| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSWhy is there a need for an advertising OS? Before jumping into why Microsoft might succeed where Google has not, it makes sense to think about why there is even a need to for a new advertising OS. As media sources continue to fragment, media planning, buying and optimization becomes an increasingly complex proposition. Many an agency has pointed out that the margins simply do not exist in most, if not all, new-media economics. What this mean is that it takes teams of people to evaluate, plan, buy and measure new-media efforts, where previously the buying process could be managed by far fewer resources handling much larger budgets.
Without getting into a discussion about the purpose of productivity software, I think we can agree the situation sounds ripe for innovation. Imagine being able to compare not only new-media types against each other, but to be able to plan and compare all media purchases. The problem is that the objectives and standards across various media types are in no way unified. Google approached the creation of the advertising OS with media efficiency in mind, but this has proved a massive task.
Why can Microsoft succeed? Unlike Google, which focuses on mathematical media efficiencies, which means it is limited by what can be measured, Microsoft has a history of focusing on people's productivity. If advertising has taught me anything, it's that "Microsoft makes People-Ready business" ;-). Seriously though, productivity and efficiency are not the same thing in this case. The human element to advertising and marketing cannot be ignored; it's the classic art vs. science argument. Whereas Google's efficiency goals look to optimize the science, productivity focus means better enabling for the practitioners of the art.
Microsoft's expertise is best suited for this type of innovation, and one would think that agencies would be eager to improve resource productivity, especially in this margin-shrinking sea change of an economy. In addition, Microsoft is a HUGE advertiser. And while Microsoft may say that the two divisions are entirely separate, it's an undeniable advantage that Microsoft buys massive amounts of media of all sorts and can draw on organizational knowledge as a leading advertiser.
Now for a real "conspiracy theory": What if Microsoft, through its cozy relationship with and investment in Facebook, could strike a partnership to tie in Facebook information to help better measure advertising impact across multiple channels? Google has long touted studies that show the spike in searches when a marketer runs a television advertisement. Imagine what Facebook could tell an advertiser: How many people became a "fan"? Did conversation sentiment change by key demographics during campaigns? Which media spends moved the proverbial needle the most? This is really just the tip of what would be possible if advertising OS could be tied into Facebook data and consumer connections.
It's a very interesting prospect, but only pure conjecture right now. What do you think? Drop me a line on Twitter www.twitter.com/joemarchese and leave a comment on the Spin board to continue the dialogue.
29 people recommend this article.
RSS FEEDS
In any event, if you're right, maybe it will help that Microsoft is calling it "office suite" for advertising. Thanks for the pointers on OS vs. application. Robert Young actually was a programmer, I'd be interested in his perspective on this distinction given it was his original article that sparked the follow on.
Regardless of terminology, increasing productivity of knowledge workers in the advertising space is a task which has been attempted before. The question I pose is will it be different this time.
Accuse me of pedantic semantics if you wish, but using the term operating system is completely inaccurate in this context. Get the verbiage right and more technicians will stop laughing and start working on the idea.