The Exit Strategy

One of the things that is totally unique to online advertising is the "exit strategy." Is this important? Does it affect price & performance?

Julia Kim from Harvard postulated that “Information resources can be bundled by substance, format, and/or process to be information products and services.” For example a “magazine” has news & entertainment substance, printed on a paper format, whose process is that you turn pages in a linear sequence. For the most part the “ad page” is no different in format and process than an editorial page, and it’s substance may be valued higher than the editorial in certain categories.

Compare this to pcworld.com which presents news & entertainment on a monitor screen whose process is to navigate by clicking, scrolling, opening and closing pages. You have a choice of how to leave.

I was reading PC Worldand thought the page was very cluttered.

I counted 170 total links. Of these 4 were traditional display ads (2.35%), 20 text links (11.8%), and 2 display promotion ads for the magazine (1.2%) for a total “commercial exit share” of 15.3% total or 0.59% per link.

I’m the first one to call this Abbott & Costello math, but a 0.59% share of links would certainly coincide with a similar and small ad CTR.

What would happen if the only way to click out of the page was via an ad? Why shouldn’t the typical magazine mix of 55/45 editorial/ad mix hold on the internet?

Rather than an iCPM, or time-on-page metric, how about SOX: share of exits.

###

It's About Time

I was recently asked to submit a story to the Internet Oldtimers Foundation's monthly newsletter. I  though I might share it here too.

IT'S ABOUT TIME

Larry W. Smith, President/Owner, Live Idea

My long tale starts in 1979 surfing on CompuServe with a Texas Instruments TI99/4A and 300bps Volks modem. Now 30 years later as an Internet Oldtimer Foundation member, I'd like to share a few thoughts about time.

Wikipedia says "Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining time in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars." Good news, I'm not going there.

Instead, consider 2 components of time that matter to our marketing communications, media, measurement, and advertising revenue ecosystem: the point in time values of persistence and durability, and chronology.

Persistence and durability are clearly demonstrated in print advertising: just buy an antique copy of Colliers or The Plain Dealer to see the editorial and adjacent ad, forever, in perpetuity. However at the Museum of TV & Radio tapes for programs and commercials are separate, until the 1980's when VCRs became affordable and programs were saved by amateurs.

Hop to the Wayback Machine (www.archive.org) and search any top 1996-1998 site with static pages and oops, no ads. Go to any current publishing site and search for an old article, and see a current ad with old content.

Punchline: content has retained its perpetual value through its persistence and durability. But the paid advertising has not survived, it is fleeting and has fled the net. Question: could, would or should the advertising retain its presence? Should an old or new ad be served? What value would accrue to the viewer, advertiser or publisher? Is there a business model and revenue stream?

Chronology is how we grow and age, one second, minute, or hour at a time, in sequence.

But am I the only person frustrated that creation dates are not applied to internet content? For example, the PC World article from the March 2007 magazine gets striped on pcworld.com, not cross referenced on cnet.com, and not indexed to any popular search sites. Interestingly, dates are a main feature for professional librarian systems like Lexus/Nexus.

As a linear kind of guy who has built on the shoulders of his predecessors, I think the most current and timely may also be the most relevant. Popularity is not a proxy for currency, nor are back links that take time to perpetuate. Time matters in a chronology and should be organized and available that way.

So what are the marketing implications and opportunities? Can publishers sell long-term or multi-generational commitments to serve "in context to content" using new, old or on demand ad messages? (e.g., a John Updike article always connects to the Amazon book page with his signed banner ad).

Do Ad Networks spawn "perpetual servers" which attach to pages and analyze long-term trends for serving that page with a certain ad? (e.g., YouTube video of Coke-Mentos stunt always serves a Pepsi message on weekends).

Can Advertisers and Agencies arbitrage the long-term brand value? (e.g., net present value of dollars over brand life = I'll pay a 20% premium to keep it there forever = PURL or URN ad tags).

Finally, rather than offense advertising (oxymoron? Pun intended!), let's consider value in defensive marketing. How many times have you searched and found old negative comments about your company or clients? The long tail is rewarding the negative comments because of durability over chronology with links not connected in time. Is there an opportunity to serve rebuttal ads in context placements?

And that's all I've got to say about that. Thanks for your time.

Ad Me, the future of internet advertising

What does the future of Internet advertising look like?

Given the issues with privacy, the sophistication of server side data analysis and predictive modeling, the massive under-utilized processing power of my personal electronics (phone, netbook, laptop), and the acceptance of “free” as a money-making economic model, I’m pretty positive we’ll see a power shift to the individual.

“It won’t be my son’s Web 2.0, it will be “Ad Me.”

Many people, not all, will take control of their personal information and create rules, permissions, and filters using Personal Relationship Management (PRM) software and/or “User Managed Advertising Permission Systems” (Umaps).

“I will take a higher level of control for some, not all, of the messages to which I am exposed. I can define and quantify my value, then put it forth for an exchange. I will expose my identity where ever and whenever I decide. I’m willing to be a target, a known target, when it serves my purposes.”

Core components to these PRMs & Umaps are:

-> Central personal profile account which consolidates the data I already have at sites like LinkedIn, FaceBook, Classmates, Amazon, eBay, Digg and creates a universal profile under an OpenID. Once the namespace and APIs are created, all kinds of data about me can be connected by me: credit card purchases, loyalty programs and frequent buyer clubs, phone records, medical data, and even physical wanderings via GPS.

-> A new set of Creative Commons “Personal Data T&Cs” will be created so I can choose to interface with different types of servers and establish my privacy rights and ownership of data (invisible in the background).

I will expose none/some/all of my ZAGI (zip, age, gender, income) in exchange for content and advert categories I’ve tagged or brands I’ve approved (yes cars, no diabetes drugs; yes Starbucks, no McDonalds). I will share certain data sets in exchange for usage of a software application or faster delivery of premium entertainment. I’ll answer surveys and give quota data automatically in exchange for results (profile points) to enhance my value.

- A Conversation System where I tailor initial preferences, then a stochastic algorithm takes over to manage my general behavior and adjusts preferences. My system has hooks into other data and systems where I’m a subscriber or regular like eBay, Amazon, NY Times, Digg, delicious, Likeme, Live, webmail and corporate exchange servers. Imagine what this could do for search and search ads when I’m shopping. It will also spawn “pre-fetch” widgets for Web 2.0 personalized sites.

- A Negotiating Engine permits me to understand and value/monitize my behavior and clicks, as well as request/permit cueing of ads according to bid/ask systems like AdSense and Omniture. These ads may sit local in my cache and display on a page when certain tags are served. Monitization for me could be cash, barter, discounts, tickets/access, goods or services. Publishers and ad networks could be paid when the ad is locally served too and the pixel is sent to the Advertisers accounting server.

So, in this possible future, will Advertisers embrace these PRMs & Umaps? Will they recognize my uniqueness? Will they want to Ad Me?

Yes, because we will give them superior efficiency and less waste (green data?). Targeting will be far easier, more exact, and relevant to those people that announce that they care, are agreeable, or not overtly saying no.

Publishers should like the system too since they can optimize ad inventory and reduce inventory clutter (quality over volume, one perfect ad), thereby making the content king, again. Better yet, Publishers get another method for aggregating audiences who voluntarily supply data; they all lost the for registration battle but not the desire and understanding of its importance — so next gen audience gives it to them.

Not only will companies get a better understanding of “customer relationship management” but we the people will accept the responsibility to help out with “business relationship agreements.”

The conversation will be full circle.

Browser –to- server discussions will occur in the background to establish agreements and value my uniqueness while my screen gives me what I requested in a sharper focus. From a technical perspective, almost all the pieces exist today so technical heavy lifting is not necessary. In practice, this could take shape as a browser add-on, an internet app, apps with personal crawlers, agents & spyders, and live as something local to my desktop/phone or in the cloud.

Net, the future internet advertising models will reward my performance, participation and consumption. I will have tools to use which meters and exchanges value when I become an active participant in the conversation. Advertising will still be omnipresent, but delivered more often by invitation. Sellers and buyers still aggregate, but can segment in more meaningful ways.

Or not.

The internet may continue its slide downward toward becoming another tonnage media channel for delivery of video entertainment, and we all just continue to sling eyeballs. Ugh.

###

Congo News Circles

I just discovered an interesting new "custom" news site at Congoo.com. What makes it particularly interesting is the ability to create a custom news feed.

Check this out: http://www.congoo.com/liveidea

What this let's me do is discuss a simple topical article, avoid the cut & paste, and just point to the news I want.

Feel Wheel is up!

7 years ago at the peak of the first internet bubble, I agreed with common wisdom that everything would eventually migrate to the web, and wanted to find the next big thing.

I started thinking: so what really matters, and what does everyone do? Among the dozens of possibilities, one idea seemed too simple, too obvious. (that's why 7 years have passed)

What's up? How are you feeling today?

Some people shorten it to Yo! and others to wassup? We all say it, to everyone we greet. . . family & friends, at work, to total strangers. Beyond the social graces, maybe we ought to care about the answer.

www.feelwheel.com went live to little fanfare on May 25, 2007.

Please visit. Tell us how you are feeling. We care and will report the answers in total and using some interesting graphs to show different groups of people.

Please share it with your friends. Vote early. Vote often.

How are you?

You ask everyone, and they ask you.

But ask yourself the question and keep tabs on it too.


Click here and answer me this: How are you?

The new generation in media

In case you are later to this party than I am, George F. Will, on
Sunday, April 24, 2005, wrote an interesting article in the Washington Post regarding the demise of newspapers, but also of journalism. Read the whole article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10698-2005Apr22.html

What jumped out at me was this article which sums up the new generation in a fashion similar to my first blog posting.

"The young are voracious consumers of media, but not of journalism. Sixty-eight percent of children 8 to 18 have televisions in their rooms; 33 percent have computers. And if they could have only one entertainment medium, a third would choose the computer, a quarter would choose television. They carry their media around with them: 79 percent of young people ages 8 to 18 have portable CD, tape or MP3 players. Fifty-five percent have hand-held video game players. Sony's PlayStation Portable, which plays music, games and movies, sold more than 500,000 units in the first two days after its March debut."

My oldest son, William, exactly typifies this sentiment. What I find interesting is the fact he is just now learning how to read and write. Oddly, one of the most effective writing and reading tools has been Google.

Integration vs. DIVERSITY

Randall Rothenberg wrote an article in Advertising Age: Chasing Marketing's Holy Grail Into Cyberspace
And Pondering the Ad Industry's Difficulties With Integrated Campaigns

Read the full article here: http://www.adage.com/columns/article?article_id=109084

It hit me: why does this silly "integrated" idea persist? It clearly is not something consumers asked for, or notice. It is also unclear whether there have ever been any success stories due to this strategic approach.

Is the convenience of "one-creative-idea-fits-all" really relevant in this fractured media environment? And in a culture where some consider it good to have attention deficit disorder?

Here's my reality: a brand has dozens of attributes and benefits, that appeal to millions of different people, in thousands of different media context, across a broad spectrum of purchase situations. It is time to embrace DIVERSITY and VOLUME of unique tailored creative messages.

Give the customers the message they want and can engage.

Ponder this instead: “Surround the brand with multiple messages and romance the customer with all of them until they react. Repeat what works. Reward customer performance. Succeed by learning.”

Big Trends in Marketing - 2

Big Trends in Marketing

Trend 2: Advertising Value: Impact vs. Repetition


In the late 1950’s the advertising industry embraced educational research on learning which said a message was best remembered when repeated 3 times or more. As mass reach radio and television came to prominence in the 1960’s, so did the practice of media planning to the 3+ frequency levels. Even now, and across almost all “measured” media, including the new ones, the concept of frequency remains fully entrenched.

This begs a few questions. Do consumers still learn advertising (as opposed to knowledge) the same way? What is the role of message frequency in new media and across micro-targeted channels on cable and internet? Is the same message repeated many times better or more successful than a multitude of different messages once?

Now this is NOT scientific, but my 7 and 4 year olds point in a firm direction: the right thing, said at the correct moment, in the right tone has an immediate impact.

Finally, can a brand afford to spread itself thin on frequency if the message impact is more relevant? Obviously it kind of depends on what you say or how you say it. Imagine an idea so BIG, so powerful, so unique, that everyone would get it, remember it, talk about it, and take action from it.

At the top of my list is the Apple “1984” commercial as well as the IBM Charlie Chaplin ads, Nike “Tiger Woods golf ball” spot, Wendy’s “Where’s the beef?” campaign, and the Volkswagon “How the Snowplow driver gets to work” print ad.

Less visible but of equally strong impact was the Reeses Pieces product placements in the movie ET, the directional billboards pointing toward a nearby McDonalds, the small text ads galore at google.com, and the Classmates.com banner ads. Placement, context and relevance give these examples impact.

Most marketers would agree that both impact and repetition are important, and neither should outweigh the other. Steady as she goes with media planning and creative development. Sure the media delivery world has changed, but we know how to count and project off these rules.

But what do you do when concentrated audiences and mass reach vehicles have all but disappeared? It is more time consuming and costly to aggregate audiences in small bunches, but one can still accumulate a majority of eyeballs within a target profile.

The big trend I foresee involves creating massive volumes of high impact advertising. Forget the single proposition. The movement for brand development must move toward customer relevance. In other words many more messages in the right place at the right time.

The message must match the consumer frame of mind in the context of the medium or a successive amount of knowledge about consumer behavior or other profiling information.

At one level this is old news. Everyone knows that you have a different execution for different magazines, and for men vs. women vs. children, and for brand building vs. direct response.

What is not being done is to have a substantially different execution – consistent with the brand – in every placement. For example, a Verizon or AT&T cellphone ad which features the typical person (age and gender) talking a relevant message in a related place according to the cable TV channel it is running on. So the Sci-fi channel will get a young guy at NASA space camp, the Food Network gets a soccer mom at a market or restaurant, A&E gets an upscale couple at a performance event, and you get the idea.

So suddenly there are 30 commercials for the 15 cable channels, and others made custom to even specific programs. Is this affordable? Is it economical, regarding ROI?

Regarding affordability, the answer is clearly yes. The tools are here and abroad to make and distribute all forms of media and creative. The ROI is another question that just needs to be done for each brand. Contact me to discuss this if you want to test the ideas.