I've been using the term digital footprint lately to describe the places and pieces required for an enterprise digital strategy. Found this diagram from Gary Hayes @ www.personlizemedia.com that starts to get to those places and generally what's required to keep this machine running for any brand.
This doesn't account for any ecommerce and doesn't look at overlaps between groups, divisions, products, etc. Add search, other online advertising, affiliates, and you've got a bunch of work to do. More than likely, one guy and his dog can't pull this off.
I don't know, you tell me! Notice I didn't say "depends" - 'cause that just get people sideways.
Whether you're pitching social media, paid media, search, website, whatever, some smart ass in the room raises their hand slowly and diligently to say, "What's the ROI on that?" As David Meerman Scott at WebInkNow.com pointed out, "what's the ROI of you putting on your pants today?"
It's necessary to do business these days with your pants on (for most of us). But, in addition to having pants on, it's also necessary that your company be getting really good on and at the web - marketing, communication, advertising, collaborating, partnering, experimenting, testing, ACTING! Stop the foolishness!
Hey, what's the ROI of that press release you just put out, hell, what's the ROI of your whole corporate communications department?
Corporate reputation?
What's the ruler you're measuring all that corporate rep with? And where can you trade that currency?How many $$$ or silly Nielsen points does that equal?
What is the ROI on the stadium sponsorship of the little league park? Part awareness, part CSR, part corporate reputation, etc. How does that equity get spread across the enterprise?
What's the ROI of that $40MM ad campaign you're running during American Idol and college basketball? Did you see a sales lift the next day, the next week? And how will those results influence your next mass media dump?
The Alice in Wonderland alternate belief reality that traditional marketing organizations hold on to today is comical. So you perk up in the presentation or discussion and ask me about ROI?
ROI or "value" is a custom conversation and equation for every organization. If you don't have an enterprise model (based in dynamic research tools and real outcomes) for the value of various marketing activities, then why are you asking an outside agent or agency to tell you what it should be?Or to justify the ROI of the widget, wikipedia service and twitter management they are pitching?
So what about measuring? "Hey Matt, can you send me a few slides on our measurement POV?"
Well, what are we measuring? Social media? In order to do that, we've got to come to some common terms first. Sales, customer satisfaction scores, leads, intent, awareness, favorability, visit frequency/latency, traffic - mix all in equal parts and that is a big math cocktail. And don't say frickin' engagement - because, by my count there is nothing that links engagement to any business outcomes.
Here's the bottom line. A well-functioning online footprint (including a website, social media, advertising, blog relations, etc.) is the single most important sales, marketing, advertising, public facing appearance of every single company. Disagree? The "e" part of any sales, marketing, corp comm, customer experience team is tiny if at all. Before you start the reorganization read this from Smashing Magazine - 10 Harsh Truths About Corporate Websites
You want to get to some ROI, or justification for spending allocation? How do you factor in the opportunity cost for not doing so? Give it a shot. Take down your site, search and anything else you're doing online and see what that nets you. Every demographic in this country spends more time online than almost any other media. You are questioning how hard you go online? You're kidding, right? You need to go as hard as you can like your job depends on it. Because frankly it does.
My take is there are levels of participation that lead to a culture of measurement and being able to identify and isolate the contributing factors of ROI:
1) track and record everything you do and pay attention to the mind numbing amount of data - if you can't or don't want to deal with it, find a person or firm that does
2) compare a few of the important numbers above to come up with some ratios and quotients evaluated over time - if you've got a building full of quants in your organization, then this could be a big spreadsheet; if you don't hire someone.
3) make a no-bull guess at the value of these things in relation to each other - and map how they connect. Yes, that means that marketing, brand, IT, operations, communications all need to have a common understanding of this in order to land anywhere near a ROI.
Sounds dumb and simple, right. Problem is, it's a lot of work and nobody really owns it today in any organization.
We've all had a moment (or series of them) where we realized that there were soft magic hammers and pulleys operating behind the scenes to gently influence and persuade us. For me, it started when I was around 12 or 13 and came from a relative one or two times removed that was a musician by trade, but part anthropologist and philosopher who was just trying his crap theories on anyone who would listen. Mixed in all of the bull, were some nuggets that cracked some of the straight-line doctrine I'd gotten to that point.
Later on, I took some subversive classes early in college that exposed me to the dark secrets of news media and advertising. Subliminal messaging, linguistic control, etc. All is not what it seems. Anyway, I swung by Fred Wilson's blog A VC early today and saw his post titled Truth. It's a great read!
In it, Fred counters the argument that we need journalism to surface the truth. A concept that has long been gone in the this country. Media is crumbling because they still think their brand of news matters. It doesn't. Fred argues that there is no absolute truth; only mine and yours cobbled together from our own individual perspectives and experiences. He goes on to extol the virtues of social media as a more efficient mechanism to surface ideas, concepts and perspectives to consider so we have a wider view. I personally think there will be societal consequences for our virtual lives, but that's for another post.
This coincides with the newspapers whining for a bailout on the premise that they are the last bastion of protection against institutional control; they've been wielding mass institutional information control for decades, so funny to use that argument. Let's be honest, recent events indicate a considerable bias in the mainstream media as all were nobly pulling for and complicit in our President to be elected. I don't blindly fall on either side's rhetoric, so it isn't hard to see; I don't like Aikman calling Cowboys games either.
I won't make any media friends here, but journalistic integrity is long gone and the idea of absolute truth wasn't even hanging in the balance as traditional journalism and mass media teeter on extinction.
There's a bunch of chatter lately about the effectiveness of banners and other online display units.
This isn't even coming from traditional media folk because their budgets are getting pruned mind you. It's coming from online advertising people. More accurately, those that are heralding "social media" as the new new new media, but advertising, marketing and new media people at heart.
See the reason traditional media had a long life is because the advertisers and publishers were complicit in propping up the general principles of effectiveness and the scale in which they were measured. Now, we've got online media people asking if online media is effective? What? Of course it is effective!!! More effective than the $MMM idiots are still pumping into TV with $0 return other than statistically pencil whipped GRP and Av Cume values. Jesus, that's stupid!
Most of the chatter is coming from folk who I suspect have never run or seen the data from a significant banner campaign. Run one with even cursory tracking and analytics and you can find a mountain of insights. Obviously click-based conversions is the unrealistic grail you'll see, but if you set a cookie window, you'll see all of the view-based actions as well. You'll know the optimal exposure frequency level. You'll see the search patterns, branded and unbranded. You'll see format and message trends. You'll see geographic detail. And you'll probably find out that who you were targeting aren't the same demo that are interested in your stuff and coming to your site. Among 90 other things.
It pains me to read this stuff and see big brands still spending 98% of their budget on TV, magazines, athletes image rights, leather bound media kits and racing sponsorships. And worst of all, somehow justifying the effectiveness of that spend.
Hello marketing manager, CMO, communications director, product manager, ecommerce lead, webmaster and CEO, welcome to the internet and the mysterious land of non synchronous and "not my" data. It's been a long journey on your wooden sailing ships, but you've finally arrived at the new world. Now whatcha' gonna do?
Of course I visited Kevin Hillstrom's blog Mine That Data this morning, and I found a very informative post titled Customer Resume. Not a surprise, because it's always good over there if you're willing to dig in. Advice: don't go there if you're still interested in skating on the surface and acting like you get it.
Kevin points out a REAL customer resume (below) and then says plop that on a table at you next Sr. Managers meeting ask how collectively the organization would develop a strategy to find, interest, sell and re-sell more of them? And I'm not just talking about products here. Ideas, concepts and points of view need to be sold too!!
Typical view of a customer -
One order, on October 29 Spent $200 on one item
Your system could give you this, but you're probably not really looking -
Customer received a catalog on October 1 Customer did not return any of the merchandise ordered on October 29 Customer paid the standard fee for shipping Customer did not use a discount code when placing the order Customer is an e-mail subscriber Customer only purchased one item Customer ordered on a Wednesday, one day after receiving an e-mail campaign Customer had a referring URL from a social media site Customer ordered 28 days after receiving a catalog Customer did not use a catalog key-code when ordering Customer lives in a Zip Code Forensics zip code classified as "Online Bliss" Customer ordered from merchandise division "X", and did not order from merchandise division "Y" or "Z" Customer has not visited the website since This was the first order placed by this customer Customer lives more than 100 miles from a store
See, all of this is inside of your organization today. It's "somebody's" data they ignore daily, 'cause there aren't ever any insights there. Well, it's hard damn work brining all of this together and making sense of it.
Seems that as of late I've been shilling for Kevin Hillstrom's Mine That Data stuff. Certainly very focused on retailers and catalogers, but lessons to be learned for the rest of us in just thinking about some of the possible models for getting to multi-channel marketing attribution.
I point lots of people there, mostly marketers, and most don't have the stomach for it. They think it sounds good, but struggle with actually putting some of it in place. I think measurement/ROI, blah, blah starts with making a bunch of assumptions and then working through reasonable attribution. I have no affinity to any channel, so for me, it's about the patience of piecing the puzzle together.
In his latest post, Measuring Paid Search, E-Mail, And Social Media Influence Via Matchbacks , he illustrates a model that might include social media, mobile, search, etc. The numbers being accurate right away isn't the issue, make a guess and then prove it right or wrong. Obviously he's using a case where a site has the ability to recognize users and their profiles, but if you want to get to any level of understanding, that is table stakes.
If you don't want to put in the time, effort, and resources, you shouldn't even be talking about measurement, and certainly not just manufacturing the silver bullet out of thin air.
So Social Networks and Marketing take it on the chin when P&G digital guy Connell says at some conference, and then in AdWeak, that na'er the tween should meet.
I'd been meaning to comment, but didn't make the time for it over the last few days. Then I stumble across a rant from John Batelle at the OPEN Forum facilitated (aka marketed) by American Express, called It's Time to Put This Myth to Rest - that's a strong title, as if Batelle is the last word on such matters, but anyway . . . he has a good company and seems to be a good guy. John points out that Social Networks aren't necessarily clamoring for bad (proximity) marketing dollars from the big brands like traditional media is accustomed. The idea of marketing being used to start and sustain a conversation is something people say, but when you're media planning, it's how many impressions and at what CPP, and funny it's rarely then how much product did we move based on such measures.
Here's a little of John's rant.
So what do I mean when I say a conversational approach? Well, let’s break down what makes for a great conversation. First, all parties involved are in the conversation because they’ve chosen to be – not because they’re been tricked or cajoled into it. Second, there’s a strong value exchange – a give and take between parties which makes everyone feel like they are gaining something. Critical to this, of course, is the value of listening, internalizing, and responding. Third, each participant understands who the other participants are – there’s transparency and integrity in the conversation.
We all know and believe that conversation, authenticity, transparency, et al are all important in marketing today. At least that's what the echo chamber is talking about. But the understanding of what this means and the funding behind it isn't there. Connell's looking at Facebook as a vehicle to point their carefully crafted message at a certain audience.
Chatting with some big brands lately and their enterprise web efforts and the meetings are all about facilitating these conversations and on and on, and then in the last 2 minutes as "next steps", we always get the "and we'll have to add a slide on how this will immediately convert to sales". What? No matter if we're talking about brand reputation, ambassador programs, environmental programs, whatever. Somehow, all of those wildly different conversations, in whatever form on the web, need to immediately lead to a sale. Why? Is that how it worked before the internet made that somewhat easier? Is there any evidence for any product or brand that a conversation, positive, negative or neutral - led directly to some sort of a purchase. Of course not, and the internet or any other media doesn't magically do that.
A conversation is about talking, listening and responding; then listening again, considering a response, responding and then listening again. It's not about pushing messages and then recording the sales.
I fundamentally agree with P&G's Connell that spraying banner ads in Facebook is silly (no different though than running interruptory spots during The Office), but to suggest that Social Networks and marketing should not work together is sillier.
In my driving lifetime, I've never been a fan of American cars. Stale and boring with none of the detail taken by every other manufacturer in the world. Well other than a '60 Corvette Roadster in Tuxedo Black or a Marina Blue '67 427 L71.
Needless to say the American car companies have poured and continue to pour money into broadcast TV. Beer, American car and Viagra ads have propped up TV ads for years. They haven't been sure about this here internet? Barely a dipped toe. Any attempt beyond banner ads has been a disaster.
Enter Scott Monty at Ford. Charged with connecting people to the brand with social media. My definition of social media usually includes a conversation, but that's another story. I ran across this vid this morning about the MSFT Sync software in Ford vehicles. Good stuff!
Now 10 or 12 years in, just when most brands should be hitting some long strides on the internet and gaining traction and momentum, you are slammed back into the reality that most still don't get it or take it seriously.
I was reading Kevin Hillstrom's post on Mine That Data the other day about Nordstrom being down $70MM in sales YoY for September.
(BTW, when you are looking for the 43 dimensions to carve up your database to re-attract lapsed customers go here. It's hard damn work. Now get to it and stop whining about the economy. Are you really doing everything you can?)
In Kevin's post Marketing Tactics Can't Save Nordstrom Comps, he calls social media, word of mouth, online marketing, catalog and multi-channel marketing to the carpet. Claims that Nordstrom is doing all of these things, so what's the value of any of them if they are down 14% and drowning.
Back to a hamster on a wheel. Going really fast and doing lots of stuff does not even approach enough to hold your own and win in this environment. Well, it got me digging into all of this stuff that they are doing to see how good it was or fit together. What I found online ain't pretty. Here's an excerpt of my comments -
You mention search. The last click before a purchase and inordinate attribution probably for the sale, but that's another post. Got to do that really well, right. Stinks! I searched "new dress loafers" - no natural listing at all, a single paid listing for Nordstrom (#8) advertising "Dress Sandals" - not connected. Lost sale! Searched "mens dress shoes" - no listing natural or paid. What? Another lost sale! Just searched "women's shoes" (has to be one of the top selling products for them) - not listed in natural or paid search. Another lost sale!!
As discussed before, channels have to connect. Can't just be, we did a Facebook page or an app or a Ning private social network, or a YouTube channel, or a Second Life island and then sit back. You need a community director with dedicated resources that are fostering the same level of Nordstrom customer service in all those places, or risk slowly being lost.
Also, a level of priority needs to happen. As mentioned in my comments above, search stinks for Nordstrom. Probably trying to do it with the lowest cost vendor with 2 people looking at once in a while. It is a place to round up and convert active consumers looking to research or buy the things they're selling. There is no other media, other than in-store, that is that close to a purchase. That has to be THE priority. Catalogs are great (expensive and inflexible), and advertising can create some demand, but both are still in the big part of the funnel before a purchase.
Obviously, a shift like this doesn't just happen, but it illustrates the point that even guys like Nordstrom are slow to accept the internet as the significant marketing appliance it is.
It never did. You monopolized distribution and were able to stuff a bunch of useless stories along side of a ton of advertising. Sold the idea that being associated literally and figuratively with such a noble cause would deliver results for advertiser. Not to say that in some age or in some locality that didn't work, but why be surprised when that house of cards starts to fall? Welcome to the internet - people don't need your rice paper or affiliated rice website to get news (long form or short form).
The Times recently had a story on how newspaper web revenues are just so-so to stalling. They ask a bunch of other people at old media how they are doing it. Generally all old media hate the AD NETWORKS as they are just scavengers (but, a necessary evil when you only directly sell 30% of your inventory). So their answer is to limit supply. Cut out the NETWORKS, then we'll really have the premium, premium hooch that advertisers what.
So fricking wrong!
The AD NETWORKS exist because they don't care about your brand, your journalistic ethics plaques on the walls, or you. They exist because advertisers want to deliver a message to an audience no matter where they go. It's the same, finding that audience on TheNewYorkTimes.com or shovelsandspades.com.
The other thing that AD NETWORKS know and you don't is making pennies work. Newspapers and big media got drunk on the stupid advertising dollars. 50% was always wasted, but if we perpetuated the closed system, rate card would always keep going up. AD NETWORKS place a value on a audience and acquire that audience for a few pennies less and sell it for a few pennies more. That foundational spread is efficient for smart publishers and smart advertisers. Cuts out the bloat from traditional publishers and makes the agency fees more transparent.
Welcome to small ball. Think like an audience (and stop lying to yourself that they care about YOUR brand of wire aggregation), thinks lots of pennies and get good at it.
Here's how I read it - outside of the stupid political horse trading and grandstanding - oh, and if you don't want my take then read this one over at Clusterstock - Dear Hank and Ben - HERE'S THE SOLUTION
What if you recently learned that Vegas was struggling to pay some of its bills. And with some further investigation, you discovered that the Casinos had created a game (let's call it Nevada Hide 'Em) in which Gamblers (they didn't know they were gamblers, they thought they were just regular people) were slightly tricked/sold (all in good fun of course) into playing the game that the casinos knew all along was very risky and that they didn't have the real money to actual pay out. Lots of gamblers lost a lot of their money in this rigged system they really didn't know much about.
All of a sudden things started spinning down into a spiral and the Casinos were begging for the government to help them. Alas, the government rolled up its sleeves and actually worked over the weekend and came up with a plan to help the casinos stay in business. Hooray! For it would be catastrophic if these venerable institutions, the casinos, actually folded or had to embarrassingly file for bankruptcy.
Wait a minute, the government is using tax dollars from the gamblers (more of the regular people's money) to help the casinos save face? Those same casinos who built the games to trick the gamblers into playing with their retirement funds in the first place?
If we're writing a plan for the government to help somebody out, should we be propping up the casinos? You think the casinos will have learned their lessons and will fly right now? How's that working for the airlines?
How about weighting the odds in favor of the regular folk?
Happened over to Adverganza this morning to catch up on the ad business fluffle, and of course Catherine Taylor's commentary is spot on. She comments on W+K getting let go from Starbucks brand business. See W+K's big idea for Starbucks was to do more brand TV spots. With folk like Renny Gleeson over there, I'm not sure how this kind of stuff happens for their biggest clients.
(BTW - If you have some time and are questioning the tangle between agency, social media and brand; watch Renny's presentation from last year)
Directly below that post is commentary on the next iteration of the MSFT campaign "I'm a PC". I'm even less interested in this effort than the Jerry S stuff. This continues the legacy of hammering away on the crooked nail. Rather than actually engaging anyone, just tell us you are a regular okay company with lipstick, rouge and some collage of semi-famous people that use PCs. Doesn't Apple have PCs too? (PC is personal computer, right? what am I missing with this?). Why directly show the unkempt character that has beaten MSFT to a pulp over the last 2 years? Sean Siler's email pops up on the ad, so taken a step further, I sent an email to Sean to start the conversation. Well, he's out of the office and makes it clear that he's an actor. (see the picture of the screenshot above) Another swing and a miss; Come ON!
For those of you starting to think that Microsoft is actually getting somewhere with those new TV spots you've seen; you're wrong. See, the thing is, advertising is fake. I know, huge revelation, but if you have to spend $300MM on ads, it probably isn't true. Systemic decay is still rampant.
Lipstick meets pig to borrow a very popular phrase these days.
So you really buy that because J and B say they are ordinary (and are depicted as regular guys) in an ad campaign, that MSFT is now relating to the common man/consumer? Stop. There is a script that was written and re-written 48 times, there are cameras at every angle, there is lighting, there is makeup, there's a set. This is Faketown.
Fundamental flaw here. Do, don't just say with script and actors. The rest of the brand needs to be able to live up to this.
So, another installment of J&B appeared on the scene last night and in "the blogs" today. Just the guys being ordinary with a regular family ala Paris and Nicole in the Simple Life. Oh, the utter wisdom of positioning it around the iconic dinner table; oh the American ideal of the nuclear family. BTW, hasn't this shot been done by hundred movies and shows? The Nutty Professor for one?
It's dense with dialog and leaves a bunch of open possibilities for plot lines. All I can say is the pay off better be pretty good, because it's trite nonsense so far.
Even the media buy is formulaic. Thursday night is traditionally really important with inflated, imaginary viewer numbers eaten up with a spoon by the the huge silly movie opening buys.
Here's a great line from Rob Mortimer at www.ad-pit.com.
“Bill Gates should be shot in the knackers with an air rifle”… that would be cheap publicity too.
Rob was commenting at Rob Campbell's post that included this "... this commercial cost MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to make … the belief that the World laughing AT YOU is still ‘positive’ is so stupid that it almost defies belief."
Why buy $3MM of ad time when you could have just launched this series on YouTube. Oh, that's right, you wouldn't want to drive views over there would you?
You're now in the cage and this is your first move? After being beaten to a pulp of the last few years from a snarky punk in a hoodie now married to the cute little girl from ET (oh, and some pretty innovative products); you drag out the Emeritus and the original Snark? You said you were coming; you showed up with some hardly funny drivel and said zilch (overtly and in context). Advertising about nothing. I guess that's one way to go about spending your money?
A little insight for your planners at CP+B. We've moved on from that Costanza sensibility. Authentic is the new sizzle. We actually find and read stuff like the memo from Bill (through Gizmodo) about the interface and how much it really sucks. Straight from the Emeritus himself. Imagine what he really says about Vista to the wife? Pillow talk between Bill and Melinda about Vista's launch being a a tad premature, general delicious (intended irony of the not purchased company that owns that utility online?) mind melding and Shoe Circus would have been on target.
Gates and Seinfeld could not be any less relevant. Some arguments have suggested things like it started a bunch of conversation (using over-bloated TV $$ for WOM on how confusing the spot was); it will evolve (leak from Webster the Adv guy) and here through TechCrunch; oh, and this beauty from Andrew Frank at Gartner, well written, but that IT advertising is all about shareholders communication. Is that right? Shareholders? This is a balance sheet game now? Get the multiples up?
Ballmer couldn't give a crap about shareholders (no offense; just he's an insecure sort that can't stand getting his ass handed to him daily by Jobs and the Google). He's a little more "shock and awe" than a keenly aware counter puncher.
So maybe that Yahoo! offer was all just a switcharoo get-press-ruse too? M&A is all about good PR spin for a repositioning an ailing anemic moose. Throw an offer out there, knowing that it would stir up the Jerry vs. Icahn struggle and you'd come out looking like surgically sharp shrewd business machine. Aloofing your way into missing an opportunity. Failure all around.
Jujutsu expresses the philosophy of yielding to an opponent's force rather than trying to oppose force with force. Manipulating an opponent's attack using his force and direction allows jujutsuka to control the balance of their opponent and hence prevent the opponent from resisting the counter attack.
. . . a warrior should be able to adopt in combat to facilitate victory. These include: an all-encompassing awareness, zanshin (literally "remaining spirit"), in which the practitioner is ready for anything, at any time; the spontaneity of mushin (literally "no mind") which allows immediate action without conscious thought; and a state of equanimity or imperturbability known as fudoshin (literally "immovable mind").
Fudoshin is not what's going on here. Saying nothing really is saying nothing. Relieving oneself in the wind comes to mind.
Of note, I've been on the fence of late and considering switching all together from the MSFT dinosaur. Despite the work systems and legacy there for many many years. Steve, Bill, Jerry and Alex, I want to like you; I really do. Maybe this is just some Orwellian mass focus group testing between the "Stupid Snark" concept and the "Mojave Project" concept?
Can't count the number of times I've heard in the last 10 minutes that there are tooooo many ad networks out there! How's a planner to decide which one to use? They're all schlepping the same MySpace inventory or niche power adapter technology blogs. In the end, no one ever got fired for putting Yahoo! on the plan. But, during a conversation yesterday with a friend at GoFish.com, he described their new new new model as a network of sites (read acquired inventory; a little owned, a little borrowed and a little JIT arbitraged) focused on a couple of audience types that develops custom branded experiences and promotions online on behalf of big brands. They've got designers, strategists, media buyers and sellers and a method to figure out if they are making any money. I could be off here, but that sounds a lot like an advertising agency of old.
Does anyone say there are too many ad agencies out there? Not really. There are thousands of them out battling for the same client dollars. Agencies come in all sorts of flavors, sizes, shapes and specialties. Mostly built from scratch with a single client and some cult of personality.
Traditional agencies won't ever get online. Most ad networks do and will grow by expanding their core of online media understanding with complementary products.
Breaking news . . . there will be more and more ad networks coming! Some just like to play the market and cut a little slice for themselves. Some like the custom branded experience creative stuff. Some lean on great customer service or targeting or reach or audience expertise.
Sorry confused planner, but there is an end-around already in motion.
If you're reading this silly blog, then I'm sure you are addicted to the web. Why else would you be wasting your time here? I just finished watching a video of Kevin Kelly giving a talk on the next 5,000 days of the web and thought I needed to post it. For posterity sake if nothing else. I've been reading his stuff for lots of years and he never fails to give great insight.
If you scour the internets, you won't find many ppts, xlss or pdfs with a real online media plan. Those that plan the plans don't hang that stuff out for public consumption. Wait, other than public entities like state tourism offices who rub up against online advertising, but still really like the magazines and TV. I'm not specifically sweating the cowboys in Wyoming (because it's the same story state by state), but the online spend ratio is really low and there is no detail; so lord knows they are probably buying high CPM crap and don't even have a sponsored ad when I search "go west young man".
For those of you looking to advertise online or recommend that your clients do, Harry Gold has a lovely post today at ClickZ: The Anatomy of a Great Media Plan. Start there and title your slides. Do some research stuff, think and then fill the slides in. Present these slides to those with the money (client, board, committee, owner) and you might have yourself a successful meeting.
The ad boys are just so happy with their ads. Client asked for a launch plan, we gave 'em some ads, we'll
both win some awards and everybody is happy. Wait, did we sell anything? Did we change behavior? Did we introduce ourselves to somebody new? I don't know, those ads were great through, my buddy called and laughed out load. Whoopie!!
We've opined here on occasion about Connective Tissue - going back to Larry Everling at Grady Rose in 2005. Where should or does the agency insert itself into demanding the client evaluate and adjust the disconnects?
Mr. Wolk has a nice example over at The Toad Stool. It's Not My Job is a post with a construction theme about the role you want - being the architect, or being the contractor. Traditional agencies today of any flavour - ad, pr, dm, digital will continue to be the contractors if they can't persuade a client to look beyond the immediate need of shooting some flair in the air.
You'll be able to target by position, geography, industry, title and quite a few other criteria. Hello, business-to-business advertisers, are you listening. Q3 launch. Got your fall plan in place? Did a few searches this morning for Chief Risk Officers, Government Administrators, Chief Information Officers. Lot's of them there. Now, remains to be seen if they stay there with all of their information visible when they start getting hit with ads, but that's LinkedIn's job - making it valuable in some way.
The click rate won't be very high, so just be prepared. But then again, click rate has never mattered or meant anything anyway. Your message in front of your precise target. When they don't click, you'll blame the internet and send all your money back to print - where you don't have to be bothered with those pesky clicks.
So Mr. McCracken writes a heck of a blog Cultureby.com and most often perplexes me beyond stopping to figure out what he's really writing about. It's humbling and confounding. I love it. He's in the running for a spot in my top 50 living dinner guest list.
Today he's got a few comments - Politics and anyone under 35 on a piece from the Onion. The Onion is too snarky and cutesy for me, so I don't go often, but it's nice to experience it by proxy.
Grant raises an interesting POV regarding advertising and modern culture generally. We're all smart enough to see through the smooth creative garbage. He reference a Crest ad with a huge toothy smiley woman that I've seen too and thought how ridiculous to have even produced. Same for others- Honda, for the nudist ballooning crap or Avodart, for having the "testimonial" from a model builder (see, they shrink things into model size like Avodart does for your prostate).
We all see the subplot and it is hollow, fake and unmoving.
Same in politics, with Obama, even more with Hillary and McCain. Anybody willing to be real would get twisted and ground to a pulp immediately. It's why we don't care a bit.
Now that I think about positioning a perfect look and pose, Obama does have some of the same stuff of a familiar college football player, come WWE attraction, come movie star, come icon - now doesn't he?
Would you dump neon pink and green flyers from a crop duster over Memphis? Wait, actually, somebody might pick one of those up and read it.
I've heard Year of Viral quite a few times recently and can't help but chuckle and wince. Some big brands and fancy folk are out there banging away (hard and often) at this crooked nail. What the hell does VIRAL mean? Free (or an approaching vector thereof) advertising? Stop it!
Viral - to what end? To tease an upcoming TV campaign? Stupid! With no outcome other than to count the views and then add that to your multi-tabbed by market GRP report next quarter. Stupid!
To extend the life of your B-Roll from the campaign you shot? Stupid! With no connection strategy or unique distribution/whisper hook to further engage a thirsty audience? Stupid!
To mysteriously leak some unbranded content only to reveal the source later - therefore gaining some cred/halo among key audiences? Stupid! The prosumer you're trying to reach isn't that dumb!
And by site I mean the most important public facing marketing and communications asset you have. In no particular order . . .
1. IT is responsible for it - "The admin and workflow on the new CMS kicks ass. Everybody will love it" 2. You don't make it (policies and enforcement) part of the way your company works - every department and every division 3. Marketing is responsible for it - Oh lord, talk about no juice to get anything done 4. You continue to fund and resource it with nickels and the jv squad 5. You continue to line item budget it to death - One Facebook page, $245,000, check; two microsites . . . Find someone (owner or agency) responsible enough to make decisions quickly. 6. You don't change the development cycle - quarterly releases, even monthly releases are silly 7. CONTINUE TO IGNORE SEARCH - it's easy and it's how people find your stuff 8. It's not an art and design project, period. Not a print ad. 9. You forget to ask customers what they think - until after it launches, then who cares? Do you have a usability plan that has actually impacted design or functionality? 10. You continue to talk and 'message' without listening - your guests couldn't care any less how your organized and what you have to say. They want to find and do stuff quickly. 11. You're completely missing the connections - you spend inordinate amounts of time and money on events, packaging, direct mail, advertising, talent rights fees,etc; yet you wave past the site. Take some time and get it together!
Digital is not analog. Stop treating it like it is.
Man, I hate that term, ad banners. Said that way, they seem so weak, feeble and even a little dirty. I've
been wrapped up in my share, and I get defensive when folk ask 'do those things really work.' 'Better than you think' is my stock answer.
Mr Cummings has a great post - The Risky Business of Ad Banners at iMedia (hey Rick Parkhill, fancy the site up and make it shareable, you've got some good stuff) on the fundamental flaws of how creative is developed online. The linear approach to a single creative with traffic, job jackets and multiple rounds of revisions is silly.
Here's a nice start. Go to adverlicio.us and take a look at what's happening in the big leagues. Thing is, your stuff is going to show up rotating with these so don't come weak with a 4 panel rotating 'gif'. That's the impression you want to make?; much less think anyone would consider clicking on that rickety thing.
Also, don't even look at the stats, click throughs, panel views, et al if you didn't think through the interaction. Compelling visual with a quick message and a strong call to action. Pay attention to the placement site layout and what nuances would make the creative work contextually; focus some energy on the timing too.
It's a lot to think about and get right. Not just throwing up some ad banners.
You slant your lifestyle to those things that matter to you. If I was a coin collector, I'd take every free minute I had to be researching the latest trend on the reemergence of the '22 nickel slug and how it showed up at some random event at a Holiday Inn by the airport in Skogie, IL. I'd commune online with my fellow coinatarians and I'd probably have a favorite tee shirt or hat with some arcane show reference as a point of pride for my hobby.
Coins aren't my thing, nor civil war reenactments, nor throwback jerseys, nor logo golf balls. As you've read here, I'm more into marketing science, linguistics, memetics and basic cultural anthropology; a good wine pairing, breaking 80 more often and a fresh pot of steamed crabs on the deck.
Straight to the point, how do you find the time to work, blog, twitter, exercise, relax, flickr, church, lunch, vacation . . . ??
Noah Brier pointed me to the Web 2.0 speech transcript from Clay Shirky - Gin, Television and Social Surplus that gives great insight into where the time comes from; and gives a brilliant history lesson on the difficulty of society to digest the shift in communications underway. Here's a snip:
Here's something four-year-olds know: A screen that ships without a mouse ships broken. Here's something four-year-olds know: Media that's targeted at you but doesn't include you may not be worth sitting still for. Those are things that make me believe that this is a one-way change. Because four year olds, the people who are soaking most deeply in the current environment, who won't have to go through the trauma that I have to go through of trying to unlearn a childhood spent watching Gilligan's Island, they just assume that media includes consuming, producing and sharing.
So what? Well I have a near four-year-old and I'm not interested in being irrelevant.
Great post from Sean X on Online Privacy this morning at iMedia. BTW, iMedia, you are killing me with your terrible site. I'd like to share the link and participate in a conversation . . . let me know when you get around to that. Some legislation pending in NY for companies to identify when they attached online activity to Personally Identifiable Information. So it raises the fever again about the topic.
Advertising is paying for what you are consuming! Again, advertising, marketing, communications are paying for what you are consuming! Would you rather have a micro-payment system that hits your charging plate for $.14 for every page you read or for search? I didn't think so. Hey, Ballmer, you really want to win with consumers? Charge them $250/mo for an ad-free surfing environment!
Here's a spot on quote from Sean:
Why do you think that grocery stores give you discounts for using a simple card? Because they so value you as a customer and they are just being nice? Are you really that naive? That information with your purchase habits is immediately tied to your name and your address. Are you single and do you buy booze, condoms and cigarettes? Guess what? Don't be surprised if you start getting some fun, hip catalogs in the mail. But that is not where the danger is; the danger is that some health insurance company buys a grocery chain and then starts to adjust insurance rates based on your lifestyle. Think about that the next time you throw your grocery card down for that carton of cigarettes and the three liter bottle of vodka. That is scary, and a much more probable scenario than all the scare tactics about online privacy and behavioral targeting.
Let's introduce legislation to have retailers more explicitly ask for permission to attached diaper purchases to our VIP cards!!!
Holy cow, who knew?? But if Harvard Business Review published it, then it's true! Do they sell online ads?? That sure is one fancy expensive glossy magazine!
Having seen recent press about online advertising being analogous to billboards on the highway, I was starting to lose faith that banners would ever get their due. Well, thanks for Fred at A VC, we've got some evidence that this stuff really works. I've been supporting those banner guys for years. Hell, I even was involved in you seeing "punch the monkey" and "X10 camera" creative back when.
It works (offline, online, sideline, above the line, wherever) when you know what you're doing.
So you probably read Brian Morrissey's piece in Adweek on social media metrics: Conversation Quotient. Hyper-relevant given the dustup at recent conferences and the intense heat and bright light on the topic. I certainly scurried over there with butterflies in my stomach hoping to see the ever elusive bullet, the
silver bullet. Low and behold a bunch BBs scattered on the page with a roundup of Twitterati and their accurate, but less than definitive postulations. Quite a bit of dodging and parrying from agency brethren on the hopes, fears and shoulds with Social Media and its impact on communication and marketing.
Then I ran across Max Kalehoff's follow up giving much more detail on his discussion with Brian. If you start to extend social media through an enterprise beyond just marketing, you can see that there is a much broader impact to be accounted for. Both in cost to implement as well as what and how to measure. Much much more opportunity and data points to consider to assign value. A quick quote from Max's post below -
"However, the major point I made in our interview, which he wasn’t able to unpack in this short article, is that social-media metrics are expansive and applicable to nearly all business processes, from innovation to product development, from strategic and communications planning to communications management, from marketing effectiveness to loyalty, as well as customer service, experience and beyond."
The measurement question comes up every day - social media, site traffic, clips, blips, pass-alongs, GRPs, etc . As I've written before, it takes a hell of a long conversation - and commitment to come up with what to watch and why. Most clients, agencies and affiliated aren't patient enough to work through it. There's a silver bullet out there somewhere!, right.
Some clients have set arbitrary values to impressions in an ad-equivalencyish approach. In those cases I've recommended units as opposed to dollars or cents, because it just doesn't make any sense to use the completed flawed ad model to measure anything.
Brian, I like your idea of an additional story about the enterprise.
Maybe a meet-up at the Silver Bullet Lounge?
Just so you know where I'm coming from, there should be no selling involved. Social Media principles should be integral to every brands' communication and marketing projects, programs and philosophies.
Period. As intuitive as not spending 96% of your marketing dollars on TV commercials. I'll assure you though, I'm still in the minority on both points
But, in an ironic twist Social Media is having a hard time with its brand. What started as a participatory movement of the PEOPLE to publish their opinions, support things they like and reward authentic with loyalty continues to grow and thrive. However, a very very very tiny few companies have embraced the idea(s) and reported success. Certainly there are even fewer that have adjusted their brand style guide accordingly, retooled the corporate communications group, shifted considerable dollars and resources, and opened up to be more transparent. Lots of talk and chatter, not much gettin' to it.
Now, Social Media is on stage - hit the big time. All ears and eyes are waiting . . .
Here come the agencies!!! "Oh client, we're here for you, we'll help you understand!" Ad agencies sell the emotion, digital shops sell the increasing numbers of broadband adopters, pr sell reputation - credibility - relations, and the holding companies sell the dream. After hours of meetings and presentations from all of them, client goes back to their day, just as busy and nonsensical as it was before. Social Media ain't really helping much. It sounds really hard, there's a whole new vocabulary and nobody has any answers. Nothing in it for them.
Part of the problem is that those that KNOW this stuff, get it, feel it, need it, want it, embrace it, are so damn excited that they can stop wetting their pants with the new stuff that comes out everyday. Trying to impress the other KNOWERS that they KNEW first.
Bit of advice, try understanding your audience before walking into a room and starting to sell the game-changing virtues of twitter, utterz, facebook, lijit, delicious, flickr, moveable type (the company, not the movement).
Even though they (client) asked to get the 101, the audience in the room (CMO, Marketing Manager, PR Director, et al) barely knows how a website really works, much less what an api is, or how rss is completely changing how they should be doing marketing. Jump to marketing as utility for their customers instead of just messages, and you have successfully ground your audience to pulp with jargon and crap.
Don't start by giving some context, and certainly not the participatory "fundamental shift" stuff from the Economist in '06 with references to Gutenburg (see, referencing something traditional - printed in a magazine is the opposite of the point).
Also, don't start with what Dell does, or WalMart did, or what Target wrote back to that blogger.
Don't say you were talking to Joeseph Jaffe, Steve Rubel, or David Armano the other day, and . . .
Don't lead with, now, you have to be listening to your consumer.
I'd start with search, their terms, places they should own! (simple proof point on where and how people get information). Yes, I recognize that the audience in the room has little or no knowledge or appreciation for search, so I hammer home that they should!!! Then I say it again. Then at the end, I say it again. They will understand the sheer number of disconnects their audiences are seeing. At XXX searches a day domestically in Google alone, you can imagine what could be.
Social Media Opportunity - use search a starting point to see results. Pay attention to it every day!!!
I'd then ask, who owns the consumer/audience opinions. CMO, call center director, corp comm??? Ask if they would share a few comments that came in yesterday, last week, whatever about their brand, products or services. Nobody in the room will have any. So then, I have a few of my own that I dug up. My best guess is that you're getting XXX a day. This is where I'd show the groups that have already formed for or against on various social networking sites. Clearly, you've got people interested in what you have to offer, and they are predisposed to talking about it, publicly!
Social Media Opportunity - monitor. Somebody own this!!! Pay attention to it every day!!!
By way of Stephen Gates, a spot where there is always incredible stuff, here's
a link to a
new MOMA exhibition, Design and the Elastic Mind. WOW. I guess I'm not the only one that finds it fascinating. My wife is/was an art major, and shakes her head disgustedly when I bring home this stuff to hang on the wall.
I've recently used flares as a metaphor for various client campaigns. It's the "big idea" concept of communication and marketing. Each successive campaign needs another idea. You put your head down for 6 weeks cranking out the gunpowder, cartridges and plugs, only to fire the thing into the sky. Burns for a minute and then peters out. You're out smithing another one (or some other agency is) to send out. Each with a half cranked target and no feedback for the next one or the next guy.
I read this little piece at AdWeek from Jaffe, and he mentioned the same idea. So many organizations are so focused on that "big idea" that they forget all about the little stuff.
I had a small role in a big presentation recently where I pointed out a number of these small things online that could be connected. Client was fascinated at the idea that digitally they weren't really missing the big stuff, they just had never looked at the hundreds of little things. My point. They matter for sustaining any campaign.
How or who breaks the cycle?
Well, it seems Lego listens pretty well to it's various audiences, but it took a pretty courageous soul to make the company see that. Not because he could say, if we do it'll be worth $XX, but because he had a boss that believed that this new way had the consumer first, not the company.
I like John Bell and his commentary at Digital Influence Mapping Project. Lots of ideas and experiments flowing, so it's nice to check in and see what he and his team are up to. Lately, there has been a trend there around WOM (substitute public relations if you like) being measured on the same scale as advertising. Well, I guess this supposes that advertising measurement (GRP, TRP, Rating Points, Circulation, Clicks, etc.) are even worth a c-rap to begin with. Let's be clear - they are not. It's why advertising is just above lawyering and used car selling and just below insurance. No more marketing seats at the Board Room table with Trump and ever increasing CMO attrition velocity.
Note to self, let's not measure anything with that ruler.
Blinded by the HUGE dollars that advertising gets (not to mention the sexy shoots in exotic locations), other marketing services firms are trying to stake their claim on these untold riches. It's a sunsetting business, so let's look at this problem a little differently.
Let's go old school and start asking some questions of ourselves, our friends and the brands we represent. Let's clarify (really really do this; not just suppose that you know) who the current or target audiences are, find out what make them tick (aka consider, try, buy, recommend), ask (and answer truthfully) if our experience is different in any way from the cat down the street, build a model, try an approach, and then commit to the resources and change that is required. Then measure against that . . . with customer service scores, satisfaction indexes, contribution to sales, employee morale, whatever. But squeezing year over year same store sales out of your ad creative or press releases is just silly.
Hey, so us online advertising folk don't get our share of the pie. No mystery right. TV and print time spent is down overall, yet their ad spend still slightly grows. Doesn't really make sense in the aggregate, but there are many broken industries out there - how could we actually not buy TV? That Hawaiian beach shoot would be in jeopardy. Oh, gosh . . .
I'll plug Joe Apprendi and iMediaConnection for having a timely piece on this; my weekend was filled with it and I've been working on the post for a while. Joe's an ex-24/7 Media fellow and is off to starting his own online ad network (congrats Joe, btw), so take anything
you read with a grain of salt. Really, all of those "networks" get their inventory from the same exchange(s), but another post all together. Joe claims that online advertising makes up 7.6% of all ad spend (I've got it at 6.9% globally, but who's counting). Time spent with the internet makes up somewhere around 20 - 25% of "media time". On average people spend more time with TV - debatable on which medium is more effective, but that's a semantic argument that will never have an answer. The truth is that there is a huge gaping discrepancy in the aggregate for where spenders spend and where their audiences really audience.
Now, enter Public Relations. Lots of chatter online about communications in general and how companies/brands can and should be using internet stuff to solidify a message, commune a community, get bloggers to blog about stuff, et al. No question, a significant portion of budget should be shifting here vs. stock pressers, media events, pitching trade magazines, etc. Well, the reality here is that companies (huge and small) are spending a tiny fraction of the their overall "communications" budget online. If I had to guess, it would be less than 2% in many cases for companies you are very familiar with. Talk about a discrepancy!!! Add to that, the internet is the primary medium "at work" and holds an overwhelming share of time spent there . . . an even bigger discrepancy than online advertising. Oh my! The PR machine for the PR industry is missing a big opportunity.
So the writer's strike and all that is going on. As a result my Denny Crane fix is quickly coming to an end. What am I going to do . . . ? Maybe I'll head to the movies?? What? So Mediavest is going to take $100MM and move it from TV to cinema advertising. Radio or sandwich boards on the
highway are better bets don'tcha think? Why would clients give you their money to spend? I so clearly don't understand. It must be some really complicated stuff that I will never have an understanding of, like quantum mechanics or linguistic control. One day when I'm all growed up it will seem so clear . . .
We all know that Greenberg is a beacon in the fog. But then I read a column (aka blog post)
back from September in AdWeek called Funnel Clouding and found a tear gathering in my eye. He really gets it. He really does. Here's a quote.
The fact is, the role of traditional media is more limited than ever before. Our ad messages co-exist alongside thousands of other voices that consumers trust more, like their peers. In the past, marketing went deeper into the funnel, beginning with awareness and continuing into consideration and preference. But now the drivers of consideration and preference have shifted in droves to the Web and social media, confining traditional media to mere awareness drivers. This is a shift as dramatic as anything in our industry, with ramifications far and wide.
When a single TV spot or print ad used to be able to simultaneously drive awareness, consideration and preference, marketers got a lot of value out of this ad. But now the best ads can do is start the consideration process, which more often than not is happening online. And although a punchy line might trigger awareness, it plays almost no role during consideration. Here, the "rational" experience of brands trumps the "emotional" delivery of a clever tagline or visual. Yet ad agencies have almost no experience in the former and way too much comfort in the latter. Even when they develop online campaigns, traditional agencies tend to approach the Web as just another place to deliver a metaphor. So instead of creating useful tools, applications, demos, customer support communities or streamlined ways to complete a transaction, they fall back on familiar stunts and gags, such as viral videos.
I suspect the reason agencies haven't tackled consideration and preference is because they are far beyond their capabilities rather than simply outside their comfort zone. Real engagement requires entirely new teams of people—like information architects, data analysts and an army of technologists of various stripes. The traditional teams found at agencies simply do not possess the skill sets needed to tackle areas that are deeper inside the funnel, where purchase decisions increasingly take place.
Funnels, touchpoint maps, transmedia planning, engagement, influence. Reminds me of Dennis Hopper line in Blue Velvet, "when I say dog, what comes to mind?" For me it's a stupid dalmatian one of my roommates had in college, for you it's probably that fluffy white thing yapping at the window right now. Say any of those words above without explanation, and one thing is certain - 2 of the 3 people in the room are already confused without even getting started. "Ambiguity is like oxygen to me," a planner come account director at a DM shop (irony obvious) once said about this beautiful swirling communication mess.
This is why I read Mr. Hillstrom regularly. HE'S WILLING TO TAKE A CUT!! Scary proposition - A 2008 Contact Strategy for any of your clients! He's got a snappy timeline dating back 30 years or so, but here is his estimation (with industry definition!) for 2008: Your leading specialty catalog brand adds RSS feeds to the mix, allowing you to see new and exciting merchandise offerings once every three days. E-mail contacts have increased to three every two weeks. You visit the website once every three weeks, and you use Google to search for comparable merchandise once every three weeks.
* Total marketing contacts = 102. * Total pull-based contacts (RSS) = 17. * Customer-driven contacts = 34. * Total interactions = 153.
Doesn't matter if that is +/- 5%! Are you saying something compelling and personalized all 153? No?, wasting time and money.
Prospective global client asks, "how do we measure if the campaign was successful?" You reply, "let's chat a few minutes about what you (client) would like to see happen as a result
of the campaign - steady some brand wobble, sales lift, double subscribers?" Agitated client, "well there must be some best practices for measurement in this business!!!"
"Sure" I say, "but those practices are applied to an expected outcome for the campaign. Once we can stick the landing on that, we'll be in good shape and will share our approach." Blank stares all around.
Funny, 'cause this was happening while I was attending The Strategy Institute's Digital Media Pricing and Measurement conference in New York.
Good times in the city, but overall the empirical data on specific and/or comparative campaign successes was thin! If you want some of that, check out Kevin Hillstrom or Avinash. (Note, Coke and GM still likes the TV and somehow, the digital TV 2009 is really big for such brands - absolutely no idea??? how that will be any better for the consumer or more effective)
So anyway, back to measurement, and how to get at the/an answer. If I asked how much a website costs, most would reply with a series of questions to gauge the magnitude of effort we were talking about. How much does a house cost? On and on.
Similarly, what are best practices in cooking? Well, is that kitchen layout, utensil selection, food preparation, or ladling techniques?
My take is that measurement of any flavour is a discussion, not an absolute?
One ginormous shell game by Peter Theil to operationalize his libertarian agenda. Multi-tier investment laundering with stealthy capital coming from the shadows of renowned universities and governmental central intelligence slush funds. Makes
you think twice about what you put where online.
Massive conspiracy - who doesn't love a story like that!?
Frankly, I still think the Magic Johnson/HIV thing was just a marketing lollapalooza for Stern and the NBA. They played the all-star game in Orlando that year (Magic - coincidence?) and the league star torch was passed to Jordan (who still has never traveled and always got the call). But this Facebooks thing? Theil creates PayPal to liberate the "money" and now this to free "information". Certainly a chess game I can't imagine. Or maybe Thiel just flipped in some cash early with little diligence and now his legend grows beyond mythical proportions.
Campaign 2016 - Scientology vs. Libertarian. Is that what the founding fathers had in mind?
I read this stuff Reach Still Top Rationale of Major Marketers and it drives me crazy. Note to self, stop looking at AdRags headlines. Beyond asinine, the "marketers" (read media shops taking orders from client) contradict the entire premise when quoted.
"Clients want to know [about ROI]. It's no longer just about eyeballs; it's about what is this ad doing to drive sales?"
ROI is quickly approaching the exact opposite of Reach.
"Broadcast still works," he said. "I don't think you are going to see a wholesale shift, but instead [buyers will shift dollars] little by little."
How does it work? For what? For whom? You? Expensive creative fees, expensive placement fees with little tracking. A lot easier to make money, no?
I'm not sure engagement is the grail, because that doesn't necessarily ring the till either. Certainly more akin to ROI than reach.
Ran across The Real Digital Revolution this morning and it's worth a read. Not long, just a
simple take on the effect of consumer empowerment in relation to your brand, product of service. My friend Larry Everling called a version of it Connective Tissue back in 2005.
It's happening to every industry, travel, pharma, musics, real estate, vacuums, toilet paper, whatever. And it's not just the kids anymore.
On this very blog, I've called it owning the experience longer. The executional agency of past has been paid handsomely for providing materials to feed into broadcast media machine. Materials placed, job done, bills paid. Results anecdotal. Audience satisfaction measures unmeasured.
Enter digital. Limitless potential yes, but how does it fit into our established practices and processes of media? Let's try to use it like that. Guess it doesn't really work. We'll go back to way it was. Paid well and everybody at the company and agency was happy. Audience restless again.
I usually use the Williamsburg, VA example.
January - Family wants to book summer vacation
January - Sees very patriotic advertising campaign, TV, online, print (ad agency and pr firm similar messages; they did their job right, awareness/interest . . . )
February - Visits www.visitwilliamsburg.com; a fine site, decent home page, lot's of stuff, starts getting loose one page down, content stale, no compelling offer or validation, 404 errors at the bottom of some of the offers (digital agency did its job; site live and functioning)
February - Decide to look first for a hotel that might work first. Visit www.tripadvisor.com (substitute the 22 other review sites out there) and start reading reviews of the hotels, the city and trips people have taken. Biggest question, "what is there to do?". Many bad reviews; questioning the idea, sounds boring (hello ad agency, pr firm and digital shop -get your voice out there; people are looking elsewhere to VALIDATE what you advertise and say)
March - Book trip to Kiawah (why there, another post . . . )
Rinse - Repeat. Apply the same to every industry or product.
Check out this interview with Dan Henson, CMO GE. Dave Reibstein of MarketingNPV supplies the questions. Awfully stiff with the 70's groove track in the background. Get over that and there are some nuggets. Dave, I'd post the video and promote if you made it
available.
Interesting points in the video -
They don't have a marketing dashboard at the corporate level.
Each business unit has a dashboard for the metrics that are important for them.
$500-600 MM incremental revenue (now that's a hell of a gap) from the sponsorship $$ spent on the Olympics (undisclosed spend) - got them on the list with Chinese gov to supply infrastructure stuff.
No ROI benchmarks across the organization.
Claims to track everything infinitesimally but no real examples.
Mentions "gut" a few times for the measuring stick.
1/2 of revenue comes from outside of the US.
Seems like the marketing spend is organized; just a little squishy on the measures.
If you've read previous posts here, you know that I am critical of the executional position most communications/advertising agencies find themselves. Who's to blame, those stupid clients or the myopic ($$$$) agency?
"Give 'em what they want!" is what an old colleague K. Richmond Temple frequently suggested as the primary role of the agency. I guess you get what you pitch for, no? Agencies - If you want to change your lot, then pitch different clients who want your new brand of thinking and dump those that expect you to churn out whatever crap they suggest.
Leads me to The Content Manifesto, a brilliant collection of posts about the continued demise of the current agency; and the "content" life preserver that is floating nearby. We've been chattering about the need for brands to become content producers for a while now. My assertion is that there will only be a few brands that can do it well in-house, culturally, and that the modern agency should serve the need looking a lot more like a production house. Fahrenheit 212 and TAXI seem to be on the right track.
“I strongly believe that the Agency World is well overdue for an overhaul. In fact, I fully expect a wave of business consultants to descend on the rich agency pickings any day now… once they have a model that can demonstrate the linkage between brand value, activation and the balance sheet, McKinsey & Co will cherry pick the brightest minds and wipe the floor with what/whoever is left.”
Media buying departments have become contact strategy groups. I guess this assumes that tv, magazine and OOH ads are actually, or ever have been, contacts to apply some strategy. More like passive and fleeting views if you ask me. Changing the department name is lipstick rubbed on a worm really; attempting to rationalize that this media buying function in a traditional agency provides some strategic relevance with a real customer in mind is silly. Enter connection planning. Here's Trumpet's fla la. And here's a good analysis of why and
what's possible. Cute and lovely that some scholarly thinkers muse about the theories of orchestrating the intersection of human behaviour and commerce.
Low and behold there is also transmedia planning upon us. Long form and short form. Frankly, I think this idea is great. Theoretically correct (such a subjective judgment) or at least approaching it; therefore should be possible.
Enough people in a coordinated fashion with a clear mission should be able to pull it off.
Now let's talk the rub with all of this. It doesn't take into account that every day you are planning, your ideas and resultant campaigns are approaching obsolete. Now Burger King CMO claims that in their new regime ideas are only partially baked when greenlighted in order to fend this off.
My take is that you have to create an organization (whole company - Nike, or marketing department, whatever) that thinks and operates around adaptive planning. This is the action process and triggers that are in place to contort to a moving target and market. The monstrous idea and budget approval process that everybody goes through is counterintuitive to the expected result. Oh, the daily struggles . . . Takes the agency out of rationalizing bad creative at the client's request toward valuable partner - the grail at every agency's sr. executive offsite this year (and last), no?
Executing a flawless room entrance for the fabulous is a
life's work (tongue meet cheek).
It's funny though, in the web world
too, so much effort and focus is placed on the entrance. "What's the
homepage going to look like?" "What's the user experience when they
get to the site?" Wireframes, mindmaps, storyboards and flows abound
for that entrance location. Important, yes. Interior pages, forms,
and other content templates - yeah, yeah we'll get to that. Not now.
This homepage needs some sizzle!
I ran across Ending With the Beginning in Mind from Ion today, and it cemented some of what I've been spinning lately. Measurement is the king, right?. If you've read my earlier posts you know that I have a problem with that term without some explanation. But in this context, for many organizations (most I'd venture), measurement assumes to cover outcomes. Registrations, unique visitors, ads served, product sold, etc. Measurement rarely focuses on "incomes", but the majority of focus and energy for web teams and their agencies is on the homepage and the entrance. Nice, but with interactive marketing we own more of the user experience and should be responsible to provide the kind of customer focus that is required. If we started with how we want the visitor to exit, then we could think about the entrance that would get us there.
So now content is at the top of the chain. Not sure that has ever been any different, but now the programming framework to consume and distribute it is decaying. Why?
We all want what we want when we want it. Simple. The media empires don't support such.
The intersection with marketing, advertising and communication doesn't really work so well anymore as defined by said decaying framework. It's why media are in such a tizzy. What does the modern brand look like/act like? Apple, Google? Where does media fit?
So leave it to Umair to illustrate how this works now and why.
What if brands really thought of themselves as producers? Not advertisers. Not communication pushers. But, conveners of like-minded consumers. What would that look like? What would that act like?
According to Nike.
“We’re not in the business of keeping the media companies alive,” Mr. Edwards says he tells many media executives. “We’re in the business of connecting with consumers.”
