Smart buying or Gaming the system?

There has been a lot of talk recently about Google and CPG marketers around the value of search as it relates to branding. However, as brands and retailers bid on the same keywords, it drives up the cost and ultimately hurts both parties. So, some companies have looked more closely at co-op search marketing where certain terms are off limits to various parties involved, thus reducing the competition and costs.

Other companies have tried to create search copy that does not elicit a click, searching for the ‘free impression’ but Google’s algorithm will reduce rank or remove completely if there is not enough click volume. After all, Google knows how they make money and will only serve ads that are likely to get clicks.

This question is also raised is in the ad network space. If I can buy inventory on a CPC basis and remove any call to action, it is likely that the CTR will decrease dramatically, thus extending the reach of the buy for branding purposes. I see this as smart buying. The current situation in the market allows people to complete this kind of buy, of course, with client approval. If the client is expecting clicks, you better have a prominent call to action, brand logo in every frame and other ways to increase the CTR. Overall, the industry is young and it seems like Google wrote the rules first, but that doesn’t mean that they will be around forever and that they are the golden rule for all online media. Until I see that this is truly gaming the system and unfairly punishing someone, I think it is a smart strategy for certain campaigns.

Online branding can be done

In today’s “Around the net in online marketing: section two”, John Battelle argues that the web is lousy for branding initiatives. I would like to argue that point. I think the web can be used for branding initiatives if done correctly. Some of John’s points are very valid about the low click rates and typical direct response metrics tied to online marketing.

I believe branding can be accomplished with direct response marketing, especially with the economy entering a recession. Display ads don’t need to be amazing creative masterpieces, their goal is to drive a click to a landing page that the user can learn more or engage with the brand. Whats wrong with a banner saying click here to learn more from a top 20 brand? I don’t see anything wrong, and think Coke Zero did a great branding job online during March Madness with 100% online promotion.

Brands can go online and push promotions and differentiating factors on a CPC buy and only buy clicks from interested individuals where a TV or two-page print add is paid upfront. The risk is greatly reduced of looked at from a media viewpoint.

Brands that are willing to take the risk and use the economies of scale that the internet has to offer might become the big winners after the economy turns around and consumers are more confident and begin spending. The other large benefit the internet has to offer brand marketers is tracking and optimization. Print and TV can be targeted by publication and site, but not much further. Online marketing allows the net to be cast wide and far and then honed back in based upon results, oh yeah, creative can be tested as well.

All of this leads me to believe that branding campaigns can be successful online. With the technology of rich media banners placing TV commercials in a banner (Coke Zero lawyer campaign) to buying on a CPC or CPM below $1, online marketing offers brand advertisers a wide variety of options to pursue. I agree it does not have the cache of a Super Bowl spot, or a 1/4 page spread in the WSJ, but I can stretch the dollar a lot further and get more eyeballs and engagement with the brand than a traditional media campaign.

Overall, brand marketers need to be media cognostic and not worry about the media that is being used, but choose the right media for the campaign objectives whatever they might be. After all, GM would not come out and say they are shifting 50% of their ad spending to online marketing if I was completely wrong.

Google is the marketing version of the “closer”

As 2008 baseball seasons opening day has arrived, I feel it’s appropriate to link baseball and Google together. Many people give Google so much credit for being the ultimate direct marketing tool and greatest ROI marketing tool there is. Many of them are correct, but for Google to be that effective, it needs a mass audience to increase their awareness enough to go online and purchase. I see Google as the closing pitcher in a baseball game and other mass media as the starting pitcher and middle relievers who do a lot of the legwork, sometimes only facing one batter only to hand the ball and the “save” to the closer.

TV, radio, print, direct mail, display advertising, and all other mediums are the starting pitchers and middle relievers that do so much work to get the team in the correct place to bring in the “ace”. This for marketing in may eyes is Google and Yahoo. The mass mediums drive awareness and brands through the heads of individuals and when they are ready to learn more or buy online, Google is there to save the day.

Brands must make sure they have a strong closer (search campaign) to compliment their Cy Young (traditional media). They must also utilize technology to evaluate the starting pitcher and middle relievers to see their effect on the overall success, and not just give 100% of the credit to ace Google.

Seven for All Mankind join Performics affiliate program

I think it is interesting to see that a premium designer denim brand is launching an affiliate program. I received the email yesterday from DoubleClick Performics (now Google) introducing the new advertiser in their program. Interesting seeing a brand that is prominently displayed at the likes of Saks and Nordstrom’s using an affiliate channel for online marketing, maybe they have had their time in the sun as the “premium” denim company and True Religion and Rock&Republic have taken over and this is 7’s expansion strategy. Whatever it is, I like the move.

It will be an interesting move for the high end brand to engage in the channel and it will be interesting to follow through Performics and watch the retailers. Personally wouldn’t buy $200 denim online as each pair is different. I have around 6 pairs and each fit different even though they are the same size and fit. Bold move for a premium brand, maybe the economy is affecting the mid-level luxury purchases.

This could pave the way for other premium clothing lines to join the affiliate marketing world and increase direct sales.

Disney champions digital media

Disney CEO Robert Iger stated that the web is just as important for kids as TV at the McGraw-Hill Media Summit. He urged other executives to join the digital movement, or hire new people who will. It is interesting to see that large brands like Disney are just now admitting that digital is as important as TV.

One of the interesting points that he made was that he has a Facebook page, albeit two friends, but at least he is experiencing the digital movement first-hand which a lot of executives are not (other than linkedin). I think it is key that executives continue to experience the online world, and do not think of it as a childish taboo. Ones that have experienced the online world, will be much more willing to embrace it and make the most of new technology.

It is important for large brands to accept that the digital future is now and join, or forever be left behind.

Initiative has a new buzz - Amphibian

The agency Initiative has a new “buzz” word for their client offerings. It’s “Amphibian” which relates to media living in and out of water or online and offline. This is nothing new in the advertising world as several people have discussed media neutrality or media agnostic approaches. When an agency meets with a client, they need to be able to have a knowledge of all media and make recommendations that meets the clients needs.

One problem with that is the traditional agency compensation model is flawed. Shocking! So is the whole pitch process. Seems like the agency model needs to evolve. Anyways, some agencies are so accustomed to media commissions that they struggle to push online or “fringe” media because it is new and different.

I hope this idea of amphibian marketing sticks, as it will bring some credibility back to agencies, but its nothing new. Media plans don’t need to worry about being offline or online, just inline with customer expectations.

Death of Microsites: Rich media can do better

Is there an end coming to the use of Microsites? Just think of the time and resources dedicated to generating a decent microsite, and then think of how fast people forget. I can think of a couple decent examples in the past that gained some viral traction, but not many. I must admit, I have been a big fan of microsites, but I am beginning to question myself as I have seen some good rich media ads that can act as a microsite and drive traffic back to the corporate domain. Some argue they are great for branding, I argue people forget the one off domains and remember corporate domains much more. If there is something compelling on the corporate site, there is nothing wrong with that, corporate sites can have fun too.

Ads now have the ability to collect email addresses, do commerce, and promote contests that microsites used to be vital for. If a company truly needs a microsite, think about hosting on the corporate domain and dedicating a small amount of real estate on the home page to drive traffic to the “site”. An average TV viewer has a better chance at remembering a corporate domain, than some randomly generated domain just for the campaign. Don’t just go building a microsite because that is what was done in the past. I ask people to stop and think about what the lifespan of the microsite will be and what they will need to do to keep the campaign alive.

Instead, look at spending money on a quality rich media campaign with all the functionality of a microsite in the ad itself. Once the campaign is over, you can pull ad. You can also design pages on MySpace and Facebook if the audience is right to support the campaign, once again, much less expensive than a microsite. Marketers have so many technologies available to them now, but they must know what to use and when.

Widget - Make sure there is good content

I have been interested in widgets and how marketers will use them in the future. After seeing this Kimberly Clark widget, I am a little concerned that marketers don’t know what to do with them so that they are maximized. Just putting some random things in a widget and hoping for adoption rate is not enough. It is most likely that brand ambassadors will be the only ones who adopt the widget and post it on their personal pages, not the average Joe. Therefore, there must be a payoff for them and their network that visits their page.

Pay per interaction video ads

Just as I had briefly mentioned about ads being sold on engagement, VideoEgg offers a pay per interaction ad model. It’s not excatly the same as paying a varibale rate depending on level of interaction, but it is a step closer. Rates range from around $.20 to$1 per interaction. They are defining an interaction where a user mouses over and the flash video clip loads.

As marketers still try and find a scalable branding solution online, performance based models dominate the online spend. This enables marketers restrained to only doing performance advertising like CPC or CPA to now look at video advertising. It will be interesting to see how this sticks and if large brand marketers adopt this model as it reduces their risk from the traditional CPM model.

Microsoft has been the first large advertiser to work with VideoEgg and the AdFrames product. They are currently paying less than $.50 per interaction. That is probably a lot better rate than they are paying for CPC terms.

when offline looks good but doesn’t work

I saw an intriguing ad this morning on public transport. I was two seats away from an ad that was facing my direction (probably 15 feet) and thought it was an intriguing image. However, when I look at offline advertising, I want to know what it is for and where I can find more information. Or at least see who it is promoting and be able to use my own devices (internet) to find out more.

Since I work in marketing, I walked over to the ad before I got off to see who it was for and what the VERY VERY small print said. The ad was actually for the peace corps, but I literally had to be on top of the ad to see the phone number and url I they were directing me to.

This was the kind of advertising that looks real good compared to other ads that I see of mass transport, but I don’t believe it is nearly as effective as some of the other ads that are only a few words with a large call to action. I believe that branding is important and sometimes the call to action is not as important, but one must consider where this ad will be placed and how it will be viewed. Not everyone who sees this ad will be in the seat right across from it, others like myself will be a few seats away and have a hard time seeing who its for (sure it would have been damn near impossible for someone with poor eyesight).

Offline marketing needs to learn from the use of CTA’s in online marketing. I see a lot more direct response advertising online than I do in traditional media, and I laugh when I hear someone say they want to track traditional media with online metrics. As soon as I give some ideas or suggestions about copy and size and Calls to action they immediately argue it will be ugly. Fair enough, don’t ask to track like online metrics then.

Very large brands can get away with “branding” like the peace corps ad I saw as I probably would have recognized a McDonald’s arch, a Nike swoosh, or Verizon check. The rest of the brands, they are just wasting money on ads that look good but are hard to read.