But, I thought it was supposed to be social?

ComScore came out with a report that shows how important social media has become...to traditional advertisers.

The report shows that 20% of all online display ads (you know, the flashing, spinning, click me's that are priced on delivery rather than impact) are served via such social stalwarts as Facebook, MySpace and DeviantArt (well, ok, not all of them are stalwarts).

chart via Comscore (here)

So what?

For one, it means that the wireless companies think social media is where there prospective customers are...you know, the kids, mom, dad...even the dog. Because wireless companies AT+T, Sprint and Verizon represent 3 of the top 10 display advertisers in the social media space. And they'd be right...their customers are online. Everyone is. At least if they are under the age of 65 (here). Wouldn't you think though that the wireless carriers would try to advertise in the mobile stream they already own? Or do they know that their customer would rise up against the

intrusion machine in their mobile space?

Second, the data may mean that alot of media buying agencies don't really get social media. Because if you are buying display ads in social media, then you either: (A) have surplus ad dollars to spend; or (B) beleive that social media users are there to passively react to what they see. And while that may be true for some, anyone who uses social media regularly knows that you are more likely to be sending friends virtual puppies, taking quizzes to determine what kind of candy bar you'd be, or tagging yourself in your friends photo albums...in addition to networking and commenting on posts about all manner of social media topics of course.

What people on social networks were supposed to do, as opposed to what they did on Web 1.0 sites, was be social...make the network ours. Engage others. Lean in. Interact...have fun. Display advertising is, by its very nature, a solitary act of cognition. You may see it (see banner blindness). It may be relevant. It might be in context. But what makes it social?

In the end, the fact that we're talking about impressions served...and not mice clicked or pass-alongs...or tweet memes...probably says everything we need to know about display ads on social networks: They're just another attempt to force fit square marketing tactics into round media holes.

Prior post on social network advertising from 2009 South By Southwest interactive session (here).

Intrusion + Interruption: Positioning the advertising?

We've talked about banner blindness, ad deflation and the general tendency of users to despise unrequested interruption online...and offline.  And yet, the online ad industry sees fit to shout out that the web needs more intrusion and disruption if the ad business is to combat these ills. 

Examples:

1. Three new formats are proposed by the Online Publishers Association (here). These new 'super banners' will eliminate the annoying tendency of banners to get out of the way when a user scrolls, to suffer from 'banner blindness' and generally being ignored, and require a site's users to pay...with their attention.
   
2. VideoEgg calls for more intrusion and awareness to salvage the online medium as a branding medium, using 'interruption, cool, and rich media' (here)
3. Short Tail Media (you just know where this is headed) CEO David Payne calls for a return to the successful tactics of the 1950s, when TV invented the successful approach to interruption + attention we now call ads. (here).

We can all agree that publishers need better ways to monetize content. And that's an entirely different post. The challenge with the publishing business going back to what it's known is, well, going backward...not forward. 

The best part of the whole debate about interruption is that, online, it's a thoroughly testable proposition. We need not debate the search-based approach to advertising (the unintrusive kind)...we know it works and why. But for the very few sites that truly command monopoly attention (um, the Short Tail sites?), forcing users to endure interruptive advertising may work...I say go for it, and let us all know how that turns out for you! 

For the other 110 million sites that aren't ESPN or CNN and who have to compete for the long- tail user's attention, beware: an interruptive ad experience may just define your site's brand experience in totality. It would be a sad day indeed when an online brand ends up positioning itself based on its advertising style.

MyAds: Banner ads reborn?

MySpace, the oft-maligned, drab older cousin to Facebook's freaky fashionability is taking the growing up seriously. Ever since their acquisition by Fox Interactive Media, they've pursued a revenue generation strategy around advertising innovation. 

And now, one month from it's launch, MySpace is generating estimated revenue of $140,000-$180,000 per day using a pay-per-click display advertising model (according to TechCrunch).

So what?

Display advertising (also referred to as banner ads) has known issues (banner blindness and CPM deflation being two among many). But the MySpace model is intriguing for what it enables:

1. Do it yourself ad creation

2. Pay per click pricing

Combined with MySpace's long tail, tribal approach to community (i.e., you associate with those whose interests are relevant to your own--like music, pet ownership or tatoos!), one might expect many community-generated banner ads to actually reflect the community's values rather than an ad agency or marketer's interpretation of those values. 

Combined with pay-per-click pricing, one might expect that these potentially more authentic ads might outperform their less relevant, intrusive messaging foils--and therefore attract more spending. In fact, IAB reports for the 3rd quarter of 2008 show that CPM-based approaches to online advertising are already showing flattening spend levels, while performance-based models continue to rise (see prior post here). MySpace would appear to be on the right road there.

But what about the 'quality' of the ads? That argument, like many subjective arguments over quality, will have to have performance data to back it up or it will be an argument of interest only to those making it. An ad created by someone within the community has alot of intrinsic advantages over an outsider with an art degree.

Online, good design is design that works. If a person with inexpensive, off-the-shelf tools  (e.g., Flash, Photoshop) can create display ads that get measurable results, those who have made a living on self-evident value judgements may have to rethink their approach...or focus on the communities that they are part of. 

Flash banners: online Badvertising

Banner blindness, intrusiveness, non-existent click thru rates, impression-based pricing models...as if online display (banner) advertising didn't have enough going against it, now comes...hacking!

The nerds at /. carry news of an apparent use of booby-trapped Flash-based banner ads to gain control of the systems of the unsuspecting who click. Thank goodness hardly anyone clicks on banners. As this story gets round the bout, I suspect click thru rates will dive into negative numbers ;-)

It does point out an obvious issue: in an imperfect world, all communication vehicles have pros and cons. But when the balance of pros and cons--to the end user--grows sufficiently lopsided to the con, then the vehicle that suffers such indignity will find itself circumvented. TiVO and popup blockers being but two examples of ad-circumvention tools.

If online display advertising--using the ubiquitous Flash format--is now to carry with it the stigma of being a doorway for malevolance, and not merely something to ignore, I suspect ad blocking technology will become less about annoyance and more an issue of security.

When that happens, falling banner ad CPM rates can continue to zero and still be priced too high.

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