Posts Tagged ‘Advertising’

February 25th, 2008

New Internet Measurement Panel

This month, the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB), the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA), the Association of Online Publishers and ISBA (Incorporated Society of British Advertisers) have announced a joint venture to create a BARB* style audience measurement panel for the Internet in the UK. The panel will be managed through JICIMS, the Joint Industry Committee for Internet Measurement Systems.

The advent of this panel could herald a major stepping stone in online’s journey to full maturity as an advertising medium. But equally, the creation of such a panel creates a Premier League of online media owners. What does this mean for those online media owners who don’t make it into the top flight?

It’s great to be in the BARB Club

In the TV world, being on the BARB panel puts your channel firmly on the radar of media planners. When measured by BARB, your channel is part of a Premier League of measured media options. These are the channels which have high critical mass; they have enough audience to value being measured and enough cash to pay for being measured. Planners use presence on BARB as a proxy for quality. Because all channels on BARB are measured in the same way, using the same currency, planners can make a fair assessment of media value when evaluating a range of channels. So, if you’re on BARB it is far easier to command the attention of media planners and therefore much easier to get your site included in the planner’s media recommendation.

But not so good if you’re on the outside

Unfortunately the average media planner is short on time. If he or she can solve a communications planning problem from within a pre-selected group of measurable channels, then they will. Why should they extend their attention beyond 200 or so BARB measured channels? Channels outside BARB tend to be small (they don’t think being on BARB will help them because their audiences are so small) or cash strapped (not able to afford to £25k+ fee required to be included on BARB). For many time-starved media planners, these marginals simply aren’t worth the bother.

What does a BARB style panel mean for online?

It’s obvious from the experiences of the TV market that panel members will become part of an elite group of media owners - the Premier League of online. This select group of media owners will inevitably form the start point for many online media planners and they will find it easier to be included in media recommendations. Those sites not on the panel will struggle to be included on plans and consequently struggle to gain revenue.

To cut a long story short, life without an online measurement panel makes it easier for smaller sites to survive. With the online panel in place that emphasis is likely to shift; making it easier for larger sites to gain revenue and build reputation, and push smaller sites onto the outside margins of planners’ attention. So, rather ironically, the desire to make online a more measurable medium could favour the few and disadvantage the many.

* For those not familiar with BARB, the BARB panel is a panel of 5,000 homes in the UK which uses a ‘Peoplemeter’ device to track the TV viewing patterns of occupants of the sample household.

January 21st, 2008

Press ad revenue will fall by £1.6bn - at least

WARC and the Advertising Association have predicted that UK press advertising spend could fall by £1.6 billion by 2019. This recent forecast is at least realistic and possibly an over optimistic scenario for press. At the Newspaper Society Conference in 2000 I identified a stratum of media communication that was dangerously exposed to competition from the Internet. It’s that layer of product and service based advertising - where to go, where to find it, how to do it - often locally. In short, it was press “small ads”; fractionals, classified ads and directory entries. These areas of press are under attack from three sides:

1. Consumers aren’t using press for news in the way they used to
2. Consumers are finding product information in online search when they need it, not in fractional press ads when media planners think they need it
3. As a consequence of item 2, advertisers are finding far greater product sales efficiencies in areas like online search. Some advertisers are spending £500k per month in search - and that is most likely from the very product sales budget that would have gone to fractional and small ads in press and directories.

I thought I’d add some media forecasts of my own for 2019:

1. The media world will look as different in 2019 as a motorway now looks when compared to a dirt track.
2. Many magazines and newspapers will have gone completely, the established brands will continue to exist online with lower circulation ‘feature and comment’ magazines in print.
3. Most TV will be delivered via Broadband Internet.
4. Viewers will schedule all their own entertainment on an on demand basis; the job of TV scheduler will cease to exist.
5. The boundaries between print and TV will fuse with much cross-media consumption and ownership
6. Consumers will organise their own news and TV programme schedules in a framework that looks like today’s RSS readers.
7. The provider of the new “universal reader” will probably be the new Google but they are unlikely to develop this “universal reader” as most companies only have one huge hit and they’ve had theirs.
8. The use of personal devices like ipods will become all pervasive; and they’ll do far more; you’ll be able to turn your oven on with it.
9. The decline in press ad revenue will be greater than £1.9bn by 2019.

November 7th, 2007

Can Facebook take adrevenue from Google?

So Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg has declared that “The next 100 years start today, and it’s going to be different.” Well both points are certainly true when isolated from the immediate context of his comments. But are they true for the audiences he is specifically addressing?

By saying that the next 100 years start today, young Mr Z. must surely be waving a derogatory digit at Google. From Google’s perspective, the next 100 years began in autumn 1997 when Backrub was renamed and made available to Stanford students. Mr. Z. thinks he’s onto something bigger and better than Google. And maybe he is. But the reality is that nobody can say for sure. Why? Well that’s because Google’s adrevenue model is proven and Facebook’s is not.

To date, Google’s adrevenue has been generated from a direct response model; PPC effectively took us back to the old results-based payment per inquiry (PI) deals. Direct response advertisers like paying for sales results and not for simply being seen. These direct response advertisers like the way Google’s performance based model works for them so the money flows straight in. For Facebook to take a share of this direct response revenue, it must deliver results that are at least as good as those generated by Google.

But Facebook has an ace and this could be where the $15bn comes in. Because of the way it is used, and because of the type of people who use it, advertisers may see it as more than a purveyor of direct response sales performance. They may come to view it as a place to talk about brands in targeted ways to highly targeted groups of consumers. This means that it could be liberated from the rigid ROI metrics that rule direct response. And that in turn means that advertisers may be prepared to pay more per person reached on Facebook and and be more relaxed about how it delivers ROI. From a media owner perspective, that’s a good place to be when it comes to counting the ad revenue dollars. In other words, the next 100 years did begin in 1997 for direct response advertisers, but they may just be about to begin again for brand advertisers.

August 24th, 2007

How would online advertising fare in a recession?

Recent uncertainties about US credit and its distribution throughout the world economy have meant that we’ve been seeing and hearing a lot more of the word “recession”. Naturally, this has prompted occupants of the online world to ask how another recession might affect them now the Internet is a far more established part of marketing. This might seem like a very daunting question, answerable only by those in possession of a crystal ball, but in fact, advertiser behaviour in a recession follows a reasonably predictable pattern. Here’s a brief summary of what is likely to happen:

1) Advertisers spend less: For many companies, a line of red ink through the ad budget is a quick and easy way to put some more money on the bottom line. If there’s no immediate and significant downward effect on sales, then many senior managers will see it as a painless way to maintain profits.

2) Advertising gets cheaper: As there’s still roughly the same number of advertising opportunities, but lower market demand, the cost of advertising falls.

3) It’s easier to cut through: With many advertisers spending less and the price of advertising falling, advertisers who maintain budgets get more cut through for the same money. Old hands at advertising like P&G and Unilever know this, and almost always maintain spend in a recession. For them, it’s a good time to invest in their brands.

4) There’s a focus on measurable sales results: In a recession companies want to maintain sales. As a result, tactical direct marketing often fares much better in a recession than brand advertising. If an ad budget can be shown to be make a direct contribution to sales, it is more defendable. The marketing manager who can say, “If you cut my budget by 50%, my sales will fall by 50% and here’s the proof” is far more likely to retain budget than the marketing manager who cannot.

So, where does this leave online?

Because the lion’s share of online advertising is evaluated by its ability to deliver clicks, leads and sales I believe online media would be in a relatively strong position if we were to enter a recession. There would be increased investment in online as more companies sought to invest in channels that are seen to deliver sales.

Superficially, this might look good. But ironically, it’s likely to be bad news for existing online advertisers. This is for two reasons. Firstly, increased demand for online could have an inflationary effect on costs, particularly in highly accountable areas of online marketing like paid search - where increased demand would manifest itself in higher bid prices. Secondly, as well as experiencing higher bid or CPM prices, advertisers would experience more message competition as more companies switched their budgets into online.

So the ‘net’ effect of a recession would be superficially good (higher online spends) but fundamentally bad (higher online prices and a more crowded marketplace). I think this would affect different areas of the online marketing community in different ways. For online media owners, it’s good news - they’d experience increased demand and higher prices. For digital agencies it’s both good and bad; more advertisers spending online, but it becomes harder to get cheap deals. And for advertisers, it becomes more difficult to maintain a low cost of sales.

April 11th, 2007

Sorrell may not be an adman, but he could be a direct marketer


“Start experimenting with mobile, test, refine, repeat,” was the advice offered by Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive at WPP, at the Mobile Entertainment and Advertising Summit held by the GSM Association.

Well there you have it; ‘experiment, test, refine, repeat’. Ogilvy and Sorrell may not have seen eye to eye when the new boy was buying up O&M, but D.O. may be very proud to see how the young lad Sorrell has come along. Ogilvy himself was a big proponent of testing - a habit he picked up from Claude Hopkins (see post below).

In case anyone is wondering, Ogilvy too was a direct marketer before he was an adman. He referred to DM as, “my first love, and later, my secret weapon.”

April 11th, 2007

Payment by results for creatives?

Mark Hancock recently posed the rather interesting question: “What would happen if the creative department remuneration was allied to sales?”

Well in the early days of advertising, copywriters were often paid by results. And some of them made big money. In the 1920’s Claude Hopkins at Lord and Thomas (ancestor of FCB) was earning $100,000 per year - and yes, that’s in 1920’s money.

Moving to payment by results may have some interesting effects in agencies. It would change the nature of advertising creativity, it would mean more businesslike creatives would flourish, it would mean much closer working relationship between creative and other departments - because creatives would be big stakeholders in sales success and, last but not least, it would mean that advertising becomes far less of an art form and far more of a business tool.

The closer working relationship bit is interesting. Over the years creatives have become more of an isolated and protected species within agencies. They are often kept away from clients, they sit in glass offices whilst everyone else is open plan, they are contacted via planners, and not generally exposed to the day to day goings on in an agency.

Surely it would be a good idea to bring creatives out into the open. Bring them into the centre of things. If they did have a stake in sales success they would be encouraged to think more about business results and less about ‘art’. And this may will give agencies back that one thing they regret losing the most - the proverbial seat at the boardroom table.

And so to conclude, I very much look forward to being abused by a creative team for reducing their earnings by messing up a coupon code or tracking cookie…