Digital Marketing Commentary (Now With 15% More Snark!)

May 26, 2010

Foursquare Hits 700,000 Check-Ins

Filed under: Uncategorized — jilliantate @ 3:41 am

700,000 people checked in on Foursquare last Friday. That’s 700,000 check-ins in one day. For a social media tool that no one seems to know how to use, that’s ridiculous. (Exception: The Governator is already on it.)

The question is, how does this actually affect the marketing landscape? Foursquare is still a blip on the radar. No one can tell me it will be as big as Facebook, or even as big as Twitter. Facebook is now powering the web, providing a back-end sign-in architecture that Google dreamed of a few years ago. And Twitter is still easier to use and understand than Foursquare, because you can sum it up in one sentence: “like blogging, but shorter.” How do you even start describing Foursquare to your friends? More importantly, who are these 700,000 check-ins? How many unique users is that? And does that represent the majority of the people who will ever sign up for Foursquare? Has Foursquare already achieved saturation in its market of young, urban types who go out and remember to check in on their smartphones? I mean, I have the app on both phones (home and work), and I always forget to check in when I go out. Will there be a drop-off rate in usage that exceeds the sign-up rate, and will that come soon?

I see the marketing future of Foursquare in three directions. First of all, there’s the small, local aspect: offering discounts for check-ins, or for the mayors of a location. Tasty-D-Lite is doing this in NYC, and Starbucks is offering $1 off Frappucinos for all store mayors through June. The second is to set up specific badges by working with Foursquare, but that’s only really feasible if you have national advertising branding dollars behind your plan. I’d love to set up a program where a client gave out custom badges when people checked in, but I have no idea how much that would even cost, and I haven’t been able to track down anyone at Foursquare to tell me. (My guess? “A lot.”) And the third would be to have paid “suggestions” available, an ad for a nearby business that pops up when you check in somewhere. That might diminish the customer experience somewhat, but would it drive enough foot traffic – especially if it included a discount or other offer – to offset the complaints?

I’m watching you, Foursquare. I’m checking in on you, when I remember to do so. And as soon as I figure out a way to put effective advertising on you, I will do it.

April 29, 2010

the daily show/apple smackdown. also, Aol

Wow.  I’m sorry to see Apple in the same category as FOX News: a target on the Daily Show.

But then I noticed who the main advertiser was:

Dum-dum-DAAAAA!  Is it a coincidence that Google is spending money on ComedyCentral.com on the night that Jon Stewart smacks down Apple?  I THINK NOT!*

(I actually do have a Google search story.  It’s here.  People my age love sharing, and love autobiographing in ways that take less than five minutes, so this ad is perfect for the ComedyCentral.com audience)

For those of you who may have missed it, you can see the full Daily Show episode on the website.

Oh, and while you’re in a mood to be amused, there’s a great writeup on Valleywag about the Deadly Curse of AOL.  AOL are in the news today because they sold ICQ to the Russians for much less than they paid for it.  There goes another chunk of Internet nostalgia, sold to the Russians (Livejournal was sold to Russian company SUP last year).

I think the REAL curse of AOL is that they can’t permanently assign sales people who can grow with the agencies and brands they work with.  My team has been through a half-dozen AOL reps and team members who were supposed to be permanently assigned to our agency.  And every time we would have a big team meeting, and explain our clients and our goals for our campaigns, and discuss opportunities.  Our reps would get the hang of working with us, learn about what we needed, and call us for fire sale remnant inventory on homepage opportunities.  Then the reps would be laid off or reassigned, and we would have to start again.  I think I could probably find my current AOL rep in my Outlook, but I’d have to check with my AOL Search rep (who, thankfully, has been a stable presence) to be sure.  THAT is the curse of AOL.  Maybe re-org’ing their sales department will give us a trusted rep we can work with for years.  Meanwhile, I’ll be calling our last set of reps – they all took the time to understand my business needs, and now that they’re at new partners/publishers/vendors, I’ll see if I can give them the budget.

*Actually, I think it is a coincidence that Google is advertising on ComedyCentral.com the night Jon Stewart insinuated Apple was the iGestapo. But I thought saying otherwise would be more dramatic

January 6, 2010

Hey Apple: Do You Actually Know What Quattro Does?

Filed under: Uncategorized — jilliantate @ 6:12 am

Apple bought Quattro Wireless today. If you were totally out of the blogosphere, you can catch the recap on All Things D.

Seriously, I really can’t figure out what Quattro’s got that Apple couldn’t just build, or what they have that Apple can use. The AdMob acquisition by Google made sense to me, because Google can now add the AdMob inventory and infrastructure onto the rest of the Google Network. I expect it will eventually function as an extension of the Google Network, only with mobile ads instead of full size display banners. Quattro has an extensive network, but how is Apple going to leverage that? I can understand that perhaps Apple wants some of the mobile site development technology that Quattro sells, but why would Apple want mobile advertising inventory? To compete with Google?

Kara Swisher says:

    “Both innovative start-ups are aimed squarely at the fast-growing market to advertise on smartphones, such as Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android devices.”

Yes, but how does that tie in with the greater business plans of both companies? How is Apple going to leverage the (rather excellent, actually) advertising, analytics, tracking, hosting, and general campaign management of Quattro’s mobile advertising core competency? I’m stymied, folks. Anyone have any ideas?

December 31, 2009

social media reporting isn’t all bells and whistles

Filed under: analytics, social media — jilliantate @ 5:45 am

I wish it was. You can automate bells and whistles; you can’t automate the kind of loving, hand-tagged work that I do on a social media report.

I spent hours today slaving over a hot Radian6 report, reviewing the past six weeks of social media posts for a pharma client. I’m trying to find patterns in the social media evidence for the FDASM movement, as opposed to the scattershot anecdotal evidence that many agencies have relied on to date. So I went through over four hundred posts, eliminating all the spam, foreign language, and unrelated posts. Then I tagged each post as a post type by category, assigned keywords based on the actual content, and analyzed the sentiment. This required actual reading of the vast majority of the posts, and an intuitive adult to tag and report on it. That meant, well, me.

At the end of the day though, I have a series of neat pie charts and bar graphs that illustrate and analyze the chatter surrounding my client’s brand over the last forty-five days. Now we can go to the FDA in February and say, hey, did you know that the most frequent posts we see regarding our client’s product are questions that the pharma company themselves are best suited to answer? Now, I have numbers. I just needed a full workday to really review the evidence.

Bonus for the media buyers: Combine frequency of posts with TV and search volume, and we may see some dovetailing worth mentioning. It will tell us whether the TV media drives social media chatter when it comes to pharma, or if its the docs and the referrals/recommendations who drive the demand. If its the latter, social media is more important than we thought, and we should let the FDA know that too.

December 30, 2009

Why Do Some Publishers Hate DR Agency Money?

Filed under: Uncategorized — jilliantate @ 8:50 am

In my role as the Director of Digital Strategy, I function as a Media Supervisor for the digital department of a small ad agency. Basically, I’m a senior media buyer, and as such, I handle most of the new publisher relationships. This includes following up on client requests, whether it be for publishers/vendors who have solicited the client, or for specific sites or media that the client wants to run on.

Usually, this is pretty simple. If a client has been solicited, I call the vendor who solicited them, introduce myself, and explain that we’re agency of record, and they’ll be dealing with me and my people. By the time I get to the part about “agency with several other direct response clients”, the vendor is happy to deal with me. I’m probably going to result in more business, through the agency, than they would get dealing direct with client. And if I’m soliciting a specific media channel to run on, I just explain that the client wants to run there, and work with their new business people as per usual. 95% of the time, this runs smoothly, and we establish a working relationship, run the media test, and go on from there.

And then there’s the exceptions, which, shockingly, includes sites that apparently don’t think they need money. Take Yelp.com. Now, I’m a user of this site in my personal life. I post reviews and use it for reference to find restaurants and hipster bars. I even have the app on my Android phone. But Yelp.com is still working out their advertising model. And it doesn’t necessarily include agencies. One client wanted to promote specific locations of their business, and we had a buy all set up to test. And then we got to the terms and conditions – which made little to no sense. To avoid going into legalese, it basically meant signing the IAB AAAA’s…and then signing the Yelp user Ts and Cs that, in some places, directly conflicted with the IAB terms. I have no problem signing those Ts and Cs as a user, but if it’s a client involved, and they’re agreeing to terms like “termination of account without notice” or conflicts in indemnification and liability with the IAB terms, there’s no way my agency can agree to that. And when I asked to get the Yelp lawyers involved, I was told, flatly, no. Their lawyers don’t have the time to work out terms with agencies for local advertising. Now, if I wanted to advertise nationally, on the landing page, that would be one thing, but if I wanted to run with packages meant for local businesses, they just weren’t set up to handle agencies. Maybe I would like to advertise nationally where there were agency agreements set up? No, I would not, because that wouldn’t deliver as effectively as the local plan we had negotiated.

So Yelp loses out on the ad dollars, not just from a few locations from one client, but from many locations nationwide for that same client, as well as any other brick and mortar clients that we might want to promote. Since this includes a major car maintenance chain, it could have added up. Why wouldn’t they work with me, as an agency, to get past the red tape? They just didn’t care about working with an agency like mine. They’re making enough money selling branded home page placements to big agencies, I suppose.

This isn’t the only example of this problem, either. Some of the hotter, bigger sites out there do not want to work through these issues. Why would they? They’re turning down Google buyout offers and watching theoretical dollars grow, and don’t need the few thousand dollars in ad revenue they could be bringing in. But what happens when the bubble pops? Aren’t the thousands of dollars from clients like mine, times dozens of agencies, worth something in the company’s long term value?

And then there’s the big sites out there I can’t even get decent service on to sell me the ad inventory. You would think that some of the bigger networks, the old portal/ISPs who are now drowning (or preparing to), who have declining revenues and layoffs, would work to make sure that we’re buying as much as we can of their inventory. I’m one small agency – how many dozens of agencies, and millions of dollars, are falling through the cracks because we can’t get the decent sales representation we need? We could run so many more media tests and buys, and spending so much more with these huge, long-suffering sites. I’m not even talking about Aol here – our reps there are happy to help us. We could be spending so much more on both Yahoo and on Bing/MSN that it’s ridiculous…if only we had the kind of support we need to max out our search campaigns and our display ads. Instead, we get half-assed sales support, and are left to flounder and throw more money at AOL or Ask – sites that do support and help us with our campaigns. I wonder if Yahoo’s shareholders knew how dreadful the post-layoff sales support is, if they would demand that Yahoo hire some more sales people, get it together, and help my agency spend more wherever they can on the site or in the search.

And then, finally, there’s the publishers who just don’t get that they can’t go around the agency. I had a vendor try to convince the client to go around us last week, so that the client could get the inventory without the agency markup. I’ve had vendors contact clients multiple times when either we don’t move forward with them fast enough (usually due to test budget timing), or when their tests fail and we don’t renew the buy. Thankfully, we have loyal clients who trust us, as their buyers, to make sure that every opportunity possible is explored and tested (I do due diligence on every publisher, vendor and media opportunity that crosses my inbox). But while I’ll still buy media from those kind of sales people, provided it’s good media that’s in the clients best interest, a lot of my colleagues or peers in the industry won’t. Contacting clients behind our backs – or even in front of us – never wins us any points. And I fail to understand why the few extra dollars that publisher might make would be worth losing the entire deal by annoying the agency responsible for the buy.

As a media buyer, it amazes me how often I have trouble getting people to just take my money. Unfortunately, those publishers I have the hardest time with, are often the ones that will deliver the best for the client. In which case, I’m a salesperson trying to sell them on why they should sell to me. It’s tough. Maybe I should just start throwing more cash into networks and hope for the best.

October 2, 2009

barely ahead of the curve

Filed under: Uncategorized — jilliantate @ 5:19 pm

A colleague and I were recently discussing how we watch a lot of online video. Which we do. We’ve been running online video campaigns lately for multiple clients, and have been explaining that, while most people DO watch online video, they may not watch as much as we do, because, as internet professionals, we’re ahead of the curve.

But then, it occurred to me – at the rate of growth, are we ahead of the curve in online video consumption? Because I think that the curve has caught up with us. And like social networking, or listening to music, how long is it before the majority of TV viewers start watching online more than they do the old-fashioned box? There may be only a handful of nerds NOW who have hooked their computers up to TVs to watch Hulu or Veoh online, but it could well be the majority very soon.

Where is the curve in online video right now, and is that why money is being poured in to it?

September 24, 2009

next generation agency site

Filed under: Uncategorized — jilliantate @ 8:56 pm

This is a unique idea – to make an entire website out of a clickable YouTube video. Does it make the company look crazysexycool? Yes. Is it something I would do for my clients? Maybe not. But it’s certainly a first, and firsts, in this day & age, are rare.

September 21, 2009

ChildFund International

Filed under: Uncategorized — jilliantate @ 5:17 pm
Shareable widgets. Next big thing in video advertising?

September 1, 2009

social media, circa 1963

Filed under: Uncategorized — jilliantate @ 4:10 pm

I’ve been on the road lately, so I fell behind in my “Mad Men”. But I had to pause the TiVO when I heard Don Draper say, in last week’s episode:

“If you don’t like what is being said, change the conversation.”

That’s the most basic tenet of social media: change the conversation. You’re going to be talked about anyways, but if you’re involved, you can shape and shift the conversation around you. Instead of seeing change as bad, Don Draper goes on to explain, we need to greet it with joy and hope. In 1963, this means a lot of PR and working with journalism; in 2009, it would probably mean setting up an entire campaign on the theme of “Madison Square Garden: Shining Beacon To The World” and rolling out all the digital media buys and social media work to go with it.

Also, since I coined the phrase “response opportunity” as part of my “change the conversation” presentation to a client months ago, does that make me the Don Draper of my own small boutique agency employer? (Only, y’know, with less infidelity & stuff).

August 10, 2009

What’s Going To Happen To Co-Reg?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — jilliantate @ 4:47 am

At Facebook Marketing Camp last week, a lot of the conversation was about the new Facebook ads. These are ads that encourage opting in within the Facebook environment, and draw a user into interactions with a brand they are attached to. “It’s a new level of authenticity,” exclaimed our Facebook rep. “This will bring in genuine leads, and will reduce the unqualified lead and scrub rates to almost non-existent.”

I actually do quite a bit of work with co-registration campaigns. It works. This includes working with Q Interactive – better known to the world as Coolsavings.com. Usually, we can get leads from those vendors to convert to sales at a cost per that’s below our allowable. But when it comes to co-registration outside of that one, trusted vendor, we have to watch the stream of leads intently to ensure that our “host’n'post” vendors aren’t delivering us a steady stream of sludge.

The up side of co-registration is volume. It’s people opting in to an offer, to submit their name as a lead, at the same time they are choosing to take part in another offer or signup. Hence, the co-registration term. This is great when the offers are related in some way. With a little bit of appropriate targeting, co-registration works.

The down side to co-registration is also volume. The cost of a co-reg lead isn’t just the buck or two we pay for it. It’s also the cost of the call center that then has to follow up, or the direct mail piece that goes out to the leads who sign up. And even if you have a low-pay call center, they get very discouraged after hours of calling co-registration leads with zero interest in the product – who only signed up in order to get a sample, or take a Quizilla quiz, or get a new plant in their L’il Green Patch on Facebook.

Here’s what I don’t get about co-reg: 90% of the vendors we run it with seem more interested in making a few dollars off the sludge leads than they do in targeting. Why? If the game is changing, and sites like Facebook are leading that shift, shouldn’t these sites be working harder to send leads that won’t clog up call centers and waste client dollars? Are these vendors seriously managing to get repeat orders and grow their business based on sludge co-reg?

Here’s the steps I ask that vendors take before I send an insertion order:

1) NO PRE-CHECKED OR PRE-FILLED BOXES. I want people thinking about what they’re doing and what they are signing up for. And that goes doubly for the offer list. People should have to select those boxes – not sign up because they didn’t unselect one.

2) SOME sort of targeting. Whether it’s a vague offer association – offering info on demo-targeted products – or actual targeting based on demo/geo, something should be in place to narrow down the river of sludge. It may not actually increase the quality of the leads, or increase the lead to sale conversion by much, but at least it will narrow the field and slow the pacing so the call center can keep up and the budget is spread out over a longer period of time.

3) Qualifying questions, if they can be applied. Even if it’s a yes/no, at least that will cut down further on completely non-qualified leads

But what is the future of co-reg, if not everyone is holding their vendors accountable this way? It won’t work forever. That’s why I was so glad to be at Facebook Camp this last week. We’ll need new ways to get people to opt-in to receiving information from brands in the future. Co-reg has lost its efficiency and I think it’s failing to thrive and keep up in a new, more authentic, better regulated Internet.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Theme: Silver is the New Black. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.