Advertising is dead? Depends on your definition.
March 27, 2009
Some clever people think that advertising isn’t working on the internet.
In a sense they’re right. Advertising is broken and needs to be re-invented. We need to create discussion. We need to add value. We need to do things that matter.
I was reminded by a tweet from @faris that advertising is an old word and has not always meant what it does now.
Originating from the Latin Ad Vert, it originally meant: “to turn one’s attention”.
Since people are increasingly ignoring traditional advertising, we have to find news ways of “turning attention” on the web. The way to get people’s attention in this most Darwinian of environments is to earn it be creating genuine value. This can be usefulness (think Google Maps and the value it brings to so many other sites) or simply great, entertaining content that stands out even in a content cesspool.
Where does it leave the media who have relied on the ad break to fund their content? Well, maybe they have to become the creators of the adverts, just as Saturday Night Live did.
When I tune in to that show, I don’t want to be interrupted by ads that are less funny, but I am interested in their take on advertising Pepsi. Would this work again? Does this constitute a “sell-out” on the part of the show? I’m not sure yet.
Another example is National Geographic. They have great content, and awesome content creators (especially their photographers). and a bunch of different ways to bring that content to life across multiple channels (print, tv, web, even now an awesome retail space). But I learnt recently that they also have a “creative services” unit, which will help harness these multiple content possibilities and media formats in association with the right brands. For a price, of course.
So are professional content creators the ad men of the future? How else do they monetise their skill-set when no one wants to see ad breaks anymore?
So ad breaks and banners may be in trouble. But Creating value including compelling content together with the true professionals, and “adverting” people’s attention in a more worthwhile way is here to stay.
Cash disincentives
March 16, 2009
In the book Freakonomics, the author tells of the day-care centre that started charging parents a fine for turning up late to pick up their children.
The results? The number of late pickups increased after the fine was introduced.
What this shows is that the moral incentive for picking up the children on time is stronger than the financial incentive.
By paying bloggers, we move from a social contract based on reciprocity, to a financial contract based on cash: a social media program based on financial incentives will not alter consumer behavior for the better.
Instead, we need to use social currencies like recognition and admiration. We need to aim to create mutual respect, friendship and – who knows - maybe even a little love.
Cash crosses a line.
March 9, 2009
So, Forrester think it is OK to pay for blog posts, so long as the relationship is made clear. This is so unhelpful to the passionate people at companies who have been trying to get employees more involved in Social Media.
I think that there is a huge difference between giving an experience at the company’s expense vs paying someone cash. It is the difference between someone who is generous and thoughtful vs a person who thinks they can literally buy your attention and affection.
I’ve been pushing for some time to encourage people to engage in and with Social Media in the “right” way. The reality is that this is tricky, uncontrollable, and time-consuming. But the benefits can be huge if it is done well.
Paid posts are never going to have the same impact in the long-term as genuine people blogging voluntarily about a Brand because they have deemed something is newsworthy and interesting. Paying may get the news out, but in the long term it discredites all the other efforts.
My biggest concern is that busy marketing managers will take the easy route, and will think it is OK to just pay bloggers rather than doing things right. As someone who is trying to get these same marketing managers to “get involved”, a report saying that it is OK to pay bloggers is unhelpful, to say the least.
The idea that people can be “editorially independent” while accepting money for the post is just nonsense, and very very unhelpful. Since Banner Blindess is real, perhaps the issue is that we need advertising space where people actually look. Maybe advertorials are something that we could consider?
But please, let’s not ruin this thing that we are so passionate about.
Owned, Bought and Earned Media
March 2, 2009
[NB UPDATED POST on this topic: http://danielgoodall.com/2009/05/20/owned-bought-and-earned-redux/]
At Nokia we have been using the following simple model for our Digital Media Planning for about a year now.
Like all good models, it is designed to be very, very simple.
Owned Media
Obviously one of the things available to you is your own web site. With Nokia it gets a bit more complex, since we have so many media that we “own”: www.nokia.mobi (perhaps the most visited mobile site in the world?), MyNokia (Nokia’s CRM program), all of our service sites (ovi.com, ngage.com, nokia music), as well as more niche sites like beta labs etc. Quite a few options, before any media has even been bought: my team is currently planning to pull together a kind of internal media bank to keep track of all the options in terms of Nokia’s own media.
Bought Digital Media
This clearly has a role, although often it is overemphasized by agencies who make money out of percentages of media spend. Banners have a role in terms of awareness, but I’m not a fan of buying media in general, except when the creative proposition is great. Mostly, I see it as a necessary evil, except with search marketing, which is more interesting to me as it is less interuptive.
Earned Media
IMO, this is where the action is. This is where you have done something so cool or interesting that people want to use their own media to tell others about it, and hence you earn media. I am currently reading this brilliant analysis of why things spread from the guys at MIT. They claim that content is shared (and therefore Media is Earned) because of three main factors relating to the dynamics of groups.
- To bolster camaraderie and articulate the (presumably shared) experiences and values that identify oneself as belong to a particular community (“bolstering their identity”)
- To gather information and explain difficult to understand events or circumstances.
- To establish the boundaries of an “in-group”.
Good stuff.
Some people think that Earning Media is about getting free space when budgets are tight. In my experience, Earning Media is a not necessarily a cheap option, and is certainly more time-consuming than buying media with big networks. More importantly, Earning Media is about engaging with consumers on their terms and gaining trust based on genuine understanding. Consumers don’t trust advertising, but they do trust peer recommendation. As long as brands don’t abuse this situation, then this leads to better quality, more authentic and more relevant marketing.
You can of course go into much more detail with each of these. And there are interesting overlaps. But in general, it is a simple model that has been useful in our digital planning.
