What’s up with the “click”

I am starting to get frustrated with the online focus of the click. Sure, it’s something that can be measured, and gives media companies something to show how great their site/network is compared to other properties. However, when it all boils down to it, a good “click rate” doesn’t guarantee any further action down the lead/sales funnel. Yes, it helps get the lead to the next step, but an impression can too. Just at a later more convenient time when the customer has decided to come back to the site on their own terms. Just ask anyone that has used an ad server and compares view-through conversions to click-through conversions.

I can’t click on a TV ad (yet at least) or on a newspaper ad but advertisers still spend more money offline than online, at least for now. So marketing directors can handle media without a “click metric” and it appears that social media continues to gain momentum without a resounding “click metric” in it, rather tracking conversations.

So as we move down the online marketing timeline, attribution will become the word that clients, agencies and vendors will be discussing. We all know that a majority of transactions still happen offline but online marketing can have a huge impact on that sale, it’s just hard to nail down the correct attribution. That is the answer that will be worked on in the future, not what small tweak to creative can increase a CTR of .3% to .35%. So click or no-click, attribution will become the metric that gets heads spinning and dollars shifted. Sorry Mr. Click, you had a nice run but it seams like it is going to be coming to an end.

Google AdPlanner revealed

Google revealed AdPlanner which they hope will sway more agency folk to the dark side and using their planning tools, which in return, brings Google even more data. It will be interesting to see if this is the in-road to offline media that Google has so desperately searched for. If they can bring the offline planning side along the online planning and provide analytics on the back-end, it would be hard pressed to say anything else would be better for close to 80% of companies. Obviously there will be some out there that will use other planning adn reporting tools, but if Google’s AdPlanner can directly tie into Analytics, that would be a sweet package.

Now agencies must be careful, as Google is looking more and more like the the agency killer as it makes the basics easier and easier for clients to do themselves. This will be an interesting move in the future of agency/client relationships and where “value” resides.

“Call me now” buttons back?

A long long time ago, many sites had a call me now feature that allowed users to request the company to call them. That was lost in the shuffle as sites focused on converting on the site and removing the need for a call center. However, as times are getting tough, some people still like the good old telephone. Especially when it is a high ticket item, they like the comfort of someones voice on the other end to answer any questions.

As long as you are not using an affiliate model where they will drop you like bad habits as soon as they see a phone number prominently placed with a large call to action, a “call me now button” might be a good test. The call must be as close to real time as possible as people have come to expect it, but it might close a sale that would not have happened, or worse, gone to your competitor because they answered the question online.

It’s not the holy grail for increasing conversion, but something worth testing again as others focus on fancy technology and flash. Let them play with exciting things that might help adn might not, and focus in on what consumers want, information the way THEY want it.

Google opens TV ads to all advertisers

Google is continuing to make moves to become the advertising hub for agencies and clients who have in-house teams. They have opened their TV buying capabilities to all advertisers as its been in beta for around a year. Advertisers can buy TV spots through AdWords by markets, dayparts, specific programs and program content.

The interesting component is that they offer analytics through set-top box such as seconds tuned per impression and the number of people who watched the spot from beginning to end. Will be interesting to see if they look at tracking spot times and search queries in the same market to report how offline media drives people to the web for more information.

A step forward in measuring ROI

TRA and Publicis Groupe’s Mediavest are making a major step forward in measuring ROI from offline media campaigns. TRA has developed a technology to match what advertisements people see and what products they buy. This is a great move in the right direction for marketers to be able to see if the TV campaign really generated sales or not. In the past, they have bought on sex and demographic data, now they can look at sales data as well.

Mediavest is the only agency to currently use this technology. The new technology is a big win for TV, since it has recently been under a lot of pressure for not being able to be measured like online.

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.

American Idol needs better viewer interaction

Quick post, after watching some American Idol performances and results show, I’ve decided they need to make the experience more interactive. As soon as the show ended last night (MST), my mom asked about David Cook’s arrangement of Billie Jean and who had the done the original version he performed. I went online and Googled David Cook March 25th and found that Chris Cornell had done the version on his solo album. The post I found already had 29 comments about the song.

The TV show should take a tip from the online world of posts and blogs and make the show more interactive. Cops 2.0 has the bottom 1/4th of the screen dedicated for viewers to comment on the show. I think shows like American Idol that are senseless entertainment should incorporate more viewer engagement so that viewers can interact with one another during the show and post comments about performances. Once again, I think TV is one step short.

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.

Rethinking Google’s ad spend in budget

An article today on imedia connection discussed how marketers often look at Google as the ultimate converter and spend a third of their online budget with Google. The article, written by and definitely biased to support Atlas argues their tracking technology is going to change the model of online tracking and advertising. That is great and all, but the technology and ideas have been around for awhile and it just takes time to reach critical mass and that still might not be enough to change the model.

I agree that Google probably gets a relatively large conversion rate due to other advertising mediums, whether it be print, TV, display, email, word of mouth or whatever but the fact is, search is usually the last touch point before a conversion. I thought about a baseball game and thought it was a decent metaphor for the scenario. Starting pitchers cost a lot of money and can usually get through roughly 2/3 of a game, then there are several changes in the 6th-8th innings depending on score, batter, etc. Then finally the closer comes out of the bullpen and attempts to close the deal. Google/Yahoo is the closer in this scenario. Companies need to use other mediums to raise awareness and “put them in the lead” for Google to be the last touch point and close.

I still believe a multi-channel advertising campaign is best suited and technology like Atlas provides a lot of value, but Google will always be seen as the closer. I think it is important to be able to track touch points, view through conversions, and frequency before someone converts as that data leads to better multi-channel campaigns. Companies also like to piggyback competitors ad spend and advertise exclusively on search thus reducing the marketing budget and becoming more profitable than their competitors who are using offline media to drive people to the web to use who else, Google, to find out their competitor offers a better product. Some affiliate portals are making a killing off companies who use offline media to drive interest and thus people go online to search for more info. Affiliates in the education space gobble up those leads and sell them back to the company that spent so much money on TV ads.

The article was a good read about tracking and the importance, but I disagree that the model is going to change in any time soon.