Tag Archives: Digital marketing

Digital’s Dirty Little Secret

A few days ago, the media trades (especially the digital media trades) were filled with self-congratulatory fervor over  the

Kakashi And Yamato

(Photo credit: lyk3_0n3_tym3)

achievement of a milestone.  This story from Cynopsis is typical:

For the first time, digital ad revenue is surpassing traditional TV revenue. According to new research from Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and PricewaterhouseCoopers, online advertising revenue climbed 17 percent to $42.8 billion in the U.S. last year, compared to the $40.1 billion generated from TV advertising. Although mobile ad spending increased by 17 percent to $7.1 billion, it was still just about 10% of the $74.5 billion cable and broadcast spending reached last year. Variety reports that digital video alone produced $3 billion in ad rev, while search reeled in 43 percent of the total online rev at $18.4 billion.

Woo hoo!  Way to go digital ad sellers – even you robotic ones.  The folks at Venture Beat did a really good overview of what has occurred and I’d encourage you to spend a minute and check it out.  Of course, there was one thing at the end that intrigued me:

Interestingly, performance-based pricing models are down slightly from the previous year. CPM, or cost per thousand views, was up slightly to 33 percent, while performance-based models like CPA (cost per acquisition) dipped slightly to 65 percent. CPM pricing is at its highest point since 2010, the IAB said.

Why is that of interest?  CPM pricing is impression based.  Now let’s look at digital advertising’s dirty little secret.  This is from the Wall Street Journal:

About 36% of all Web traffic is considered fake, the product of computers hijacked by viruses and programmed to visit sites, according to estimates cited recently by the Interactive Advertising Bureau trade group. So-called bot traffic cheats advertisers because marketers typically pay for ads whenever they are loaded in response to users visiting Web pages—regardless of whether the users are actual people.  The fraudsters erect sites with phony traffic and collect payments from advertisers through the middlemen who aggregate space across many sites and resell the space for most Web publishers.

In other words, between $6 billion and $18 billion is stolen every year in the US  because of ad fraud.  So while there is no question about the impact digital has had in the advertising landscape, it probably has a ways to go to catch broadcast TV.  The bad news is that a lot of that catching up involves breaking up criminal enterprises. The good news is that imagine how much better off the legitimate business will become with those ill-gotten gains redistributed to the legitimate players.

It’s always good news, bad news, isn’t it?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media

Native Speakers

Think back to when you first learned English.  If English is your first language you probably can’t remember learning the rudiments of it.

english language

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Oh sure – when you got to school you learned to improve your grammar and spelling, but you could already speak the language pretty well.  You think in English too.  You’re a native speaker.

Compare that with any other languages you might speak.  I speak a few and it took me a long time to learn them.  OK, maybe not to learn a bunch of words and basic grammar, but a long time to learn which version of a word was appropriate and to develop an accent that sounded more natural for the language.  The hardest part is getting to the point where you can think in the language so you’re not constantly translating, in my case, from English.

Think about communicating with a non-native English speaker in English:  you can hear the unsure vocabulary and the accented speech.  Now think about your business.  Odds are if you’re using digital channels for communication, you’re not a native speaker.  You probably are translating many of the marketing or other business lessons you’ve learned into digital.  As with other languages, you might be speaking with an accent or using the wrong word.  In fact, unless you’re under the age of 15 or so you’re not what some folks call “digital native.”  That notion is having some big impacts and many more are on the way.

One example is the Google Chromebook.  These inexpensive computers are making their way into schools and kids are learning to live with cloud-based software.  No hard drives, no program updates, no ongoing software expense.  If you’re Microsoft that’s a killer.  There are other things digital natives do that are changing things over time.  Cord-cutting is one we’ve discussed quite often.  Traditional TV is based on programming and counter-programming to draw in the biggest number of eyeballs all at once so you can sell advertising against broad demographic targets.  What happens when the cord is cut and people are their own programmers?  They’re very comfortable doing this – how has the language they’re speaking changed your business?  How has the technology of programmatic media buying and advanced behavioral targeting changed the need to aggregate those broad demographics?  If you’re trying to get women 18-49 and the market demand is for people who have looked at a mommy-blog in the last week, aren’t you speaking a different language?

The point is this: digital natives speak technology just as you speak English.  They grew up with it and don’t know a world that existed before it.  If your business model isn’t taking that into account or if you’re not becoming fluent in that language, you’re heading for failure.  Maybe you need a great translator but do not assume that this is the equivalent of going to a place on vacation where they speak enough English for you to slide by for a little while.  The digital natives are restless – have you learned enough of their language to address them in an understandable manner?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media

Getting Engaged

Last night was the annual advertising festival known as “The Super Bowl.”

The San Francisco 49ers' Super Bowl XXIX troph...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

They play a football game while the ads aren’t running although the one they played last night was not great. If you think I’m emphasizing the ads over the game or being a little too tongue in cheek some polls find up to half the viewers consider the ads their favorite part of the viewing experience.

This morning there is ample discussion of the ads and given that time in the game itself cost north of $4,000,000 for a 30-second unit, the brands running these ads try to deploy them before the game in the hopes that they’ll “go viral” to some extent.  They were successful: Super Bowl ads running on YouTube weeks before the big game were watched 66,058,625 times before this weekend. Since that’s all the ads in the aggregate, it’s only a fraction of the audience the commercials had in the game broadcast.  However, every eyeball is valuable and the digital versions can be looked at in other ways that demonstrate engagement.

According to Tubular Labs, an analytics company,  a number of the ads also generated some buzz via tweets and  Facebook shares and they compared those activities to the ads’ YouTube views to measure the total viewer engagement with the ads.  That’s where I get a little lost and here’s what I mean.

There is an AXE ad with  3.6million views.  It was shared on Facebook 50,000 times and tweeted roughly 5,900 times.  The analytics company says these social actions translate into a 1.6% engagment rate which was the highest they saw.  The lowest engagement, for a Butterfinger ad, was tiny – .03% and shares were in the hundreds.  Interesting, but it leaves out a very key measurement.

What is every one of those shares for the AXE ad went something like this:  “Kiss For Peace” is the worst ad I’ve ever seen.  Why would you waste money on this crap?  I’m never going to consider AXE again.  Engaged?  Yes.  But is that the sort of engagement we want as marketers?  What if every Butterfinger share raved about how good it the ad was and expressed a desire to eat a Butterfinger immediately?  Better?

It’s always important to measure.  It’s also important to dig a little deeper into those measurements.  I’d take smaller positive engagement over larger expressions of anger every time.  It’s not just “what is it?” but also “what of it?” as we gather data.  Make sense?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting