Slicecast

I've previously been waxing lyrical about approaches for measurement of social media, yet the simplest discussion around social media within the agency world still does not seem to have been cracked. The point I think is vital to understand is that consumers, businesses choose. They choose who is an influencer. They choose who to trust. They choose what to believe. They choose what is right for their needs. The traditional advertising approach of push push (and occasionally influence) is driven to create a relationship - in that respect for users who still trust a brand that's great news - unfortunately all data points to a mass majority who simply don't trust advertising.

 Yes there are exceptions. But they are rare, and dare I say it - lucky most of the time.

In this world, where advertising messages are being disintermediated by your customers, the best you can hope to achieve (despite your high GRP's, happy aided awareness scores, pdf downloads and engagement metrics on your website ['user sees more than one page']) is something I like to think of as marketing intertia. In other words, advertise or not you will sell products. Why? Because the chief reason people buy your products is not because of a wonderful tagline, or by watching a video on youtube - it's because they talk about it.

Something which I discovered this week, was a presentation loaded to slideshare.net called "I am the media", created by Alain Thys of Futurelab and presented at the Nov 29 Marketing3 conference at Media Plaza in the Netherlands. This is a wonderfully articulatated presentation on this same subject, which I'd like to share:

This is a subject that's not going to go away - but I hope to start the debate here.

What do you think? These comments are wide, over-arching and sometimes controversial - old media is not dead? Comments are welcome! 

So the story goes, if a tree falls in the forest and no-one is around do we hear it? I feel the same thing is happening with Engagement.

Since arriving in New York in January 2007 I've not had much time to devote to this blog, which is embarrassing and yet insightful - the digital practice at Ogilvy is growing very quickly and at the same time the demand for digital analytics is increasing. As part of this, there is demand for insight into the fabled definition of engagement. What is it, how do we measure it, who owns it; and other equally vague questions. This is not a criticism of Ogilvy, no it is a criticism of the industry.

The point I wanted to raise, and I think relates well to user considerations for measurement strategies is that engagement by its very dictionary definition requires a two way (return path anyone?) process to allow consumers or BDM's or TDM's or C-Level execs to participate. If the content is not there, then we can measure widgets, WOM, blogs, buzz all we like but the volume won't be there. As digital marketers our role is to develop channels and programmes that facilitate this.

Of course there are exceptions, most notably the Dove Evolution campaign which has been a consumer engagement case sudy for all to be interested in - but this is rare - and such marketing effectiveness has a foundation set long before the youtube video was uploaded.

 So if a tree falls over and no-one hears it, does it make a noise?

If a campaign expects 'engagement' and there's no content, does it work?

Maybe. If you're lucky. 

Proponents of digital media have long been discussing the digitisation of all media, however with media aggregation services such as Google Radio Ads we are starting to see the emergence of digital buying processes for traditional media services which should simplify the media selection and purchasing processes.

According to Reuters Google said "it had begun testing a system it acquired by purchasing dMarc Broadcasting in early 2006 for $102 million and which it subsequently built into its existing AdWords online ad system.

Google Radio Ads Model

Image taken from ZDNet blog (see article reference)

In such a model where will the media planner / buyer sit? Will it be the traditional planner who must adapt to new streamlined services, or could it be the online media planner who is already well voiced with such processes. Whatever happens in this new model we can be assured that channel neutral planning will be an increasingly important role for the agency - with these new aggregation services leading the way for planning in a complex, fragmented and diverse media landscape. 

The Google aggregation service sits alongside the Spotrunner service that offers a digital purchasing platform for local targeted TV media in the US, who have partnered with JWT  (PDF Press Release) and taken investment from WPP, CBS & Interpublic (PDF Press Release).

Digital changes faster than we can keep pace. 

It's humbling to know that we all make mistakes, especially for those of us entering the brave new world of amateur writing. I understand that everything I write on this site is searched on, glanced over, appreciated, disliked and more importantly - permanant. What I write about today, forecasting tomorrow will be a memory for me (any anyone) to think about how I see the industry developing and changing.

We all know about the speed at which the digital world changes -  month on month we observe new trends, new analysis on what will be the next big phase, how technologies are changing, media ia fragmenting, consumer attitude and behaviour is changing, metrics are becoming more sphisticated - but really no-one can accurately predict what will happen. Why? Because we are dealing with a huge flow of behaviour.

Even the digital world is increasingly fragmented (look at the commentaries now about the death of the webpage, the death of the portal, the adoption of emerging media and the dissolution of visitors into an increasingly long tail of digital content that is spreading, reformatting, republished and recreated.

Predicting the future is difficult?

Absolutely. Keeping track of the emerging trends this week is difficult enough, let alone trying to look into next week, next month or next year. We can observe, and make accurate judgements based on our experience (which is essentially what web analytics read: insight, has been doing for years) and use analytical techniques to predict behaviour and micro trends. The macro efect is much different. Think of it like trying to guess which direction the flock of birds will go next. You can't.

So, what got me thinking about all of this was after a trip to Borders this morning. Saturday mornings are simple. Coffee at the Coffee Bean followed by a wander around Borders before buying the papers - this morning I took a glance into the bargain bin and found a great book (that incidentally only cost S$3 - about US$1.80). A book written in the middle of the dotcom boom/crash cycle in 2000 called "The 11 Immutable Laws of Internet Branding" (Ries & Ries 2000). On page 86 one paragraph made me think - predicting the future is very difficult. Based on contemporary knowledge of digital advertising in 2000 the assumptions were fair, advertising models were different. Here's what I read:

"Forrester Research, a high-tech consulting firm, predicts that advertising spending on the internet will jump from $2billion in 1999 to $22billion in 2004, or 8% of total spending. That would mean that the Internet passed the magazine medium and was neck and neck with radio.
Don't believe a word of it. The internet will be the first new medium that will not be dominated by advertising.
Let us repeat that statement: The internet will be the first new medium that will not be dominated by advertising."

Wow. Pretty big forecasts by Forrester, and an equally shrill stoppage of that analysis by the authors. At the time though their analysis made sense; their rationale (still being argued today) is that the user is in control and would not accept advertising. Recent data from the IAB shows that Forrester was incorrect in its forecasts ($9.6billion for 2004, increasing to $12.5billion in 2005), yet with forecasts about CAGR of well over 30% there is no sign of a slowdown.

Here's a photo of the final part of the quoted text to prove I'm not making this up:

Predicting the digital future is difficult, because we don't know what direction the flock will take... As an amateur writer with no formal training I realise I might make mistakes - but looking back it will be interesting!

I saw this today via Seth Godin, thanks. Blendtec is a US company I had not heard of 20 minutes ago. Now I want to buy one of their $1,250 $825 (now on sale) home blenders. Why is this? Very simple - they demonstrated that their product works, and not only does it work it kiss the a** of every blender I have ever seen before. I recently bought a high end smoothie blender, with a high torque motor and awesome ice smoothing capabilities - but does my blender turn ice into snow.. no.

After posting a collection of videos titled "Will it Blend?" to YouTube (YouTube profile here) and creating a supporting site at www.willitblend.com they have managed to convince me. The site is not pretty, the videos are dorky - but WHO CARES - the product (remember your 4 P's of marketing?) works. And works well (OK the video might be fake, but I doubt it..). Anyway - Seth says he has one and it rocks - so it's got a recommendation I can trust.

Anyway, without further ado - check out the best of the five videos - Blending Marbles (MARBLES!):

So, let's hope Blendtec sell more blenders because of this

This week I have mostly been thinking about Consumer Participation, the process in between the extremes of Consumer Generated Content and Brand Advertising. Consumer Participation might also be referred to as 'Engagement', or a measure of participation in a specific or broad brand level model. It's really come from looking at the effects of the Dove campaign I reported on last week, and some other stuff that has emerged from YouTube. Seems we can't get away from video these days..

So in the last week the blogosphere seems to have gone Dove Evolution crazy. Some immediate metrics I've been able to pull are:

Data valid to 1 November 2006 -

• 62 individual video's tagged "Dove Evolution" on YouTube
• 2,490,090 combined viewings of the Top 10 of these videos
• 3,698 ratings of the Top 10 of these videos (0.15% rating conversion)
• 1,594 blog entries tagged "Dove Evolution" via Technorati with some authority (4,146 with any authority)
  

Technorati trend for "Dove Evolution" (01-Nov-06)

The technorati trend chart shows the huge spike (yes the volumes are low.. but look at the spike) since the original YouTube video launched. Remember - all this buzz is for a TV campaign with an agency uploaded video to YouTube.

All in all this is rather impressive.

So it got me thinking, clearly Consumers Participation is happening, the numbers are not necessarily off the chart, but as with all conversion metrics we can observe a funnel - 2.5 million viewings with considerable commenting, rating and general YouTube participation. Thousands of blog entries, that tie a specific emotion to the campaign - each blog entry with a micro-sphere of influence (defined through the Small World Phenomenon - I have a network, each individual connects to another network and so on). My 10 blog readers are influenced by me who will influence others. Rather interesting WOM connotations there.

If consumers are therefore participants in advertising, directly or indirectly this will help us to clarify the confusion around definitions of "Engagement", and will help us to define metrics (more specifically consistent metrics) that relate to the influence of a campaign.

It occurs to me that Engagement is hierarchical, that the funnel applies and that different segments will engage in different ways. Like in the example above, when we connect through digital channels there are different levels of participation ranging from Consumer created (often spoof) advertising through to viewing. This isn't necessarily bad - your mother probably won't fire up iMovie and create her own TV Ad for her favourite brand, but then if she watches a genuine piece of Information not Advertising she may be influenced to research further.

This leads me to the conclusion. If we want to create a framework for measurement around the concept of engagement, or Consumer Participation, then we need to think multidimensional in order to capture the nature of the participation. From here we can then further refine to define specifics against target segments (or use it as a basis for defining segments). Here's how I visualise it:

Thus, we have a starting point for defining Engagement.

:) 

In an increasingly fragmented media landscape advertisers need to face the facts. Without openness, integrity and honesty brands will be shunned by their audiences - perhaps this is overstating the issue. Possibly. However we need to recognise the fact that the consumer is in control; and that's regardless of the channel the advertising is delivered through. In the digital world we increasingly see the importance of consumer generated content and opinion becoming integral to the longer term success or failure of a brand to deliver on its promises; if your product happens to be tested on animals and you're not honest about it then your customers (or non-customers more likely) will tell people that you do.

This leads us to conclude that advertiser honest is important, and that advertising cliches and awful metaphors are no longer true. Look at it one way - in a highly segmented market place do you believe that all men really only watch football and drink beer? Of course not, many do of course but such broad messaging does not create an emotional connection with the people who are buying your products. In this respect advertisers are increasingly going to have to turn to the truth. Whiter than white detergent ads? All day fresh armpits? Well possibly.

So back to honesty. I was delighted when I saw the latest in what has been a most interesting campaign run by Ogilvy, this time a TV spot created by Ogilvy Canada for Dove showing a model being transformed from early morning grey into dazzling supermodel - highlighted by a high speed view of what a photoshop expert can do to a face. The honesty of this ad is genius. Not only does it extend the new brand values of Dove but it proceeds to disintermediate the entire world of beauty advertising. After all if this is the process that takes a woman into a supermodel then how 'accurate' are all those Chanel, Dior etc ads? Makes you see things differently... Anyway, have a look at the ad, courtesy of YouTube and the team at Ogilvy Canada. Well done everyone involved. This is the start of an interesting change in advertising models.

Credits: Ogilvy Toronto. Tim Piper, Mike Kirkland, Janet Kestin, Nancy Vonk. Directed by Tim Piper (treatment and post production) and Yael Staav (live action) from Reginald Pike. Our thanks to Soho post production, Rogue editing, Vapor music, Gabor Jurina and Make-up: Diana Carreiro, and Reginald Pike. 

Joe Zandstra, my friend who you may have heard speaking with me on the podcasts has gone out and produced a fantastic application called Mouse Brains that assists with creative brainstorming, in his own words:

"Mouse Brains is a simple tool designed to take you a few short steps beyond the classic random word and word association brainstorming techniques. Brainstorming using random words is a simple technique that opens up the mind to new ideas and new ways of thinking about a problem. Mouse Brains is not about generating finshed ideas. What you get out of it really depends on how you approach it and the thinking you’re prepared to apply to the stimuli that the tool produces. While some of the sentences may seem to make only a small amount of sense (or none at all), they are only meant to be the very beginning of the thinking process."

Using a process known as "Provocative Operations" (a term coined by Edward de Bono, described as "an idea which moves thinking forward to a new place") Joe has managed to create an application that really stretches your imagination when finding an advertising position for the product or service you have entered into the system. 

I suggest that you explore the site, and if you're a marketing or advertising professional you make use of this application the next time a client brief comes in - I suspect you will be pleased with the creativity that comes out of its use!

Have fun with Mouse Brains

Poor AT&T in the US, it seems that they have been talking the talk but not walking the walk. And the blogging world is not impressed. Let me explain what has happened. I read on Sean Coon's blog via AdRants that SBC have recently bought AT&T (might be old news but to me its new, but I live in Asia..) and the new outdoor campaign claims that "Blogging. Delivered." - a fair thing to say, and similar to the old "Internet. Powered by Cisco" campaign.

But the blogging community have picked up that a search on the AT&T corporate site for "Blog" does not yield any results. Oh dear.

This is bad for a two reasons as I see it, let me explain:

1. Integrated Marketing failure. At the very least AT&T should have put some kind of digital content in place to tie the atl into their brandsite, for most brands this would be the minimum requirement of a big brand campaign such as this.
2. Look at your target audience and realise what you're talking about. Blogging right now is still fairly niche, it's cool, but niche. Those involved in blogging are early adopters, which means they are more likely to be online, digitally savvy and ready to voice an opinion. Lets say for example the campaign had suggested "Email. Delivered." - the same comments would have applied, but would have largely been ignored, because hey - everyone sends email right? Caveat: of course this campaign may be multi pronged, and this message might exist..

Of course it's difficult for an agency to pick up on something like this in the planning stage - most likely for the atl agency it sounded brilliant - think of the conversations: "hey, brief was to demonstrate AT&T deliver internet traffic, how can we crystalise that?" "dude, blogging is cool right now!" "yeah, blogging powered by at&t" "nah, cisco did powered, how about delivered?" "agreed". It's another example where what may seem like a small mistake in the campaign strategy could well lead into a PR disaster for AT&T - from most likely an innocent mistake in the planning..

Still - think about the fun that could come from this - vis a vis the Mastercard ad parodies:

Creating the billboard campaign - $25m

Forgetting to add website content - $0

Getting flamed by bloggers - Priceless

Feeling a bit evil today!

I wake up this morning to hear the pundits talking about a new service Google are about to launch called "Google Base". Now I am going to base (sic) some comments on what I have read and seen already - much of this will be speculation - but of course with players like Google, Yahoo, MSN etc we can be certain that there is a highly cunning master business plan behind the few screenshots we've been lucky enough to see already. What does Google Base Mean? How might it effect existing players like Craigslist? How might 'Base' integrate with other Google services?

Click to read more ...