Tag Archives: advertising

A Peek Over The Native Horizon

Sometimes you can get a glimpse of what’s coming over the horizon and I think I got one of those this morning.  I was catching up on some reading and came across a letter that the FTC sent out.  It was directed to search engines but I think it’s a harbinger of things to come as the digital ad business gets more deeply into content marketing and so-called “native” advertising.  You can read the letter here but in summary it says that ads in search results must be clearly identified as such:

Advertising

Advertising (Photo credit: Wrote)

Search engines provide invaluable benefits to consumers. By using search engines, consumers can find relevant and useful information, typically at no charge. At the same time, consumers should be able to easily distinguish natural search results from advertising that search engines deliver. Accordingly, we encourage you to review your websites or other methods of displaying search results, including your use of specialized search, and make any necessary adjustments to ensure you clearly and prominently disclose any advertising. In addition, as your business may change in response to consumers’ search demands, the disclosure techniques you use for advertising should keep pace with innovations in how and where you deliver information to consumers.

That’s why you see the yellow background, for example, on Google search results along with it saying “ads related to (whatever the search term is)”.  The point is for consumers to be able to distinguish results that someone paid to make prominent vs those that would otherwise rise to the top.  Makes sense.  The tail end of the letter begins to talk about this same principle as it manifests itself in social and mobile (and voice search as well!).   Which got me thinking.

Content marketing done well is a beautiful thing.  Hopefully you all consider this blog a good example of someone putting our content that’s informative and engaging.  My hope is that this will lead you to email or call me about working with you, so I think in part that makes this an ad.  If I ever write anything that I’m paid to put in here, I’ll disclose it (although I probably won’t do that in the first place).  That’s content marketing – using content to sell.

Native ads are a bit more insidious.  It’s about the creation of content that’s supposed to be useful and interactive like content marketing.  Someone defined it as any type of advertising where the placement appeared to be appropriate except it’s much harder to identify as an ad.  When an article is about cats and is really an ad for a retailer, that’s a problem.

I think it won’t be long before rules are put in place to crack down on this.  How will the FTC stop fake reviews, articles such as the one above, and other forms that don’t disclose they’re really ads (which might call into question the validity of what’s in the article)?  I’m not sure but I know it won’t be as thoughtful as if marketers figure it out for themselves.

What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

3 Comments

Filed under Consulting

Something For Nothing

Let’s start the week with a little bit of common sense backed up by some research.

Mobile-phone-advertising

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You might categorize the recent study released by Millward Brown, in partnership with SessionM, in the “duh” bin and you wouldn’t be far off but it serves as a good reminder of some basic marketing thoughts.  The study is called Exploring the Role of Value in Mobile Advertising and it talks about how to break through low favorability of mobile advertising by offering more tangible value in brands’ marketing content.  You can read the study here (pdf) if you want but mobile ads are close to the bottom of consumer‘s likes. Only 9% of people have a favorable attitude toward them (opt-in email tops the rankings at 28%, showing that mobile advertising in general has a problem).

Here is the “duh” part that carried over to just about anything you’re doing in marketing:

  • Consumers presently reward brands that deliver on that value in exchange for their loyalty
  • Reward-based mobile advertising succeeds when  the advertising execution is timely, chosen &  relevant and the reward is predictable, tangible & chosen.
  • Advertisers need to be mindful of the value exchange they offer through their mobile marketing efforts and make certain it is commensurate with their audience’s expectations.

In other words, answer the “why do I care” question and make sure your answer is coming from the consumer’s point of view.  Make sure that any time the consumer is spending on you is paid back many times over.  Look to surprise them and in a way that’s meaningful to them.  Be visible but unintrusive – show ads at natural break points (we all hate pop-ups that stop us from reading or video ads – TV or steaming – that interrupt our experience).  You have to give them something for their attention and engagement – you can’t get something (their loyalty) for nothing.

Where we fail as marketers is the place where our branding needs climb over those of our consumers or potential consumers.  We need to avoid that place like the plague, whether it’s on mobile devices or anyplace else.  This research shows it yet again but one would hope that common sense – and the ability to approach marketing as a consumer and not a brand maven – has us there already.  Does it?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media, Helpful Hints

Ratings Are Back-Assward

I saw something this morning with which I agree totally. It’s a statement, reported in MediaPost, by Starcom MediaVest Group CEO Laura Desmond about how media is measured and how consumers’ multi-screen consumption makes the traditional methods far less useful. As she said: “We need to invest in new measurement techniques for brands.”  That’s right, except that for the most part what we hear about has nothing to do with brands.  In fact, what we do now, and what I expect the industry will do in the future is completely backward.  Let me explain.

When you read about the most-viewed content of the week, have you ever seen a mention of a commercial?  Nope.  It’s all about programs – The Voice or Idol or Duck Dynasty.  The measurements, as Ms. Desmond said, tend to be channel-specific and, therefore, might not reflect all of the consumption that’s occurring.  The point that’s missed from a marketing perspective is that brands use these ratings to estimate how many times their ad was seen and what value they derived from their investment.  My question is this:

Why are we measuring for one thing and reporting for another?

If what we’re after is how many people are seeing a message, why do we care about the vehicle in which that message is delivered?  The industry makes the programming entities measure themselves (fair, since that’s who’s getting paid to deliver the message) but then assumes everyone watching sees the message (OK, I know some folks adjust the numbers slightly but humor my rant here, please).  Why aren’t we working on a system where a brand message carries some sort of tag across all channels that would allow all the impressions to aggregate?  Further, those tags could be used much like cookies to track conversions.  Since it’s the brands that pay for the impressions, should it be their own results that are tracked?

If the industry follows Ms. Desmond’s thinking and does invest in new techniques to measure cross-channel results, they’ll have a hard time if what they’re measuring are programs.  Many programs aren’t in all the places brands want to go.  Some are sold by different sales entities across channels.  It’s backward to measure an inconsistent series of channels instead of the consistent brand who is paying the bills.

What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Thinking Aloud