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

McDonald's jingle

Back in the day part of advertising was coming up with the jingle. I think jingles were a great (or horrific) advertising inventions. Right now your probably thinking of a jingle that will be in your mind for the rest of the day. That's what advertisers like (that's great) and what you'll be cursing me for later (horrific).

McDonald's is celebrating the 40th anniversary of their Big Mac jingle by sponsoring a contest where people can submit their remix of the jingle. Really a great idea to pump life into an old campaign. The contest site is on MySpace, not a bad idea considering the target and it's music reputation. A lot of the jingles are pretty good and would probably have been better than what most advertising agencies would have come up with, even back in the day.

In the "reality is stranger than fiction" dimension, one of the five finalist is an ex-convict who was arrested for robing a McDonald's. He used his time in prison to learn and produce music.

- Paul Herring

BTW - I hate the fact that you can't embed a lot of the tracks on a blog or website. Seems like McDonald's is missing an opportunity to make the contest more viral, as well as helping the brand.

More Hellboy 2 Pod-Busting

Feed readers click through to watch videos.

American Gladiators on USA

Chuck on NBC (Part 1)

Chuck on NBC (Part 2)

Reality TV
Not sure what this is for, but it would work on a reality show like Project Runway or American Idol (though either of them would be more effective if they casted the actual judges).

- Cam Beck

Related Article: Supertargeted Television Advertising

Supertargeted Television Advertising

While watching a horror movie on the SciFi Channel, I saw a couple of ads done in a way that show that advertisers are at least beginning to understand the value of niche communities and how to effectively communicate with them.

This ad for the upcoming film, Hellboy 2, for instance, wouldn't work as well if it were placed on any of the major broadcast networks, but (without doing any research of my own to confirm it) the marketing team for the movie seem to understand who their target audience is and what they're watching. (Feed readers click through)

Importantly, it promotes both the SciFi show Ghost Hunters and the science fiction movie Hellboy 2, but it is directed at not just a specific category of audience, but at a specific audience on a specific channel watching a specific type of movie. Though this ad may work somewhat on other sister channels where research shows a significant overlap in audiences, it probably doesn't work any better than it does on the SciFi channel.

Except for the Super Bowl, I'd be hard pressed to find many television commercials that are tied to a specific network so tightly.

Likewise, this ad for Verizon Wireless just wouldn't work if it were placed in the midst of a rebroadcast of Steel Magnolias, but it worked well because it was attached to a horror movie.

This one, a not-so-subtle nod to the classic Stanley Kubrick film, The Shining, could be transported from network to network fairly easily, as long as it stayed within the horror genre.

I've always said that the most effective advertising is that which is most relevant to the audience. And as such, between the two, the Hellboy 2 commercial takes the cake. To wit, the thing being advertised, a science fiction movie, is most relevant to that audience's needs and goals, and it's done in a way that is nearly exclusive to what they are watching where they are watching it.

The Verizon Wireless commercial, on the other hand, relies entirely on its creative execution to communicate a message to a specific audience, but it's about a product that other audiences (anyone who owns or is thinking about owning a cell phone) certainly appreciate.

I don't heap praise on television advertising very often. Most of the time it seems mailed in.

However, I have to appreciate the thought and consideration these two placements show advertisers are giving to their audiences. - Cam Beck

Update: Jay Ehret of The Marketing Spot sent me a link that led me to this New York Times article that deals with this technique, called "pod-busting." Here's the money quote:

"'The engagement metrics are off the charts, when we do it well,' said Mike Pilot, president for sales and marketing at NBC Universal, part of General Electric."

I did notice that only Fox Broadcasting seems to be considering cutting down on the number or duration of commercial breaks to make what is advertised more memorable, but at least some media executives recognize this shortcoming.

"But Mr. Lotito of Media IQ dismissed pod-busters as 'flawed' for reasons that include the 'silly' nature of their content. He would prefer that the networks shorten each pod because, he said, 'anything more than three or four spots is just too many.' Often a pod will contain six to eight commercials and promotions — or more."

At any rate, it's still nice to see that advertisers are looking at more creative ways to use advertising to deliver relevant content, rather than just another opportunity to shout at their audience.

Since Fox Broadcasting is going to experiment with longer programming time with supertargeted pod busters, assuming they're done well, we'll likely soon have some metrics to learn from.

The commercials in these shows ("Dollhouse" and "Fringe," which will run in 50 minutes instead of the industry average 42 to 44) will come at a higher price -- both in terms of production and media, but potentially will fetch a higher ROI. We'll see.

The World is Just Awesome

Check out this new commercial from the Discovery Channel.

I've really been impressed with the shows on the channel lately, and because of that, I'm sure, this commercial may mean a little more to me than it does with those less familiar. Still, the tune is fetching, and you may get it stuck in your head for the next 48 hours as I have had it over the last 48.

If you haven't been watching the Discovery Channel, I suggest getting a good dose of Mike Rowe's Dirty Jobs to shake you of your illusions about the tidiness of civilization. - 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

Malcolm Gladwell Under Fire: Marketers Miffed

Witnessing the firestorm that erupted as a result of a Fast Company article, I've concluded that the quickest way to earn the ire of marketers is to trash Malcolm Gladwell and his breakthrough hit book about influence, The Tipping Point. The article has gotten so much attention that Fast Company's servers have been unable to handle the traffic.* Download an image of the error message.

I've already been participating in this conversation through the comments of other's blogs (and you'll probably have more luck accessing them than the Fast Company website), but since so many people are talking about it, I'm having difficulty keeping up, and if the topic is interesting to you, I'll bet you are, too.

To help us all, I'm posting links to some of the most interesting articles I've read on the subject:

• David Reich: Has the Tipping Point tipped over?
• Scott Monty: Keep the Tip(ping Point)
• Stephen Denny: Tipping Points and the Psychology of Influence
• David Armano: Influence Ripples, Tipping Points + Toast
• Gavin Heaton: The Dream of Influence and Democracy of Action
• Guy Kawasaki: Forget the A-List After All
• Ben McConnell: Why it's best not to predict
• Seth Godin: The Hyping Point
• Valeria Maltoni: Forget Influentials: in Viral Marketing, Context Matters

I loved The Tipping Point and thought it was well written.

However, I recognized even while reading it that there was no possible way to conclude without any doubt whether Gladwell was right or wrong, based on the data that was being given.

Gladwell was convincing (as he usually is), and his conclusions "felt right," but he is susceptible to a particular type of non sequitur fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is Latin for "After this, therefore because of this."

This is what it means:
In a given sequence of events, it cannot be concluded that the first thing caused the second (or some number thereafter).

So, in Gladwell's case, just because crime decreased after New York fixed the broken windows, it cannot be concluded that fixing the broken windows caused the decrease in crime. But it is an interesting theory.

At the same time, I'm not very impressed with Watt's computer models that led him to his conclusions, either. Computer models rely on someone to program certain uniform, finite rules to draw a conclusion about a reality where the rules of influence are more diverse and infinite.

To his credit, Watts completely realizes this limitation. From the Fast Company article:

"'My models might be totally wrong,' he says cheerfully. 'But at least I'm clear about what I'm saying. You can look at them, and tell me if you disagree. But none of these other thinkers are actually clear about what they're saying. You can't tell if they're wrong.'"

So what are we to think?
The conclusions each person draws lend themselves to tactical solutions, but perhaps the entire approach is wrong. Rather than deciding between mass marketing and targeting selected "influencers," just do what you love, and find other people who love (or can be convinced to love) the same things you do.

That way you don't have to worry about all of this, and Fast Company will get their servers back online. - Cam Beck

*I cannot conclude that the article in question caused Fast Company's server crash.

Are there bigots among us?

The blogosphere is predictably abuzz with chatter about the Super Bowl ads. I like to watch these debates rage more than I like to watch the ads, themselves. It's both entertaining and enlightening to see who is calling whom names, and for what reasons.

I have to confess, though, for most of halftime and the second half, I flipped channels during the commercials to watch reruns of Cheers (you know, back when TV programming was actually pretty good).

If you chose to instead watch the commercials, I guarantee that I laughed harder than you did... unless, arguably you are a competitor of Sales Genie. If you haven't seen them, here's one of them.

Was the ad racist?
Understand that, as a typically dense male, I'm not looking to be offended by everything.

(Wait... am I stereotyping my gender? Never mind...)

Anyway, when I watched the SaleGenie ads on USA Today, I thought their greatest offense was that they were stupid (although, as we examined last year, stupid can sometimes work). Paul tells us that they were beyond stupid, but also racist.

I'm not so sure, but I can certainly see why some people would think so. Our ability to generalize helps us remember things, which is why we are able to make and associate attributes to certain stereotypes.

The problem is that we don't always associate those generalizations with fond memories, which explains the sensitivity.

As a marketer, that's a line I'd rather not walk, but it's becoming clear to me that there's very little in this world that someone can't find something to be offended by.

Are we making something out of nothing?
Apparently Paul wasn't the only one who thought it was racist, though. AdRants, taking a very risky stand in this space, says we're being a bunch of hypersensitive crybabies.

I say it's "risky," because denying the charge of racism against someone else can bring similar charges on the person denying it, which can be difficult to combat... and no one will admit to want to be around a racist.

Take a breath, people!
We have to take all charges with a grain of salt. Many times, the same people who cry or deny racism are the same people who make fun of people for their religion... or their height... or their weight... or their dancing ability... or their background.

Is that any better than being a racist? Is that sufficient reason to suspect their judgment?

All this is to say that we ought to be careful about what we say or imply about others. Racism is bad -- no one is denying that, but so is inaccurately or irresponsibly accusing someone of being a racist.

If you are going to do so, and you are convinced you are right, it will help others understand a little better if you take the following steps to make your case:

1. Define the term using an objective source
2. Describe the suspected action
3. Show how they overlap
4. Rule out all other explanations

So, was the ad racist?
I have to make the same qualification Bill Green made on the AdRants blog. I'm not a talking Asian panda, so how am I to know? - Cam Beck