Thank You, Advertising!

“It’s like advertising, but content” - Matt Mullenweg

Facebook thinks I like talking big-mouthed fish.

It has been brought to my attention, recently, that Facebook’s ad-targeting system is based partially on the self-reported “Interests” on user’s profiles. This should not come as a surprise to anyone; after all, what better way to target people than through the very keywords they chose to describe themselves. It should be a brilliant system that lets Facebook create a virtually unlimited portofolio of consumer demographic types: from rock climbers to sailors and to the perhaps more common beer pong enthusiast.

But my profile contains some interesting information. A long time ago, a friend of mine logged onto my Facebook account and added “Talking Big-mouthed Fish” to my interests per a recent inside joke we had going about southerner’s fascination with the famous talking electronic wall mounts. At the time, I thought nothing of it (I just appreciated the humor and comradre) and never deemed it necessary to change it back to my “real” interests. In fact, I had largely forgot about the ad until I saw an ad pop up on my Facebook experience related to (you guessed it) talking big-mouth fish.

Honestly, the ad was successful from my perspective. It was successful in gaining my primary cognitive attention, mainly because it was just so far from what I had expected of Facebook’s usual targeting affair (I mainly get all kinds of business ads that tend to get ignored as my peripheral cues have slowly adjusted to brushing them off). While the ad failed to convert my attention into a sale, I felt they had conquered what thousands of othe advertisers had attempted: gaining my attention.

In all reality, marketing is nothing more than stealing people’s attention away from their problems long enough to show them how to solve them. It doesn’t matter how great your product is or how well it resonates with your target audience - if you can’t get your customer’s attention, they cannot buy your product.

While the ad succeeded in one area, it failed miserably in the other - I’m not looking to buy a big-mouthed bass for my wall in the near future. The ad used mis-leading information to interpret the context of my purchasing decisions; however, that information was “forged” in the first place. This makes me wonder how many of our self-submitted profile information is actually correct anyways. I doubt very much that people actually put down all of their “favorite movies” or their real interests. In truth, these decisions are probably moderated by much broader social factors than just the need to express one’s personality. Just as people might fudge their online dating profile to maximize some other goal, it shouldn’t seem outrageous to think that people create mis-leading social profile information for other such purposes, such as inside jokes, not looking like a geek, or just a lack of time (I’d be willing to bet that many people on Facebook, especially those of us who have had accounts for a few years now, haven’t updated their “profile” in a long time).

This is probably why more vertical social networks like LinkedIn can get ridiculous $50+ CPM rates - not just because they have a deeply engaged audience in a lucrative task domain, but also the targeting information used to deliver messaging is quite simply just more accurate given the intentions of the users. LinkedIn users, after all, would not benefit from putting false information or attempting to connect with people they didn’t really know.

I’m not saying that Facebook is unmonetizable because of false information. In fact, I’m merely suggesting that perhaps there are even higher levels of potential targeting that is going unclaimed right under our very user’s fingertips. How amazing would it be if Facebook could algorithmically track all inside jokes between my friends and I? Then it could work with advertisers to adjust ad copy dynamically depending on that abstract social information. Can you imagine a Coors ad that led to a fantasy football micro-site which read, “Remember when Jim said your wife’s cooking sucked? Make him cry.”

The most important element here, though, is looking beyond written data to the more elusive concept of user intent and the “hidden” information that can let you determine that intent. Of course, it will also just take some smart marketers who both use their company’s products themselves AND interact with its customers on a regular basis to understand how the products we use in our lives affect us not just personally, but also socially, digitally, or in whatever other context the mind can contrive.

Do people really “Call Now!” after midnight?

Infomercial advertising has always intrigued me. These ads turned programming have a fond place in my childhood memories as they filled up my favorite night-time channel surfing with their characteristic blue background and gold text 1-800 number. The products always seemed intruiging (or, at least, something I couldn’t possibly live without), and I feel like they always use the same over-excited middle-aged salesmen (where did that guy come from anyways?).

But, say what you want about infomercials and their place in our culture. The point is: they make money. They wouldn’t exist otherwise. Some might make more money than others, but at the end of the day, companies use this marketing tool because it provides a positive return on marketing investment.

Personally, I think they’re a brilliant advertising unit in and of themselves. By taking advantage of remnant ad inventory, an infomercial can grab between 30 minutes to 2 hours of valuable air-time (or perhaps better described as “face-time”) in front of thousands of potential consumers. Depending on the product, little to no targeting may be required - especially if the goods are your common household tools or appliances like knives, wrenches, or etc. And on top of all of this, the call to action provides an actionable and measurable sales channel through which the cost of the inventory can be recouped.

Now, I’m not saying that all advertisements should be replaced with infomercials; however, there are some amazing lessons to be learned from these unique marketing entities. Firstly, academic research on infomercials has shown that infomercials prove what should already be a common sense markeitng tactic: “The more you tell, the more you sell.” Not oddly enough, the more information one provides regarding a product’s specific attributes, solutions, and benefits, the more likely a prospect is going to consider your product’s value proposition and make a purchasing decision.

Also, research conducted in 1994 suggests that consumers will search for less alternative product information if an advertisement provides a high level of certainty that the product will be satisfactory, and that there will be minimal negative consequences. This idea of limiting other product considerations provides insight into specific commercials. For example, are you more likely to consider the “wonder knife” superior to the knives available at Target after seeing it slice effortlessly through a car door? What about products that don’t have any generic competitors, such as steel wall hangers or The Clapper?

Whatever the cognitive effects an informercial creates, the one undeniable asset it generates is phone calls. Is it a unique factor of exciting consumer’s impulse buying instincts that entices them to pick up the phone at the wee hours of the night to answer the announcer’s famous last words: “Call Now!” The direct response element of all infomercials makes them easily measurable and (as a result) testable.

One can easily imagine a board room marketing discussion at some consumer product company. “We ran our infomercial in 5 markets on 3 networks and made money in 6 of them.” What do you think management’s response is going to be? Or what kind of questions will they ask about the demographics of consumers in the regions that didn’t post numbers? Perhaps these are not our target markets?

Infomercials are powerful examples of a self-contained, repeatable advertising unit, similar - in some respects - to search engine marketing or direct mailers. They have a clear scope, crystal clear target, and easily identifiable success figures. They are a shining example of the kind of marketing programs companies should be executing today. Yes, brand advertising is important, but it must be measured in the context of the respective buying actions the marketing is supposed to generate in the first place.

Just some thoughts to keep in mind the next time you’re watching adult swim until 3 in the morning…

How to monetize workflow applications: sponsored content

In honor of Office 2.0, I put a bit of thought into one of most classic web-based applications, the task organizer. While I’m not sure when the first task app was released (nor do I really feel like attempting to tackle such a daunting research task), my current favorite is Remember the Milk. They have an incredibly powerful little application that gives users lots of search functionality and power task tools.

The problem they face, however, is one similar to many forward thinking workflow web companies: revenues. Their current strategy focuses solely upgrading its users to the “Pro” version, which is not a bad strategy assuming the Pro version is correctly positioned and targeted at the correct demographic within their general user pool. Preferably, ones who value the RTM experience enough to correctly evaluate the value added by more robust features.

This is a common web strategy, and one that I love; however, anyone who knows anything about conversion rates understands that a LOT of application traffic goes unmonetized. Can 5% of a paying audience really support the free rider economy of the other 95% user base? If those users aren’t monetizing under your current strategy, there’s lots of potential to increase income by offering other revenue streams.

And for a workflow application, one viable opportunity is sponsoring the content that I’m working with anyways. Zoho makes a pretty good free CRM, but wouldn’t it be nice if I could download ready-made business development templates for my industry? How about purchasing lead lists directly through the platform from SalesGenie?

Think of all the potential possibilities for sponsored To-Do Lists. Increasing your networking efforts. Buying a house (perhaps custom tailored to an area by your local realtor but sponsored at a national level by RE/MAX). Or breaking into the advertising industry (sponsored by Acquent).

This kind of advertising could be POWERFUL for channel marketing and reaching out to your varied network of suppliers and resellers. Pandora uses this model in its own advertising programs by allowing users to subscribe to “sponsored” stations (that feature will have to get its own post in the future, because there’s an entire treasure trove of technobrander candy in that simple feature), so why can’t I subscribe to the same task system that Richard Branson or William Buffet use to keep their dreams in line with reality?

Audible doesn’t sell books, silly.

I cursed a little today, but only in jest (no worries mom). I saw another credit available on my audible account. One more credit that I “bought” to purchase another digital audio book from their extensive library. I smiled. I love new credits.

Audible caught be by surprise. I gave their service a “shot” with their free trial offer about two months ago. I’m not going to lie, initially I thought they were going to lose me. My free book, Keith Ferazzi’s “Never Eat Alone” sat on my account for at least a solid month before I finally made the tiny effort to transfer it to my iPod. That’s all it took.

The genius behind audible is not that it necessarily sells content that was not available previously, nor that it lets you discover content in new and creative ways (they use external recommendation service loomia). No, Audible’s founders realized that they weren’t trying to compete against Amazon. That would be silly considering the ecommerce giant could crush them with a sneeze if they so wished. Instead, Audible sells a service, not products.

After carrying “Never Eat Alone” along with me over the past week and a half, I have successfully turned what would normally be considered downtime for me (driving to work, heading to lunch, shopping, etc.) into valuable, low-psychic energy learning sessions. Audible has not sold me a book like Amazon does, but rather it has sold me a natural supplement to my everyday life. The content, incredibly enough, is nothing more than customization for my particular tastes.

This is a powerful concept, and I wonder how it can be applied to any service provider. I don’t think of my audible purchases in terms of incremental book purchases but rather a monthly marginal comparison of educational value to subscription cost. Audible wins this battle easily because its service has converted low value time into high value sessions that augment my normal life in powerful ways that takes little commitment from my end as a user.

I’m not saying Coke should start trying to bill you monthly, but my friend Drew Neisser would agree that Audible presents an amazing case study for marketing as service (or lifestyle branding as I like to call it sometimes). The difference between my Amazon experience is that I have to make the abstract correlation between the benefit the book brings and the way Amazon as a brand helped me accomplish such insight. Often, the content becomes the focus, not the seller. In Audible’s case, the insight’s a I gleem from the content are somewhat separate and distinct from the more direct service it has provided in turning my downtime into learning time.

Brilliant. Keep up the good work.

Wii Would Like to Advertise

Video game marketing has to be one of the coolest fields ever. Not only do you get to work with some of the most engaging materials and technologies, but you you’re rewarded for immersing yourselves in the experience of the game. And, in Nintendo’s instance, you can immerse yourself in an entirely new mindset for interaction.

I’m not the first person to talk about how Nintendo’s innovative (and risky) control scheme has introduced interactive games to an entirely new audience and set of consumers, and I certainly will not be the last. It’s downright amazing how something as simple as a controller can create such a great barrier to entry, especially for older demographics.

Nintendo has done an amazing job of embracing this facet of their product (probably from staying well Tuned In to their customer base) through their marketing. One of my favorite new commercials definitely has to be the Wii Want to Play video, which begins narrating the story (and as some very famous marketers have said before, “marketing IS storytelling”) of two small asian men dressed in suits and visiting the homes of people, enlightening their lives with the gift of Nintendo Wii.

Now of course you have to have a truly innovative product for this message to work properly. I don’t just want Ford executives coming to my house trying to give me the keys to their latest truck because it will change my life if I’m more worried about gas prices or the environment (or perhaps it might). But think about this concept for a second; it’s pretty symbollic. Nintendo is represented by these two asian men, and the unique experience that the ad displays is resonant with the experience of the game.

Nintendo could have stuck with its usual fan fare of “new game system,” or new bells and whistles, but they realize something deeper. They play on the spelling of the word. They jokingly refer to themselves through the characterization of the two asian men. But most importantly, they advertise the unique selling experience of their product, and when you’re in the business of selling experiences, it’s pretty important to not only have something unique but also to talk about it.

Don’t take my remote, just give me some friends.

I was recently inspired by a post by Darren Herman about Mark Cuban’s 2016 Olympic predictions. Whether you’ve read it or not, the most striking idea in my mind is not so much the concept of the Olympics 8 years from now, but rather the viewing habits of the world (I had to catch myself as I started writing just Americans).

It’s interesting to think about all of the live events that occur every year (here’s the US Census report). According to data for 2002, spectator events (including sports as well as performing arts) raked in $57 billion dollars, and that number has most definitely increased relative to today’s statistics. That’s a big number.

My question, however, begs to know if this is really the true estimate of “spectator” events that occur every year. Why do we not include nightly primetime television? A lot of people watch “Project Runway” every Wednesday. And I’m sure many people watch House as well. What about the 22 million people who log into Digg everyday? They all experience the same “spectacle” of news and information.

Why are these shows not included in spectator events? Just because they do not take place within a large stadium with the physical presence of thousands of other fans around them does not mean that they are not still sharing in the experience of co-media consumption.

My point is that traditional media models do not have to die away just because new media gives us control. I will gladly accept sponsors at my sporting events; it just might give my friends and I something to talk about. And that is really the key.

Co-consumption of advertising is big. Really big. Meebo might be on to something with its group targeting media rooms. The ability to engage a group of targeted “friends” is powerful. Advertisers have the ability to play on our familial bond or other interesting aspects connecting us. That’s all sports entertainment is really about. My “friends” just happen to be other Cardinal fans. If I were at a Giants game, the same rule would still apply.

More importantly, though, the real value of advertising to a group of people is the absence of the remote control. No one is going to stop an NCAA basketball game because they don’t like the Nike banner on the sidelines. If anything, the fans will understand to a greater extent subconsciously how Nike’s sponsorship makes this event with their “friends” possible (especially if the advertiser is smart and uses powerful creative and innovative tactics to bring out these emotions).

Why should the same idea not apply when my girlfriend and I sit down to watch television? Or any family across the US for that matter? Why does primetime television have to be static? What if there were interactive trivia in commercial breaks, sponsored by the same people who brought me the show I’m currently enjoying? If the content is built correctly (think half time in sporting events), then I should welcome advertising in support of the free entertainment I’m getting (people usually PAY for most sporting events).

In short, perhaps if you encourage greater “fan” interaction, viewers/users/spectators will better appreciate the value you are bringing to their lives by making their entertainment available. Then there won’t be a need for remotes anymore, just friends.

Brands! Lighten up. Go have a Picnik.

I’m a big, big, BIG fan of brands that just simply know how to have fun. Many marketers these days get caught up in the idea that they have to show results or deliver these metrics or whatever other mandates management has sent down the corporate ladder. Unfortunately for us (the consumer, in case you ladies and gentlemen have forgotten what you do after work), many of us take that as a call to eliminate all fun to be had with your marketing. Can you imagine the brand people for Playboy or Mad Magazine saying to themselves, “No time for jokes here, this is serious business.” Give me a break.

I’d like to take this moment to highlight an interesting new web app that has me begging for more, regardless of how amazing their product is at photo editing: Picnik. There’s plenty of other posts in the blogosphere about how well done and functional this application is, but I just wanted to focus for a second on something more subtle. The fact of the matter is this brand knows how to have fun.

From the very start, their name is somewhat silly for a functional web application; however, after giving it some thought, a picnic in real life is a great place for taking pictures. In fact, if you think about it, picnics are notoriously great places for amazing moments and lasting memories. What great brand alignment and differentiation (especially in the quite competitive web-based photo market).

What surprised me the most however can be summed up in the loading screen for the application. The builders of Picnik took advantage of one of the more mundane aspects of heavy GUI based applications (the clumsy loading process) and turned it into a delightful surprise for their users.

For those who have never used the application before, the loading screen is picnik themed. Instead of the typical loading fanfare we’re used to - “loading images,” “importing documents,” or “stealing your credit card information” - we’re delighted by delightful little phrases such as “stealing a picnic basket” or “laying a blanket”.

It’s little things like this that really turn what could be a potentially forgettable web-app experience into a life altering and day-brightening (yes, it’s not a word, but neither is picnik) experience. Great work guys!

Do you Knol what Google’s up to?

Firstly, I must apologize for the very lame title. I’m usually at least slightly more cunning than that; however, it was just too tempting given this particular topic of interest. And what might that topic be, Garrett, you ask, hehe, I can at least humor myself. I’m using this post as my first foray into a string of thought I’d like to see carried throughout this blog called Landing Page Paradigms.

Put simply, I’m a marketer. You’re most likely a marketer (but if you’re not, I’d love to hear from you too!). Especially in the world of internet marketing, guiding our propsects through the dog and pony show that is our marketing is what we do best. And in the Internet domain, that guidance usually focuses around a simple little concept called the landing page.

In hindsight, it’s such a simple little concept: a big, red target to dump all that beautifully targeted traffic upon. The best landing pages are those that make users “stick,” or lounge about the site. However, the difficulty is just that: how do you make users “stick.”

I’d like to introduce the concept of landing page paradigms, because ultimately no matter how well designed your landing page might be, people will interact with it based upon their prior knowledge with the domain. In this case, if your landing page smells like a sales pitch, your traffic will tune itself out or (worse) bounce back to the search engine wence they came.

Internet users are not stupid. They have more likely than not been enough web pages to understand different categories of web pages. They know, based on a split second overview of your site, whether you have a blog, an ecommerce site, or a web application. And based on these assumptions, your audience will automatically put themselves into one of a handful of interaction states, from information seeking, to entertaining, and ultimately to purchasing. A great resource for these patterns is here, they list all varieties of interaction patterns that can help a marketer get a grasp on the various forms of “browsing.”

So, where does this put Google? Many people, including my favorite Andrew Chen, have been talking about Google’s fight for the “second click,” or rather where people go after clicking through one of the links its enginges recommend. Advertisers on the Google platform pay a pretty penny for that first click, but it’s always been up to the advertiser to convert that traffic into the correct monetization vehicle for one’s business or campaign.

With the “second click,” Google would be able to charge even higher rates for more complex interactions than a simple search query. Which is exactly where Knol comes into play. Wikipedia accounts for a large amount of traffic on the Internet, especially from search results (8,000% in 5 years worth, to be exact).

Web surfers learn A LOT from Wikipedia articles. We find out simple facts about our favorite celebrities, information for a history paper, as well as more monetizable inquiries such as the benefits of different GIS systems available on the market.

Imagine what Google could do if it owned the link traffic out of a Wikipedia article on laptop comparisons? How much would Dell be willing to pay for a targeted traffic pipe of people who want to know more about a specific feature of Dell’s new Inspiron laptops that they have been comparing online?

Knol, if executed to Google’s wildest dreams, could carry the company’s revenues far into the future and beyond.

Should mobile phones be banned from stores?

Anyone who’s used an iPhone to look up information on the go will tell you: the mobile internet is changing the world. Never before has it been so easy to look up restaurant info, find a gas station, or call the nearest Best Buy while on the move. Perhaps the most interesting use for mobile information has yet to be fully realized, and as many local retailers will soon find out, the mobile internet presents some very dangerous, murky waters ahead for vendors who depend on higher margins to support their local inventory costs.

It’s relatively easy to look up an item while shopping at your local Wal-Mart or Target. Popular iPhone applications such as CheapMF allow local retail customers to quickly look up products online with the tap of a finger. Suddenly, a wealth of information becomes available to the knowledgable consumer. Lower prices. Reviews. Friends with the same (or competing) products. And, perhaps worst of all, nearby stores with lower prices!

If that last bit was not clear enough, perhaps I should reiterate: your competitors can reach YOUR customers in a more personalized, informative way than your sales staff could possibly ever dream of. All of that hard work your advertising, support staff, or premium retail space has done to get your inventory into the hands of your prospective customer can be undercut instantly with a quick flick of the wrist.

This presents a problem for local retailers, whether or not they’re large conglomerates or small mom-and-pop venues, because whether you like it or not, inventory is expensive. Michael Dell knows this (he’ll tell you all about it in his book). The idea of retail is more a model of distribution than anything else, especially for companies that don’t manufacture anything directly. In order to get products into the hands of consumers across a distributed sales region, anything that can be done to reduce the time from purchase to ownership (and perhaps at some level, from product interest to ownership) is absolutely pivotal.

The problem, however, is that retail strategies - marketing, sales staff education, and in-store promotions - all have an associated cost that has been traditionally supported by higher margins on products. These margins drove customers into the store and not the cheaper alternatives; however, a powerful debate is brewing as to whether retailers have a right to control all forms of communication once you enter their doors. Otherwise, what’s to keep you from driving to your local Best Buy to see all the cool new digital cameras, talk with the knowledgeable sales staff, and take it for a test drive with your kids all before checking prices online for a cheaper vendor and heading there before picking up some dinner for the kids on the way home?

The answer is not going to be pretty. Or will it? My question that I ask to my readers at large is simple: what does the future of retail look like? Are retail locations destined to become nothing more than fancy showrooms with trained staff that make their money from the advertising budgets of larger manufacturers who deliver the products directly to their customers (Dell, are you listening?). Or will we see retailers draw a hard line at the entrance to their stores by investing in cell phone jamming equipment or providing in store research devices that answer users questions for them, pulling the necessary reviews online from “trusted” sources.

Powered by Wordpress | WP Premium theme by WP Remix
Copyright 2007. Thank You, Advertising!. All rights reserved

• Home
• About
• Contact
• Hire
• Manifesto