Last year at about this time I wrote about how advertisers and brands are working together to kill the online click-through ad industry. My point was that, as with all new media, brands who have always been concerned with impressions (i.e. yelling at consumers) have misused the power of the online ad space. My thought was that this was training consumers to lose trust in online ads, ultimately sabotaging the major benefit for advertisers - tracking. The argument from those looking to keep online ads as an attractive choice was that these ads would serve as a branding medium and reach people 'where they are' - the same model traditional advertising has delivered for seventy years, wrapped up in a digital package so that marketing budgets could go to this 'new interactive' stuff and make everyone look good.
A few weeks ago, Marketing Vox confirmed this trend. "The number of online Americans who click on display ads has dropped by 50% since 2007 - and now stands at only 16% of all US internet users..." (thank Mitch). It seems that our inability to resist the traditional way we've thought about communicating with consumers has once again burned a bridge with them.
We've seen the same thing starting to occur with Twitter, Facebook ads, Youtube ads and most Social Networks revenue models. This shift has decreased the value of these tools for advertising. I'm not saying they can't be properly used to advertise, nor am I saying that they are poor marketing channels. You can see the jump in Youtube channels and Facebook Business Fan Pages as proof that relevant and permission based marketing can be greatly beneficial for brands. I'm all for relevant, engaging, memorable and permission based content. I just need help understanding why brands continue to advertise the same way they always have (but have just changed media) and still expect different results?
Showing posts with label Online Advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Online Advertising. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
We have an audience in Papua New Guinea?
Who would have thought so many consumers would be interested in hearing our story? We would have never guessed that 80% of our engaged base are 32 year old males from that area of the country. Why would so many people leave that webpage? These are the voices of surprised companies upon reviewing a measurable online campaign. The response to most of these ideas and questions is pretty easy. Who cares?
The volume of information for any integrated campaign can be overwhelming. It can be paralyzing for an unprepared marketing team, leading to irrelevant questions or a confirmation biased approach to analyzing the results.
To avoid this and be better prepared here are three things to keep in mind:
1) The online audience is not always a reflection of your audience. This is a dangerous one for me to write, but let me explain. The people who react to your marketing or advertising online will be very specific to the action you instituted. In this case the word 'action' should not be mistaken with the word 'strategy'. For example, you may develop a funny viral video. As a result 300,000 people may view it - exciting, I know. Then you read the comments on YouTube that reflect disdain for the video or lower than enthusiastic love for your brand. Probably a less comforting experience. This doesn't mean that the consumer who buys your product feels the same way. In this case, your action (the viral video) may have appealled to a broader crowd. Your strategy was to reach 2,000 people (which you did) but the nature of your action allowed the online masses to take control. You can control the message all you like but you can't control who likes it.
2) Beware the vocal minority. When the agency I work for is first hired to listen online, the companies that we are working with are surprised about the level of negative/positive discussion. I often relate the online environment to any public meeting (if your in University think Student Union issues, if your have kids think PTA meeting, if you engage in public planning think 'public' feedback on the planning process). The people who are the loudest are usually those on the fringe. You rarely here someone speak up "I am adequately satisfied with this proposal, this is pretty good". You usually hear "that sucks" or "autograph me a copy so I can frame it". Some people will never like you. Some people love you (but aren't guaranteed to always love you - a post for another day).
The act of listening online alone is not enough. You require the skill to assess the risk and acknowledge the ability of when take action. Prop up the people who are your fans. Don't let them turn. Reach out to the haters, but do so knowing the probable outcome. It may be a case of showing your intent, rather than the outcome (don't mistaken this with selfishly assisting someone, that will get you burned). With this in mind, you can use the information found from 'listening' online very effectively, but do not mistaken it with the views of the majority. Most companies in Canada do not yet have the critical consumer mass to have their audience accurately reflected online. There will be people who will never speak up, but who will only watch. They are equally as important and should not be forgotten in the hype of social media.
3)Listen to the people you do engage. This may sound like a contradiction from the first two points. The intention with listening to the engaged people - the people who respond to your survey, buy your product online, engage in whatever action your online tactic is aiming to do - is to find out how to get more people like that. You're online audience may not always be a great reflection of the broader mass audience, but it is still an audience with a wallet. Identifying who reacts positively online, and tailoring integrated marketing efforts online to build this base of positive reactions in the ultimate key to a sustainable online strategy.
The volume of information for any integrated campaign can be overwhelming. It can be paralyzing for an unprepared marketing team, leading to irrelevant questions or a confirmation biased approach to analyzing the results.
To avoid this and be better prepared here are three things to keep in mind:
1) The online audience is not always a reflection of your audience. This is a dangerous one for me to write, but let me explain. The people who react to your marketing or advertising online will be very specific to the action you instituted. In this case the word 'action' should not be mistaken with the word 'strategy'. For example, you may develop a funny viral video. As a result 300,000 people may view it - exciting, I know. Then you read the comments on YouTube that reflect disdain for the video or lower than enthusiastic love for your brand. Probably a less comforting experience. This doesn't mean that the consumer who buys your product feels the same way. In this case, your action (the viral video) may have appealled to a broader crowd. Your strategy was to reach 2,000 people (which you did) but the nature of your action allowed the online masses to take control. You can control the message all you like but you can't control who likes it.
2) Beware the vocal minority. When the agency I work for is first hired to listen online, the companies that we are working with are surprised about the level of negative/positive discussion. I often relate the online environment to any public meeting (if your in University think Student Union issues, if your have kids think PTA meeting, if you engage in public planning think 'public' feedback on the planning process). The people who are the loudest are usually those on the fringe. You rarely here someone speak up "I am adequately satisfied with this proposal, this is pretty good". You usually hear "that sucks" or "autograph me a copy so I can frame it". Some people will never like you. Some people love you (but aren't guaranteed to always love you - a post for another day).
The act of listening online alone is not enough. You require the skill to assess the risk and acknowledge the ability of when take action. Prop up the people who are your fans. Don't let them turn. Reach out to the haters, but do so knowing the probable outcome. It may be a case of showing your intent, rather than the outcome (don't mistaken this with selfishly assisting someone, that will get you burned). With this in mind, you can use the information found from 'listening' online very effectively, but do not mistaken it with the views of the majority. Most companies in Canada do not yet have the critical consumer mass to have their audience accurately reflected online. There will be people who will never speak up, but who will only watch. They are equally as important and should not be forgotten in the hype of social media.
3)Listen to the people you do engage. This may sound like a contradiction from the first two points. The intention with listening to the engaged people - the people who respond to your survey, buy your product online, engage in whatever action your online tactic is aiming to do - is to find out how to get more people like that. You're online audience may not always be a great reflection of the broader mass audience, but it is still an audience with a wallet. Identifying who reacts positively online, and tailoring integrated marketing efforts online to build this base of positive reactions in the ultimate key to a sustainable online strategy.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Are your purchase decisions an accident?
I enjoy talking about online advertising. I enjoy it because we are currently at the bottom of the growth/progress curve with online advertising. Our actions today, as consumers and marketers, will determine the path this medium takes many years from now. I've talked about how, as marketers, we are too quick to shoot ourselves in the foot. How the temptation to focus on site statistics, rather than the growth or the health of your consumer base, only solves short-term problems.
Well it seems like these thoughts are on a few peoples minds. In the online space, it would appear there is a strong movement to re-examine online advertising. To build a framework that fits more with consumer expectations and works towards building a tightly knit customer base.
At the same time, we see strong examples of the present day reality. Poorly thought out Adword campaigns, Google Ads, and permission-less email marketing are alive and well. Our impulsive consumer nature continues to motivate un-targeted advertising tactics. When Chris Brogan can make over twice the revenue from a general ad versus a targeted recommendation, what would motivate others like Chris to do anything different?
It comes down to two things: the goal of consumer interest versus the goal of consumer leadership.
Consumers are notorious for impulse decision making. We can easily build campaigns around consumer impulse. We've done it for years with Point of Purchase materials, candy displays in grocery aisles, Instant Win telemarketing schemes, and (more recently) stand alone pay-per-click advertising. This trend shoots marketers in the foot and keeps consumers unfulfilled and skeptical about the products and services being marketed around them.
The alternative is that we lead our consumer base. That we provide consumers with the connections they need to make the best decision as a consumer of your brand. This type of thinking builds brand communities. It builds loyal fans of your brand that will resist impulse decisions and demand better from you and your competition. This type of thinking weeds out the companies that fail to listen. In the long-term, a market populated by this type of consumer will ultimately change the way marketers talk to consumers.
Well it seems like these thoughts are on a few peoples minds. In the online space, it would appear there is a strong movement to re-examine online advertising. To build a framework that fits more with consumer expectations and works towards building a tightly knit customer base.
At the same time, we see strong examples of the present day reality. Poorly thought out Adword campaigns, Google Ads, and permission-less email marketing are alive and well. Our impulsive consumer nature continues to motivate un-targeted advertising tactics. When Chris Brogan can make over twice the revenue from a general ad versus a targeted recommendation, what would motivate others like Chris to do anything different?
It comes down to two things: the goal of consumer interest versus the goal of consumer leadership.
Consumers are notorious for impulse decision making. We can easily build campaigns around consumer impulse. We've done it for years with Point of Purchase materials, candy displays in grocery aisles, Instant Win telemarketing schemes, and (more recently) stand alone pay-per-click advertising. This trend shoots marketers in the foot and keeps consumers unfulfilled and skeptical about the products and services being marketed around them.
The alternative is that we lead our consumer base. That we provide consumers with the connections they need to make the best decision as a consumer of your brand. This type of thinking builds brand communities. It builds loyal fans of your brand that will resist impulse decisions and demand better from you and your competition. This type of thinking weeds out the companies that fail to listen. In the long-term, a market populated by this type of consumer will ultimately change the way marketers talk to consumers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)