Going Mobile

By 2013, mobile phones will replace PCs as the most common device for Web access, according to a new report by research firm, Gartner[1].

Mobile media promises to be one of the most important – if not the most important – media vehicle for advertisers in the decade before us. The reasons are simple, clear and compelling. Mobile phones are ubiquitous and heavily used among the audiences that advertisers want to reach most. With over 235 million A18+ wireless subscribers, mobile phones are in the hands of 8 out of 10 U.S. adults and growing[2]. Cell phone penetration surpasses cable TV, web access, and home PCs.

Mobile phone users are uniquely tied to their phones . One person, one phone is the rule. A cell phone is a very personal item, carried at all times (38% say their phone is more important than their wallet). This is not the case with web access via PCs. People may have a shared desktop computer at home, a laptop for travel, and a desktop computer at work. When we talk about reaching users on the web, we often forget that we’re really talking about reaching browsers. Even with sophisticated behavioral tracking, a shared home PC paints a strange profile when the same browser is used by a husband and wife, plus their teenage and younger children. Also, a single user who accesses the web from home, work, and laptop can appear as three different people from a tracking standpoint. In contrast, mobile phones are generally not shared (except sometimes by parents with their younger children.) People use the same mobile phone whether they are at work, at home, or traveling. An advertiser who successfully makes a connection to a mobile phone user can be assured of reaching the person, not just the browser. (When P&G went from measuring household rating points to target audience rating points, someone famously remarked “households don’t buy products, people do.” The same can be said today; browsers don’t buy products, people do.)

Cell phones today are used to text, watch videos, listen to music, play games, search online, receive coupons, purchase products, perform banking tasks, navigate local streets, and – oh, yeah – talk. As these activities become more and more common, the cell phone will solidify its position as THE indispensible personal tool.

Advertisers are seeing the benefits of going mobile. Mobile advertising delivers 4.5 to five times better than online against common metrics including unaided and aided awareness, message association, brand favorability and purchase intent, based on findings from digital marketing research firm InsightExpress[3].

While mobile advertising has been around for awhile, it is only now beginning to take off. Google’s acquisition of AdMob and Apple’s purchase of Quattro Wireless clearly demonstrates the importance of mobile in the growth strategy for these industry leaders. The consensus outlook is for significantly higher ad spending in the next 12 to 18 months. As P&G Chairman/CEO Bob McDonald recently remarked, “the eventuality is one-on-one relationship with every consumer.” Mobile media takes us one step closer to that ideal.

Are you going mobile? If you haven’t yet, now’s the time to get started.

[1] Center for Media Research Brief: Top Information Technology Predictions, 2/5/10, from “Gartner’s Top Predictions for IT Organizations and Users, 2010 and Beyond: A New Balance”
[2] New Millennium Research Council (NMRC), March 2009
[3] “Mobile Ad Campaigns 5 Times More Effective Than Online: InsightExpress Study”, Mobile Marketer, 2/5/10

Optimizing Optimization

Be careful what you wish for because it may come true…

In the halcyon days of mass media, when a typical Prime spot averaged a 15 rating and a major magazine could reach one-fifth of the population, advertisers complained that their ad dollars were being “wasted”. We were reaching too many people – and paying for those impressions -- when we only wanted to reach our target audience. The cry of marketers was to cut out the waste!

Well, be careful what you wish for…

Media became fragmented and more targeted. Cable networks, magazines, and other media proliferated with narrower, more targeted content, and more targeted audiences. We went from broadcasting to narrowcasting. And advertising rates continued to climb. In television, top-rated programs commanded a premium price, even when the audiences of those top-rated programs trended downward. On a relative measure, they were still the best game in town. In magazines, economies of scale made the larger circulation publications more efficient than the smaller ones. With audiences scattering, there went the efficiency along with it.

As the price of “reach” continued to climb, even our concept of best practices changed. Unable to increase ad budgets to keep up with the increasing price of media, we lowered our expectations. A minimum 3+ reach goal became a minimum 2+ reach goal. Then we came up with the theory of “recency,” lowering our frequency requirements more. Coincidence, perhaps? Maybe…

Then we got the internet and – finally -- our prayers were going to be answered. Hallelujah! Soon we would be able to reach just the person we wanted to reach with no waste. We can target demographically, geographically, contextually, behaviorally – you name it and the magical internet could deliver! Well, not quite…The expectations of the internet, to-date anyway, have far exceeded its performance.

We’re not there yet, and now we’re a long way from the efficiencies of mass media. In hindsight, it wasn’t waste that we lost; it was bonus. It was the bonus audience that our media plans delivered above and beyond our targeted audience -- and the monetary value that bonus audience represented --that we lost. It was an important cushion that we lost. It was our ability to maybe be slightly wrong about our target audience yet still succeed because we reached enough buyers of our clients’ products with all of that, uh, “waste.”

Today, we don’t have the luxury of excess media impressions, whether you call them waste or bonus. Today, when we deliver an ad message to a media viewer/reader, we better be right about it. Damn right about it. That message has to reach exactly the right person at exactly the right time in exactly the right place, right environment, and right cost….or else.

Optimization is the order of the day. Are we there yet? Well, no, we’re far from it. While technology is increasingly moving us toward the ability to identify individual traits on which to target, privacy concerns continue to block the path of using that information. Our measurement of a web site’s audience is inadequate and inaccurate. While we may be able to estimate the composition of a site’s total audience, we rarely buy the entire site (nor would we want to – all that “waste” you know). And the demographic profile of the recipient of an individual impression on a particular site is still in most cases an educated guess at best. We’re stuck in the middle. We’re too far from the efficiencies of mass media, and too far from the accuracy of targeted media. Our target criteria looks as lame today as it did in the era of mass media. We can do better.

In this new decade, it will be interesting to see how optimization is optimized. Will we develop the skill to accurately measure each and every impression, identifying the individual who is on the receiving end of the ad (with their permission, of course), monitoring the effect we have (even getting feedback from our intended target), and adjusting our message, our delivery, and our timing appropriately? We better. We don’t have the luxury to make mistakes any more.

Tomorrow's news today

ABC INTRODUCES NEW TV SERIES EXCLUSIVELY ONLINE

Startling new program crosses video program with online game

BURBANK, CA, Sept 10, 2009 -- ABC today announced it was introducing “Cajun Capers”, a new detective series, exclusively online at ABC.com. The new series, starring Kiefer Sutherland in the lead role as detective Dave Robicheaux will premier on September 24. ABC has kept this program tightly under wraps. Inside sources say the new series will feature interactive capabilities such as the ability for viewers to follow separate characters and participate in solving fictional crimes.

“ABC.com was an early pioneer in online distribution of video content,” said Stephen McPherson, President of ABC Entertainment Group, “but this just takes us to a whole new level.”

The show is based on the popular Dave Robicheaux series of novels by New York Times best-selling author James Lee Burke. Kiefer Sutherland (“24”) plays Dave Robicheaux, a rugged, street smart ex-New Orleans cop who battles both villains and his own demons. Online viewers will have the option of watching the program on ABC.com as the story unfolds, or they can register for free and enjoy unique interactive capabilities with multiple camera angles. Registered users can choose to follow one character or another as if the viewer were right there in the story. For example, in the first episode, Robicheaux is separated from an adopted El Salvadoran refugee girl, played by Carey Mulligan (“An Education” and “The Greatest”). Registered users can choose to follow one or the other character to see how the story develops from that character’s perspective. “It’s as much a video game as it is a video program,” said McPherson.

Why distribute the program exclusively online? “ABC has enjoyed increasing viewership online,” explains McPherson, “and broadband has finally achieved critical mass for us. This gives us an opportunity to engage viewers in a completely unprecedented way.”

ABC.com promises the programming will have limited commercial interruption. Major sponsors, reported to include Verizon and Coca-Cola, will also receive product integration within the storyline.

Jeff Kaplan, lead designer on “World of Warcraft”, Blizzard Entertainment’s popular video game, is executive producer, along with Howard Gordon (“24”) and Kiefer Sutherland. “Cajun Capers” is a production of Real Time Productions and Imagine Television in association with ABC Entertainment.


Could happen….

What's next?

One man’s crystal ball is as cloudy as the next guy’s. No one knows what the future will bring. Life has a funny (and sometimes not so funny) way of being full of surprises. So take these predictions for what they are: one person’s guess.

A free-falling economy feeds on itself. Reduction in consumer spending begets layoffs in the retail sector which reduce consumer spending further. Manufacturing grinds to a halt as inventories build up, resulting in more layoffs in the manufacturing sector. Stock prices fall and money flows out of the market into safe havens such as cash and treasury securities. Companies cut expenses to protect their profit margins by – you guessed it – more layoffs. In the midst of a free fall, it seems like there will never be an end.

But it does end eventually. Business moves in cycles. Unemployment is a little over 7% right now. It will probably climb higher. Yet even if it climbs to 10% or more, still approximately 90% of people are employed. And those who survive the layoffs have needs. They have growing families. They need food, clothing, and shelter. They have birthdays and anniversaries and other special occasions to celebrate. They may have businesses that they’re trying to grow. And they have incentives to spend and invest because prices on everything are lower and interest rates are low. So they’ll spend and invest.

Then inventories will deplete and manufacturers will start producing again. They’ll hire more workers. Those workers will have a pent up demand from having put their lives on hold, and they’ll spend. Then money that has been sitting in safe havens will begin to pour back into the stock market and stock prices will rise. And companies will have more confidence and will begin hiring again. Retailers will see their sales increase and will hire more employees. And all this hiring will increase the flow of money in the economy and the good times will return….

That is, until the government f*cks it up again. Stimulus spending will kick in and pour too much money into the market just when we don’t need it, causing a high rate of inflation. Then higher taxes will go into effect to reduce the deficit. History does not ever repeat itself exactly; but you can always count on government action to distort the economy and screw things up.

It was not my intention here to rail about government ineptitude. I am not ordinarily cynical or pessimistic by nature, in fact quite the opposite. Rather, my intention is to offer advice to those many unfortunate people who are affected by layoffs.

Don’t wait. Don’t wait for the economy to come back. Don’t wait for the government or a recruiter or anyone else to rescue you. Use the opportunity to take stock of who you are, of where you are and where you want to be. Then make a plan to get there. Take charge of your own life.

We are living in an age of individual empowerment. Individual bloggers have scooped established news organizations. New companies are starting up faster than ever and are getting a seat at the table of global marketing organizations. Perhaps we have hit an important turning point. Maybe it turns out that companies that are “too big to fail” are just too big, period. The only thing that really matters is a great idea. And you don’t need a global footprint to come up with one.

Business cycles are a way of cleaning out the old to make way for the new. There are great opportunities in the midst of all this carnage, but you’ll need faith, courage, fortitude, and passion to find your way to it. Small is beautiful. Power to the people.

Best wishes to all.

Opportunity Finds Empowerment

(continued from Ideas that Empower, see 5/31/07 below)

Okay, we’re ready to take a stab at refreshing our definition of advertising for the 21st century. Based on our discussion from previous posts, we’re beginning from a definition established in 1904 by John E. Kennedy when he said advertising is “salesmanship in print.” Kennedy’s definition superseded the idea that advertising was “keeping your name before the public” or that advertising was “news about a product”.

Let’s consider three things we’ve learned about advertising over the years related to timing, relationships with media, and empowering ideas.

Our new definition of advertising should capture the idea that advertising is effective when it is relevant to the consumer at a particular point in time. For advertising to work, there has to be opportunity. A consumer must have a need or a hope (although this could be latent or sub-conscious), and the means for fulfillment. The advertising message should be present when it is most relevant to the consumer.

Our new definition of advertising should also respect the “delivery” of the advertising message. “Delivery” is something of a misnomer. Advertising is discovered, rather than delivered. It is found because a consumer has a relationship with a particular media vehicle where the advertising also visits. For advertising to be welcome, it should respect the relationship between the consumer and the media.

Finally, our new definition of advertising should recognize that successful advertising motivates and empowers individuals. Empowering communications enable consumers to find what they need (rationally or emotionally) in the ad message.

Our new definition for advertising in the 21st century might begin as follows: Advertising is an empowering expression (an idea) in search of a hopeful prospect with the means for fulfillment. In other words, advertising is “Empowerment seeking Opportunity.”

“Empowerment seeking Opportunity” sounds a lot like “salesmanship in print,” doesn’t it? Only it’s not as pithy. “Empowerment seeking Opportunity” defines the challenge we face as planners and advertisers, but we’re not finished yet. Our definition needs to be turned around to more accurately portray the relatively weaker position of advertising to the stronger position of the consumer. We chase prospects until they catch us.

Success in advertising is the result of opportunity finding empowerment through relationships with media and the ideas expressed therein. We might better say that advertising is the catalyst for Opportunity finding Empowerment. “Opportunity finding Empowerment” frames our understanding of the challenges we face better than its opposite, “Empowerment seeking Opportunity” which is simply another way of saying “salesmanship in print.”

In 2001, Bob Brennan (then President of Leo Burnett Worldwide), made the following observation:

Until recently, our industry has been dominated by the creative function at the exclusion of all else. Creative is essential, but the leading marketing communications companies of the future will have three core competencies:

Fact-driven customer knowledge at the individual level derived from sophisticated database management tools;

Superior media capabilities that allow us to effectively make contact and interact with our target consumer across a variety of media disciplines;

Innovative, creative ideas, flawlessly executed, that inspire and motivate consumers to invite the brand into their lives.

In the 21st century, our success in advertising will depend on our ability to act as catalysts for enabling Opportunity to find Empowerment.

Ideas that Empower

(continued from If You Tame Me…, see 5/9/07 below)

Over $100 billion is spent each year in advertising. In our industry, we use very sophisticated technology. We allocate hundreds of millions of dollars each year to research on all kinds of consumer behavior surveillance techniques ranging from simple diaries to brain scans and yet, surprisingly, after more than 160 years of the existence of the advertising industry, we still don’t know how advertising works. We only know that it does work.

For many years, an accepted model of how advertising works was a hierarchical model. We believed people moved through a series of events – Awareness, Interest, Desire, Action – which took us from advertising to sales. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, however, the research simply did not support this model. The research showed us we could have behavioral changes before attitudinal changes. We could have increases in sales before we had increases in awareness.

Maybe some day we’ll figure it out. But as we’re struggling now to update our definition of advertising, let’s take a different approach and consider the observations of some who were considered among the most successful in advertising.

As we’ve recounted in earlier posts, there was a period in time when some, at least, thought we understood advertising. In his famous book, Scientific Advertising, Claude Hopkins wrote, “The time has come when advertising has reached the status of a science. It is based on fixed principles, and is reasonably exact. The causes and effects have been analyzed until they are well understood. The correct method of procedure have been proved and established. We know what is most effective, and we act on basic law.” Here are a couple of Hopkins’ “laws” of advertising:

– Ads are not written to entertain. When they do, those entertainment seekers are little likely to be the people whom you want. That is one of the greatest advertising faults. Ad writers… forget they are salesmen and try to be performers. Instead of sales, they seek applause.

– Any studied attempt to sell, if apparent, creates corresponding resistance.

Fast forward a number of years and consider Bill Bernbach. He rejected the idea of advertising as science and considered it more of an art:

- Advertising isn't a science, it's persuasion. And persuasion is an art.

- It’s not just what you say that stirs people, it’s the way that you say it.

But on some points, Bernbach and Hopkins would seem to agree. It’s hard to imagine Hopkins disagreeing with these observations by Bernbach:

- Our job is to sell our clients' merchandise...not ourselves. Our job is to kill the cleverness that makes us shine instead of the product. Our job is to simplify, to tear away the unrelated, to pluck out the weeds that are smothering the product message.

- Getting a product known isn’t the answer. Getting it wanted is the answer. Some of the best known product names have failed.

David Ogilvy, who came from a background in direct response, leaned more towards the “scientific” school of thought on advertising effectiveness. In a speech he gave to the advertising community, Ogilvy chastised “generalists” for putting creativity above the commercial goals of advertising:

You generalists pride yourselves on being creative, whatever that awful word means. You cultivate the mystique of creativity…. We directs do not regard advertising as an art form. Our clients don’t give a damn whether we win awards at Cannes. They pay us to sell their products. Nothing else….

When sales go up, you claim credit for it. When sales go down, you blame the product. We in direct response know exactly to the penny how many products we sell with each of our advertisements.

You generalists use short copy. We use long copy. Experience has taught us that short copy doesn’t sell. In our headlines, we promise the consumer a benefit. You generalists don’t think it is creative.

You have never had to live with the discipline of knowing the results of your advertising. We pack our advertisements and letters with information about the product. We have found out we have to if we want to sell anything.

And yet, Ogilvy had a great deal of respect for another successful ad man, Leo Burnett. Burnett created the advertising campaign that succeeded above all other campaigns: the Marlboro Man. The Marlboro Man campaign is credited with taking a cigarette brand that at one time had about a quarter of a share point in sales and drove it to become the top-ranked brand in the world. The Marlboro Man campaign had none of the fact-based, long copy which Ogilvy criticized the ad community for leaving out in its advertising. It was an image campaign.

So what does this all mean? What does it tell us about what advertising is or is not? For one thing, it suggests there is more than one path to advertising success. There are times when rational, information-based appeals can succeed, and there are times when emotional-based appeals can succeed. Through generation after generation, successful advertising practitioners have concluded that advertising may be entertaining, but it is not entertainment. As the saying goes, “it’s only creative if it sells.”

Here’s another saying that’s relevant: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Every year, it seems, we struggle with the same challenge – how to make advertising more effective – and in many cases we keep finding similar answers. Aren’t the views of Hopkins, Bernbach, Ogilvy, Burnett, and many other successful ad men as relevant today as they were in their own time? For instance, haven’t we learned that advertising is not a popularity contest? Don’t we discover time and time again that the most popular ads are not necessarily the most effective? And yet, what is it that we continue to strive for when we measure advertising recall, and now try to measure engagement? Recall and engagement are best suited as measures of entertainment value, are they not? There is no definitive correlation between recall and sales. Here’s a prediction, there won’t be a definitive correlation between engagement and sales either.

Let’s move beyond engagement and embrace empowerment. When advertising is successful, it empowers people to take action to satisfy some need, want, or desire. The goal of advertising is to create ideas that empower.

In our next post, we’ll try to take the ideas expressed in these last three posts and put them together to offer our new definition of advertising. Meanwhile, I’m curious, what’s your definition of advertising?

If You Tame Me....

(continued from The Time is Now, see 5/1/07 below)

“If you tame me, then we shall need each other.
To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world….”

The Little Prince
Antoine de St. Exupery

The Little Prince is a delightful book full of profound insights about life and love. Highly recommended, if you haven’t already read it.

There’s a chapter in the book where the little prince is learning about love and friendship from a fox. “What does that mean – ‘tame’?” asks the little prince. “It means to establish ties,” answers the fox.

We are all creatures of habit. Although each of our habits is unique, we all follow a regular routine.

• we wake up at the same time every day, perhaps to a radio that’s tuned to the same station every day
• we drive to work along the same route, passing the same signs
• we read the same daily newspaper
• we read the same business or personal magazines month in and month out
• we watch our favorite TV programs every day
• we sometimes surf the internet, but we return to our favorite sites regularly

We establish ties with the media that tame us; they become part of the fabric of our lives.

They are our friends, always welcome, comfortable to spend time with, and trusted. From childhood, we are taught to be wary of strangers. When a stranger tells us something, we listen with caution. We are trusting of our friends. When a friend tells us something, we are more receptive.

It should come as no surprise that advertising is more effective when it is communicated through a vehicle we trust. Studies confirm this. For example, a 2003 study by Knowledge Networks looked at “reader involvement” in relation to ad recall. Reader involvement was determined by such things as frequency of reading (e.g. read four out of four issues), reading time per issue, and preference (e.g. citing the magazine as “one of my favorites”). The study found that highly involved readers were three times more likely to recall ads than readers with average levels of involvement, and 10 times more likely to recall ads than readers with low levels of involvement. Other similar studies show similar results. In other words, readers are more responsive to advertising in their favorite publications.

It baffles me how often this insight into human behavior is ignored in advertising. How many times have you seen an advertiser or its agency painstakingly investigate and compare magazines to find the absolute best, top tier, ultimate magazines to reach a specific target audience with the right message in the right environment? Then, with hopeful ambitions to influence the attitudes and behavior of targeted prospects, they set as an objective or goal to maintain continuous advertising pressure against this target audience. And after all that, advertise in these paramount publications a total of…what…four times? Based on an informal survey among a few publishing friends of mine, it seems less than five percent of advertisers run continuously in all 12 issues of a monthly magazine. Twelve contacts in a year is apparently considered way too much exposure against the absolute best, top tier, ultimate targeted readers with the right message in the right environment for most advertisers. Go figure.

The average price of a :30 in the Super Bowl exceeds $2.5 million. Why do advertisers continue to pay top dollar for the Super Bowl and other media events?

In part, of course, it’s because of the opportunity to reach large numbers of people at one time. We know that’s true. But partly, too, it’s because advertisers believe higher levels of involvement (or engagement, if you prefer that term du jour) viewers have with these programs translates to higher levels of response, which justifies the premium cost.

Fortunately, consumers enjoy the relationships they have with their media every day, and advertisers do not have to pay premium prices to benefit from those relationships.

Relationships matter. We should consider that in our *new* definition of advertising. Better yet, we should consider that more in our practice of it.

(to be continued…)