Misperception of reality: The creative class

Perception is reality. I perceive the world as flat...is it? I perceive all children in Lake Wobegon to be above average. Are they?

I perceive that there is a creative class in human society. Is there?

Jeff Jarvis has a well-thought post on the Myth of the Creative Class...and how that myth is being shattered in what he calls the Google Age. The Google Age, to my mind, is a creative way of encapsulating the previously explored trends of cheap computing; always-on, interconnected relationships; and a transparent society into an easy-to-pronounce label.

From the post at Jarvis' Buzz Machine site (full version here):

"...The internet doesn’t make us more creative, I don’t think. But it does enable what we create to be seen, heard, and used. It enables every creator to find a public, the public he or she merits. And that takes creation out of the proprietary hands of the supposed creative class.

Internet curmudgeons argue that Google et al are bringing society to ruin precisely because they rob the creative class of its financial support and exclusivity: its pedestal. But internet triumphalists, like me, argue that the internet opens up creativity past one-size-fits-all mass measurements and priestly definitions and lets us not only find what we like but find people who like what we do. The internet kills the mass, once and for all. With it comes the death of mass economics and mass media, but I don’t lament that, not for a moment."

The notion of the online world enabling a creative meritocracy seems particularly relevant to marketers and agencies. As marketers, we don't have to rely on assertions of superiority: be they about our approach to the four P's, our client's prospects and customers, or our 'creative' product.

In the pre-Google Age (also known as the Mass Age) one could assert, for instance, that half the advertising worked, but that it was impossible to know which half. In the Google Age, we can put such assertions to the test and evaluate them against the facts.

In the Google Age one can know whether any part of our marketing works at all and, if so, how it can work better.

In the Google Age, creative isn't a department.

Perception may be an easy existence in our own private Idaho's. In the Google Age, reality will set us free of our delusions...Class dismissed.

What do people do online?

The Pew Internet and American Life Project has been asking that question for years. And what they've found in this year's report is that people are increasingly using search. You can read for yourself of course, so visit the link above if you'd like.

If you would rather see it all in a nifty chart, well, here you go:


The report confirms demographic correlations to high search usage that are consistent with other aspects of being online: namely, better educated, younger and wealthier people index higher for use of search on a daily basis than their less educated, older, less wealthy fellow citizens. Maybe they just have more questions?

One other data point is broadband. With 55% of Americans connected at highspeeds to the internet, broadband is the single most important factor in indexing high for daily use of search.

Search is where people are. The message for marketers would seem clear: we need search no further for a reason to integrate search engine marketing into our campaigns.

What's in your search campaign?

I know, I know, yet another post about some innovation at Google. Sorry, they just keep me coming back for more. This time it's with Insights for Search, which is an enhancement to the ideas of Google Trends.

In this case, marketers can look at search volume against terms over time. Nothing new there.

But wait, there's more!

Added to volume-time series data, users can now see where that search volume comes from based on geographic region. And if you act now, you can see momentum. Which searches are on the rise? Which terms are losing popularity?

Yes, you say, but I already have more data than I can deal with...where's the wisdom?

Like many things online, the wisdom comes with experience. In this case, Google's Insights for Search should help us understand and test some of our assumptions about our prospects.

Assumptions like:

• where is our online search audience? Are they where are marketing plan says they are? Does they conform to our traditional demographic notions?

• what seasonality is associated with our audience's interests? Do our assumptions about when people consider or research purchases conform to what search volume tells us?

• what trends in terminology might reflect the leading or lagging edge of our prospect's perception? Is the terminology we use in our search campaign increasingly--or decreasingly--in the lexicon of our prospects?

As is typical of Google's toolsets, there is much more here than meets the eye... or that we'll try to cover in this post. One enhancement I'd like to see is tighter integration with the Analytics toolset...so many distinct tools of value, so little time to keep logging into different interfaces!

Here's a screen cap of a quick look at the search term 'graduate degrees' that shows some of the high level data available. Who knew those North Carolinians were so interested in graduate degrees?

(click to enlarge)

Prime time: Just another brick in the wall

In part 2 of what is shaping up as Accenture Week (see part 1 here), I'm catching up on Accenture's Consumer Broadcast Study. The document has lots of lovely findings from their global look at consumer interest in the medium formerly known as television.

To quote the challenge being made to the traditional definition of the network television model:

"Consumers are seeking out the content brands they want regardless of channels, rather than sticking with a channel they know. The message is clear: the days of the line-up are numbered − and the value of “must-see TV” in prime time is falling."

Another way to say this is that technology separates the value of the network from the content that rides it. Network television has always tried to own both.

Now, though, if you are a content owner, you want your content on every network that will distribute it. If you are a network owner, you want all the content you can get. YouTube for instance. Or Flikr. Millions of content owners seeking their own audiences. So there's that.

And in addition to the usual youth-is-the-trend-to-watch findings (they want what they want and they want it when they want it on any device they choose...who'd have thought it!), there is a set of charts in the report that caught my eye(s) on the relationship between advertising and economics:

Looking at both charts, regardless of age: more people would choose to pay to download a TV show they want to watch than would choose to watch advertisements in lieu of paying.

Of course I'd like to see how the question was asked and to explore the nuance of the responses (e.g., how much would you be willing to pay, for instance), but it certainly seems that, in a broad sense, advertising's perceived 'underwriting value' to consumers isn't something to bank on.

Then again, online you don't have to implement mass-media approaches. Let those who would pay, pay. And for those who would trade their time on the planet for ad-supported content? Well, let them eat advertising.

Diversionary link on the value of being a brick in the wall:

On the road again

Last weekend I journeyed across parts of two 'I' states and an 'O' state to visit relatives. On the way, I participated in a call with a client. No big deal.

So I decided to try an experiment...use my smartphone's broadband card while in motion. No, I wasn't driving, but from the passenger seat I was able to get--and keep--a pretty decent connection. I was able to launch an online survey for a client, conduct a quick IM session with a colleague back in the office and, of course check email and the financial news, all while travelling at slightly-above-the-posted speed limit. Ok, but what about something that actually required broadband?

That's where things got interesting...here's the score:

1. Music: iTunes connection...lags (resulting in rebuffering the music stream) were unacceptable
2. Video: YouTube video worked pretty well. Two of three videos worked without midstream buffering lags
3. Gaming: Runescape--full resolution mode--played flawlessly...until we lost the connection for about 10 minutes in a particularly remote area of corn country.

So what?

If rich media ads are to work with the increasingly mobile nature of computing, effective broadband connections--wherever the devices are--will be a pre-requisite.

In fact, according to the Accenture Global Content Study (2008), a consistent user experience is the biggest barrier to adoption of mobile broadband after consumer readiness.




More important, though, is the opportunity that mobile broadband holds for enabling engaging experiences, ad-based or otherwise, that might make ready the consumer audience. One can imagine networked, multiplayer gaming setups like Runescape--or those available thru gaming platforms like the Wii, XBox, PS3--combining GPS and mobile broadband to make the storyline and interaction integrated with localized features of culture and landscape.

See that car passing you on the left? Maybe that's a trading partner for you in Runescape...or an enemy scout in Halo. One thing's for sure, the mobile class' time killers won't be found in one place.

Better Dead than (un)Read

Newspapers, as we all know by now, are feeling a world of hurt (here for example or from the Newspaper Association of America for another). The product they sell, mostly local ads, has been diverted to online only ventures. Classified ads represent 63% of newspaper revenue. The news that used to draw an audience is largely available for free online. Combined with the static nature of the medium, newspapers have reduced their size, their employee base and their share of people's attention.

A prescription to save the patient from certain death is written by Doc (all pun intended) Searls (he of last decade's hot book, The Cluetrain Manifesto). On his blog, he suggests that newspapers have two advantages they should leverage:

• Their archives
• Their editorial page

The archive is a wonderful idea, though I suspect it would be a one-time advantage. Perhaps I'm interested in researching old news (like this), but the revenue approach Searl's suggests (targetted advertising) requires a leap of faith that it would outperform the current subscription models... Another challenge: once the archive of one paper is available, how is one newspaper's version of the news in, say, 1945 going to be worth more than another's? All of which sounds a bit like hope and prayer, not medicine...but what is there to lose in trying?

The other thought, making the editorial content the star makes some sense: Put it on the front page. Invite the community to steer the conversation. Have the crazy lady with the letter to the editor about her neighbor's loud parties (or the anonymous 'Sound off' call in) be the headline.

Might get some attention, but even the good Doc has to admit that it doesn't address the chronic problems for newspapers. Self-defined communities expect always-on, near realtime access and interaction. Newspapers move too slow and trade a product--in print--that is priced higher than the online competition...to a diverse community, a single vehicle will have a hard time addressing many conversations taking place online already...newspapers would be late to this game.

Smarter minds are certainly exploring the issue, but I think that a move online is step one (papers need to cut production and distribution costs further, faster, first). Reduce the costs of print by letting individuals print off the news they want on their home printers. Then, take the savings and invest it in their writing, reporting and in enabling interaction...papers will have to compete with everyone else online...For some reporters, the result may end up paying off more in sweat equity than in salary. Competing wiith free is hard work.

Says who?

Why, SaysMe!...on TV?!

Another online tool for enabling any old body to be their own Mad Men...this one on TV...get your ad on the tube for 6 bucks (at least in Cleveland)!

SaysMe.TV makes placement of your political spot on Cable easy and cheap (according to their site).

The site is currently making news for its focus on engaging individuals as issues advertisers. It's almost like creating a political blog post for TV...except that you use other people's words and have your name show up at the end. Which is quite like some blogging, actually! In an election year, this political focus makes sense.

But consistent with the do-it-yourself topic previously posted (here), SaysMe tv is another example of technology removing the complexity from communication vehicle production...and while this democratization of the Spot Cable TV vehicle is part of the story, the other part includes the collaborative way in which the ads are made and paid.

One can envision a group of likeminded marketers or PR professionals sharing the development costs of an issues ad and then using something like SaysMe TV (or Spotrunner) to run the spot locally.

Have a customer or distribution channel partner who can't afford the development and placement costs of global industry image advertising? Build loyalty by making a spot they can use, place and purchase on their own..for use locally. It's not a new idea, just a new approach and...a new low price.

After reviewing the site and it's process, the drawbacks of the SaysMe implementation are limited current market coverage (which is only a limiting factor if you don't live in those markets) and a focus on pre-produced ads that are political. But, like Spotrunner, AdReady, and Google's Print and Radio buying tools, it provides a glimpse of what do-it-yourself communications look like--and cost--when cheap computing power is applied to simplify complex systems.

First things first:

I've got an idea: How about a YouTube video? Or a TV Spot? Or a press release? Or a social web 2point2 interactive myspace community dialogue blog site?

I've been in meetings to discuss business objectives and communication strategy where those were the ideas that got bantered about first...well except for the last one. Everyone in the room knew these things weren't really ideas, that they're vehicles for carrying ideas.

But sometimes the pressure to produce leads to shortcuts in thinking. In this case, the shortcuts get us to the end product a bit faster, if not better. One need not look long to see a TVSpot, a direct mail or even a website that was created with the vehicle driving the idea. They seem forced, self indulgent, or poor facsimile's of something original.

The best work is also obvious:

• it is relevant to someone intended,
• it has a clear 'now what' opportunity for that someone,
• and it's where the someone wants it.

There are other qualities of good work, certainly. But how does 'good work' embody these elements?

Define the objectives and the narratives necessary to achieve them. The vehicles will come easier...and after.

McCluhan was right about many things...but I suspect he was misquoted on one...the medium is not the message.

Cuil or UnCuil?

What with Google's world dominance in search, it's no surprise that yet another upstart wants to succeed where giants (e.g., Yahoo, Microsoft) have failed: trying to wrest a share of search away from the king.

You'd think the launch of the Cuil search engine (pronounced 'cool' for those who are in the know or just plain obnoxious) would represent a best shot. It has as it's parents, afterall, former Google engineers with oodles of search savvy.

All I can say after trying it is: um, not ready.

It does have a nicely designed search results page--clean results and images to help users parse the results...but the results can leave something to be desired.

I tried several searches, but one in particular pointed out some serious issues: searching on my name in combination with that of my employer...the result had a picture of a NASCAR announcer who goes by my name as an integral part of the result that links to a university page and text results for someone else entirely.

I certainly didn't expect my picture to appear, but clearly Cuil has mixed several elements from very different sources to create a single, mashup result: and that's uncool. Though it purports to have many more results for the same terms than Google, it only displays one. Google, not only displays more, but the results happen to be accurate.

For now, google would seem to remain the King of Cool Search. Perhaps Cuil will work itself out. Maybe I'll give it another try: but I'd need a real good reason to switch.

Here's screen grabs of my sample self search:

Are you Ad Ready or Not?

In what is surely the second sign of the online advertising apocalypse (the first being the rise of Google), here comes AdReady.

AdReady lets you--as in anyone--create an online banner ad, deploy it, and track it. If you are a small business, (or a large one with internal marketing minions) the promise is appealing: you have control.

IN addition to the cost-reduction message, AdReady is also selling the spot-on notion of realtime message/concept testing.

Of course one can question the viability of the entire notion of display advertising online (like this, this and this), but that's a cry in the wild for now. Rather, one might ask whether this trend in do-it-yourself advertising (see Google's AdPlanner and the Spot Runner company as examples) is any different than do it yourself anything?

Like do it yourself home improvement, or do it yourself surgery, some people have an 'I can do it' attitude in the extreme...others will choose to have someone else do it for them. The decision to go Nike or to have someone else do it for you may boil down to an assessment of risk vs. reward (e.g., cost savings, cost avoidance, ego gratification). And if the only value a client sees in their ad vendors--um, I mean Partners--is the ability to manipulate the means of production, well this is for them: price pressure.

It will become harder to justify pricing for agency services at levels that are higher than the do-it-yourself models...especially if the differentiation is based on the subjective notion of expertise or creativity. As do it yourself advertising marches forward, in multiple forms, expect continued downward pricing on traditional ad services providers.

So what's one to do? Being able to demonstrate the real dollar ROI of your role as a partner will be one thing. Having some skin in the client's game, via risk sharing agreements and pay for performance models, might tilt the balance too. In the end, doing more than talking about brand advertising and its value will be the only way to avoid sliding down the commoditized pricing bunny hole.

For a guided tour of the AdReady platform see this (interesting that in the section on metrics they show a banner ad with a 0.40% click thru rate!).

Rock and Roll is Dead: Long live Rockband!

For those with an abiding interest in music, videogames and the face of Comedy Network News, check out...real rock stars trying to play their own songs on the video game Rockband!

For context, last week saw the Canadian band RUSH make an appearance on the Comedy Network's satiric (?) news show The Colbert Report. RUSH, which recently released a new version of a classic song for use with the Rockband game, is shown prior to their appearance on Colbert's show attempting to play their own tune, Tom Sawyer, on Rockband. Let's just say, video games aren't the same as playing instruments!

It's also a nice bit of integrated marketing with an online extension to Cable programming for both Comedy Central, Colbert, RUSH, Harmonix Games (makers of the game), iTunes (where game singles can also be purchased) and...for fans of the game, the show and the band.

But it's also a look at what some see as the future of music distribution...for one, the Guitar Hero and Rockband games have sold more than 6 million units. That means each of the licensed songs is a multiplatinum single! Rockband alone has also had more than 10 millions songs downloaded for the game. But what else generates such demand?

For one, the linkage of the music to an even richer experience than the ears alone enable. The gaming environment may provide a perfect platform for music releases because it melds three aspects of engaging experiences in teh gaming/music domains: the ability to play along as the air drummer/guitarist/shower singer in all of us; a challenge (competition/teamwork, scoring and progressive levels of difficulty); and a payoff (the ability to unlock additional tunes and add new ones).

Some might decry the games as a distraction from learning to play real musical instruments. I don;t think that's an issue. My own son, upon serendipitously hearing the Kansas tune "Carry on my wayward son" on the radio commented "oh, that's that song that is way too easy to play on Guitar Hero II even at the hard level." I thought about telling him how impressionable teens decades ago had seen it as a challenge piece for their progressive-rock leaning garage bands...but then thought better of that and just said "uh huh".

For those of us who may have spent the better part of two decades trying to master various musical faves on drums and bass...these games can enable you to play like a star in a couple of days...plus, you do get a sense of what real musicians have to do. How fun is that?! Recent releases of 'direct to Rockband' songs by Motley Crue and an entire edition of Guitar Hero built around Aerosmith are additional examples of musicians, fans (their kids!) and game companies crossing the traditional generational boundaries around an enhanced, shared experience with music.

video of RUSH' humorous attempt to play their own song--and failing--here



video of anonymous players mastering the same Tom Sawyer song in Rockband here

Ad inventory: an attention deficit disorder

Inflation, deflation, arbitrage, and debt.

No, I won't be posting on the causes of the next two years' economic de-leveraging. But these terms do have an analogy in online advertising which, despite what some say some of the time, can have an economic impact.

First, inventory inflation: Ad sellers rely on ad inventory to define pricing...tighter inventory usually means higher prices. Online, of course, the potential inventory of ad space is ever expanding as ad networks encompass more and more sites in their network...and people like you and me create more and more sites for narrowly targetted friends, aquaintances and peers. The potential inventory of impressions is, essentially, infinite. When supply of something moves toward infinity and beyond, you get...deflation.

Price deflation: Pricing on a cost per thousand impression (CPM) basis has been the norm for offline and online display advertising. CPM rates will, expectedly, suffer pricing pressures as inventory exceeds demand. Here's an early example of the cheap revolution in display ads...Lookery sells several billion ads a month and they are struggling to make money at 12.5 cents CPM...how many advertisers have paid 7.5 cents CPM lately? A lot more may be soon.

Ad Arbitrage: You know those annoying pages that sometimes show up when you click a sponsored link and it's just another page full of links? That's arbitrage. Someone has bid on a word with a low cost per click or CPM price and sent users to a page full of links with higher CPM or cost per click links. They may be annoying, but they did serve a purpose in leveraging inefficiencies in the market to someone's advantage. These sites have become less visible though because Google has limited the market pricing mechanisms for their network using minimum bids. A preset minimum is not market driven. Think of Google as the Federal Reserve setting interest rates at the consumer level. What you would get is a non-market driven influence on prices...forcing people to pay more or spend nothing. Forcing others to pay less than they willingly would. Eventually any market prices the external influence in--or out--of its assets...in this case, the asset for online advertisers is inventory and the pricing unit is CPM.

Debt: In a pattern at play in the larger economy, the artificial pricing being propped up by Google with its minimum bids means that an imbalance is building in the market for online ad inventory. A deficit in demand if you will. Because a few networks are artificially creating a floor for CPM values, an external downturn in advertiser spending might be the impetus for driving inventory levels even higher. At some point, the inability to fill inventory requires that prices be lowered...and when that happens, you'll want to be the buyer, not the seller. If you are Google, you may not be be able to fill inventory if the market pricing can't support demand.

And when cost per click and other performance models deflate, you can bet the cost per impression models will already have beaten the deflationary path ahed of them. The only way to hold value is to earn it...from the end user...and the end user alone. Impressions can't do that. Attention is paid to relevant, engaging experiences. Only the end user gets to decide what those terms mean online. It's the difference between buying impressions and earning attention (see prior post).

Shout out to the following influences for this post

Quinthar
TechCrunch

Spending or Earning?

The web is not an advertising medium. Come again? Well that's a shocker since so many advertisers seem to be taking their traditional ad dollars online. Can they all be wrong?

Of course not. But let's make a distinction...two really:

1. Advertising does not equal marketing
2. Buying something is not the same as earning it

First, marketing is more than advertising. Marketing encompasses all the activities that go into selling something...advertising is one small part of that. Here's a sample point of view on what marketing is, and is not, at thestreet.com (it seems a bit more practical to me than the American Marketing Association's definition).

Second, traditional brand advertising models have generally been based on the idea of buying attention (in the form of impressions, reach or frequency). Online (and in direct response), you can't buy attention. You have to earn it.

Problem is that many of the online advertising models are struggling with this notion...that a user who controls his or her own online experience can't be bought. In fact, attempts to buy attention--via banner ads, intrusive popups, unsolicited email--might even create a cost...in goodwill...in positive perception. The very old saying that any publicity is good publicity is, well, very old and very outdated.

But there are methods for earning attention. One is to be relevant. That requires listening. Another is to be responsive. That too requires listening.

Maybe that's why pay-per-click works. An individual provides a marketer with something worth listening to--the search query--when the marketer responds with a relevant response to the query (as in a sponsored link), the conditions are right for being invited into the consumer's world...one click at a time.

The smartest marketers know that display advertising and pay-per-impression models online fall short in a medium that demands--and offers--more to those willing to market.

For an research-based take on the effectiveness of banner display advertising, see Jakob Neilsen's Banner Blindness article on useit.com

One screen to rule them all?

TiVo will let users view YouTube videos on the television screens beginning this week. See article.

This on top of recent announcements that Netflix will enable video downloads onto Xbox 360 game consoles, AppleTV enabling web video to tv screen, etc.

Just what TV networks--the cable and broadcast kind--needed: more competition for attention. Only this time the competition is content from their audience. Yes, yes, we'll debate the qualitative differences between YouTube video and HD by land and by air on a large screen...these are temporary distractions that cheap computing power will address.

As the three screens (smartphone, computer, TV) begin to resemble each other--essentially becoming variations in size for delivering the same content in different contexts--one continues to wonder whether it's finally time to redefine the word 'television' to the piece of commoditized hardware it is.

The future is here

...it's just unevenly distributed. So said sci-fi writer William Gibson in 1999.

But what does a sci-fi novelist have in common with the world's most deliberative body, the UN? A keen interest in looking forward for one. And so comes, unleashed on the world, the UN's massive tome: 2008 State of the Future. For only $49.95, the UN's millenium project offers it's 6000-pages of paperback insight into, well, the future.

And what does that future look like?

Aside from recognizing that the future isn't what it used to be, the report (which also contains the past 12 year's of self-referencing research on the future) acknowledges many aspects of the future that, for many people, are right here, right now.

The Internet, which, unlike the UN's report is no longer available on CDROM, gets a special shout out:

The internet, the report observes is "already the most powerful force for globalization, democratization, economic growth and education in history.

"The internet allows self-organization around common ideals, independent of conventional institutional controls and regardless of nationalities or languages. Injustices in different parts of the world become the concern of thousands or millions of people who then pressure local, regional or international governing systems to find solutions.

"This unparalleled social power is reinventing citizens' roles in the political process and changing institutions, policy-making and governance."

Though not nearly as lofty as politics, social justice and policy-making, the economic changes wrought by the 'Net are certainly applicable to marketers and PR minions: consumer control, self-organization, and education are impacts from the future that are here today.

For a look at what some people think the Future of the Internet looks like, check out the 2006 report "The Future of the Internet II" produced by Elon University. It's free to download. (full disclosue: I participated in this survey).

For one musical take on yesterday's future, see...

Mobile is not a device: Part Deux

As part two (part 1 here) in an unplanned series highlighting the inevitable march toward one mobile, anytime, anyplace, anyone screen, I bring you...the Worldwide State of the Mobile Web!

Well, not me actually, but those traditions-in-transition media mavens at Neilsen.

They've just released their report 'Critical Mass: the Worldwide State of the Mobile Internet report' and it contains a few interesting numbers:

• 40 Million Americans now use their mobile devices to access the internet...that's a world- leading 15% of the US mobile subscriber base.
  
• The most popular device for using the interwebs is the lowly Motorola RAZR at 10% followed by the sure to grow iPhone at 4%.
  
• Median age of a mobile internet user is a too-old-to-rock and roll, too-young-to-die 35.

And what do people go online for when they are mobile? Why many of the same things they do when they are immobile and online:

• Email
• Weather
• News
• Search
• Maps
• Sports
• Entertainment (the un sports kind)
• Videos (the unentertainment kind)
• Music

You can get the full PDF for yourself here

The report's title hints at other elements that butter Neilsen's bread: namely, they suggest that the critical mass of mobile internet users is now in place for mobile advertising.

To their credit, they identify the general challenges to mobile advertising such as the lack of receptivity among people to mobile advertising (86% say it's not okay with them).

Neilsen falls back on concepts like inventory availability, demographics and the need for planning tools to see a rose-tinted future nearby where consumers 'warm to the idea' of advertising as part of their mobile experience. I guess it depends on the point of view.

Left to their own devices, mobile users would seem no more likely than non-mobile users of the internet to value interruptive, uninvited, irrelevant messages from impersonal marketers.

Realtime

In a talk we give to client teams, we stress three technology-enabled trends affecting marketers (not that marketers are special mind you): The cheap revolution, always-on connections, and the transparent society.

This weekend I got a fun reminder of how those three trends apply outside of a theory.

I went to an MLS soccer game Saturday evening. My son got to go out on the field before the game as part of a youth soccer event. And then...

My wife sent a text to my daughter (who had stayed behind at a friend's house) letting her know that her brother was on the field. My daughter replied that she knew that already. Seems a friend of my daughter's--who was at the game---saw my son on the jumbo screen at the stadium and had sent my daughter a text noting that and asking her if she was there too...all occurring in the span of 5 minutes.

Inexpensive communications, with relationships a few clicks away, sharing events of interest as they happen...applied to a brand, the opportunities--and obstacles--would seem immense.

Google Ad Planner

I was accepted as a beta tester when Google's Ad Planner tools were released two weeks ago. You can see what alot of others think about it by checking out their first blush impressions. There's thems that says it replaces the agency and those that sez it's nothing new. Somewhere in between lies the truth.

What does Ad Planner do?

It allows an ad planner to evaluate traffic and audience demographics against specific websites and understand what (Google) ad network options are available for reaching them...online.

For example, let's say I want to reach a traditionally defined demographic online for 25-54 year old females, with bachelor's degree and more than $75,000 income. Google ad planner suggested the following sites (out of a total listing of more than 40 sites that support Google ads and hundreds of other sites that don't):

babycenter.com
perezhilton.com
monster.com
marthastewart.com
healthgrades.com

Apparently, this demographic is interested in babies, celebrities (who may be babies), jobs, healthcare and whatever it is that Martha Stewart does. Who would have thunk that? While these aren't necessarily the insights that make for great campaigns, they do come with some other great Google features. Like the ability to see traffic on these sites.

So here's a quick eval of the good, the bad, and the unknown:

Good:

• I can enter a specific site and see what kind of traffic and the demographic against it.
• For sites that match my criteria, I can see what other sites these people visited and the traffic they support.
• A great way to gain insight into competitive web presenceseses
• The dashboard interface is typically spartan Google and easy to use.

Bad:

• Only sites with sufficient traffic (as defined by Google) will show up...limiting utility for planning against Long Tail sites
• The number of sites able to be researched is far greater than the number who accept Google advertising (which is, perhaps, only bad if you are trying to integrate your planning and buying with Google).

Unknown:

• It is not at all clear where the demographic data comes from...but then Google is likely as trustworthy as any of the traditional demographic data sources (e.g., MRI, Neilsen).

In the end this is a beta. AdWords alone is a $10billion dollar business. As Google enables do-it-yourself media planning--and buying--expect AdPlanner to evolve in connecting marketers with the online world's Long Tail dialogue.

Scientific advertising

I came across an interesting document, entitled 'Scientific Advertising' (shout out to Clix marketing for repackaging it). It serves as an instructive take on principles of advertising in a pay for performance (i.e., pay per click, pay per transaction, direct response) online model. The curious part is that it was written in 1898!

From the document (which you can download here):

"Advertising was a gamble, a speculation of the rashest sort. One man's guess on the proper course was as likely to be as good as anothers'. "

"It [advertising] is not for general effect. It is not to keep your name before the people. It is not primarily to aid your other salesmen. Treat it as a salesman. Force it to justify itself. Compare it with other salesmen. Figure its cost and result. Accept no excuses which good salesmen do not make. Then you will not go far wrong."

"The advertisement is read only by interested people who, by their own volition, study what we have to say."

The document covers everything from headline writing (the purpose of which is to pick out people you can interest) to psychology (it being unchanging and largely driven by curiosity) to the value of being specific (platitudes and generalities not generally creating understanding) among other topics. And throughout, a reiteration of the value of testing ideas (especially as enabled by response-generating approaches).

More than a century after its publication, many of the ideas seem eerily relevant today. What sometimes seems necessary is that we remember what those before us have learned so that we can distinguish between what is truly new and what is merely new to us.

Advertising, Beijing and Cycling

Oh8, oh8, oh8 is the mnemonically-driven start date for the Beijing Olympics.

In addition to world class athletics that may occassionally interrupt the Bob Costas human interest stories, this year's half-a-world-away timezone games will challenge media coverage to remain relevant to North Americans in the face of globally connected information providers.

To wit, R+K's own Christina Harp will be covering cycling on her blog Christina and others like her will be able to provide realtime results and human experiences to anyone who's interested. Given the focus on cycling, interested visitors should be able to get a degree of specialization and indepth coverage that would be unlikely to be found on more general, mainstream mass media outlets.

Speaking of which, NBC will cram 8 days of Olympics coverage into each day using streaming video online (nbcolympics.com) and alerts via mobile phone. As if that weren't challenging enough, they'll be using the games (and their multi billion dollar investment) to try and understand how people use media and how much attention they are paying to the Olympics. Presumably, to convince advertisers that they should continue to find NBC's coverage valuable.

As a shareholder, or an advertiser, you might wish NBC had answered the latter questions before they paid for the right to broadcast the games or you paid for ad space. But then if you are invested in NBC's coverage, you probably have other concerns right now.

To avail yourself of the NBC coverage, you will need Windows Vista and Silverlight installed on your machine (see unheralded announcement from January). This ensures NBC's ability to control what you do with their content. It may also add a bit of risk to an already significant undertaking as many users will likely have to download the Silverlight plug in.

To view Christina Harp's coverage, you need only a web browser and an interest.

Mobile is not a device

An interesting look at the evolution of the mobile phone handset in the video below (in what may be a Nokia video).

When people have the freedom of movement...and the power of taking their communications with them...it would seem that marketing communications must be as diversely mobile as the people it seeks to engage.

A few favs:

• I didn't get my first camera-enabled phone until 2002...a year after they were introduced in Japan.
• Text messages...more than 1.9 trillion were sent in 2007...up form 500 billion in 2004.
• The value of a consulting company's forecast? Well, in 1990 McKinsey and Company forecast a worldwide market of 900,000 phones in 2000...that many phones are sold every 3 days!

Game on: Interactive bloodsport

In this US election year, budget politics will no doubt be flogged by candidates to support--or even inform--their positions. But if there's lies, damn lies, and statistics, how is an average Jeff or Jane to grapple with the complex tradeoffs between statistics, politics and the demands of the real world to gain some understanding?

American Public Media has used interactive gaming to help generic you's and me's understand the tradeoffs involved...and why sometimes it's easier to talk about budgets than to take action. Their game, Budget Hero, outlines several common positions and asks players to assign their values and priorities to spending and taxing...then it calculates the impact of pursuing your priorities...not perfect, but thought provoking...

So what? What does this have to do with marketing...or new media...or the price of corn?

It is, to me anyway, exemplary of the power of games to help engage complex subjects at an individual level. As marketers, games have held an obvious place in promotional efforts...like trade shows + carnivals (redundant, sorry). But combined with the power of data and computing, games can serve well in engaging prospects with more complex or controversial brand ideas...like, how does one product work...better?

There are lots of great examples out there. Here are links to a couple of brand-education games: can you tell what the Brand Learnstitutors would have us know?

Here (we did this for a client)

Here (one of our client's competitors)

And for science buffs (or those interested in visualizing the ripple effect of policy decisions), here's a great look at the power of Chain Reactions

The cost of cool

Several posts around the web last month have discussed the apparent 'cost differential' between Macs and competitive products, from computers to phones. See here and here for examples.

And while I don't mean to take sides in a debate that is, largely, style over substance, it is interesting to note the premium price differences between a brand like Apple and the prices that can be charged by a branded generic (like Dell).

According to IDC, while the average cost of PCs has dropped from $1,046 in mid-2005 to $963, the average price of a Mac has risen to $1,526 because of new high-end products such as the razor-thin MacBook Air.

So here's a chart I created to show what PCs lack...and what the value of the Apple brand is to shareholders. I suspect your point of view will depend on which side of the Mac-PC debate you've already staked out. Either way, one must be impressed with the ability of Apple to charge the premium.

Indispensable people

"The graveyard is full of indispensable people". That's what a vice president at Westinghouse once told me.

I had described a departing member of my team as 'indispensable' in a staffing meeting. And while, on the surface, the logic of his statement is impeccable, it fails to consider the equally logical and very human nature of the relationships we often form at work.

People come and go in our professional and personal lives. Today, Kim L leaves to pursue what comes next in hers. We'll miss her...in my book she's one of the indispensables.

Will work for...fun

Facebook, with its 116 Million unique visitors worldwide and 35 million unique US visitors (where growth has flattened) is capturing alot of alot of people's time.

And alot of that time is being spent with the 22,000+ applications that have been developed for the site's users...and for what grand purpose are these application developers working to create the applications? Mostly, just for fun...


Many pundits and commentatorians call these applications largely pointless. Mostly, it's a shame all the other categories aren't thought of as just for fun.

There's nothing free about privacy

The Network Advertising Initiative is, much like the Direct Marketing Association's decades-old opt out list for direct mailers, an attempt at self regulation by the online advertising industry. It's designed to address the concerns of those who fear online profiling and tracking by marketers and advertisers.

Some would insist, as with the National Do Not Call initiative for telemarketing, that only punishment and enforcement (by an empowered government agency) can prevent abuses by marketers and the businesses they serve. Others (primarily the marketers and businesses), remind us that most of the 'free' online experience is paid for by advertising, suggesting a more laissez faire approach.

Though one can examine the details of the initiative (for example, the types of personally identifiable information that the policy guidelines would exclude), much of the debate seems to boil down to a simple question: do you think someone should have to opt-in or should they have to opt-out of behavior-based tracking designed to serve relevant ads?

Consumers have gladly exchanged access to their personal and purchase behavior information in loyalty programs for a few pennies off a purchase now and then. Online, with behavioral tracking for preference marketing, users simply aren't being asked for their permission...though the payoff would presumably be in more relevant content.

Users must specifically opt-out using the NAI website. Even then, it won't eliminate advertising, just the relevance with which it is served up based on a user's behavior...and only among the ad networks subscribing to the NAI policy.

Whether this type of initiative makes sense may depend on societal factors unique to particular countries and cultures. Are there high levels of trust among people? ..of the government? ...of business? Is privacy--in all its forms--viewed as a right? Is the web a public space or a private place?

In countries with a high tolerance for ever-increasing surveillance of citizen's behavior by governments, businesses and individuals, it may come down to a choice: between allowing a business community to occasionally annoy you in its attempt to meet your needs or in demanding protection from a government agency enforcing a well-intentioned idea with all the subtlety the law affords.

When less is still more

A couple of sources have reported updates to advertising spend trends.

AdAge reported that the top 100 advertisers (representing 41% of all measured ad spending) shifted almost $1billion from TV and Newspapers to the web. From the article:

Put another way, these top-tier marketers increased measured internet spending by $1 billion; slashed newspaper spending by $674 million; and cut TV budgets by $406 million.


TNS Media Intelligence reports a slowdown in the growth of online display advertising: from 16.7% growth in 2007 to 8.5% growth in 1Q08.

Two thoughts on what's at work here:

1. It's the economy: Of course, that's not really thinking, it's just stating the obvious. What's interesting is that even in the face of overall spending that is flat, advertisers continue to see the web as a place to invest. And with CPM rates continuing to fall online, there would seem to be little downside to advertisers taking their ad dollars there.

2. Display advertising reflects the advertisers using it: the top 100 advertisers, who control 41% of all advertising only control 37% of the display advertising online. Many of these companies are particularly sensitive to economic conditions.

So, maybe for those top 100 advertisers, it is about the economy. When times get tight, sometimes less is more. In this case, continued superior growth online suggests that, well, more is more.

Friday fun music link: One Les that's more (in the right hands)

Time is on their side: GooTube

There is a bit of a kerfuffle about Google's purchase of YouTube last year.

In one corner, you have Marc Cuban (Billionaire Dallas Maverick's owner, founder of HDNET and sometimes-rumored aquirer of the Chicago Cubs). He thinks Google screwed up buying YouTube because they aren't making money on it...now...and he doesn't see the near term potential for them to. Marc thinks a TV network site like Hulu (see my previous posting on Hulu) has it right (see Marc's testosterone-fueled blog posting on the subject).

Then there's the others, like Forbes columnist Quentin Hardy (see posting on Quentin's panel at the South by Southwest Interactive panel). He thinks they have it right using YouTube as a data goldmine. In essence, YouTube is the biggest station on the planet.

Personally, I think it's hard to argue with numbers like these, which might indicate that YouTube has it right (source, comScore Media Metrix):

For one month, March 2008:

• 73.7 percent of the total U.S. Internet audience viewed online video.
• 84.8 million viewers watched 4.3 billion videos on YouTube.com (50.4 videos per viewer).
• 47.7 million viewers watched 400 million videos on MySpace.com (8.4 videos per viewer).
• The average online video duration was 2.8 minutes.
• The average online video viewer watched 235 minutes of video.

When contemplating what people do online--and therefore where they choose to spend their time--it would appear that the long tail of YouTube has sticking power.

Numbers like these support the idea that a distribution network (like YouTube or NBC) wants all the content it can get...while content providers want to be where there potential audience is. For a distribution network like YouTube, they can have both the best content (in the sense of well-produced by people who do it professionally) AND the most demanded content (even if the demand is from small groups of 10-15 friends, family, and colleagues who could care less if the shot was in HD or from a single camera). A network like Hulu or Joost are tied to the content providers who have locked in with the traditional broadcast networks...amateurs content producers need not apply.

Google has time to make it work...both the YouTube audience's and their cash flow statement's.

Intrusiveness = Calm

Back in the day, when AdMen ruled the world, intrusion was one of the secret sauce ingredients to capturing an audience's attention. Now, the empowered consumer is telling advertisers to CALM down.


CALM, or the Commerical Advertisement Loudness Mititgation Act, is the latest in proposed federal legislation dealing with real and perceived affronts by advertisers against their audiences.


The bill seeks "To require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe a standard to preclude commercials from being broadcast at louder volumes than the program material they accompany."

One can argue whether this is the appropriate focus for our elected representatives...or we can simply evaluate it as one of unintended consequences of techniques that annoy customers and prospects.

Story Link

Powerpoint presents: gifts from slideshare

Who hasn't used powerpoint like a word processor? And who hasn't had to endure a presentation that looked like it contained the presenter's every word...on each slide? Boorrring.

But it's not the software that sends us sleeping...it's how we use it. And if you want to use the software better, then what better way to learn than by example. That's where slideshare comes in.

Slideshare is, to use a frame-based analogy, like YouTube for presentations.

You can upload your presentations, download the presentations of others (who have enabled them to be downloaded). You can set up webinars with your presentation and, of course, join a group or comment on a topic with presentations to support it (you know, social). You can embed presentation in your website or blog and...most importantly, you can see examples of good presentations as determined by popularity (assuming you beleive the crowd has wisdom).

For starters, check out this beautiful presentation on...presentations...specifically, how to avoid Death by Powerpoint!

| View | Upload your own

Measuring PR: Why apples aren't oranges

Keena Lykin's (Senior Account Supervisor at R+K) prepared a point of view on Public Relations measurement for one of our clients. I thought this was very nicely done, would provide a nice complement to a prior posting on marketing communications measurement, and was exemplary of why I think the R+K PR capability is so outstanding. So enough already, here it is:

R+K Point of View on Audience Multipliers

Rhea + Kaiser does not use audience multipliers to report media impressions, although the practice is common within the PR profession. We believe it is neither a reliable nor accurate measurement of the value our clients derive from media coverage. PR practitioners often justify this practice by saying audience multipliers:

• Represent pass-along value, or the number of people that read a publication in addition to subscribers;
  
• Convey the PR value of media coverage because it is more credible than advertising and thus should carry more weight than advertising.

Reporting pass-along value through multipliers only compounds the challenge of accurately reporting how many people read or see a new report. Publication and broadcast audiences are based on subscriptions and ratings, but not every subscriber or viewer reads every article or views every segment of a broadcast. Additionally, there’s no way to accurately gauge how many consumers read materials passed onto them. Given these factors, we believe it is impossible to create accurate measurements that include a pass-along value.

According to the Institute for Public Relations, there is no known objective research to justify the multipliers often used to communicate the credibility of earned media. These multipliers anecdotally range from 2.5 to 8 and further call into question the credibility of audience multipliers.

Instead of reporting results with multipliers, R+K uses its proprietary Content Quality Scale™ (CQS) measurement system. This tool evaluates media clips against five factors that are both universal and unique to each client. Each clip earns a score per category, with the highest possible total score being 10. The scale gives a holistic view of media relations programs and captures a wealth of additional information. We can sort by media tier, geographical location, date, source, the CQS score, etc., to provide clients with the most relevant qualitative and quantitative data.

###

Speed thrills

Ok, everyone and their brother is posting what's up with the new Firefox 3 browser...great features, blah, blah. There is one reason to upgrade: Speed.

It's faster. Noticeably so. I've timed page loads on several sites I regularly visit and FF is always 1-2 seconds faster than IE 7 and Safari...not a scientific approach, so here's a technical chart from Lifehacker:


Apparently a lot of word of mouth/mouse has worked wonders as this new version of the open source browser has been downloaded 6.8 million times in just under 24 hours. Check out the download counter here. Now that's product demand!

FlyPods: Power to the people

Tired of inflight movies you'd never even rent on DVD? Listening to the cockpit put you to sleep? Word up for the head's up to colleague and fellow iPod junkie Jeff W on Apple's latest conquest: United Airline's inflight entertainment.

According to the press release I received (which does not yet appear on the slow-to-load United site):

"United guests may now reach cruising altitude with a new, personalized in-flight entertainment system. United is the first U.S. carrier to offer iPod and iPhone connectivity to its in-flight entertainment system, enabling customers to enjoy their individual content on a 15.4-inch personal television, all while the iPod or iPhone charges...Our guests may now watch or listen to what they want, when they want with programming they choose..."

I applaud the airline for seeing their customer's use of the portable music/video devices and responding to that in conjunction with a savvy marketing partner...Apple (sorry, sounds like Zune/MP3 players will have to await the aftermarket to create adapters).

One (well, this one anyway) wonders if there won't be unintended consequences of 'personal preferences' that are visible in 'public places'. One person's personal entertainment preference in the privacy of their seatback monitor might be another person's unfriendly skies when viewed from just across the aisle afterall.

Personally, I'd just be grateful for a functional power supply at each seat.

Either way, jacking in your own choice of video and music--using headphones--seems a nice step forward in customizing the otherwise uniformly dull flight experience. It certainly beats the open mike flight that unrestricted inflight phone use would beget...so if this keeps people's eyes and ears occupied while maintaining the choice to enjoy the silent skies, then go team!

For an interesting, slightly more serious look at the ethical issues of personal technology choices inflight, enjoy the following article on in-flight cell phone use. How would you respond?

Speaking of people power...here's to oddly human powered music...or is that just oddly powered music?

What were they thinking? Mind control in Second Life

When I was 8 or 9 I remembered watching some PBS show on the brain. In one segment, a guy with a big mustache had wires attached to his head and, according to the monotoned narrator, he made a model train run using the electrical activity of his brain waves. It was a rather memorable, if unspectacular, display of technology even by the pre-Star Wars standards of imagining golly gosh science.

Now, a few unspecified decades later, comes word that those brain waves can be put to more useful uses than running model trains a few seconds at a time.

Researchers at Keio University in Japan (soon to award Bono an honorary doctorate) have demonstrated a system that enables a user to move an avatar in the virtual world Second Life and to engage the avatars of others in voice chat...using only brainwaves of their sensory-motor cortex.

Of importance, the demonstration (which involved a volunteer with a muscle disorder) may hold a great deal of promise for motion-impaired people.

Of note, it may also hold the promise of further developing efficient brain-computer interfaces for other uses ...who needs voice activated phone dialing if you can just think about ordering a pizza and have it delivered in 30 minutes?

Of concern, who has access to your brainwave signatures and how they relate to your behavior?

YouTube video of demonstration here

My that's a big fMRI you have there

For some time now (about a decade and a half to be more precise) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been transforming neuroscience.

As the tools have gotten cheaper and more widely distributed, some have applied them in ways that purport to 'see' not just what's going on in the brain, but--by extension--the mind. One outfit even specializes in fMRI for marketers.

And what marketer wouldn't like to know what's going on in their target's mind? "Hmm, the fMRI shows that the Coke logo stimulates the same part of the mind as does the image of a koala bear...that must be because Coke is comforting, familiar, and soft. We should use fluffy koala bears in our adverts! Science tells us so!"

Of course, that's not science...marketing or otherwise. And the folks at Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have an interesting article (requires membership) challenging some of the approaches to using these tools...not because they are Luddites, but because some of the inferences made in the name of science turn out to be based on, well, not particularly scientifically rigorous interpretation.

Such as?

Such as the resolution of the images themselves: fMRI machines are unable to capture details smaller than a few millimeters on a side...that area contains millions of neurons.

Such as what is actually being resolved: the imagery tends to show the affect of blood flow...a proxy for the actual activity of the neurons themselves.

Such as control for other causal factors: there is still much to be known about the linkage of moral, emotional, and physical concepts in regions of the brain.

So what?

An fMRI picture may paint a million words (it is the new millenium afterall)...but what those words tell us is unlikely to be as simple as a tagline or market segment profile. Rather, the more complete picture of a prospect will likely come from what the prospect tells us directly through their responses to inquiries or through their observable behavior in the marketplace... approaches for testing hypotheses that marketers and market researchers know well.

For now, it would appear that our fMRI tools offer marketers only an unimproved means to an unimproved end.

Are you Textperienced?

Perception is reality...Until, that is, someone reveals the prevailing perception as misconception.

A study in the Journal of Computer Mediated Communications by researchers at THE Ohio State University (not to be confused with any other buckeye-loving institution of higher learning) takes on perceptions about instant messaging and concludes--wait for it--IM'ing actually reduces workplace interruption!

You can certainly read the details for yourself but the summary of accounting is as follows: IM'ing enables efficiency in managing interruption.

IM seems to beget efficiency of communication by managing the interruptive nature of workplace communications more effectively. Unlike the often meandering conversations of phone and face to face, there is a built in governor in the more phyisically demanding fine motorskills of instant messaging. Combined with the option for synchronous or asynchronous timing, and the ability to detect one's presence on the network ("I'm away right now"), IM offers the potential for less time to be spent for the same messaging impact.

Some people prefer "management by walking around" or the idea of "casual collisions" in hallways and office spaces. But one study referenced in the research article indcated that "...workers spent an average of just 11 minutes on a task before being interrupted or moving on to a new task, and more than half the interruptions (57%) were unrelated to the task at hand (Mark, González, & Harris, 2005)."

In the always on information workplace, IM users may in fact have a productivity advantage. Consider it Innovative Messaging. Add a few smileys, and you have nearly all the emotion necessary ;)

For a gratuitous headline reference to innovative musical messaging, YouTube brings you, Jimi Hendrix--reincarnated as a right hander!

Blending ads and games

What happens when you blend video game controllers and YouTube? Why, word of mouse marketing of course!

I've been following the Blendtec 'Will it blend?' series for about 9 months...and the latest installment made me laugh out loud (I'm easily amused, so your guffaw reflex may vary).

The entire series uses low-cost video and a finely tuned pop-culture sensibility to demonstrate the serious blending power of the Blendtec line of blenders...more than 70 videos blending everything from iPhones to Chuck Norris have worked the word of mouse magic to the tune of more than 10 million views.

In the latest video, Blendtec borrows interest from the smash hit Nintendo WII game Mario Cart...and creates Nintendo Smoke (don't breathe it!).

KISS: keepin' it simple silly

Seth Godin has a post on keeping the marketing message simple by starting as if you were developing a classified ad. The point is that it forces you to get to the point...what's the offer, what do you want someone to do...all on the backdrop that every word costs.

I think this is exactly what writing an ad for a Search Engine Marketing campaign forces you to do...you're limited to a set number of characters in the headline (25), the body (35) and the link (35 to use the Google limits). And to reprise the lead sentence from the posting a couple of days ago...you'll know you're simplified message is right (or not) in realtime, based on the clicks.

For an example of keeping it simple in pictures, see Jessica Hagy's site

For an example of keeping it lip-synch simple in Detroit, the Rock City:

Go big or go home

Sort of like skywriting...in reverse....

[Click on image to enlarge]

Soccer Fans arriving for the start of Euro2008 see this on final approach...no word on what passengers on the right side of the plane see.

Search engine optimization: snake oil?

Search rulz! Yes, we all know that making sense of the online morass usually starts with search. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft (in that order) control the majority of search. So what's a marketer to do about ensuring they are where their customer's action is?

Some pursue Search Engine Marketing (the Sponsored Links one sees in a search result).

Some pursue Search Engine Optimization (the 'organic' result).

In theory, search engine optimization is more credible or relevant...because it presumably reflects the truth of what your site contains. In reality, an entire industry has cropped up purporting to deliver superior organic results.

Two thoughts:

1. There are things you can do--and legitimate companies to help you do them--to garner effective organic results. These are not secrets. The search engines even tell you how to accomplish them (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo) on their sites about search.

2. There are promises that can be made--by companies who purport to know secret forumlas--that won't necessarily be fulfilled.

The major search engines don't want to tell you the specific algorithms they use (which are always changing)...what value would they have if everyone knew how to game them? They do want your site to be appropriately indexed...and they tell you how that works.

Here's Google's advice (from their webmaster guide [PDF]):

"Many site owners fixate on how well their respective web pages rank. But ranking is determined by over 200 criteria in addition to PageRank. It’s much better to spend your time focusing on the quality of your content and its accessibility than trying to find ways to ‘game’ a search engine’s algorithm. If a site doesn’t meet our quality guidelines, it may be blocked from the index."

So when pursuing an optimization strategy, here's 5 simple questions to ask a potential SEO partner...if they suggest a simple "yes" answer to any of these questions, you might consider a second opinion:

1. Can a number 1 page rank be guaranteed?
2. Are techniques used that are able to fool the search engine algorithm?
3. Does every website need a search engine optimization effort?
4. Are large lists of keywords necessary to be programmed into each page?
5. Will pages be created that only the search engines will see?

Search Engine Optimization isn't a miracle cure for ailing site traffic. And it's not a supernatural mystery to solve with chants and witch doctors...it won't lend itself to simplistic answers...it will yield to best practices and logical actions...tied to site objectives, user needs, and the competitive space a site operates within. A trusted SEO partner knows this and shares it.

Measuring MarCom Effectiveness: Now 10% off

"How will I know you're right?" is a favorite quote attributed to clients across any agency's roster. And it's the right question to ask...once this question has been answered: "What are we trying to accomplish?"

We've run workshops on measuring communications effectiveness recently and we've put a stake in the ground: Communications should be measured for what it can accomplish...nothing more, nothing less. I know, we would seem to have a firm grasp of the obvious here. But in the heat of input, planning and seeking the ever bigger idea, it's often important to touch this stone. Communications (and it's spawn advertising, PR, sales support and promotion) can do three things:

1. Generate awareness

2. Impact perception

3. Compel action

Sometimes, communications do a great job of awareness (like brand advertising) but the objective gets confused with a measurement of action (like increasing sales). Othertimes, branding objectives make taking an action (like coupon redemption) seem far too tactical for the big brand mission. We're simply trying to ensure that we help our clients by aligning objectives, what gets measured, and the idea.

Search engine marketing (e.g., Google's AdSense) and behavioral targetting of display ads has moved contextual-based approaches to targetting light years ahead of more generalized demogogic approaches such as age, income and gender.

And now comes Brandcaster. According to Wired, Brandcaster hopes to begin using the same principles of contextual and behavioral marketing as the search engines to deliver: coupons.

So what?

For one, pity newspapers. 90% of the 285 Billion coupons distributed last year were printed by newspapers according to NCH marketing services (ref: Wired article).

For two, cheer for advertisers. Only 0.4% of those 285 billion coupons get redeemed (ref: Wired article).

For three, get our metrics in order. If an advertiser is investing in promotions/coupons, networks like Brandcaster will make paying for peformance the defacto approach. And when you pay for performance, it will be important to have modelled your expectations of performance lest you underestimate or overestimate success.

Lastly, moving couponing and promotion online may also make tying communications to sales more routine because the ability to measure against objectives around an action will be--as they are online--a data-rich, realtime environment.

Style vs. Substance: A tragedy of the commons?

By now we've all grown accustomed to Wikipedia's pull. In fact, when we've polled client audiences prior to a series of new media presentations we regularly give, Wikipedia seems to be the one 'new media' experience everyone has had in the last 7 days...but is that a good thing?

Many voices in academia seem engaged in a sort of low-level war with wikipedia and other free, open information sources...from universities prohibiting the use of wikipedia and Google (see this, this, and this example of open minded academic discourse) to general griping about the quality of the entries to glee at the occassional outrages posted as part of the collective wisdom. Anger and denial are the natural first reactions of people for whom the power rules are changing.

Now comes the latest shot in an article by Mark Bauerlein in the Chronicle of Higher Education...and what does it say?

"I can tell when my students have consulted Wikipedia when writing their papers. Sentences lose their singularity, transitions go flat, diction pales. The discourse sounds like information issuing from a neutral platform, not interpretation coming from an angle of vision. "

The article compares the style of wikipedia entries on Moby Dick (I enjoyed the story, but not the length...so harpoon me already) to that of older encylopedia's.

The Professor's conclusion?

"Each one [of the entries in the 'old' sources] is more vibrant and entertaining than the Wikipedia entry. The information is no better, and Wikipedia is, indeed, a marvelous source for a quick date, fact, definition, event. But in style, most entries are deadening."

He goes on to imply that students seem to be incapable of writing with a point of view when using Wikipedia and says "...but I wish I received a lot more biased, opinionated, argumentative, judgmental, stylish, and colorful papers."

Funny, I thought that's what teachers and grades were for...rewarding the desired behavior. Wikipedia and other encyclopedia's shouldn't be confused with primary research...nor with teaching. As a repository of the best available collective knowledge--and a mission that values neutrality--Wikipedia seems to fill an awful lot of demand among the un-Ivoried commoners.

But perhaps we're near a turning point...if the debate is now indeed shifting to stylistic concerns, then maybe we're entering another, happier place on the change curve...acceptance. Who knows, soon maybe the late adopter academics will engage Wikipedia en masse with their leaderly peers and actually try to make it better.

Meanwhile, I'll just continue missing the point of all the angst over the idea that the unwashed masses are not to be entrusted with the power of information unvetted by The Tower. Perhaps the Wikipedia entry about Wikipedia says it all? That or the number of people buying encyclopedias.

A touch too much

The Google Android stalkers have screen shots and video of the latest prototype of this iPhone killer (ok, maybe that is a bit of an overstatement). In addition to the 'hmm, this looks very familiar' reaction, it (The Android project) strikes me as an interesting look into the type of community/cult following that technology can create EVEN BEFORE IT IS AVAILABLE...

What's Android? It's an open source development platform for mobile devices.

So what?

In the always on, always connected world of mobile devices, Google's selected an open-source approach to developing useful technology...a different approach than the Think Different company (which has always preferred proprietary approaches). ..both approaches have their acolytes...and fanatical followers.

Touch screen interfaces have always held an inutitive usability advantage given their support of direct physical manipulation. The Android prototype appears to combine some of the finer features of the iPhone, Samsung and other mobile touch screen interfaces (currently, I am using the HTC Mogul)...proving once again how continuous market learning makes it difficult to sustain a competitive advantage built on technology innovation (anyone seen a drug company growth stock lately?).

Speaking of touch screen innovation, I'm still waiting for someone to invent a touch screen that can be used while eating french fries.

Discover the search engine that pays you back!

Credit card cash back models are coming to search engine marketing...well, at least to Microsift's Livesearch. Microsoft is going to compete with Google by offering to pay people cold hard cash (or at least the kind you get with PayPal) for the purchases they make when using LiveSearch.

Read all about it

So if I use a Discovercard and Livesearch for my purchase, I might be getting 10% off?

As advertisers and marketers, we end up paying Microsoft for the sale instead of the click...that's pay-for-results at it's most clear...pay per click remains one step removed from the ultimate point of sponsored search. But what do MS get to keep regarding the behavior, demographics and preferences when they control the lead up to transaction?

Credit card companies (notably Discover) have tried this type of 'preferred retailer' approach for years with online shopping applications and agents. One wonders how they might view Microsoft's attempt...as frenemy perhaps?

Obviously, the pay per purchase model doesn't work for all categories of commerce search. At minimum, it does indicate that the competition for search would seem to have entered a new phase.

UPDATE 5/22: For a more detailed review, some interesting stats and commentary, see the TechCrunch posting from 5/22...here.