direct has since massively broadened the offer to include every young Australian who visits MySpace, since the ad appears again and again, on every MySpace account I created in my testing.

In fact, not content with providing a free laptop to every young Australian, I discovered upon clicking-thru (I will delete my cookies) that I-Deal Direct is also going to supply them with free big-screen LCD or plasma TVs. That’s a laptop, and a free big-screen TV, for every Aussie kid who clicks on the ad… hmm…

When will this extraordinary altruism end, I hear you ask? Well, it would be more accurate to ask: when will this extraordinary altruism begin?

Because of course, reading the fine print on the landing pages, I-Deal Direct is engaged in shady harvesting of email addresses and demographic information.

While stating you need to be 18 or over to participate in its ‘program’, I-Deal Direct leaves that checkbox ticked so you don’t have to untick it, and then when it captures all your name and address details, doesn’t include birthdates after 1989, so there’s no way you could tell them you were under-age if you wanted to. Click on from there and you are presented with a seemingly endless scrolling page of opt-in and opt-out offers from hundreds of different marketers. It seems like I-Deal Direct has aggregated every online offer-based affiliate marketing program in existence and is intent upon walking you through them in succession (including (I add with some considerable embarassment and annoyance) an offer for Quickflix, an online DVD rental business of which I am a shareholder.)

Click ‘submit’ on one and the page refreshes to introduce another offer. I lost count of the pages I clicked through. And when I tried to leave, a bunch of pop-up and pop-under windows tried to dissuade me with just one more (and then just one more) unmissable offer. Who else but a teenage kid is likely to keep entering in their details, those of their friends and family, in the vain hope of qualifying for some of the free stuff they saw in the ad on MySpace?

I don’t mean to pick on I-Deal Direct. After all, there is a sucker born every minute, and this is certainly not the only shonky marketing data collection agency marketing online. It’s just that I’d like to be more certain that I-Deal Direct were waiting until the suckers were over 18 if they weren’t using MySpace so prominently.

And I’m more than a little disappointed with MySpace and News Corp. You’d never expect to see a bottom-feeder advertiser like this on the homepage of news.com.au or foxsports.com.au for a variety of reasons – it cheapens the masthead brand, risks the relationship with the consumer, and lowers your apparent CPM amongst other marketers. It also makes you look just plain shoddy.

If it’s too shonky for Australian adults, we should definitely not be seeing this kind of ‘scamarketer’ on MySpace – the largest single online destination for Australian kids. If I were a premium youth brand marketer, I wouldn’t want my brand anywhere near this on MySpace.

Excuse me, I need to go wash my hands and delete my cookies.

At Google you can’t get there from here

// March 2nd, 2007 // 0 Comments // Advertising, strategy

Is having a massive online audience, across a network of online products, enough to win? Not always. The best networks must involve the audience across products, and the products in the network must be monetisable. Google’s a great example, both of what can go wrong and what can be done right.

Over coffee I asked a senior Google salesguy if it was hard selling ads on products that weren’t made with ad sales in mind, across a network of products so loosely connected. He admitted that if AdWords’ search inventory wasn’t such a money-making machine, then making his targets on the rest of the network would be really tough. He then went on to tell me just how far over his targets the team were, and how they were too busy just counting the money to do much else (well, not quite in those words, but that was the gist of it.)

Still, it seems like Google (unlike the other networks) builds products mostly because they’re cool, not because they might earn more revenue. I say that because so few of them display any advertising, and because the first premium Google product’s only just been announced. While nobody worries about earning more revenue, it’s not an environment that promotes network marketing – the kind of thinking that could introduce users of one product to other products on the network.


Example-du-jour? Google Reader. I’m so impressed with this product. Still in beta, yet it marches all over its competitors with hobnail boots, carrying a big stick and shouting a lot about ruling. I love the way I can just type in “mobilecrunch” and it will search and autodiscover the RSS feed, so I can add a new RSS feed in two clicks and a search term. I love the way it flags stories as ‘read’ as I scroll past them. I love being able to drag and drop feeds to reorder and drop them in a folder. I love lots more, but this post is not about how much I love Google Reader (though did I mention I love Google Reader?)

I first heard about Google Reader on another blog, which is always good for trial conversion because it comes with an endorsement from someone you trust. But another effective way to introduce a consumer to a product is via other related products the consumer uses – that’s what networks are for. The very reason we call them “networks” is because we inherited the concept from television, where ad breaks have been used to promote other TV shows on the same network since the first Cold War. It’s not a new concept.

Yet only recently have we seen the beginnings of ‘network thinking’ in Google’s interface. Sometimes, some products from the rest of the network get a mention in the interface of another. Though when it does happen, it seems to have more to do with “here’s another product developed by the same product group at Google” than “here’s a product from elsewhere on the network that we think you’ll like.”


For instance, I’m writing this post in Google Docs, which has now become Google Docs & Spreadsheets (by the way, when it’s time to call it “Google Docs, Spreadsheets, Presentations and Project Management” can we just call it “Google Office”? We’re losing tongue-rollability.) Google Docs encourages you to use it as a blog editor, and as my blog’s part of the Google network, it couldn’t be simpler. And in the top left nav for Google Docs there’s links to GMail, Calendar, Photos and search, presumably on the assumption that if you’re comfortable creating and storing documents online, it’s time you tried storing other work-type data there too (hmm… is Photos really a workplace product? Not sure why it’s listed – part of the same product group?)

If, like me, you’re using Google Docs to craft blog posts, it’s a safe assumption you’re also into reading blogs, so is there a link in the nav to Google Reader? Uhh no. Why not? Surely it’s a natural fit. Microsoft Office doesn’t have an RSS reader client in the suite but that’s no reason why Google Office shouldn’t include one.

Reverse that thinking, and you’d have to figure that Google Reader’s navigation should include easy one-click access to Google Docs, right? Nope. In fact, Google Reader’s got no network navigation, not even to search or Blogger. Despite having a 3-column nav with a scrolling pane view – so much easier to add a network navbar to.


If I return to the network navbar in Google D&S, there’s another link that says “All my services…”. Aha, that’s what I’ve been missing, I think. I’ll click on that link and a clever bit of asynchronous ajaxery will unfurl a longer navbar with the services I expect to have something in common with my current task…


Oh no! I’ve landed on Google Accounts, which has more to do with managing my Google account IDs than accessing my Google services. Yes, there is a list of services I’m using there on the right, but it’s a single-column vertical list that stretches wayyyy below the fold before it gets to Google Reader. Not only is the list not sorting itself according to the product most recently used, there’s actually no way to reorder that list, change it to a horizontal list, or add or remove items from it without deleting your account. Google Accounts is not the way any Google user wants to navigate between services.

Yes, it’s true, the Google homepage has made a virtue of the small, fast-loading page, and network navigation adds to that pageload. it’s probably also likely that far more people type “Google Reader” into their search form (on Google, Yahoo! or whatever their default homepage is) to access the service than would click on a network link. But that assumes that the user knows about Google Reader, when network navigation should perform both the navigation task and the network marketing task.

It’s possible that because Google Reader is still in beta, the product team are deliberately avoiding network navigation to control server load. But Reader seems like a mature app ready for the limelight, and that still doesn’t explain the lack of network nav in Reader pointing to the other Google products.

If the beta status of the product doesn’t explain the lack of network nav, does it perhaps explain the absence of AdWords integration? As far as I can tell, Google Reader seems like the perfect product for in-context text ads, much more so than GMail, where clickthru rates are limited by the strong task orientation of the product (when I’m have-way through writing an email, even an in-context ad for a product I want to buy won’t get my attention.) An RSS feed is way more structured and contextual than the ramblings of my average email message; more than enough context there to ensure targeting is successful. Reading feeds is much less task-oriented than email, meaning clickthru rates should be higher, arguably higher than in search. Even the three column layout with scrolling viewer pane lends itself to keeping ads visible wherever the eye wanders.


My experience of Google makes me think that the real reason there’s no ads is because the Google Reader team are Google developers. With a few exceptions, the Google developers I’ve met have the freedom to develop products without thinking about how to make them pay; are working with no revenue or network marketing goals to achieve; and are working within the pervasive and powerful Google culture. A culture that admits that while earning money may be necessary to keep the free pizza and espresso coming, the value of the developer’s own compensation is largely determined by the sharemarket, which still values the company at an amazing multiple of earnings. If the value of my employee options far exceeds my salary, and there’s only a tenuous relationship between revenue and the value of those options anyway, and my boss dislikes the very concept of advertising as much as I do, there’s not much impetus to monetise the product I’m building.

Again: I love Google Reader to bits. I just wish I could get there from here.


Postscript: this is too funny! I hit ‘publish to my blog’ and Google Docs tells me I can’t do that because I migrated my blog from the ‘old’ Blogger to the ‘new’ Google Blogger. Which I did months ago, and which Google wanted me to do because it was part of bringing Blogger further into the Google Network. If there were anyone at Google with a network marketing mindset, don’t you think they would have put the Blogger and Docs teams in a room and not let them out until this was fixed? Either that person doesn’t exist or they’re being treated like a mushroom.