Showing posts with label Ad Contrarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ad Contrarian. Show all posts
















WASTE NOT, GROW NOT

What follows is authored by Bob Hoffman. It bears repeating here over and over again. Bob is author of the popular “Ad Contrarian” blog, named one of the world's most influential marketing and advertising blogs by Business Insider.  His recent book, "Marketers Are From Mars, Consumers Are From New Jersey" is a must read (buy it at Amazon). 

There's a restaurant in my neighborhood that's very popular.

You can go there any evening about 7 pm and I can predict with absolute certainty that every table will be occupied and there will be 80 people there. But I can never predict which 80 people it will be.

It's the same with toasters. I can tell you with absolutely certainty that tomorrow there will be 1,500 toasters sold in the United States. But I have no idea who will buy them.

Also tomorrow there will be about 500,000 t-shirts sold (I'm making these numbers up.) But who's going to buy them? No idea.

Marketers used to deal with these uncertainties in a reasonable but wasteful way. We would use experience and knowledge of the market to anticipate the type of person who would be most likely to eat at a restaurant, purchase a toaster, or buy a t-shirt. Then we would direct advertising at these types of people.

Because we used mass media, this media strategy had the disadvantage of being wasteful. Most people we reached would not be in the market for, say, a toaster.

But it also had three advantages: First, we would reach just about everyone who we thought would be looking for a toaster. Second, we reached an awful lot of people who we did not think were interested in a toaster, but were. And third, it reached just about everyone who would someday buy a toaster.

Advertising has changed. Now we believe we can predict exactly who will be buying a toaster tomorrow. We believe we can identify not just the most likely group of people, but the actual individuals.

All we have to do is follow them around the web and find out where they've been, collect the  data and soon we'll know when they're ready for a toaster.

The idea is to make individual targeting so precise that it replaces demographic likelihoods as the basis for media strategy.

So far this has been a spectacular failure. Each of us is currently inundated with dozens, if not hundreds, of online messages a day -- banner ads, emails, social messages, etc -- that are assumed by  marketers to be particularly relevant to us and reflective of our individual purchasing needs and behaviors. We pay almost no attention to any of them. They are essentially invisible.

The math tells the story. A generous number for display advertising is that it generates 8 clicks in 10,000 exposures. A generous number for Twitter interactions is 4 engagements in 10,000. It's hard to get much closer to zero.

We are thinking like direct marketers, not brand marketers. We are ineffectually using "precision targeting" to try to engage the perfect individual, and by eschewing mass media we are harming our brand in three ways.
1. We are not reaching those within our target segment who are not active on line or whose data we haven't mined.
2. We are not reaching the unexpected toaster buyers, of whom there are legions. 
3. We are not building a brand. Mass media advertising may be "wasteful" by the nearsighted standards of digital and direct marketers. However, some very wise people have pointed out that the nature of what we call "waste" may, in fact, be the very stuff that brands are built on.
Think about it this way. In 2002, Apple spent tens of millions of dollars in mass media to advertise the iPod. There were hundreds of millions of people who were exposed to iPod advertising who had absolutely no interest in an iPod. After 14 months, advertising had reached hundreds of millions of people, but Apple had sold 600,000 iPods.

Many marketers would call the enormous amount of money that Apple spent promoting the iPod to the uninterested "waste." But was it?

Today hundreds of millions of people who had no interest in an iPod own iPhones. Isn't it more than likely that the iPod advertising of 2002 had significant impact on the iPhone buyers of 2007 and beyond?
  • Didn't it make the Apple brand more appealing?
  • Didn't it raise interest in mobile devices, particularly Apple mobile devices?
  • Didn't it set the stage for the phenomenal success of Apple in the mobile device category, that made Apple the most successful company on Earth?
Or think about it this way. Why have almost all the brands in your supermarket been built with "wasteful" mass media advertising and none with the "precision targeting" of online advertising?

Understanding business is understanding that markets don't move in straight lines, people don't think in straight lines, advertising doesn't work in straight lines.

If you're a brand marketer and you want to grow, you have two choices. Be wasteful or be invisible.

FACEBOOK'S BAR CHART FROM HELL

I could not resist the opportunity to copy and paste this post from Bob Hoffman's Ad Contrartian blog.

Facebook has decided that it no longer wants to be in the business of selling clicks. Instead it wants to be in the business of selling reach and frequency, just like the grown-ups.

Of course, this is a cruel joke because reach and frequency mean nothing if the ads are invisible, which they are on Facebook.

This bar chart (to actual scale) does a pretty good job of explaining why they'd rather sell reach and frequency than clicks.


(C) 2012, The Ad Contrarian


For every 10,000 ads they deliver, Facebook gets 5 clicks. What would you want to sell?

WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE



It's not a game any more.

From an article last week in The Wall Street Journal ...

"Some of the most widely used apps on Facebook—the games, quizzes and sharing services that define the social-networking site and give it such appeal—are gathering volumes of personal information.


A Wall Street Journal examination of 100 of the most popular Facebook apps found that some seek the email addresses, current location and sexual preference, among other details, not only of app users but also of their Facebook friends. One Yahoo service powered by Facebook requests access to a person's religious and political leanings as a condition for using it.


The popular Skype service for making online phone calls seeks the Facebook photos and birthdays of its users and their friends......a user's friends aren't notified if information about them is used by a friend's app.


An examination of the apps' activities also suggests that Facebook occasionally isn't enforcing its own rules on data privacy. "


With thanks to Bob Hoffman at Hoffman Lewis for pointing this out in his blog, The Ad Contrarian.

TOP TEN AD SECRETS



As much as and as quickly as media options change they stay pretty much the same. And as the force-winds of technology push us forward we quickly adapt.

Or do we?

It's a riddle. And we keep searching for the answer that is just under our very nose.

A recent blog post by Bob Hoffman, CEO of Hoffman Lewis in San Francisco and St. Louis, uncovers Top Ten Double-Secret Unknown Facts About Advertising. The list follows in its entirety .... with thanks to Bob for his investigative and inquiring mind.

An do drop by his insightful blog, The Ad Contrarian.

Top 10 Double-Secret Unknown Facts About Advertising
1) 99.9% of people who are served an online display ad do not click on it.

2) TV viewership is now at its highest point ever.

3) 96% of all retail activity is done in a store. 4% is done on line.

4) DVR owners watch live TV 95% of the time. 5% of the time they watch recorded material.

5) 99% percent of all video viewing is done on a television. 1% is done on line.

6) The difference in purchasing behavior between people who use DVRs to skip ads and those who don’t: None.

7) Since the 1990s, click-through rates for banner ads have dropped 97.5%.

8) Since the introduction of TiVo, real time TV viewing has increased over 20%.

9) Baby boomers dominate 94% of all consumer packaged goods categories. 5% of advertising is aimed at them.

10) TV viewers are no more likely to leave the room during a commercial break than they are before or after the break.
If you would like to print a nice, clean copy of this list and pin it up on your boss's wall, you can find it here.

Here are my sources:
1. DoubleClick, Benchmark Report, 2009
2. Nielsen Three Screen Report, Q1 2010
3. U.S. Department of Commerce, Q2 2010; Nielsen Three Screen Report, Q1 2010
4. Duke University, Do DVRs Influence Sales?
5. Nielsen Three Screen Report, Q1 2010
6. Duke University, Do DVRs Influence Sales?
7. Li, Hairong; Leckenby, John D. (2004). "Internet Advertising Formats and Effectiveness". Center for Interactive Advertising. And DoubleClick, Benchmark Report, 2009
8. NielsenWire, Nov. 10, 2009
9. Marketing Daily, July 22, 2010
10. Council for Research Excellence, May 10, 2010


FIGURES LIE AND LIARS FIGURE



One of my favorite blogs in the blog-o-sphere is written by Bob Hoffman, CEO of Hoffman/Lewis Advertising in San Francisco and St. Louis. The Ad Contrarian has become a daily read for me and I thank Bob for his wonderful, down to earth insights on anything advertising.

The following is a current post on Bob's blog. I encourage you to read it and occasionally drop by his blog .... you'll become addicted.

"The advertising industry is so intent on pumping up (some might say pimping up) web and mobile video, they can't even see the real world anymore.

Nielsen's "Three Screen Report" (which reports on TV, web, and mobile screen usage) for the first quarter of 2010 has some astounding data about viewing habits. But you'd never know it from reading their conclusions.

Here are the facts I found compelling.

1. While time spent with TV increased by 1.3% compared to the same quarter last year, time on the internet dropped by 10 times that amount.

2. Compared to Q1 last year, TV viewing grew by 2 hours per month, while watching video on the internet grew by 11 minutes per month.

3. DVR viewers fast forwarded through 3% fewer spots compared to Q1 a year ago.

4. The number of people watching TV and using a laptop simultaneously dropped by almost 5% compared to last year.

5. Video viewing on the internet continues to be less than 1% of all viewing.

6. Mobile viewing of video is essentially a non-factor, constituting about 2/10 of 1% of total viewing.
Meanwhile, here are the "Key Conclusions" Nielsen draws:
1. While mobile subscribers watching video on a mobile phone is (sic) still only a small fraction of the audience, the year-over-year growth is a notable 51.2%

2. Over half (55%) of the mobile video audience is aged 25-49, not teens as some might think

3. Simultaneous usage of television and PC, while down year-over-year in March, remains fairly constant.
Two of the "key conclusions" revolve around mobile viewing, which is not even a pimple on the ass of total viewing. No "key conclusions" about the amazing, continuing dominance of television. Nothing about the bewildering drop in internet viewing (can you imagine the hysteria and death knells if time spent with TV dropped 13% in one year!)

To me it is painfully obvious that the marketing and advertising industries have so thoroughly bought into the "narrative" of the power of web and mobile video -- and are so eager to find justification for that narrative -- that they can't even interpret their own numbers sensibly. "

Thanks Bob!

I'M AGAINST IT !



Lately, some of my readers suggested that I often take a contrarian position on new developments in the ad business. I accept those observations as generally true with a need to explain why.

Our industry is hurtling forward at breakneck speed trying to desperately keep up with the technology that precedes it. Since the explosive growth of the Internet in the late nineties, the bubble that burst in 2001 and the rise of the venture capitalists out of the ashes, the movers and shakers of our industry are at it again.

I smell a land grab of sorts. MySpace, Facebook and, God forgive us, Twitter all attempting to make something out of nothing more than a conversation. None of them have yet to yield a return to their investors.... not a penny!

Ad exchanges and ad networks are popping up like ducks in a shooting gallery ... most of them simply replicating one another, offering identical inventory that has been dumped into them by publishers.

Skeptical? Yes. Let's set the record straight. Many of these ideas are very bad ideas and will lose money and jobs as we have recently witnessed by MySpace and soon, AOL.

It's the skeptic in me that keeps my strategic focus on the reality and business of our business in tow. It also often keeps clients that will listen and learn from making dreadful mistakes.

There are many advances in our business that make both traditional and digital media exciting, productive and return valuable insights and actionable results.

And while I am skeptical of many new "toys", I am also playing with them to see if I can keep from breaking them.

So thanks for the feedback. The video that closes this posting was found on Bob Hoffman's great blog, The Ad Contrarian. Bob is the CEO of Hoffman/Lewis in San Francisco and St. Louis.