Google's price per call for AdWords advertisers cost nearly twice as much for local ads on YP.com, according to a study released Wednesday. The findings suggest the average for AdWords and YP cost $88 and $46, respectively. The study set out to prove that online directories can become a better value for local advertisers, compared with general search services. YP commissioned Altman Vilandrie & Company to analyze about 62 companies on the basis of cost per call, defined by the amount of advertising dollars spent to generate one incoming sales call. For the study, participating small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) spent equal amounts -- about $600 per campaign, for both YP and AdWords. Findings reveal that 77% of the companies realized a lower cost per call from YP ads, which also outperformed AdWords in 85% of the 20 business categories tested, such as dentists, florists, and auto repair. Of the 20 small business categories studied, 17 demonstrated better cost-per-call value through the YP ad network. The study did not analyze why advertisers may incur lesser costs on YP, but logic suggests that consumers typically turn to directories just prior to making a purchase, whereas they use search engines to find specific brands and products. More than half of the advertisers on YP.com's network running listings during the past year have seen increased calls coming from the directory site from both mobile and desktop, according to YP CMO Ken Ray. More than 110 million people in the U.S. owned smartphones during the three months ending in June -- up 4% versus March, according to comScore, which released data Wednesday from the comScore MobiLens service. Altman Vilandrie & Company director Jonathan Hurd, who oversaw the YP.com survey, said the cost per call demonstrates less variability on YP, compared with AdWords. The cost per call on AdWords ranged between $17 and $257, compared with YP between $8 and $162. YP, which spun off from AT&T in May, now generates more than $3 billion in annual revenue from local advertising. The YP Local Ad Network offers advertisers an opportunity to reach more than 70 million monthly unique visitors across 300 affiliated online and mobile publishers. Google claims that its display network reaches 83% of unique Internet users worldwide. Advertising revenue made up 96% of Google's revenue during the first six months of 2012, down from 97% in the prior year. Most other revenue comes from the company's enterprise products, as well as display advertising management services to advertisers, ad agencies, and publishers.
It's no easy task for North America to surpass Asia-Pacific, which supports a strong telecommunications mobile infrastructure, but marketers in the U.S. will spend more on mobile advertising this year and outpace others worldwide in 2013, according to estimates released Wednesday. The eMarketer findings forecast that mobile Internet ad spending worldwide will reach $6.4 billion in 2012, yet account for only 1% of total ad spending worldwide. The United States will grow 96.6% to contribute $2.3 billion this year, up from $1.1 billion last year. Estimates from eMarketer combine advertising on search engines, search applications and carrier portals. Mobile display ad spending includes banners, rich media and video on WAP sites, and mobile HTML sites and embedded in-application and in-game advertising. The uptick in smartphone use continues to propel the amount marketers spend in mobile advertising. More than 110 million people in the U.S. owned smartphones during the three months ending in June 2012 -- up 4% sequentially, per comScore. The research firm estimates browsers were used by 50%, up 0.9 percentage points. If the U.S. keeps pace with estimates, eMarketer believes North America will surpass Asia-Pacific in 2012 as the world's largest regional market for mobile advertising. Mobile ad spending in Asia-Pacific will reach $2.5 billion in 2012, while the amount spent in Western Europe and Eastern Europe will reach $1.3 billion and $121 million, respectively, this year. China will become the world's second-largest advertising market in 2013, contributing $53 billion -- outpacing the amount spent in Japan for the first time. Japan will grow 27.2% to $1.74 billion in 2012, compared with 35% in 2011. Asia-Pacific's mobile advertising market remains larger than Europe's. Although contributing only 2.3% to the total ad spend today, the U.K. market should reach 11% by 2016. Despite economic concerns, the strength of ad spending in Asia-Pacific and support from advertising around the Olympics will help grow Europe's total ad spending to 7.4% in 2012. Overall, global digital advertising will take a 20% share of total ad spending this year. eMarketer estimates companies will spend $107 billion for online advertising worldwide this year, up from $88 billion in 2011.
Look at any graphic representation of a social network, and you will see a somewhat globular cluster of nodes -- and, at the center, you’ll find the subject or owner of the network. The density of the nodes will be greater near the center, but there will be small clusters of interconnected nodes that will appear throughout the map. This pattern, the visual interpretation of human connection, looks much the same now as it did for tribal humans 100,000 years ago. But there is one important difference. Then, you probably only had one network you belonged to, which was defined by geography. Today, you can belong to many networks, and they’re often defined by ideas. Connecting the nodes in a typical social network map are small lines representing the glue, or ties, of the network. At the simplest level, a network can consist of just two nodes and one line, called a dyad. The line represents the relationship between the two nodes. But what is the raw material of that line? What causes it to exist in the first place? Sometimes, we can find clues in language. If that line represents a relationship, what causes two people to relate to each other? The word relation comes from the Latin noun relatio, which has two relevant meanings: carrying back and to narrate. Both meanings depend on communication. Communication, in turn, has its etymological roots in the latin comoenus, which means shared. From this, we see the structure of a network depends on both the sharing of a common concept (a value, goal or ideal) and communication. These are the raw materials of those little links in the diagram. Those who analyze social network structure often look for reciprocity in those links: are they two-way links? Reciprocity is hardwired into humans. Evolutionary biologists and behavioral economists have found that the most successful survival strategy is something called “tit for tat.” Even if you’re among the 46% of Americans who don’t believe in evolution, you still can’t ignore reciprocity. Every single religion has as one of its tenets its own variation of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It all comes down to the same thing: it’s not beneficial to keep investing in a one-way relationship. If we keep inviting you for dinner and you never invite us, sooner or later the invitations will stop coming (offspring and certain relatives being the exception -- and then there’s another whole evolutionary dynamic at play). Here we have the three foundations for a stable social network: communication, sharing and reciprocity. Not exactly rocket science, just plain common sense. Yet it’s amazing how often we lose sight of these three things when we start applying them to our marketing efforts. Let’s take just one example. Look at any company’s social presence, whether it‘s their Facebook page, their Twitter feed or their Linked In profile, and see if there’s evidence of reciprocity. Is all the communication going out, or are people responding? Active user feedback is one of the primary signals we look for in a healthy social network. Another signal is clear evidence of shared values. As I’ve said before, frequency of engagement (especially if it’s of the nonreciprocal variety) does not lead to brand loyalty, but shared values do. Are the values of an organization clearly evident in their social outposts? Are there active conversations based on those shared values? Finally, we have communication. Marketers have to take every opportunity to facilitate communication. Often, commercial social networks are based on the sharing of required information. Companies (especially in the B2B space) have to become much better at sharing the wealth of information they have in their own particular industry. They have to start thinking like publishers. And they have to enable forums to allow for active feedback. Get these three things right, and strong social networks will grow organically.