Commentary

Online Branding And The Definition Of Insanity

by Joe Marchese , July 14, 2009

It has famously been said that to attempt the same thing over and over again and expect a different result is a definition of insanity. One could also argue that perseverance has a similar definition. I guess that means that one could easily be remembered as a lunatic or perseverant, depending if the outcome ever comes out in their favor. It's with this thought rolling around in my head, that I read -- and choose to write -- about the latest research on Internet brand advertising.

Last week Gavin O'Malley's piece "Report: You Know What The Problem With Online Brand Advertising Is?" covered the latest in "Why branding works online" research, this time in a great report by eMarketer.

The main point we are still trying to universally accept is that an impression of an online brand message is worth something to a brand. And of course, that Google gets all the credit for online advertising, based on a disproportionate attribution of value to the "last click" -- meaning consumers see lots of online ads before they click on an ad that comes up during search. I think we can all agree that consumers see lots of ads, period, before they commit that "click."

I am all for a strong click attribution system, but I also think we can agree that attributing all the value to the final click is silly at best, especially when it comes to a brand with significant consumer awareness and acceptance. So we are back to the main point: Is an impression of a brand message to a consumer valuable for a brand? It seems silly even to type the question. Of course the delivery of a brand message to a consumer is valuable. Okay, so the issue becomes: "How valuable is it?" Online publishers, agencies and marketers can all answer at once, in unison: "It depends." And so we have arrived at our problem.

The problem is that something is "worth" whatever a market will pay for it -- nothing more, nothing less. You can't create a market if there is no agreement on a standard currency (what constitutes a brand message delivery) or if there is a near-"infinite" supply on one side. These are the real problems with bringing brand dollars online. There is a seemingly infinite number of "impressions" available for brands online, yet any idiot can tell you that there is not an infinite amount of consumer attention available for brands, in any medium.

Really, the issue with bringing branding online isn't with the marketers and agencies, it is with the publisher side, maybe with some help from the marketers, of course ;-). Publishers can create "impressions" simply by adding ad units, but adding ad units don't magically increase the amount of consumer attention in the world, or even on a given page. What publishers have that is of value to brand advertisers is consumer attention. In order to prove valuable to brand advertisers, publisher must find a way to share their audience's limited attention with marketers in a FAIR exchange of value.

All of this is why I have been advocating "engagement" as the metric brand marketers should demand of publishers (hence why I question my perseverance vs. lunacy). Engagements mean that a publisher has delivered the active attention of a consumer to a marketer. The brand marketer now has the opportunity to deliver a message and drive further engagement.

Admittedly, engagements don't account for the value of people seeing a message but not interacting with it. But if publishers are forced to deliver on this metric, it will quickly become obvious which publishers are placing brand messages where people pay attention and which are not, and the extra value of "views" will quickly be priced into the "cost per engagement." The best part about engagements is that publishers cannot create an infinite supply, which can finally result in a meaningful market between publishers of content and brand marketers for consumer attention.

The marketer's role in this is twofold: 1. Don't force publishers' hands by arguing both sides. Marketers can't claim they value the opportunity to guarantee the delivery of a message to consumers, then when presented with such an opportunity, cite the lowest ad network CPM rate they have been quoted for negotiation purposes. 2. Build creative that is meant to be a contained brand experience/engagement. Engagements are not traffic generators. People don't necessarily want to visit a brand's Web site at the drop of a hat, and forcing publishers to alter people's behavior doesn't work out for anybody. In fact, it just plain doesn't work.

I truly believe that the onus is on content publishers and ad networks to be more responsible in defining and delivering value, if we want to see a time when brand dollars can be distributed online in proportion to attention online.

Of course, there is a 50/50 shot I am a lunatic, based on my opening.

What do you think? Lunatic or just perseverant? Vote in the comments and drop me a line at www.twitter.com/joemarchese.

brand marketing, commentary, metrics

8 comments about "Online Branding And The Definition Of Insanity".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Steve Baldwin from Didit, July 14, 2009 at 11:50 a.m.
Good post, Joe. You get major props for using the word "perserverent" (which I've never read anywhere before).
By your logic, therefore, it's the market that's broken. So what do brand marketers do until this market somehow gets fixed? Continue to throw dollars at a medium where the value of impressions remains as uncertain as the whimful winds?
I mean, why not? Impressions are dirt cheap these days. I read about a guy who spent $25 and got 975,000 impressions on Facebook (and only 3 clicks). If that's not a bargain, I don't know what is!
Reply

Barking Unicorn, July 14, 2009 at 11:52 a.m.

Insanity is repetition expecting different results. Perseverance can be insanity or it can be perseverance in trying different things.

"Heroes are no braver than ordinary men, they're just brave five minutes longer." ~ Emerson

Persevere in trying different ways to write intelligibly and you may be a hero one day.

Joe Marchese, July 14, 2009 at 12:47 p.m.

@steven yeah. Wasn't sure on perseverant, but since microsoft word let me type it without a red underline (and even has a definition), I figured I could use it. Bill Gates cannot be wrong on this! :-)

Stuart Long, July 14, 2009 at 12:59 p.m.

The problem with impressions is actually one of perception. If we wanted to look at the forest and not just the trees for a moment we could examine the bounce rate of most web pages as a good example of impressions that are not perceived well. While the intention of most ads is to promote a brand the result can often be the opposite. If someone can’t wrap their head around the text or doesn’t like the color scheme of a display ad or a Web page then perception throws any actual value of the brand right out the window. So far the only measure of perception is the bounce rate. Typical bounce rates are pretty high.

Tom Cunniff from Combe Incorporated, July 14, 2009 at 2:50 p.m.

I completely agree that engagement is the holy grail of all communications.

But I have yet to see a methodology to measure engagement online that's as powerful as how IAG measures engagement for TV. Come to think of it, I have yet to see a methodology -- period.

Until we have that, the only proxy we have for engagement (and there's no question it's a lousy one) is the click.

Tom Harbeck from Ipsos OTX MediaCT, July 14, 2009 at 5:21 p.m.

Agree that 'attributing all the value to the final click is silly at best.' Impressions in the right place at the right time can be invaluable.

Google and OTX Research conducted a webinar on 4/30/09 entitled “The Brand Value of Search for the Travel Industry” which can be viewed (w/ audio) on YouTube here: http://tr.im/kKrH.

A new webinar is scheduled for 7/21/09 entitled “The Traveler’s Road to Decision” (if you're interested, you can register here: http://bit.ly/X2j23). In this study, Google and OTX explored how travelers make decisions and identified key points where brand messages could make a difference.

Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, July 14, 2009 at 9:10 p.m.

Frequency. Can you buy it on line or do you need to touch it or smell it? One size fits all does not fit all. Do you buy a car on line (You should not!!!!!) because of click or does the click bring enough interest for you to test drive it and then buy? How about ice cream? (ok, a coupon - used?)

Michael Senno from New York University, July 15, 2009 at 7:40 a.m.

You are tackling a complex problem here, in that its multi-faceted. One size does not fit all - some brands just want impressions, some want traffic to the site to educate customers, some want sales. Just like the purpose of a TV ad is different for different firms at different times, same online. How do these brands measure the success of TV, radio, and print campaigns? Do they not have the same problem there. We all know of the inherent shortcomings of Nielsen, and honestly it doesn't even measure "click-through" for TV.

My point, online answers these questions better than traditional media, but online is held to a higher standard. Marketers either need to find a way to equate it to TV, or develop a few different metrics that align with the various marketing campaign goals - brand awareness, direct response, product information, product sales, etc.