various thoughts on

mobile, media, marketing, measurement

Jumping into Ditches and Making Mistakes

Making_mistakes

Lately my dad has been in what my sister calls his philosophical mode.  This can consist of anything from sharing principles of how to live life, who we should date, to what we should be doing with our careers. This weekend, my younger brother received more attention that usual.  I decided to intervene. 

Some where along the lines,when my dad and I were going at it, my dad said "You should listen to me, I've been through it and I'll tell you where the pit falls are."  My instant reaction was "Dad, you don't know, I jump into as many ditches that I can find." I didn't exactly say that, knowing that he wouldn't think it was funny.

Personally, my decision of whether or not to take a risk is base on the following:
    -The decision to take on a risk should not be made based on an emotional reaction.
    -I take risk if there is a reward is worth attaining.
    -The risk can not severely out weigh the reward aspect.
    -Just because most people do not attain the reward (they fail), doesn't mean I will fail.
    -Learning from an outcome should be factored in the reward.
    -I have been through enough to be able to recover/whether most mistakes. Humans adapt.
    -I stay away from taking risks where the outcome I believe, I will not likely recover from.
    -Most of the time, the only decisions that are bad are the decisions that take too much time to reach.

At any rate, let me know what you think and if I'm missing anything.

Long and Dan, I miss you guys, chins up and keep moving.

Mobile Advertising - Is Mobile Lacking a Killer Application?

Mobile_advertising

Mobile offers many advantages in advertising that previous media/advertising platforms did not.  In particular, Tomi Ahonen describes mobile has having 7 unique benefits:

1 - mobile is the first personal mass medium.
2 - mobile is permanently carried.
3 - mobile is always on.
4 - only mobile has a built-in payment channel.
5 - mobile available at creative impulse.
6 - mobile most accurate audience data, and
7 - only mobile captures our social context of consumption.

Why is it that mobile advertising has not taken off - Why aren't there more mobile campaigns being ran? Why doesn't mobile campaigns consume larger portions of ad spend?

The problem is that mobile, in terms of advertising, does not have that killer application, at least not yet.  Consider the sequence of the emergence of advertising mediums: print, radio, TV, the  internet.  Each of these mediums offered some feature/value that the previous mediums did not.  Radio provided voice, TV provided visual, the internet provided data and accountability.  All of which added to the effectiveness of the advertising medium.

Within the 7 unique benefits of mobile, none of these benefits, at this moment is seen as a must have.  Aside from benefits 2 and 3, the benefits of mobile can be found in some variation on the internet and the personal computer.  Because many of the applications of advertising on mobile are extensions of what is used on the internet, those applications and benefits can be reaped through the internet.

For the most part, mobile has been used as a complimentary channel.  What I would like to see in the short term is for mobile to become that bridge that help connects various media channels.  A consumer sees an ad in the newspaper, hears an ad on the radio, TV or the internet.  The consumer then sends a text message instantly at that moment, either to receive more information, a discount coupon, nearest location, or submit their information.  An application like this can be applied to almost any type of campaign.  Not only will mobile enhance the engagement of the user with the brand, the implications of the data being collected will be immense. 

Palm: More of Less is Less

I don't know why I can't let this go... but... what is Palm thinking?  A recent q/a session with the Pixi product manager reveals that Palm believes there a different segment to be acquired by releasing the Pixi. 

A segment that would embrace a smaller screen, a segment that is okay with a wifi-less device, slower processor, lower resolution camera, all in favor of a sleeker design.  This segment of consumers no longer exist for Palm.  I'm a consumer and I have to get an unlimited data plan with my Web OS device, would I hagel over spending an extra $50 for a Pre over a Pixi?

If style/size is the point of all of this, why not make another iteration of the Pre?  Why not make a no compromise device?  Many people out there believe that the Web OS has a better interface than the iphone, but in terms of hardware, its a bit behind.  Why not close or even remove this gap?

Palm is in a position to redefine their image with the Web OS platform.  I would hate to think that they are releasing products just because they are a phone manufacturer. 

Palm Pixi - Too Soon?

(download)

It seems like Palm will release its second Web OS device, the Palm Pixi, in time for the 2009 holiday season.  Palm's first Web OS device, the Palm Pre, was released a little over 3 months ago.  I can't help but feel a bit eerie. 

The Palm Pre was positioned as the iconic device that would revolutionized mobile media consumption.  In the coming weeks, it would be interesting to see how the Palm Pixi is positioned.  From the pictures and rumors out there, the Pixi weighs less and is thinner than the Pre.  At the same time, the Pixi has a smaller screen, lower resolution camera, and rumors of lacking wifi connectivity.  The Pixi's query keyboard and screen layout is reminiscent of historical Palm devices. 

Personally, I think the slide out keyboard of the Palm Pre is pretty cool and in one way or another can be a recognizable iconic feature of current and Palm devices.  It feels like an evolution over the legacy Palm keyboard layout.  What then does the Pixi represent relative to the Pre?  Smaller screen, lower resolution camera, wifi-less, legacy layout device.  Given the prices of the Pre and iphone, I do not believe Palm is trying to introduce a budget conscious alternative to the Pre.

When the Pre was launched, there was over a year long build up, massive media coverage,  rave reviews, and tons of anticipation.  In my opinion the Pre has not delivered on expectations, at least not yet.  The Palm Pre penetration is not where it can be, complaints of quality control, the number of apps.  The Pixil represents a distraction from improving on these items and making the Palm Pre the iconic device it can be.

 

 

Please Don't Make Me Register

Easy_button

I've been on the prowl for a new apartment as of lately.  I came across this rental site that made me register before letting me view more pictures of an apartment I was interested in.  Instead of registering, I pressed the back button and got the "heck" out of there.  I couldn't help but think: you stupid website.  Unfortunately, this is not the first time I've seen this.

The site, from what I can tell, is free to apartment hunters.  The site probably charge apartment listers for rentals, and they are probably pulling in some dough from advertisements.  There is value in making visitors register in order to have their email and other personal information for re-marketing.  Having registration information also allows the sites to know who their visitors are, but there are other ways of doing this that doesn't turn the consumer away. 

Even web services that make their bucks from making users pay, they don't always make you register.  Netflix and Blockbuster lets you browse their selection without having to register for their service.  Buy.com allows you to place an order without registering and creating a login.  Dating sites allow you to view profiles without registering.  Especially with free services, registration should always be an option, not a requirement for use of service.  Don't give visitors a reason to leave, make things as easy and carefree as possible.

Wheres the easy button when you need it?

Ad Networks- You're Not Out of the Woods Yet

Not_of_out_the_woods_yet

Last week Warren Lee wrote about why he believes many Ad Networks are surviving.  Last year, it was estimated there are over 300+ ad networks out there.  Many believed that in late 2008 and early 2009 will bring the demise/consolidation for many of these networks.  For various reasons, mainly the value of the network model, Lee believes that many ad networks will continue to survive. 

The current survival of many ad networks is not an indication that their business models is sustainable.  For the most part networks do not own the inventory.  In most instances neither inventory, technology, nor pricing distinguishes one network from another.  Network selection is based on things such as previous/current relationships and brand name.  These are some of the reasons AOL, Google, MSN and Yahoo make up 60% of the display spend.  Unfortunately, these 4 network/players is not representative of the networks out there.

There is a lack of transparency in the network model.  The difference between what networks pay for inventory and what they charge advertisers has never been clear. From what I hear, it can be in the range of 40% mark up.  Most networks do not offer visibility into which sites they are running on. On a "granular" level, advertisers can not see what is working for them and what is not, so advertisers can not pay for only what works. 

If there is any indication of the weakened network model, several networks are beginning to offer platforms that allow advertisers to purchase inventory directly from exchanges and publishers.  Platforms that allow advertisers access to exchange inventory will challenge the current network model.  Advertisers will purchase inventory cheaper; with transparency into what works and what doesn't, in theory advertisers can pay for only what works. 

Lastly, predictions of the demise of networks come at a time where online advertising spend was in question, but within the last year, display advertising has increased overall. 


myspace numbers

Trafficgraph

I've been thinking of what will be of myspace for a while now.  A lot of attention has been placed on the rise in facebook registered users.  In some ways, myspace has been seen as failing/falling because it isn't keeping up.

I did a Quantcast run for myspace today.  At its peak, in July 2007, Quantcast reports that myspace received 83 million users.  Since then, myspace unique traffic has steadily decrease to 61 million for the month of July 2009.  Thats a 26% decrease in traffic over a two year span. (Note the Quantcast data only goes back two years, from when Quantcast started reporting).

Its not some thing that myspace can recover from.  People are on social networks because their friends and family are on there.  Unless one platform offers access to a different group of people or offers features that the others does not, is there reason to be on more than one platform?  Myspace does not offer too many uniquely valuable features that facebook does not, but the contrary is not true.  Facebook has become more "mainstream" and has opened its platform up to developers.  Some thing else to think about, in last four months, facebook received the highest gains in traffic, while myspace experienced its second highest drop in traffic in the past two years. 

As users leave myspace, so will their friends.  Who will be left? (I'm also guessing, people that leave, won't come back..) People who can't live without the features myspace has that facebook doesn't or does not do as well as facebook.  Or perhaps group of people who just do not fit into "mainstream" facebook.

What do you guys think?

Advertising and Loyalty

Chris Brogan recently posted a great writeup on touch points that builds loyalty.  I began thinking about loyalty in the context of advertising.  Social media allows brands to engage their consumers in meaningful conversations.  Social media as a medium allows consumers to feel connected to the brand, thereby contributing to consumer loyalty to the brand.

However, the connection between advertising and brand loyalty is less apparent.  In this case, brand loyalty is indicated by whether or not a consumer will recommend a brand/product, whether or not they will consume product and services from a brand again.  By advertising, brands keep their name in the conscious of the consumer.  Just because a consumer may be loyal to brand A, it does not mean that the consumer will remember brand A when they are in market for products that brand A produces.

Advertising also reinforces product and brand values.  How does a brand position itself ?  Is brand A a value brand, a quality brand, a luxury brand?  At some point, the consumer will associate a brand's positioning as a reason why they made the decision to go with that brand.  Advertising has the ability to reaffirm the brand's positioning in the minds of the consumers, allowing the consumer to feel confident that they made the right decision for the right reasons.  Consumers will go back to that brand that matches the values that they deem important.

Perception v. Reality

Carano_v_cyborg

Some months ago, I was driving down some highway and I saw the above billboard.  At the time I knew who Gina Carano was.  Aside from being a decent MMA fighter, she was also on American Gladiator and made it on to Maxim Hot 100.  Throughout the next couple months, I saw a lot of ads/press for the Carano/Cyborg fight. 

Come Saturday, I was shocked to find out that Carano was knocked out in the first round.  In my mind I had actually picked Carano to win.  Silly me..  I don't claim to be an expert on MMA, actually I know very little about MMA.  My assumption was based first on a silly stat: Carano up until that point had a 7-0 record while Cyborg had a 7-1 record.  Stats can be misleading, but that is a story for another time. 

The second reason was that the press coverage around the fight had been centered around Carano and she got a lot of press coverage.  At the same time "Carano v Cyborg," "Carano" was listed first.  And for these reasons, I subconciously associated Cyborg with being the under dog.  This perception was created by the marketing/advertising for the fight.  In reality, based on the betting odds, Cyborg was picked to win. 

In reality, it is rare that competing products go through a head to head comparison, like an MMA fight.  Better stated, it is rare that the average consumer will be aware of the results of the of the head to head comparison.  Decisions/perceptions of products become instantaneous assessments based on inconsequential factors.

Regarding most products the average consumer can be thought of knowing very little about the product or market.  Like myself and MMA.

What happens when the average consumer is confronted with the results of a head to head comparison that contradicts their prior impression?  Think of the race for megaherz in the 90's between intel and amd.  If I thought intel was better there was no way to convince me otherwise.  "So what if amd beat intel in a speed test, intel is more reliable!"   So Carano v Cyborg, Cyborg knocked out Carano.  I say Carano had an off day.  To the consumer, perception is reality.

I want a Refund

While making my run through the usual industry news sites, I was on adage and came across 'OPA Ad Effectiveness Study: It's Not That Black and White.'  I was quite excited, an article on network inventory, "premium inventory,"  ad effectiveness and ROI.  I thought I was in heaven!

Rajeeve Goel of Pubmatic refererences a study commissioned by the Online Publishers Association stating something along the lines of: ads ran on premium websites are more effective (in terms of standard branding metrics) than the same ads ran on portals.  Okay... so the study is pretty much stating the obvious, what most if not all media buyers know.

Instead of ignoring some thing that is insignificant, Goel, bought the study and the topic to the spotlight.  His counter to the results of the study?  The enviroments of the "premium inventory" and that of the ad network were likely different.  The ads ran on the ad network were probably not a branding play.  And I don't even want to get into his point on if Microsoft's Bing campaign ran on networks, than there must be some thing to this. 

At any rate, if I wanted to make a lackluster attempt at ripping OPA's study:

1). In advertising Frequency matters.  The more times a user sees a particular ad, the ad's effectiveness increases.  You are likely to get a higher frequency against more users when running on a "premium sites."  But you can purchase network inventory that keeps that is frequency conscious.

2). There are ways to buy ads on "premium sites" without buying it directly from sites. 

3). Reaching your core audience.  If you have a specific target, the network platform allows for more robust targeting.

4).Decide ahead of time what a branding metric looks like, in terms of an action. Some thing like second pages views on a homepage is more compelling than viewing an ad on a "premium site" without clicking, doesn't it?  Buying inventory off of networks will allow heavy optimization to be done.  I know.. it looks kind of like DR.

Unfortunately, for the most part, purchasing through networks does not have that transparency.  You don't know if your ads, which are ran on networks, are above the or below the fold, affecting ad visibility, affecting ad effectiveness.

Media buyers know all this.  Depending on their brand, the campaign's goals, the uses of network inventory and "premium sites" will vary.  OPA was not suggesting one over the other.  So what are we left with?  One study stating the obvious and an article trying to say some thing but really not saying anything at all.  Both of which doesn't change a darn thing!

I want the 5 minutes it took me to read the article and I'll forget about the time it took me to write this post..