Tag Archives: Advertising

Don’t Let Your Brand Name Fall Flat On Your Audience

Often, there’s a name that really sticks among the founders of the company. There’s a ring to it… It makes people smile… It seems obviously right… Or, frequently, in these times, the cute omission of vowels in a product name is just plain cool. Unfortunately, some of those names get lost in translation. The BBC’s Justin Rowlatt captures the pitfalls of naming beautifully in his column of how context can change a brand’s inflection.

Plopp

Whether the ownership is too close to the product, doesn’t think beyond their initial market or just has bad luck with other things going on in the world, sometimes the brand name just leaves you wondering what they were thinking. This isn’t to say that you’ve got got neuter your brand name to make it work without offending anyone – it’s just that you should take the opportunity to get to know your audience well in order to name the brand as best as possible.

Of course, you should only have the problem of being so successful that changing your brand’s name is a major hassle. Otherwise, be sharp on the front end and strongly consider your brand name so you don’t have egg on your brand later.

The Path to Success In The Face Of Ad-Blocking Technology

AdBlock

Many publishers and planners alike are lamenting the adoption of ad-blocking technology and the growth in its use by consumers. Even with the race to the lower end of costs per impression/action/conversion/whatever, there are strong revenue models in place where many businesses are reliant on those traditional methods for survival. The thing is, there’s a way to shift those dollars while also providing real value to the brands and the consumers they are looking to draw near. Unfortunately, many (like Barry Lowenthal  and the commentors on his Tech Insider post on this very subject) are choosing to believe that the sky is not falling and there is still a huge audience that still cares, so they are not paying attention to the shifts that are available directly in front of them. Luckily, we all have examples of this new (old) form of revenue all around us – integrated sponsorship.

What isn’t addressed in the space between skipping ads via ad-blocking, fast-forwarding or flat-out ignoring them – as we grapple with ways to maintain revenue – is that the consumers advertisers look to attract are searching for, and finding, value in other ways. Those consumers find that sponsorship of content that helps them learn, explore and discover resonates more strongly than programmatic advertising – which might only bombard them with innocuous advertising that either doesn’t provide relevant value or wastes their space with places/companies/communications they’ve already experienced.

We’re seeing the ad-blocking workaround online, on television, in music, within gaming and even overlaid in out-of-home. Monies that are diverted to the integrated presentation of content are more valuable if done properly than if just purchased at the scale that we have been seeing. When you look at the changes in browsers, the user engagement experience within mobile devices and the new announcements by Apple, the same-old, same-old is daunting. Yes, the shift might require different skill sets, reporting, integration and no easy way out. But, if the right steps are taken, the sky might not fall. Actually, the audience will see and, more importantly, care.

Is 2015 The Year Of Hope For Net Neutrality?

As we have entered a bright, shiny new year, 2015 has us looking forward with hope and wonder about what BIG events will alter our futures the most. I’ve been thinking (and hoping) for quite a while that the most influential technology and business event of 2015 will be the solution of the Net Neutrality conundrum.  I inserted “hope” above because I don’t think it’s going to resolve itself anytime soon, but there is a huge amount of success or failure relying on a resolution.

Part of the problem is the confusion about whose responsibility it should be in the first place.  I don’t even claim to know all of the intricacies, so forgive me if I come across as naive in trying to simplify. There are certainly many (like Nick Castelli) who have different takes and do decent jobs of laying out what’s at stake. You can always do more research and come back to straighten me out…

To me, one of the main issues stems from the following:
In the United States, laws were set in place that – when telecom companies laid down cable, fiber, networks, infrastructure, they need to allow other companies to make use of their infrastructure. The companies using the infrastructure may be paying to use the pipes, but it was found to not fully cover their part of the costs – especially when they are able to offer services utilizing those infrastructures at a lesser cost than what the bigger companies paid to have them laid in the first place.  What happens is that any incentive to upgrade services is diminished because competitors can utilize those very same upgrades almost immediately with no capital expenditure. Because of this, you can find areas in major metropolitan cities who don’t have fiber network access and, therefore, slower connections than individuals or businesses residing just blocks away.

On the other side, we consumers don’t want to pay more to get the things we feel we’re entitled to. As has proven  lately, this is great when there is an entity willing to foot the bill (i.e. advertising supported) but not so good when the financial support dwindles so as to be inconsequential. This leaves entities searching for other forms of revenue – whether it be only providing content by subscriptions or fees.

Companies are jumping into the fray from left and right to serve the needs of the public and businesses via the internet – with huge distribution expenses offset by existing infrastructures. The concern is, the longer the lack of clarity continues, we’ll be seeing more executives like Reed Hastings of Netflix paying ISPs for a perceived fast-lane from one hand while lamenting the position ISPs are putting us in on the other. The confusion leads to many disjointed decisions that look to solve current issues (fleeting as they may be) and, perhaps, setting bad precedent for the future.

Ultimately, the question of Net Neutrality is much broader than who raises prices and who gets stuck with the bill.

Going to the basics of broadband, there have been studies on the effects of faster internet connections on the GDP, education and society. In 2013, Ericsson published a study with Chalmers University of Technology and the Arthur D. Little organization that pointed to a direct growth in GDP of 0.3% based on the doubling of broadband speeds between 2008 and 2011. Beyond the growth in GDP, there were other bumps that benefited society in ways that are harder to quantify.

Property of Ericsson, Chambers University and Arthur D Little. From the 2013 publication, ANALYZING THE EFFECT OF BROADBAND ON GDP.

Property of Ericsson, Chambers University and Arthur D Little. From the 2013 publication, ANALYZING THE EFFECT OF BROADBAND ON GDP.

In some ways, I question the wholeness of the data based on the years they were measuring.  For instance, South Korea had already installed a phenomenal broadband infrastructure that was inexpensive for it’s people and provided speeds far beyond most other countries. One example of the difference was illustrated when, in 2006, I was checking paid media creative maximums in many of the key countries I was working with around the world.  In the US and UK, the heaviest K size for standard banners was 12Kb.  In South Korea, it was 400Kb.  The reason is because their pipes were so wide, 400Kb needed as little load time for their consumers as it did for consumers in the US, UK, DE and most others. But, even in its simplest form, the study proves a point that there is much more benefit to fast connections than just being able to watch movies (or make more money for the ISPs.)

Now comes the part where my naivete or idealism comes into play – the truth is, I’ve been trying to find alternative solutions in my own head since before the United States Supreme Court struck down net neutrality rules in January of ’14.

As broadband is key to growth for any country – not just for GDP, but education and society as a whole, it seems that there needs to be a solution that the government foots most if not all of the bill. I get that there should be a true opportunity for industry to grow and not be dragged down by the masses, but in this age, the hottest commodities are digital solutions and the distribution and development of those products.

We usually get into trouble when we bring up politics and not just because of its divisive nature. It’s because politics has become more of a game of sportsmanship trying to move everyone toward their ideal – whether it be governmental or industrial. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.  We can’t abolish Net Neutrality AND feel that we are doing a service for the greater whole.  The wealthier will be able to pay for and get what they want and the large corporations will be able to quash the opportunities for upstarts to make a mark on any given industry.

Until there is clarity on the future (or not) of Net Neutrality, industries will be stunted in their ability to set strategy on how they address their business models and digital distribution of their product, content, marketing, communities and much much more.

With all of that being said, the ISPs should be paid to deliver the required broadband infrastructure that allows for as good of Net Neutrality as we can hope for. The government may be the only entity that can “afford” to pay for this deployment and convey whatever modicum of impartiality they attempt to convey at this point. If that doesn’t happen, 2015 will just be another year on the road to removing hope for most visionaries, innovators and hard-workers about reaching their dream (American or other.)

Music On The Fast Lane To The End Of The Free Internet Highway

At the end of last week, Google’s future plans for music video subscriptions on YouTube were made more generally known. The coverage in SFGate lays out the details and concerns quite nicely. I’m certainly not the only one who has been touting for a while that fee based content is where the internet needs to be headed in order to sustain itself – but it will take the larger players (beyond news sites like the NY Times and Washington Post) to fast track the shift.  In music, there’s already numerous digital subscription and purchase models. But, even including Apple, there’s no huge previously-free internet platform that has made the transition in the music space to turn us toward the end of the free internet highway. That is until now – if Google moves forward with their plans.CIMG0131

I think YouTube will run into many of the issues they currently have with their subscription business from a consumer perspective because so many are already used to that platform’s free offerings.  I do find it interesting that they are putting the squeeze on content providers by making it that they are either all in or completely out – and I have no idea how favorable or unfavorable those terms are. Either way, it seems like they are trying to play hardball with the music industry in the same way Amazon is.  Amazon pounds away for favorable terms on disc or download sales and then comes back every 10-12 months pounding away for more.

Whether it’s about bandwidth or subscription, the days of the internet being “free” are numbered. On another side of the online content play – but completely related – I’m bothered that Reed Hastings is complaining about bandwidth issues and then going around and paying everyone to enable Netflix to come through unfettered, I get his business perspective in that he’ll be able to charge more down the line while “claiming” that he “fought” it all along.

With that model, I do see a time in the not so distant future that Google products like YT, or dare I say even search, will start charging for a fast lane or specific content…

Showing ReSTRAINt In Outdoor Advertising

FX launched their new series THE STRAIN last night to solid critical response and viewer numbers. With a creative force behind the basic cable series of Guillermo del Toro and Carlton Cuse, it certainly deserves a look.  Unfortunately, at least in Los Angeles and New York, that look was forced upon us in the guise of a disgusting worm coming out of an eyeball in large outdoor displays. As has been seen over numerous posts in this blog, outdoor advertising is something to be celebrated when used correctly, but I wish there had been some restraint with this campaign.

TheStrain

Beyond the unsettling nature of the image – and unsettling isn’t always a bad thing when trying to enter the cluttered fray of advertising – the placements were far too many when considering not everyone wants to see something graphic like this.  It hit home for me when my five year-old daughter started questioning why a worm would be coming out of an eyeball. While we’re able to control what our children see on TV and online, it’s not easy when driving around our neighborhoods. And, parents shouldn’t have to be concerned about where they drive to steer clear of disturbing advertising.

A blog entry on MoviePilot was published on the 30th of June stating that FX had called a mea-culpa and was going to take down the advertisements, but as of today (two weeks later) there hasn’t been a noticeable reduction in the outdoor impressions around Los Angeles. The reason probably had a bit to do with cost, but more so with the buzz that was being created and wanting to keep the awareness up until the series premiere. From a business perspective that could be well and good, but from a responsibility one, does it?

Certainly, advertising falls under freedom of speech and there shouldn’t be any censorship of what is displayed and what isn’t.  The problem is, if we as an industry don’t take responsibility or show restraint, others will come in and attempt to do it for us. If the trend keeps moving toward disturbing outdoor advertising and more parents start complaining about having to explain things to their kids before the time that it is reasonable to do so, there will be additional strains that curb creativity and revenue generation.

TV Ads Score Supreme During A World Cup Of Fewer Ads

It is easy to get caught up in the fervor of the World Cup as hundreds of millions root for teams from around the globe. Many of those viewers may be seeing ad styles that they’re not used to seeing if they are not already watchers of Soccer/Futbol – with no breaks other than half-time. With that being said, it’s interesting to see the quality of the futbol-themed ads and the alternative viewing data that’s revealing itself in this first week of competition. Tubefilter reports that 1.2 Billion minutes of World Cup adverts have been watched on YouTube alone in the first week. What was refreshing beyond the numbers was the opportunity to see some great spots in a language I don’t fully understand when watching games on Univision – where the advertisers have really score in producing strong ads with emotional strings that defy language.

Image

While there are many good spots that capture the great skill of the sport in a technical sense as a solid celebration of the game, the strongest visceral response I had was to McDonald’s “House Divided” spot in Spanish.  Honestly, I even had a little letdown when I saw it in English as it changed the resonance somewhat.

What does seem to be the case is that the general public gets an opportunity to see ad creative surrounding the Beautiful Game that they otherwise might not get a chance to see.  In the case of McDonald’s, they’ve gone to an agency they’ve had strong history with from an emotional perspective tied to futbol the Alma agency based in Miami.  Alma created another futbol-based winner for the golden arches in February of ’13 with their Ancha spot.

World events like this have that great by-product – love ’em or hate ’em – of TV ads that can truly connect emotionally.  Even with the limited opportunities for running within the matches themselves, their strength and emotion reign supreme during this Beautiful Tournament for the Beautiful Game..

What’s Up With Narrow-Mindedness When Judging Technology Firms?

With the brewing storm of excitement/dismay/wonder surrounding Facebook’s acquisition of What’s App, the disconnect between expectations for – or public perception about – large conglomerates and new technology business seems to have widened. Much has been discussed about melding What’s App into Facebook’s interface or bringing advertising into What’s App’s in or just a Big Data play.  Perhaps it’s much simpler than that and has nothing to do with UX or building up the Facebook product.  Perhaps it has to do more with smart business and diversifying offerings. It just seems funny that the initial response is narrow-minded in relating the technology as merely an opportunity to bolster a company’s product.

Perhaps a lot of the thinking is related to Facebook’s relatively recent acquisition of Instagram.  Almost immediately, the photo service seemed fully integrated into Facebook.  But, to be fair, it was already there and there is still easy integration with other platforms that Facebook doesn’t own.

The thing is, would anyone question if Unilever or Nestle or some other company that owns a diversified group of products were to buy another relative upstart – especially if they had so much cash lying around?  The only concern people could or should have is the valuation placed on What’s App. That too can come back to the consideration of development resources and user base.  What’s App might not have been hugely known in the U.S. but it is around the world and by anyone who has family, friends in colleagues in other countries.

sequoia whatsapp jim goez

In this connected world, we can no longer just focus on what’s happening in North America. Whether people realize it or not, most web-enabled products (websites, apps, software, etc.) have no borders. The use-cases might be different from market to market, but they each gain hold for very real business reasons.  In the case of What’s App, one direct reason that folks in the States don’t realize the value is that all-you-can-eat data and mobile packages are not commonplace around the world. It can be quite cost-prohibitive to send texts to your friend down the street, let alone around the world.

Another key piece is the fact that What’s App has moved into the subscription realm. As more offerings move behind a paywall, the lessons that can be learned from What’s App success in subscription could prove invaluable to its owners. The data is certainly not available to those who are not and if subscription-based usage come further into the market, those with real data are in the driver’s seat.

While Google has huge development teams working on disparate products and they still go out and acquire business that fit their portfolio, it should come as no surprise that others shouldn’t do the same.  Google has long been less defined by their search product than their suite of technologies that assist in many parts of consumers’ lives.  Facebook should not be any different.

The great thing about technology development (or any business development, really) is that code and process can be duplicated in other areas – if done correctly. Just because someone makes it big with an app or single product doesn’t mean that should be the end-all – no matter how successful it is. There is no such thing as growth while remaining flat. Any company with flat growth is actually shrinking. Once the business survives its start-up phase, growth is the hardest part. It doesn’t matter who you are or what technology you created. Sometimes you just have to grow by acquisition.

Who knows if the $19B is too much for What’s App. Looking at the $10B value associated with Instagram after Facebook paid a “measly” $1B for it, we can’t underestimate Facebook. There’s a clear reason why What’s App’s investor, Sequoia Capital thought it was worth it. The reality is that new technology companies and the products they launched with have matured more quickly, perhaps, than any other businesses in the world. We’ve got to stop being narrow-minded in our judgement of why they should be any different from any other traditional business.