After five years, Google is shuttering its auction-based TV ad sales system and “doubling down” on the growing online video space. The decision comes after the company earlier this year said Google TV Ads had expanded such that it could sell inventory reaching 42 million homes. Throughout its tenure, Google pitched TV Ads as an easy-to-use platform for advertisers that had never used TV before and touted multiple success stories. The company plugged the opportunity to pay only for delivery, based on Google’s AdWords system and the chance to receive granular performance metrics, used in part for set-top-box data. Google executive Shishir Mehrotra wrote in a Thursday blog post that TV Ads was aimed at using Google technology to “bring digital buying and measurement technologies to traditional TV advertising.” Similar efforts were abandoned in radio and newspapers in 2009. He added that it was a tough decision, but “video is increasingly going digital and users are now watching across numerous devices … We’ll be doubling down on video solutions for our clients (like YouTube, AdWords for Video, and ad serving tools for Web video publishers. We also see opportunities to help users access Web content on their TV screens, through products like Google TV.” Google TV Ads will be phased out over the next several months. Mehrotra wrote that current campaigns will continue to be “supported(ed).” Staff can be better deployed elsewhere at Google, he added.TV Ads suffered, in part, as some top-tier national networks balked at making their inventory available on the platform, suggesting it would commoditize their inventory. In January, however, Google said it had secured distribution options with Cox Communications in addition to Verizon, Dish Network and other avenues. Dish Network was the original inventory provider to Google and the company did sign up some national networks.
Despite the rise of social, email remains a strong channel for brands to engage consumers. In fact, email volume increased 10% from the second quarter of 2011 through the second quarter of 2012, according to new findings from Experian Marketing Services. What’s more, total open rates increased 1.5% during the same time frame. “More than 55% of brands had statistically significant increases in open rates for [the second quarter] 2012,” according to Regina Gray, vice president of strategic services at Experian’s CheetahMail unit. “While click rates continued to show a year-over-year decline, there is some evidence that the rates are stabilizing,” Gray added. She calls email "the most effective channel to connect with customers." Research indicates "a growing trend of brands utilizing social capabilities to acquire and engage consumers and fans across these new media channels.” Broken down by sector, travel and consumer products and services emails reported the largest volume increases, with 41% and 19%, respectively. Media and entertainment emails also reported a double-digit increase of 17% year-over-year. That said, there was only a 2% change in “all Industry” email volume from the first through the second quarter of 2012, as all verticals (except travel) experienced less growth than they did during the same period a year ago. Experian’s report also analyzed second-quarter mailings that had a reference to a social media site in the mailing name or subject line of the email -- such as Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest. They were then compared to the performance of all other mailings from the same clients for the same time period. The findings: a 70% growth in brands sending ‘Like us’, ‘Follow us’ or ‘Pin us’ email campaigns. Meanwhile, Pinterest ‘Pin us’ mailings generated unique click rates that were almost 25% higher than other mailings, while unique open rates for Twitter ‘Follow us’ mailings were 9.5% higher than those for their other mailings. Unique click rates were virtually identical to all of their other mailings. Also of note, coupons had a 50% higher click rates and double the revenue per email than campaigns without such offers.
A large majority of smartphone owners use their devices to consume digital content, including media and information, according to a new survey by Frank N. Magid Associates for the Online Publishers Association, titled “A Portrait of Today’s Smartphone User." A growing number of these people have seen and responded to mobile advertising delivered to their device. Overall, the OPA-Magid online survey of 2,540 people ages 8-64, conducted in March of this year, found that 44% of the U.S. Internet population age 8-64 owns a smartphone. Within this group, 93% said they regularly access content and information, with 59% saying they access the Internet, 58% checking email, 47% checking weather information, 31% watching video, 29% accessing local news and 24% accessing national news. Within the group that consumes content on their smartphones, 39% (or around 36% of all smartphone users) say they have responded to mobile advertising. Asked about their activities in the six months leading up to the survey, 15% of smartphone users who consume content on the phone have clicked on an ad, 12% have used a special offer or coupon, and the same proportion have made a purchase either on a PC or at a store after seeing a mobile ad. Interestingly, ad response rates were higher among smartphone users who have paid for content. One out of four U.S. smartphone owners (24%) have paid for digital content, according to the OPA survey, with 22% paying for video, 21% for entertainment, 21% for books, and 19% for weather content. Within this group, 79% have taken some action after seeing an ad, with 31% clicking on an ad, 30% using a special offer or coupon, 27% making a purchase on a PC, and 24% making a purchase at a store as a result of seeing a mobile ad. People who paid for smartphone content were also more likely to have positive attitude toward mobile advertising, with 29% saying smartphone ads are eye-catching, 26% saying they’re relevant, and 25% saying they are unique and interesting, compared to 17%, 15%, and 14%, respectively, for smartphone content consumers in general. In June, the OPA released the results of a similar survey about tablet users, which also revealed relatively high engagement with advertising and brand-related content. In that survey, 29% of tablet owners said they have researched a product in the previous six months, while 23% said they clicked on an ad, 20% used a special offer or coupon and 19% visited a product Web site. Thirty-seven percent of tablet owners said ads delivered via the device were “hard to ignore,” 33% called them “eye-catching,” 29% said they were unique and interesting and 28% thought they were relevant. Twenty-seven percent said they were motivated to purchase a product by tablet advertising, and 26% were motivated by ads to research products.
AudienceScience has appointed former Forrester Research analyst Emily Riley to vice president of marketing and sales strategy, overseeing worldwide efforts as the company expands into other markets. Riley's move points to a maturing market. She began her career at Advertising.com, now part of AOL, "watching smart people do really cool things." As an analyst, she missed rolling up her sleeves and solving tactical problems. Calling those days "the golden age of digital marketing," she decided to jump back in. Jeff Hirsch, CEO at Underdog Media and former AudienceScience CEO, calls it "a good sign" that someone with Riley's "industry insight" joined the company. Today, AudienceScience supports clients in more than 25 countries, but there are opportunities to expand from Japan into other countries in Asia, Hirsch said. He still sits on AudienceScience's board. At Forrester, Riley focused on digital media buying to help marketers get the most out of data and understand the fundamental shifts and best practices for becoming a multichannel media buyer. Riley points to data management platform providers and ad targeting companies focusing too much on third-party data as one of the biggest challenges of ad targeting. "Third-party data tends not to perform as well as first-party data," she said. "Ad targeting won't work as well if you're only relying on third-party data." The ability to strip personally identifiable information from first-party data and combine it with second- or third-party data to personalize campaigns creates tighter relationships between brands and consumers worldwide, Riley said. Earlier this year, the AudienceScience board named former MediaMath exec Mike Peralta to president. Peralta pulled in Riley, who has been an influential part of the online advertising and digital publishing business as an executive and analyst since the mid 1990s.
Mobile has had a major impact on the travel industry, and the growing adoption of smartphones and tablets will likely increase the influence it has on consumers' travel habits. As one of the biggest online travel brands, Expedia is making mobile a focus of its growth strategy through apps, including TripAssist, Expedia Hotels and FlightTrack, as well as on the mobile Web. MediaPost caught up with Jeremy Xavier, vice president of marketing for mobile products at Expedia, to discuss how the company is responding to a more device-driven world. Xavier joined the company when Expedia acquired travel app developer Mobiata in 2010. MP: What kind of use are you seeing for Expedia mobile properties in terms of booking activity? JX: There's an overall trend where we have 70% of our bookings for mobile being same-night, in-market. A lot of people are actually using mobile products in-trip. They book hotel rooms for that night and use FiightTrack on the way to the airport. Mobile is really the traveler's tool. MP: So mobile is better suited to on-the-fly services rather than trip planning? JX: In mobile, people get exactly what they need and get out. At present, we're not building experiences that people are going to browse forever on a mobile device. That's something that will change over time. MP: What about tablet use? Is that somewhere between the smartphone and PC? JX: Tablet usage isn't as much at this point. But we think that's going to be more like the desktop experience. Now, they’ll just say, “Hey, I'll bring my iPad, I can do my email, play some games, and that's all I'll need.” We’re going to make sure we offer a really good experience on tablets as well. MP: I wondered if you saw the Nielsen post this week showing 95% of time spent in mobile travel is in apps rather than the Web. Are you seeing that dramatic a discrepancy in favor of apps at Expedia? JX: I did see that. While our app downloads and traffic are definitely growing month to month, we see massive bookings via the mobile Web. As I mentioned, the majority of rooms booked via mobile are for the same night. People often quickly open the browser and search for things like "Room in Las Vegas." Nielsen shows what we know to be true: more people are looking for apps to consume, transact and entertain. MP: What's your approach to marketing Expedia apps? JX: Work closely with Apple and Google. Try to get the Android team at Google, and the team at Apple really excited, and if you do, then you'll get featured. Any developer will tell you getting featured in Google Play or the iTunes App Store is going to be huge for downloads. The other thing we pursue is a social strategy. The great thing about mobile is it's digital, so if people are on Twitter or Facebook and talking about the app, you can click through and get to an app store very quickly. There's also PR and performance marketing, so we try to hit all the bases. Where it gets really interesting, for mobile, is how to target people to re-engage. That might be through email, our newsletter, or if you've booked a trip with Expedia, you'll see a prompt in the confirmation e-mail to check us out in mobile. MP: Expedia just launched a free version of the FlightTrack app for iOS and Android. Can you talk about any other mobile projects in the works? JX: One of the things you'll see are in-trip tools. That's where you have gaps in your itinerary, and we might be able to suggest something, or different things where we could help you along the way to enhance your trip. MP: Since most Expedia apps are free, have you introduced any third-party advertising within apps? JX: We don't have advertising in any of our apps. We pay a lot of attention to design and user experience. As a guiding principle, we're just not really interested in having ads.
The Olympics was a huge social conversation starter in the UK during the recent London Games, according to research from Interpublic Group’s Momentum and social media monitoring outfit Radian6.The word "Olympics" was mentioned more than 26 million times during the games across the social media universe, including platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and numerous other sites, blogs and message boards.Overall sentiment was favorable -- the firms reported that just over two-thirds (68%) of Olympic-related commentary was positive, while 32% was negative.Among Olympic sponsors, McDonald’s was the most-talked-about brand with a 24% share of sponsor-related comments. The Momentum-Radian research didn’t break out sentiment for the brands by percentage but noted that McDonald’s received many comments questioning the appropriateness of a fast-food chain as a major sponsor of an athletic event.The research pointed to a typical McDonald’s-related comment: “I still don’t see why McDonalds is promoting the Olympics when it’s the worst food for you out there.” An earlier study by MediaCom Sport that covered just the first week of Twitter comments about the games found that the food chain ranked last in sentiment among the 25 brands it covered. That was due largely to the “perceived contradiction” between fast food and the kind of quality nutrition that an Olympic athlete requires.According to the Momentum-Radian6 study, British Airways was the second-most-commented on brand in the social sphere, with Coca-Cola rounded out the top three. Coke could hardly be classified as health food, but the brand didn’t appear to draw the ire of social commentators like McDonald’s, per the study. A typical comment about the soft-drink maker: “The Coke ‘Moments of Happiness’ commercials for the Olympics are the best.”
In recent weeks a number of big consumer magazine and newspaper publishers have expanded their ability to deliver digital advertising in a variety of formats with acquisitions and investments in digital ad platforms. The deals continue a long-term trend, which has seen publishers acquiring stakes in agencies and tech companies to help them leverage their other publishing assets. On August 20, Conde Nast announced that it made an undisclosed investment in Flite, a cloud-based ad platform that the publisher will use to deliver rich media ads across its portfolio of 27 Web sites. As reported earlier by MediaPost, Flite’s ad tools are meant to turn display ads into app-like experiences by integrating features such as video, social media, live chat and e-commerce. It also updates ad content in real-time. A number of big brands are already using Flite, including L'Oreal, CBS, General Mills, Microsoft and P&G. The following day, Gannett announced its acquisition of BLiNQ Media, which specializes in social engagement advertising and is already conducting social-media marketing campaigns for over 600 advertisers. BLiNQ is being incorporated into Gannett’s Digital Marketing Services division, where it will help businesses reach local consumers, working in tandem with ShopLocal and drawing on Gannett’s network of local newspaper Web sites. According to the companies, BLiNQ was one of the first companies to gain access to the Facebook Ads API, allowing it to create tools and services to create, buy, and manage Facebook ad campaigns. While neither deal involved acquisition, Hearst is forming new partnerships for social media management and personalized e-commerce. Earlier this month, it partnered with Sprinklr to manage its social media presence, including distinct social media programs for over 20 major brands. The Sprinklr partnership will make it easier for Hearst to manage content creation for social media, including news apps, and measure engagement with its social media assets. Hearst’s Seventeen.com has partnered with mulu to help automate e-commerce linked to its editorial content online. In the new feature, a “muluBox” appears alongside Seventeen.com’s online content with recommended products based on content the user had already viewed, including videos, slide shows or articles. In addition to enabling e-commerce, the mulu platform allows shoppers to choose to donate their loyalty points to a worthy cause, in this case Stomp Out Bullying. The muluBox will launch on other Hearst sites in the next few months, according to the publisher.
The world’s largest retailer may be getting behind the mobile self-checkout model of in-store smartphone use. According to a Reuters report, the company recently tested the system with a group of employees in their Rogers, Arkansas location. The subjects were asked to scan items with their phones and then go to a special self-checkout counter for payment. It is not clear how much time, effort or retail resources this saves over a typical self-checkout aisle in any other retail grocery or store. Walmart announced recently that it planned to add more self-checkout lanes to its stores to increase efficiency and reduce labor costs. A smartphone complement could help encourage cashier-less checkout. According to Reuters, Walmart customers often complain on Twitter about long checkout waits at stores and too few cashiers. In most mobile self-checkout schemes we have seen, the user scans a product, pays by phone in the store and then has a mobile receipt to show an attendant at the exit for proof of purchase. The Walmart test did not allow people to pay for items on their phones, but simply bag them as they shopped in order to pay faster at the checkout aisle. In addition to reducing staffing costs, a retailer like Walmart may also use mobile devices to improve the overall experience of in-store buying. A smartphone scan can help the shopper identify prices (not always easy in many Walmarts) and track cart size, specials pricing, etc. before checking out. Inducing shoppers to use a Walmart app in-store also gives the retailer the opportunity to upsell, make recommendations and merchandise.
There's this line I sometimes use in speeches, usually during the question-and-answer period. My presentations are about the ascendency of trust in the new Relationship Era of marketing, as chaos continues to subvert the primacy of advertising and positioning. When the lecture ends, someone from the audience inevitably raises a hand and asks: "What is the one thing above all else I should do to succeed in the Relationship Era?" I stand on the stage, scowling a bit as I appear to be pondering the question. “The one thing, eh?” I'll say. Then, after another moment, I'll nod my head sharply and offer my considered response: “Don't be a dick.” For some reason, that never fails to get a big laugh. But the rude answer is in dead earnest. We are ever more doing business with a public that actively avoids brand messaging, but carries on many brand conversations more or less behind the marketer’s back. That same public has also recently changed its calculus of what it values in brands. As recently as 2006, Edelman Public Relations informs us, in answering what was the standard of trust, consumers most often cited “quality products and services.” By 2010, mere “quality” as a standard of brand confidence had dropped to number three in the Edelman Trust Barometer. Number one -- with 83% citing it -- was “transparent and honest practices.” Good conduct. Solid citizenship. Core values. The stuff of essential self. Next March, when Can't Buy Me Like finally is released, you'll be able to see how trust is composed of three elements: credibility, care and congruency. Does the brand engender public trust by delivering on its promises? Does it understand consumer needs and seek to fulfill them? Does its every action resonate with deeply held values? It really helps when the answer to all of those questions is yes. At the moment, a number of brands are experiencing the wages of the answer “no.” BP, Netflix, Johnson & Johnson, RIM, Chick Fil A and even Apple have learned the hard way that no brand -- not even a beloved one -- is immune to the consequences when it disappoints the public. Which brings me to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. In the 2010-2011 fiscal year -- in the midst of deep recession -- the charity raked in $439 million. Over three decades, it has provided almost $2 billion for breast cancer research, education, advocacy, health services and social-support programs in more than 50 countries. Its pink ribbon is ubiquitous and synonymous with the fight against breast cancer, becoming a symbol of such unquestioned good that commercial brands invested large sums just to be associated with it. These range from Yoplait yogurt to Major League Baseball, Smith & Wesson to Promise Me, “the scent of compassion and courage.” In 2010, 60 such licenses brought in more than $35 million a year in fees, not to mention the exposure they provided for the 130-some Komen races held annually around the world. Komen Race for the Cure was ranked No. 2 among nonprofits by the Harris Poll in “brand health.” It was among the most trusted institutions in one of the society’s most trusted sectors. Then the women in charge acted like total dicks. In January 2011, under pressure from social conservatives, Komen announced under some flimsy pretext that it was withdrawing grants to Planned Parenthood for breast-cancer screenings -- a move that infuriated a whole lot more people than it mollified. As events unfolded, it emerged that Komen’s then brand-new senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, had been a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Georgia who had herself campaigned on a vow to eliminate state funding to Planned Parenthood. Handel denied a political agenda, but nonetheless quickly “resigned.” Komen rescinded its decision to rescind Planned Parenthood grants -- but that was too little, too late. To the faithful, trust had been breached. The year's Harris brand-health polling happened to fall in the midst of the furor, and Komen’s ranking plummeted from 2nd to 56th. Social media went predictably off the hook, as The New York Times put it, “with head-snapping speed.” Among the most common Twitter phrases: “I will never donate again.” There are no figures yet available for the 2011-2012 fiscal year, but at Races for the Cure Around the country last spring, organizers reported drops in donations ranging from 15% to 35%. Which means that cynical political pandering cost Komen -- and its beneficiaries -- in the neighborhood of $100 million. Komen was a Relationship Era marketer before there was a Relationship Era. Even in the analog days, it required very little advertising to spread its message of hope. Volunteers and pink ribbons were the best advertising imaginable -- and as a bonus, those 60 outside licensees paid Komen to spread the word further. Now, as a penalty for betraying those relationships, Komen must resort to paid advertising to attempt something very un-Relationship Era: manipulate public opinion back to where it once organically was. By focusing on individual cancer survivors and drawing attention away from the organization itself, Komen hopes for an image reset. Hmm. The campaign may or may not help restore the charity’s reputation, but in the meantime, every dollar spent on it is a dollar not distributed to agencies helping women. Do you wish to give up a weekend to race for an ad buy? The fight against breast cancer is certainly a worthy cause, but you'd be forgiven for being leery. In the quest for hope, you shouldn't have to hope your charity has ceased being a dick.