Tag Archives: Digital marketing

More News From The Digital Divide

Another week, another study on how marketers are trying to keep pace with the changes in consumer media behavior.  This one comes from PulsePoint, a digital ad tech company, and finds that the same issues others have discovered over the last few years remain unsolved for the most part.  You can download a copy of the study here.  I think this quote sums up the key finding:

According to PulsePoint CMO Rose Ann Haran, “Consumers are moving freely across channels and devices, interacting with brands and content in real-time.  The digital industry is not flowing as easily with this liquid audience. Channel-centric technologies and processes are causing a divide between our marketing capabilities and our ability to truly engage the consumer in a real-time interactive manner.”

In other words, consumers are “fluid” and “channel-agnostic,” while the current state of digital marketing practices designed to reach them can be best described as being too “channel-centric.” It goes on to cite “overwhelming complexity” and a “lack of unified measurement” as key challenges in preventing the industry from being properly aligned with the consumer, and those challenges make it difficult to track consumers across channels.

My first reaction was “oh, boo hoo.”  Yes, those pesky consumers keep changing their habits and the ongoing game of attention hide-and-seek can be really frustrating.  But look at the opportunities that game has fostered, both in terms of new businesses that have emerged as well as new ways to engage consumers.  What this is really about is marketers’ inability to change their own business methods and models as rapidly as required.  Planning and buying are “silo-ed” in the words of the study.  There is a whiff of turf wars throughout, in my opinion – departments within agencies, agencies vs. one another, creative v. media – you know the drill.  Maybe you even live it!

Then there’s this: “Other factors driving the divide include a misalignment of priorities the industry sees as important to improving their digital marketing practices.”  It’s nice that research such as this is conducted regularly.  It’s an excellent mirror to those of us who are charged with staying in touch with and engaging consumers.  Now, let’s commit to doing something about it so the divide between marketing and those it’s meant to reach closes a lot more rapidly.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media

Digital Just Might Be Dead And Why That’s Good

Do any of  you focus on the miracle that is the telephone any more?  We can speak to someone thousands of miles away as if they were in the same room.  How about the fact that we did away with wires on those phones and now they’re “cordless?”  Maybe even that phones are not tied to a location any more but we can walk around with them on the street or in the car.  A miracle, no?  And yet, for those of us that still use voice communication as a preferred method of interpersonal interaction, the telephone is just a means to an end.  We’re so past the technology that we can get back to focusing on the conversation itself, whether or not the person with whom we’re having it is in the room.

"Technology has exceeded our humanity"

"Technology has exceeded our humanity" (Photo credit: Toban Black)

I thought of that as I read the Ad Age piece on their Digital Conference and a statement by Gap’s CMO that “digital is dead:”

He made the bold statement for Ad Age’s Digital Conference, explaining that the idea of “digital” ceases to be relevant when brands stop thinking about technology for the sake of technology and simply think about their purpose.

I like that.  Way too many brands are enraptured by the technology and stop thinking about the business.  They’re focused on the phone and not on the conversation.  Most of us don’t think about how a metal tube moving at hundreds of miles an hour many miles off the ground works – we just get on the plane.  Maybe digital isn’t dead but maybe we’re getting to be post-technological.  We’ve got over the amazement brought on by viewing content anywhere on any screen (when those pesky business relationship don’t get in the way) on demand and instead we just enjoy the show.

I agree we need to spend more time on “purpose” and less time on doing tech because it’s “cool” or the next shiny object.  The next step is to realize that purpose is customer-centric and transparent and not “We talk you listen”.

Isn’t progress grand!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media

If An Ad Falls In The Forest…

comScore published the results of a study they did with a number of major advertisers on the subject of ad delivery.  While the study came out last week, it feels as if there is a bit of a drumbeat starting to happen and I thought I’d join the band (hey – we’re always out front here at the screed).  There is an excellent summary of the study on Exchange Wire and if you care to read the entire thing you can download it by clicking through here.  In brief, to get a better handle on the issues associated with display ad delivery and validation as well as to test-drive  comScore’s method for this validation called vCE, twelve leading marketers participated in a U.S.-based charter study, called the vCE Charter Study.

Image representing comScore as depicted in Cru...

Image via CrunchBase

The biggest point to come from the study, which seems to be the headline on the growing number of blog posts that reference it, is that 31% of ads delivered were never seen by a consumer.  It also called out that 72 percent of the campaigns studied had some ads running beside “unsafe” content as determined by the advertiser and that a small percentage (4%) of ads targeted to the US ran outside the country.

For a medium that touts itself as highly measurable and targeted, these aren’t great results.  Then again, none of the articles I’ve found put these numbers into any sort of context.  How does this compare to print, for example? As we’ve said before, stats by themselves are pretty meaningless unless you have something with which to compare them.  There is also an interesting nugget that surfaces about ads running lower on pages, or “below the fold.”  There is a common misperception that ads delivered “above-the-fold” are seen, while ads delivered “below-the-fold” are not.  Surprisingly, the findings demonstrate that some ads delivered “above-the-fold” were not seen because users quickly scrolled past them before the ad had a chance to load, and many ads placed “below-the-fold” delivered a high opportunity to be seen.  This might mean that inventory “below-the-fold” can be priced as premium as long as the publisher can prove it was viewed.

To me this all screams out for some human intervention.  Digital ad buying has become a mechanized world as one ad platform talks to another and humans stay out of the mix for the most part.  Buyers need to examine sites for more than their audiences.  Sellers need to pay attention to the analytics that show more than traffic but also “heat maps” of usage.  Both sides need to do a better job of quality control.  One can question comScore’s motives a bit since they’re also selling a delivery validation tool that will allow for both sides of the digital media equation to get more accurate numbers.  Commendable, I guess, but I wish there was some way to redo the numbers based on more human involvement as well as to compare the results with TV and print “opportunities to view.”

What are your thoughts?

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under digital media, Helpful Hints