ChaosScenario

Give Them Ads They've Asked to See

One of the great early promises of the Internet was the ability to deliver only the ads that users wanted to see. However, as advertisers soon discovered, in most cases, no one except those responsible for the ads (and maybe their families) has any desire to watch the ads.

Up until this point, advertisers tried to follow the AIDA model. Get their Attention, evoke their Interest, foster Desire, and elicit Action. (Sometimes I refer to it as IAIDA - with the first I being Interruption). 

Initially, getting the attention of Web users was incredibly difficult, for they normally came to the Web trying to find or accomplish something. Before broadband became widespread and YouTube and MySpace became two of the most popular entertainment and social hubs, the Web was almost exclusively a tool, and the interruption model to which advertisers were accustomed just got in the way of users accomplishing their goals.

Too much of it, and people started calling for tools that would help them block the ads, and eventually even the browser software developers even helped them block worst cases of interruption abuse.

Cutting Corners the Right Way
Google's emergence as the most popular (and an exceptionally effective) search engine changed the way companies looked at advertising.

AdWords allowed companies to essentially skip the hardest parts of A, I and D in the AIDA model because the user already expressed an interest in a topic (the search terms). If a company had something that may be of use to someone looking for certain search terms, they would bid for clearly-marked space in the search engine results page (SERP).

The advertiser paid nothing unless the user clicked on the ad. This action-based fee created a natural incentive for profit-seeking companies to choose their search terms wisely and to align their promises with the experiences they offered.

The need to get attention amidst all of the other results on the page wasn't entirely eliminated. Agencies spend a good deal of thought trying to optimize their advertising by weeding out the less effective word-buys, in terms of conversion ratios.

Unfortunately, this particular type of permission asset has found its legs with only Search Engine Marketing (SEM). Even though the ads are clearly marked, if they were done right, the ads become the content the users are looking for anyway.

In effect, the user asked for the ads they were shown, though to him it isn't an ad, but a possible solution to the problem that caused him to type in the search terms in the first place.

The Times They Are a'Changin'
However, there are signs that agencies, advertisers, and platform hosts are trying to make use of the same principle that has made SEM so effective.

• At Ad:Tech in San Francisco this year, one keynote speaker suggested giving users at Hulu.com the option to choose which types of ads they would watch. (Hulu, by the way, is already ahead of the curve as far as TV's dilemma is concerned).
• Supertargeted television advertising, called "pod-busting," is becoming more prevalent, and we may actually see a reduction in television commercials as a result.
• DVR-pioneer TiVo is trying to facilitate commerce through its interface. While the jury is out on this one, it's apparent to me that the intent, at least, is to maintain free programming while keeping the viewer in control of the advertising he sees. (Note: TiVo is a client).

Still, it's a challenging market. It's new ground, and a lot of companies refuse to make the leap. After all, not all products and services will engender the same affection that will motivate them to actually ask to see an ad.

Many of them shouldn't even try.

Proctor & Gamble would have to work very hard to convince me that I needed to request to see a commercial for Tide. Therefore, they have to be prepared to approach me and people like me a bit differently. - Cam Beck

See part 1: Give Them Ads You Want Them To See

Give Them Ads You Want Them To See

Many, if not most marketers believe getting people to notice and respond positively to "good" ads is just a matter of numbers.  The numbers may be a devious seductress, though, for if they show a positive return, they discourage investing capital in other forms of communication that may in fact be more efficient. This is one of the great reasons, I think, so many companies have been slow to invest in and adopt new ways to reach their audience.

Companies advertise because they want to sell something. If they can attribute enough revenue to the advertising (however obnoxious it may be), then by a very critical standard, the advertising is working.

Although alternative media still can't knock television off the hill, the new Nielsen rating system and projections of increased DVR use suggest that traditional television commercials are past their peak efficiency.

Trying to adapt to this revelation, many companies have tried to apply the same philosophy that was successful in radio and television for so long to other media, such as the Internet: Get in front of as many people as possible and hit them with as many ads as they'll tolerate.

If they are listening, however, they find that people do not appreciate being interrupted in the same manner that commercials interrupt television programming. In many respects, owing to the task-oriented nature of most of the Internet, they hate it more.

Does it work?

It depends on the price they're paying for the ads and what kind of results they're seeing. This is determined by other factors, not the least of which is the context in which the ad appears. Investors have spent a lot of money trying to figure out the exact right context to display the exact right ad.

What they fail to realize is that the Internet isn't just a new medium, it's an entirely different game with its own rules, and since people have become accustomed to it, they will no longer accept being talked at in the same way advertisers have always talked at them.

Imagine trying to play a game of American football when everyone else is playing rugby.

You'd be lost, and you'd lose.

The same thing applies to the new rules of marketing. And those who adapt more quickly to the changing environment will have a significant advantage over those who do not. - Cam Beck

Lijit's Value-Added Search Offends Great Blogger, Mack Collier

Mack Collier hates the blogging search tool, Lijit. And when Mack talks, everyone listens. At least the smart ones. Mack is one of the brightest, most generous bloggers I know, and I know a lot of bright, generous bloggers. However, try as I might to understand his objection to Lijit, I hit a stumbling block.

The problem stems from a feature Lijit calls "re-search."

Here's how it works:
If you come to this site through a search engine, that means you were looking for something in particular. The page you land on may or may not satisfy whatever your need was when you searched for your terms. So instead of just giving up on the user and assuming you have nothing of value that may answer his question, by default, when you have Lijit installed, the user in that case would be provided with additional links from your blog -- as well as a tiny (but clearly marked) ad from Google.

His anger with the company that makes the tool is centered around two key points:

• Lijit didn't tell him about the feature and that he could disable it.
• Lijit is monetizing his content.

Says Mack:

"I did a Google search for 'viral garden' just now, clicked on the top Google result (this blog), and was more than a little shocked and embarrassed by what I saw. As the picture to the right shows, the LiJit widget had served up several posts I have left here that you could click on. But as you can see under those posts, it also served up something that I didn't know it would, and certainly didn't give it permission to provide."

Needless to say, I see it a bit differently:

• I didn't read the instruction copy when I installed Lijit anyway, so I'm not sure information about re-search wasn't there. If it was, I missed it, but if it wasn't, it's possible that its absence facilitated greater speed of installation.
• Lijit isn't monetizing my content, but is rather monetizing search, according to the user's search terms, as they come to this site, and even then only if either my content or my presentation of it doesn't suit what the user is looking for (and the ad does).

Relevancy: The Holy Grail of Advertising
When Google introduced AdWords, it was a revolution in Internet advertising. It wasn't just because it was a new way to attract advertising revenue, but rather because, by tying in search terms to paid clicks, it made advertising more useful to users and measurable to advertisers.

Unlike just about all advertising that came before it, users had to first express interest in a particular topic and then see an ad and decide clicking it was worth their while before an advertiser would have to pay a red cent.

It was a stroke of genius -- and a major, much-needed coup in the advertising realm not accustomed to the user being in control of what they saw and how they interacted with it.

It's the same with Lijit.

Use What You Need. Stay as Long as You Like.
I have no idea what search term you used when you came to this site (though Lijit has some nifty reporting features that tell you after-the-fact), but whatever it is you were looking for, I hope I was able to give you an answer that met your needs -- or at least point you in the right direction.

As I told Mack, as was the case with Intense Debate, if Lijit ever got in the way of the completion of my readers' goals, I'd get rid of it.

But as it stands, Lijit's tools only helps people find what they're looking for. If that happens to be on this site, I'm very happy about that. If that happens to be elsewhere, I won't get in their way. And if Lijit happens to make a buck or two off of that, why would I care?

The advertiser, not I, has to bear that cost. And all the users get is content they want -- or at least a clue as to where they might find it.

The choice to click or not to click the ad is entirely theirs. - Cam Beck

Missed Opportunities and Distributable Content

Every year around Independence Day some news websites like MSNBC.com create mini-citizenship tests  -- almost as if to prove how dumb we all are with respect to our own laws and history. Perhaps because journalists are in the habit of conducting idiotic and meaningless polls to develop news out of nothing (Such as "Which Presidential candidate would you rather invite to a barbeque?"), they consider polls such as this one to be satisfactory in the fulfillment of their public service. This particular execution, however, practically screamed for an opportunity for the online community to share their results with others. Sadly, it isn't something MSNBC seemed to consider worthwhile.

Undoubtedly, this poll is being passed around. The fact that I'm writing about it talking proves that, and I'd wager that at least some of the people who read this will likely take the test to see how they fare.

But then what?

MSNBC, like a lot of companies when given the opportunity, don't make it easy to share the results in a way that would entice people to share it.

Conceptually, the idea isn't that difficult. It's been done before (See "What's Your Blog's Reading Level?" or "How Many 5 Year Olds Can You Take in a Fight?"). The design can be mediocre (such as this hack-job I threw together), and people would still have fun with it.

As you can see, it can even be branded to serve as a sort of "product placement" within the content of someone's blog or MySpace page, which is more likely to be seen and used than if it were simply a display ad.

The execution of it just requires technical skill that the folks at MSNBC.com surely have at their disposal.

What's more, the results aren't exactly useless. Something like this can be fun and still inform people about some things that they didn't (but probably should) know. People don't get -- and many of them resist it anyway -- all of their education from a stale textbook. 

Don't know the term of a U.S. Senator? You will after you take the test.

Why aren't more companies (and schools) taking advantage of this powerful tool? - Cam Beck

Building Successful Microsites

Microsites are mini-websites are meant to supplement a company's primary website. They have their uses, but many times they are meant as a way to "introduce" a product to the general public.

Who they're for
A microsite shouldn't be built until this is clearly defined. For until you define the audience, you don't know if a microsite will appeal to them, or what sort of functionality to put on them.

Don't assume the first person you ask (even if it's the CEO) knows the audience as well as he thinks he does. Often the online audience doesn't perfectly reflect the audience the company reaches through other means.

Why they're used
Agencies like them because they are not as shackled by the design constraints and architecture of the primary website. Companies like them because they are relatively quick and inexpensive to set up (especially when put together hastily), and it gives them some ammunition to take to prove to their bosses that they're doing something "cutting-edge."

When they work
Microsites work when they're either especially well-thought out and fun, or when they actually provide a useful tool to the audience that they can't get somewhere else.

When they fail
All websites fail when they don't add sufficient value to their audience. Significantly -- and this is something typical agencies tend to forget as they're distracted by the Bright and Shiny Objects they're creating -- websites also fail if they do not deliver tangible results to the  client.

Therefore, defining your success metrics beforehand is critical, and it should never, ever be skipped.

How to do it right
Designers, cover your ears: Proper planning is the most important aspect of building a successful microsite. A big part of that planning is ensuring the right resources (including the design resources) are identified and secured.

Websites aren't like television commercials. People must actively choose to visit one, which means  to attract them, the site must provide something the audience wants or needs, and then it must provide that in a way that doesn't frustrate the users.

Even the most nifty design is useless if no one comes to it, so the planner must take into account how people would get to the site and what would motivate them to return (if that is, in fact, part of the plan). 

What it means to your brand
With the right strategy and execution, this method can build a strong affinity for your brand, which isn't exactly useless. However, that affinity doesn't always translate to an easily calculable ROI.

Because the microsite is a supplement and not the main course, poor execution here is most often low-risk, but poor planning can be, in certain situations, a public relations nightmare. Make sure you consider your contingencies and have the right stakeholders in the loop throughout the way.

One Important Caveat
Building microsites should normally take a back-seat to improving the performance of your main site. For creating a perfect microsite that is made popular by a clever promotional execution, can actually cause harm when the main site is useless and unusable.

- Cam Beck

 

The Publisher's Paradox: Why Traditional Advertising Models Are Dead

While composing my latest post for Marketing Profs: Daily Fix, I suspected that I'd be preaching to the choir. The readers there are usually well versed in new media marketing and the challenges that go along with it. I generally avoid writing such articles. I figure if I'm not challenging what I or what the readers are already certain of, then I'm not adding anything of value. This one is different.

I chose to write this one because I saw a few needs for it.

First, it isn't just for existing readers, but also for those who are still struggling with this entire new media mess and don't understand the principles that affect it. They're still looking for ways to interrupt you -- through your mobile phone, through pop-up ads, through opt-out emails, etc.

If there's one thing I've learned from years of philosophical debates (including political or business-related), it's that we cannot assume we all assume the same things. It isn't that we don't assume anything. We just assume differently.

For those who aren't quite there yet, we have to occasionally make our case as conscientiously as we can if we're going to make an impact on how they think.

Second, we need less, "Do it our way or suffer the consequences," and more, "This is why it's in your best interests to listen."

To that end, I also hope the article gives you some ammunition for when you must try to convince someone that doing what they've always done is more risky than doing something new.

I hope you enjoy the effort. Stop by and let me know what you think. - Cam Beck

Free is Part of the Solution, not the Problem

The keynote speaker for Day 2 of Ad:Tech, NBC's Chief Digital Officer, George Kliavkoff, understands the dilemma posed by the digital space very clearly. It was very refreshing to hear from an executive -- a lawyer, no less -- who refuses to blame (and sue!) users for pursuing something they are passionate about -- a passion that actually benefits the company anyway. Under Kliavkoff's leadership, NBC created a solution that is both profitable to the company and free to the users.

Instead of whining about how much money it costs to create a show and moaning about how the users are stealing content (like a lot of content creators are still doing), NBC simply created a new and innovative way to consume the content, and they made it easy.

As a result, people would have little incentive to go through the effort to illegally copy and distribute a show, since it was already freely available to them.

"The threat of a lawsuit isn't going to get people to do the right thing ... I truly believe that if you provide an incredible customer experience and you do it in a way that you've given as much flexibility for the user to interact with your content ... they'll do the right thing." - George Klaivkoff

What's more, Klaivkoff reports that NBC's net operating profits for their digital solutions has never been higher. They're up 50% from a year ago. And far from cannibalizing their TV viewership, NBC has learned that when more people watch a show online, more people watch it the next week on TV, too.

We can speculate about the reasons, but I think that placing the shows online fills the primary purpose of allowing people to keep up with their favorite shows, if for some reason they missed it or forgot to record it.

I'd love to see the statistics about when people are watching the shows and what the correlation is between online viewing and DVR ownership. Perhaps from that we can anticipate how many ads are they seeing, anyway (and if they're seeing them at work, at home, or on the road).

And I'm sorry I cannot forbear... I admit that I feel a bit vindicated from all of this, because I laid out the principles for Hulu.com over a year ago when Viacom sued YouTube for hosting copyrighted content. I said, "Make it easier to comply than it is to crack the code," and though Hulu.com doesn't take it as far as I suggested, that is essentially what NBC did.

Unfortunately, there are still pockets of resistance. Based on other panels I attended, it appears to me that publishers such as the Wall Street Journal and Access Hollywood know that what they're doing right now with respect to online video is wrong.

"I hate preroll ads," said one panelist (and I'm paraphrasing), "Especially when it's 30 seconds long and comes right before a 45-second piece of video."

They allow them on the site, he said, because that's what advertisers will buy. The other panelists agreed.

And from the publishers' perspective, that's a perfectly reasonable action to take. If they cannot raise revenue, they cannot exist, so they do what they must to stay afloat, even if their particular flavor of existence happens to annoy their users.

The problem is that it may work in the short run to raise revenue, but as companies like NBC create excellent consumer experiences, these competitors will likely bleed audience members and, as a result, drive down revenues, because the same or alternative content can be consumed more readily elsewhere.

Advertisers and agencies need to understand a fundamental truth: When people search for either  entertainment or information, they have no interest in being interrupted, and online especially they resent the interruption.

That is no way to build brand affinity.

However, since websites aren't free and publishers need to raise revenue somehow, traditional thinking leads us to believe that we must charge for access to the content, but history has shown us that this just leads to piracy and further resentment.

Instead, consider following NBC's example by actively allowing the users to control how, when, and why they consume the content. Be more innovative in your revenue model. If you must deliver ads, do it so unintrusively in a way that does not give users incentives to seek other means of consuming it. You, and the users, are likely better off when they have a reliable means of getting it from you. - Cam Beck

Photo by James Cridland

Building a Website is Harder Than it Looks

When Wendy McHale of The Madison Avenue Journal first asked me to review a website for an Ad:Tech finalist, I chose Visa's Business Breakthrough because it is, in a way, a marketer's interactive dream project. It obviously had a large budget, and the video was skillfully shot and implemented throughout the site. A technician could certainly appreciate the production quality.

A big part of my job at Click Here is to troubleshoot websites at various stages of development, and this means looking for and finding the problems that do or might cause the users to fail completing whatever task they came to the site to accomplish. This way, I can cut through the bull to get to the meat of the issue, and everyone working on the project can do so with full awareness of what needs to be fixed and how to go about it.

My first review of the site, which I did not submit, was highly critical of the effort at businessbreakthrough.com. It reflected, I think, my typical approach to reviewing websites.

I reread it a few times, and I wasn't pleased.

As I thought about Steve Krug's mantra about website criticism, I reminded myself that it's always good to take a step back and remember just how hard it really is to build a website. Not only do you have the technical issues to consider, but you have to be able to:

1. Pitch a concept internally and to the client (often in multiple stages),
2. Secure the budget and resources
3. Try to reconcile the visions of everyone in the project who has a say in it -- including the technicians who are telling you that what you're asking can't be done on this budget -- and
4. Put together all the various pieces cohesively so that when users come to the site, it does not break.

The ugly truth about web design
I've been doing it for awhile, and though it's always enjoyable, it's never been easy (If it were, we couldn't be proud when we did it right). Everyone has a different opinion of what the site should be, and the person making the ultimate decision might not have the same grounding in the interactive space, including the way humans use it, as the people building the site.

So not only must those building the website be good at what they do, they also must have unimpeachable skills of persuasion. To convince the decision maker who might be biased toward another medium, they must be able to back up their claims with research the allotted budget of time and money didn't pay for.

The people paying for the site must feel as if the site is theirs.

Of course, we always have best practices to point to, but it doesn't help that the principle author of them is so hated by designers.

Because of this, those building the site must often sacrifice what they know to be right because of these external considerations, but that shouldn't stop us from admiring the things we know they executed well.

Click here to read the review, which is an edited version of my third draft. - Cam Beck

For more information: See Jakob Nielsen's latest synopsis of various usability mistakes made by several webites.

Apple Posts New Fun Internet Ad on Engadget

I'm curious. If you're a PC user, do you enjoy these spots?

- Cam Beck

The Art of Execution

Thanks to Mario Vellandi's Twitter post I stumbled across this execution that has viral possibilities (think Dove evolution) written all over it.  Let me know what you think of it as I don't want to spoil anything for you. - John Herrington