Advertising: Distribution
Online Advertising: Will Google Prove That Size Does Matter In Measurement Tools? Ad Planner Gives Glimpse at Vast Data Banks
|
Written By Noah Mallin | June 24, 2008 | Share This
|
|
Google’s announcement of their new Ad Planner product today sounded innocuous enough:
“To make your life easier, we’re introducing Google Ad Planner, a research and media planning tool that connects advertisers and publishers. When using Google Ad Planner, simply enter demographics and sites associated with your target audience, and the tool will return information about sites (both on and off the Google content network) that your audience is likely to visit. You can drill down further to get more detail like demographics and related searches for a particular site, or you can get aggregate statistics for the sites you’ve added to your media plan.”
Well, gosh! How thoughtful, it’s all about making my life easier. Of course I’m not comScore , a company whose primary business is aggregating data for their clients for much the same purpose.
Industry News: Yahoo Investors Blue over MicroHoo but… What’s that over There? Say Hello to YahOogle!
|
Written By Noah Mallin | June 13, 2008 | Share This
|
|
Well it’s hard to avoid addressing the big news that broke yesterday evening in the world of search. YouTube engineer Geoff Stearns did indeed accede to his girlfriend’s pleas and got himself a haircut. Oh yeah, there was also some to-do about Yahoo and stuff. It goes a little something like this: In an effort to forestall a shareholder revolt and growing signs of irrelevancy in their core market Yahoo attempted a Doug Henning like slight-of-hand, ”Don’t look at Microsoft rapidly backing away from our company over here when presto! It’s a deal with Google!”
Search for Branding - Learning to love the Click
|
Written By Drupad Sil | May 1, 2008 | Share This
|
|
Interesting article by Jack Neff at AdAge. For those of you without subscriptions, the premise here is that consumer package goods (CPG) companies are unhappy with search marketing. Not because they don’t believe it’s a good branding vehicle. In fact, the article goes out of its way to assure us that CPG companies have been sold on the branding properties of search - instead, they’re upset that their traditional methods of buying media (wielding giant budgets in order to negotiate preferred placement and rates) don’t fly in an open auction marketplace.
Especially vexing to these advertisers is the idea that they might actually get penalized for showing up more frequently:
“An executive at one CPG marketer recently noted how perverse the search-pricing model has become for the industry.
‘It used to be that impressions weren’t in the pricing model,” he said. But Google eventually incorporated them in a roundabout way, he said.
‘If you get too many impressions without getting clicks, the price goes up, or they kick out off completely,’ he said. ‘So they thwarted with their pricing model the window we had to actually deliver impressions…because of course it makes their revenue go up. But that makes our value go down – for everybody in package goods.’
He said the company had purposely tried to maximize impressions while minimizing clicks in search ads, though he termed that ‘smart buying’, not ‘gaming the system’.”
To me, this approach seems completely wrongheaded.
Search ads absolutely contribute to branding - having a brand show up in a prominent place on Google or Yahoo’s results page draws a big mental connection between the query and the company. But simply showing up in search isn’t valuable. The ad placement isn’t really where the value is. It’s in the click. The click is what transforms a branding opportunity.
When a person visits a search engine, it’s not because they want to read a bunch of company listings side by side. It’s typically because they want to visit a site that can offer useful information to a question or need they have. The ad itself doesn’t have much value… it’s all about context and intent. “Does this ad answer my question? Let’s click through and find out.” After the click, the user makes a decision about the relevance of the result, and therefore the brand.
Saying that you appreciate the branding value of search and actually understanding the branding value of search are two completely different things. I understand what’s causing the dissonance - CPM pricing is comfortable. They understand it, and it gave them advantages. But this new model isn’t going away anytime soon. It’s provided users with a service that they generally appreciate, and has made more money for the engines than they could have made under the old two-martini-lunch-and-a-handshake model. The smartest brand marketers understand this and have learned to love the click.
ESPN Dumps Ad Networks
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | March 24, 2008 | Share This
|
|
ESPN is dropping its ad networks, MediaWeek reported today. MediaWeek suggests the sports publishing giant has decided to sever ties with ad networks because, like many publishers, the company sees ad networks as diluting the value of its content. From the article:
“We’re heading down a path where it no longer suits our business needs to work with ad networks,” said Eric Johnson, executive vp, multimedia sales, ESPN Customer Marketing and Sales. Sources say that ESPN would like to rally support from other publishers behind this move and ultimately tamp down ad networks’ growth. Turner’s digital ad sales wing is rumored to be considering a similar move, though officials said no decisions are imminent.
The central issue is whether or not ad networks devalue a site’s content, or if they’re salvation for ad inventory that would be wasted without them. Because they bundle the traffic of smaller sites in a large network, ad networks have recently been pitted as directly opposed to the traditional ad sales model in publishing, which is based on direct relationships with advertisers and driven by premium, branded content. Some online publishers say the benefit outweighs the risk, and it depends on the content (again, from MediaWeek):
“Not all inventory is created equal,” said Peter Naylor, senior vp, digital media sales, NBC Universal. For example, Naylor said iVillage’s Horoscope section generates a lot of traffic but doesn’t attract many endemic advertisers. That’s why he turns to networks. According to Pam Horan, president of the Online Publishers Association, most publishers do just that.
I like Mathew Ingram’s nuanced explanation of the ad network vs. no ad network debate, which is, in a nutshell, that sometimes they’re a good thing, and sometimes they’re not. Or rather, that they’re a good thing until they’re not.
More:
- Ashkan Karbasfrooshan says ESPN did the right thing.
- So does Jason Calacanis.
- Silicon Alley Insider notes that ESPN might not actually have cut all its ad network ties.
- paidContent has good coverage.
AOL Buys Social Network Bebo for $850 Million
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | March 13, 2008 | Share This
|
|
AOL today announced it is acquiring UK-based Bebo for $850 million. The social network is expected to complement one of AOL’s most popular services, the instant messaging system AIM. From the Bits blog:
As AOL has search for a growth strategy over the last decade, one of the biggest puzzles has been what to do about the AIM system, which allows anyone on any computer to send instant messages, whether they were paying AOL customers or not. Even as AOL’s access service declined, AIM remained the preeminent IM system in the United States, fending off competition from Microsoft, Yahoo, and later Google.
AOL has tried to out social network from AIM, but it was never successful. And Google now integrates AIM in its own chat system, taking advantage of AOL’s network of users. By buying Bebo, AOL now has its own social network which, when married with its robust advertising network (a result of a relatively recent buying spree over the past several months), solidly puts the company in the running with social network behemoths MySpace and Facebook, who are also still figuring out how best to monetize their vast user bases. Bebo has 40 million users worldwide and AOL says it is the third most popular social network in the U.S.
Search Engine Land notes that Yahoo had previously wanted to buy the social network. The company is a search and advertising partner to Bebo and has also been in talks with AOL about the possibility of merger, to avoid an acquisition by Microsoft.
More:
- AOL’s press release.
- Coverage on Techmeme.
- Jeff Jarvis rues the sale and thinks Bebo is done for.
TV on Internet Beats TV on TV, Study Says
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | December 27, 2007 | Share This
|
|
New data reported this week shows viewers are more engaged when watching TV content and advertising online than when they watch it on a TV set. In a year-long study, researchers surveyed nearly 75,000 participants to determine that online TV beats traditional TV by 47% when it comes to viewers’ engagement with advertising, and by 25% when it comes to engagement with content. MediaPost explains how engagement was measured:
The study defines “engagement” according to six characteristics that respondents identify with media: “inspirational,” “trustworthy,” “life-enhancing,” “social interaction,” “personal time-out” and ad receptivity.
Survey participants were asked, for instance, to rate TV shows, magazines and Web sites based on how “inspiring” they were or how much they provided fodder for conversation. Ad “receptivity” was gauged on how willing people were to view or read advertising in a given medium because of its relevance.
The efficacy of online TV advertising is good news for networks, even though they’re in the midst of a strike by writers over the issue of payment for online content. This study also appears to give a boost to the writers’ argument that they should get of the online ad dollars networks generate, but at least it proves that online ads work for TV.
Networks have been working hard to figure out how to maximize online revenues, favoring ad-supported, free access to content via sites they control, like hulu, a News Corp./NBC Universal joint venture currently in private beta, or network websites like abc.com, which offers most of ABC’s prime time shows in the form of streaming video. NBC stopped offering downloads via iTunes this year, and the network is also experimenting with “quarterlife,” a show that debuted on MySpace and YouTube with mixed results but will air on NBC in February.
Why is online TV engagement so much higher than engagement via TV set, especially for ads? Coverage of the study doesn’t really say, but it probably has to do with the more limited nature of that advertising, the inherent interactivity of the web, and the fact that most of the online ads are just better. Most hour-long ABC shows, for instance, feature four or five 15-second clips, usually from the same advertiser, many of which include games or other interactive elements that give the viewer something to click or do while watching. The relative infrequency and shortness of those ads makes them less intrusive than traditional TV advertising, which typically bombards viewers.
One very fascinating part of this study also found that print and magazine content online is also more engaging than its dead-tree counterparts, though the numbers are not as dramatic as those for online vs offline TV (perhaps because reading online isn’t as fun as watching online?). But overall, print is more engaging than both online or TV, though its audience is declining.
See more of the study on MediaPost.
Microsoft and Viacom Become Ad, Content Partners in $500M Deal
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | December 19, 2007 | Share This
|
|
Microsoft this morning announced a five-year, $500 million partnership with Viacom, the media conglomerate that counts MTV and Paramount among its TV and film properties. Per the agreement, Viacom will replace its current ad server DoubleClick (which Google is still fighting to acquire) with Atlas, a product that became Microsoft’s in the aQuantive acquisition this May, and give Microsoft the exclusive right to sell Viacom’s remnant display ads.
Microsoft also gets non-exclusive licensing rights to include content from Viacom companies on MSN and in Xbox 360 games, and the software giant has also promised buy advertising on Viacom’s network and, writes the AP, “cooperate on promotions for award shows on Viacom’s MTV Networks and BET Networks.”
The deal is being touted as a boost for Microsoft in its competition with Yahoo and Google, but Om Malik notes the real winner is Viacom and big media companies:
Viacom doesn’t have to spend anything and at the same time it is getting advertising dollars and more distribution for their content. I get a feeling that, going forward, this is going to become a template deal for all large media companies with content assets. For them it’s a green light to pillage Microsoft’s overflowing coffers.
Neither company is outlining how exactly the $500 million breaks down, but the deal aligns with Microsoft’s desire to increase its advertising presence, and cost is no object. The company recently also paid a whopping $240 million for a very small stake in Facebook.
Facebook Status: Mark Zuckerberg is Sorry About Beacon
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | December 6, 2007 | Share This
|
|
Yesterday, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg publicly apologized about the social network’s poorly implemented, privacy-invading Beacon ad program, which broadcast users’ off-Facebook activity in news feeds and caused an ensuing ruckus among geeks and privacy advocates. From Zuckerberg’s blog post statement:
Facebook has succeeded so far in part because it gives people control over what and how they share information. This is what makes Facebook a good utility, and in order to be a good feature, Beacon also needs to do the same. People need to be able to explicitly choose what they share, and they need to be able to turn Beacon off completely if they don’t want to use it.
This has been the philosophy behind our recent changes. Last week we changed Beacon to be an opt-in system, and today we’re releasing a privacy control to turn off Beacon completely. You can find it here. If you select that you don’t want to share some Beacon actions or if you turn off Beacon, then Facebook won’t store those actions even when partners send them to Facebook.
Facebook has, as of yesterday, allowed users to turn off Beacon entirely, but what’s fascinating about this apology is that the word “advertising” does not appear once in the entire blog post. By framing Beacon just as an information-sharing feature, Zuckerberg is sidestepping one of the most offensive parts of Beacon - that its sole purpose is actually utilizing Facebook’s massive user base to market to each other via what are implied pseudo-recommendations.
As marketing genius Seth Godin noted on his blog several months ago, “The result of Google and the prevalence of search means that people are far more forgiving of things that need to be sought out, and less patient than ever with selfish marketers that insist on showing up in your face.” Though Facebook isn’t search, I think the same principles of “permission marketing” apply when personal information is involved.
But after all the (justified) kicking and screaming over Beacon, it’s comical and a great example of both the site’s reach/influence and maybe also the blog world’s childishness that a very simple move by Facebook this morning - allowing Facebook messages to be read in users’ regular email inbox, no longer requiring a click-through to the site - has the blogosphere in a great mood again.
Yahoo Contextual Ads Now in Adobe PDFs
|
Written By Sepideh Saremi | November 29, 2007 | Share This
|
|
CNET reports Yahoo and Adobe have teamed up to serve Yahoo contextual ads in Adobe PDFs, extending Yahoo’s PPC model and distribution. Similar to Gmail, they will pick up the content of the PDF to determine relevant ads. From CNET:
The text advertisements appear in a panel to the right of the content in the PDF and are subject matter matched using keywords and analysis of associated concepts. The ads are dynamic, meaning different ads can pop up at different times and clicking on an ad takes you to the advertiser Web site.
TechCrunch wonders if this service will be popular, but acknowledges opportunity for (further) e-book monetization:
On one hand contextual advertising in PDFs probably falls into the “why didn’t they think of that before” category, but on the other hand there’s probably a reason this is a new concept, because I can’t see there being a stampede of people wanting to use the service. It will be interesting to see however whether the ads convert, and it may provide an additional revenue stream for ebook sellers and similar online users and creators who regularly provide PDF downloads to visitors.
Personally I think the ads seem ugly and intrusive (somewhat like the feeling of clicking on a link only to find it’s a PDF - so maybe this partnership makes perfect sense), but they’ll probably just take some getting used to. I wonder, too, if the way that people interact with PDFs - lots of scrolling and clicking within the document - will mean a higher percentage of invalid clicks? Here’s a screenshot:
Wired is among the sites that has signed on. According to Computer World, the new system has some limitations (second paragraph):
Melissa Webster, program vice president of content and digital media technologies at Framingham, Mass.-based IDC, said the new service should prove to be a “risk-free” way for publishers to tap into Yahoo’s extensive ad inventory and partner network. She said the value of dynamic ads and content on the Web is key, since users tend to tune out the data when it is displayed a second time.
Webster noted that dynamic advertising requires that readers maintain an Internet connection and that publishers will likely want significant control over which advertisements are displayed on their sites. “They may not want competitor ads. The current beta release doesn’t do that,” said Webster.
SearchForce or SpamForce?
|
Written By Peter Hershberg | September 26, 2007 | Share This
|
|
I generally wouldn’t give something like this a second of my time, but it’s already been a long week (even though it’s only mid-day Wednesday) and I might as well take my frustration out on SearchForce, the fine folks who sent me the email below:
Now, there are a number of things about this message that I have a problem with, including the feature in the left-hand column that lists three reasons why SearchForce is “different” from other search firms”. None of their claims are actually true (far from it), but we’re used to competing against companies who mislead prospects about their history, capabilities, etc, so I can live with this.
What I’m not willing to overlook is the fact that this email was completely unsolicited – I’ve never signed up for anything through SearchForce and there’s no reason why they should be contacting me. Not only that, but I received three copies of the same message, which means they not only sent it to my personal email address, but a couple of “aliases” that I’m included on as well. I’m pretty certain that the “press” alias at my company, for instance, never registered for anything with SearchForce.
Now, I should be able to definitively say which email addresses SearchForce contacted me at, but the fact that there are no listed recipients in the “To” field makes that an impossibility. As a result, I’m not sure what I need to do to unsubscribe from their mailing list. Yes, I could follow their instructions and put “REMOVE” in the subject line, but that would only take one of the three email addresses they have on file off their mailing list, leaving two others to continuously be spammed by SearchForce.
But what’s most confusing about SearchForce’s ambitious sales effort is the disclaimer at the bottom of the message:
“Disclaimer: This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.”
Named individual? I wish there was one – or three, for that matter. Hey, SearchForce, feel free to let me know who those named individuals are and then unsubscribe them all from your mailing list.