Mitch Joel's Blog: Six Pixels of Separation, page 309
October 5, 2012
The Truth Behind Branding In The Digital Media Age
The digital publishers want more from the big brands.
If you have been following any of the coverage from Advertising Week, this seems to be the main (and continuous) cry from the digital media sector. There's a feeling that as more advertising dollars shift to the online channels, that the bigger brands (the ones with more significant advertising dollars) are still shying away from really opening up the ad dollar coffers until they can get the true brand effect that they're looking for (or that they had in the good ole days of television advertising).
Impact. Impressions. Eyeballs. Attention.
When you are a large consumer packaged goods company, the main thrust of advertising needs to create an impact to drive sales. The ad's role is to break through the clutter of every media input with a slight distraction that is about the brand. That distraction is created as a way to inform you of something new or something improved or something that you may have not known about their products. In a world where so many brands are clamoring for this attention and the competition is fierce, the days of creating slight differentiators and then doubling down on frequency is getting more complex (and expensive). Television has evolved (from cable to specialty channels and beyond). This focus on television is critical, because that's where advertisers have traditionally been able to get the most impact. The digital media battlecry seems to be that the Internet is the new television.
The Internet is not television.
Both Facebook and Twitter have been creating a lot of news in the past week about looking beyond clicks and likes as measurement metrics. They want brands to dig deeper into the branding opportunities that exist in digital media. It's true, with the advent of native ads, brands can do some pretty impressive types of branding campaigns that look more like advertorials than a traditional ad, as we have seen on TV (more on that here: Native Advertising And The Trouble It Will Cause). What's not true is that digital platforms can deliver the same kind of branded advertising experience that traditional advertising does. It simply can't. Yet.
CTRL ALT DEL.
Yes, it's the name of my upcoming business book, but the original concept of CTRL ALT DEL came to me when thinking about this, exact, issue back in 2006. It became abundantly clear to me, that the reason display advertising was suffering from such a low clickthrough rate was because brands (and publishers) were putting very traditional-like ad units in a very different media format. The Internet is not a passive media. It's an active media. Screen/page sizes are not static (like a TV set and a newspaper), they are organic. They are not stale (flat or non-interactive). The consumer online manipulates the experience (with a mouse, with a finger, by swiping and clicking on links and typing and sharing). If the advertising can't keep pace with the user experience, the ad unit dies.
More is not better.
The response to consumers being active with the digital media properties from brands (and publishers) has been to put more ads on the page, bigger ads, to block the page with an ad, to have an ad pop-up into the space, to make them blink more. This doesn't lend itself better to the digital experience, it simply makes the ads more annoying (no matter what your ad serving data is telling you). There's an argument to be made for experiences, the use of videos in ads and the fact that everything I just blogged about is not true for every brand. There's an argument to be made for retargeting and real time bidding to ensure that - at the very least - the ad unit has a better fighting chance, because it's more relevant to the content and context of the user. All of this is true, but it doesn't strike at the core challenge: if brands want a better brand experience for consumers in these digital marketing channels, at what point do we all agree - as a marketing industry - that we have a ways to go in ensuring that the advertising matches the user experience?
No clear answers.
Some of the smartest people in the world, working at some of the smartest organizations in the world are working on this very challenge. There are options and opportunities abound. There is no doubt that these are exciting times. The problem comes when marketing professionals see the glass as half-empty instead of half-full. Think of it this way: as a marketing professional - in this day and age - there will probably never be another moment in time like this for our profession. It's a moment in time where we're not just be continuing to work with limitations that were laid out by our forefathers and foremothers. We're now able - in real-time - to define not only a new way to advertise and connect with consumers, but a better way to create advertising. I don't think we'll ever get to a place where people will necessarily seek out advertising, but I am bullish on getting to a place where people appreciate the advertising because it truly creates a relevant moment of impact and it fits within their overall digital experience.
A boy can dream.
Tags:
active media
ad unit
ad units
advertising
advertising measurement
advertising week
advertorial
brand
brand effect
branding
business book
cable television
clickthrough rate
consumer packaged goods
content
ctrl alt del
digital experience
digital media
digital platform
digital publisher
display advertising
facebook
marketing industry
marketing professional
native advertising
newspaper advertising
online channel
passive media
publisher
real time bidding
retargeting
specialty channel
television advertising
traditional advertising
twitter








October 4, 2012
The End Of Conversation
Can we move beyond the notion of brands engaging consumers in a conversation?
I had the pleasure of presenting at a Google event in Chicago the other day. The audience was - mostly - business to business. They have a deep interest in digital marketing and social media but grapple with the idea of a conversation with consumers. I don't blame them. I don't see many people having any sort of conversation with a brand (and there isn't much conversation happening about a brand). Shocked to hear someone like me say this? Don't be.
Social media is not a conversation.
I've said it before and I'm going to say it again... What makes something (anything) "social" is a brand's ability to make their marketing materials (and this includes their content) as shareable and as findable as possible. When a brand makes their content as shareable and as findable as possible, people will latch on to it and share it. If brands are doing something especially interesting, consumers may have some level of engagement with it (comment on it, write a blog post about it, etc...). Engagement is not a conversation. It's not an ongoing dialogue that happens back and forth.
Brands fail at conversations.
Don't believe me? Write a blog post about your favorite brand and let me know a couple of things:
Did the brand even come by and acknowledge it?
Did the brand engage in the comment section?
Did you respond to the brand's comment and did they come back to continue the engagement?
Did other readers of your blog jump into the comments and did the brand respond to them as well?
Did the brand come back at a future point because of how great the conversation was?
So, how do you really think brands do in a conversation? So, how do you really think consumers want to connect with brands?
Access, response and care is not a conversation. It's an engagement. It's a connection. There's rarely any back and forth that resembles anything that looks like a conversation (and when there is back and forth, it's usually a customer service issue... and if that issue flares up, brands are trained to take that consumer offline to figure it all out). The Cluetrain Manifesto brought the term, "markets are conversations" to life. They're correct. People within marketplaces have all types of lively conversations. Can brands take part in them? They can, but we have to dig down deep and ask ourselves why and will anyone really care? If you can answer that, you now have to ask these questions: what will make consumers care about a conversation with our brand, and are we truly committed to being in a conversation (whenever and wherever they happen)?
What a brand wants.
A brand wants one thing: to sell more stuff to more people. Yes, they want happy and satisfied customers. Yes, they don't like too many hassles and issues. Yes, they're looking for cheaper and faster ways to help them achieve their one goal: to sell more stuff to more people. When people hear this, they cringe. They cringe as if there is something inherently wrong (or evil) with this. As is it's sales above all else (morals and goodwill included). That part is not accurate. Most brands just simply want more people to know that they exist, so those people will buy from them.
Some brands don't need conversation.
When we talk about the end of advertising, I simply want to sigh. I used to believe that social media could make advertising more appealing. That social media is an amazing opportunity for brands to use marketing in a less intrusive way. I've grown to realize that could be the case some of the time, but not all of the time. I've grown to realize that it's not a zero-sum game, either. For years, I've tempered this kind of thinking by letting brands that know that it's "with" not "instead of." Just lately, I'm falling back in love with the simplicity of advertising: a quick message and nudge to let you know that something exists. No need to friend, like, +1 or have a conversation.
The end of conversation.
It's on us. It's on us to let the deodorant, paper towel, diaper, chewing gum, frying pan, nacho chips and other brands know that people - honestly - don't want a conversation about their products (and there's nothing wrong with that). Now, if the brand is interested in using social media to nudge, inform and share, then by all means, go for it. Just understand the landscape and define realistic opportunities, goals and outcomes. There is vast majority of brands that will not benefit one way or another from a true conversation. Instead, the focus should be on making the advertising as shareable and as a findable as possible with the ultimate goal of selling more stuff to more people.
That's where you will find social media ROI. That's where you will always find ROI.
Tags:
advertising
advertising roi
blog
brand
business to business marketing
content
customer service
digital marketing
engagement
google
marketing material
markets are conversations
online conversation
sales
social media
social media roi
the cluetrain manifesto








October 3, 2012
The Moment
Have you had "The Moment" yet?
When you look through the newspaper, do you stop and review the job postings? Do you take some time during your work week to hop over to Monster.com or Craigslist to see what positions are open? When you look at e-newsletters from industry trade publications do you keep an eye on which career opportunities are open and available? Are you constantly looking on LinkedIn to see who is hiring and who went where? Do you engage in your industry's rumor mill as to who is hiring and which people are going where?
That used to be me.
I used to be that person. The truth is that I was engaging in that type of activity whether I was happy with the job I had... and I was engaging in that type of activity when I wasn't all that happy. It could be human nature to be looking (or searching) for what's next. Upon reflection, I wasn't all that happy. I thought there was something more... something better and, if I couldn't find it where I was at, I had to look for it elsewhere.
What was going on?
Clearly, the work that I was doing was not fulfilling. Work isn't always fun. Work isn't always focused on the things that we want to do. Work isn't always the reason we wake up in the morning and the reason we go to bed at night. But, there were moments (and jobs) where I was very, very satisfied. Yet, I was still looking. Today, while travelling home from a Google event in Chicago, I was reading the Wall Street Journal (yes, I still read the physical paper version, but only because there are moments on the plane when I'm not allowed to be on the tablet or Air). As I came towards the end of the business section, there were a handful of pages of job listings. I didn't look. I folded the paper over, put it away and stared out of the window into the clouds... and that's when it hit me: I haven't looked at a career or employment section in ages. I tried to think back to the last time I had looked (be it online or in the actual paper). I can't remember the exact date, but it was probably a couple of years after I joined my business partners at Twist Image (so, we're talking about close to eight years or more).
That's "The Moment."
"The Moment" is when you're no longer looking for the next gig. "The Moment" is when you're actually doing that work that you were meant to do. "The Moment" is when you realize that you're content. "The Moment" isn't about resting on your laurels. "The Moment" isn't about not thinking about or imagining the future. "The Moment" isn't about being satisfied to the point of losing your ambition. "The Moment" is the realization that you're doing what you are supposed to be doing and you're not worried about what you will do if this doesn't work out, because you know you'll be doing exactly what you're doing for a long, long time (just maybe not in the exact, same location, with the same people).
Lucky.
The majority of people haven't had "The Moment." The majority of people still struggle at work - each and every day. They feel like they are undervalued, underpaid and overworked. They don't like their bosses. They feel like they're surrounded by morons. They feel like they're not lucky. Some people don't believe in luck. Other believe that luck happens to those who work very, very hard. Malcolm Gladwell believes that you have to put in your ten thousand hours (see: Outliers). I believe that it's all subjective. I believe that we make our own luck. I believe that I'm lucky that I was able to realize today - on that plane... as I skipped over the careers section of the newspaper - that I'm simply not interested in figuring out my next move. I'm much more interested in figuring out how I am going to do a whole lot more with what I'm currently doing. Because, I'm doing what I am supposed to be doing.
What about you... have you had "The Moment" of realization yet?
Tags:
ambition
business section
career opportunity
craigslist
employment opportunity
enewsletters
google
human nature
human resources
job
job posting
linkedin
macbook air
malcolm gladwell
monster
newspaper
outliers
tablet
the moment
trade publication
twist image
wall street journal
work








October 2, 2012
In The Nick Of Real-Time
Are consumer expectations getting out of control?
True story: our brand-new dryer broke down. It's not even one year old. It's not the first time. We were told we would have to replace a piece, and that it would take five to ten business days for them to receive the piece, and only once the piece is in inventory will they be able to make an appointment to replace the piece (which could also take up to an additional five business days). Young kids, colds flying around from daycare and wet weather doesn't make it any easier. We haven't heard a peep from the company. We keep calling them and they keep telling us that they will call us back when the piece comes in. Ten business days later, we now have an appointment to get the part replaced. They said that they will be at our house at some point on Thursday between 7:30 am and 5:00 pm.
Well, isn't that convenient?
It's not hard to tweet out the brand name in an effort to publicly shame them into speeding up the process. It wouldn't be hard to name names in this posting and have it become an ever-increasing piece of content that defines their brand story. It's not all that challenging to post the story on Facebook and encourage everyone in my social graph to not do business with this brand. I'm holding on by a thread here in not revealing the brand's name. It is frustrating beyond belief. During all of this frustration and waiting, I ordered my iPhone 5 directly from Apple and watched one of the hottest pieces of technology arrive in less than five business days via China. Five days for the new iPhone with full visibility into where the product is and how it is tracking to my office (thanks to UPS) versus no idea, no response and no sense of care from a major appliance manufacturer.
What gives?
There are three sides to every story. As a consumer, none of this makes sense. As a marketing professional, I have seen brands struggle with customer service and supply chains. It's a complex world and getting pieces manufactured, shipped and installed professionally is actually a lot harder than it looks. We hold brands to such a high standard in a day and age when a tweet can change corporate dynamics as public shaming is the new (and sometimes best) way to get a brand's attention.
Real-time is now time.
The Social Habit is a social media research series from Edison Research. They are publishing their latest report in a couple of weeks, and have been teasing out some of the more eye-opening pieces of data that they have captured. Last week, Jay Baer of the Convince & Convert blog (he's also co-author with Amber Naslund of the business book, The Now Revolution, and one of the editorial partners of The Social Habit) let the world know about this one, fascinating, nugget: "Among respondents to The Social Habit who have ever attempted to contact a brand, product, or company through social media for customer support, 32% expect a response within 30 minutes. Further, 42% expect a response within 60 minutes."
Suck on that one for a minute.
There are some brands that would struggle to provide a response in thirty to sixty minutes when the customer is actually in their physical location. Just last night, a friend was lamenting on Facebook that it took three phone calls and over two hours to their get their iPhone 5 activated via their mobile service provider. In short, brands are being put to the test of speed. With instantaneous connectivity and brands pushing for customers to like, follow, friend and plus one them, consumers are pushing back and expecting the responses to their customer service issues to happen at a fast and furious pace. It's not just this pending research report, you can feel it live and in-the-moment right now. Head over to Twitter and type in any brand name in the search box and witness the differing levels of engagement.
What this all means...
Pandora's box has been opened. It can't be closed. Brands are racing to capture as many fans as possible in as many social media channels as possible. It's not enough for brands to capture and connect with these consumers, without the expectation of one good turn deserving another. It turns out that consumers want one thing: their issues resolved. And, they want it done fast. Faster than fast. The challenge is this: the majority of brands act fast... as fast as they can. Sadly, it's not even close to being fast enough for consumers. Now, brands and consumers are going to have move forward and figure out a way to define what the true speed limits are. Right now, we're in the autobahn phase of social media... there is no speed limit but it's all moving very, very fast.
Over to you: do you think consumers have realistic or unrealistic expectations of how quickly a brand should respond?
The above posting is my twice-monthly column for The Huffington Post called, Media Hacker . I cross-post it here with all the links and tags for your reading pleasure, but you can check out the original version online here:
The Huffington Post - Are Brands Failing the Speed Test?
Tags:
amber naslund
apple
brand story
business column
consumer
consumer expectations
content
convince and convert
customer service
customer support
edison research
facebook
iphone 5
jay baer
major appliance
marketing professional
media hacker
mobile service provider
real time web
social graph
social media
social media channel
social media research
supply chain
technology
the huffington post
the now revolution
the social habit
twitter
ups








September 30, 2012
The Marketing Imperative Of Writing A Book
Episode #325 of Six Pixels of Separation - The Twist Image Podcast is now live and ready for you to listen to.
Welcome to episode #325 of Six Pixels Of Separation - The Twist Image Podcast. I first heard about Jim Kukral when my friend, Chris Brogan (co-author with Julien Smith of Trust Agents and the soon-to-be-released business book, The Impact Equation) would not stop talking about the book, Attention! This Book Will Make You Money. I tend to shy away from books that claim to help people get rich from the Internet. On top of that, the rest of Kukral's digital content felt like it was slipping into the the "get rich quick" type of affiliate marketing that just isn't my cup of tea. A while after that, Hugh McGuire (PressBooks and author of Book: A Futurist's Manifesto) was telling me that Kukral was using his PressBooks platform to publish all kinds of business books. I finally met Kural in person at Content Marketing World earlier month, and he explained that he's now in the business of helping people publish their own books. His knowledge is second-to-none and he's a smart individual passionate about helping people - like me and you - to write and publish our own books. Enjoy the conversation...
You can grab the latest episode of Six Pixels of Separation here (or feel free to subscribe via iTunes): Six Pixels of Separation - The Twist Image Podcast #325.
Tags:
advertising podcast
attention this book will make you money
blog
blogging
book a futurists manifesto
brand
business book
chris brogan
content marketing world
david usher
digital book launch
digital marketing
facebook
hugh mcguire
itunes
jim kukral
julien smith
marketing
marketing blogger
marketing podcast
online social network
podcast
podcasting
pressbooks
social media
the impact equation
trust agents








September 29, 2012
Six Links Worthy Of Your Attention #119
Is there one link, story, picture or thought that you saw online this week that you think somebody you know must see?
My friends: Alistair Croll (BitCurrent, Year One Labs, GigaOM, Human 2.0, the author of Complete Web Monitoring and Managing Bandwidth: Deploying QOS in Enterprise Networks), Hugh McGuire (The Book Oven, LibriVox, iambik, PressBooks, Media Hacks) and I decided that every week or so the three of us are going to share one link for one another (for a total of six links) that each individual feels the other person "must see".
Check out these six links that we're recommending to one another:
Kickstarter Is Not a Store - Kickstarter Blog . "The crowd-backed project model is on a tear. Sites like Kickstarter , Indiegogo , and even specialized ones like petridish.org give people a new way to make their vision a reality. Kickstarter alone has given out hundreds of millions of dollars since it launched. Yesterday I spoke with Rebecca Rodriguez about her $7,000 project to film the KeyStone XL pipeline as she walked it -- backed by Indiegogo supporters. But as the model grows, it's forced to confront issues. The biggest Kickstarters raise millions of dollars -- with no guarantee of delivery. The company has made some draconian, but ultimately wise, changes to the amount of risk and speculation allowed in projects that focus on technology. If you don't understand how big of a deal this is, you're missing the huge importance of crowdfunding." (Alistair for Hugh).
Meet the New Boss: Big Data - The Wall Street Journal . "Mitch, last week you had a Big Data link for me. With Strata right around the corner, I'm spending a bunch of time looking at the consequences of a Norm world (where everybody knows your name, and a whole lot more.) Big Data is interesting because it's where technology touches people, and is therefore fraught with ethical and moral perils. Take this Wall Street Journal piece on how companies are using data to make management decisions. For example: Ignore the resumé. don't hire that creative type for a call center, because they won't stick around long enough to recoup their training cost. Ouch." (Alistair for Mitch).
A Conversation With Randall Munroe, the Creator of XKCD - The Atlantic . "One of the best places to visit on the Internet is the Web comic site, xkcd ; it's a delight of day-to-day philosophy, math and physics and much more. The comic's creator Randall Munroe , a former NASA engineer, sits down with The Atlantic to talk about life, the universe and everything." (Hugh for Alistair).
Philip Roth and Wikipedia - Non-Commercial Use . "You may have heard recently about Philip Roth 's public fight with Wikipedia . A Wikipedia article about one of his books, The Human Stain , 'suggested' that the main character in the book was inspired by the life of NY Times book reviewer, Anatole Broyard . Roth took exception; he was inspired by someone else entirely, he claimed. Roth tried to get somebody to change the Wikipedia article. Editors reverted the change. There was Wikipedian back and forth, and Roth wound up writing an Open Letter to Wikipedia in the New Yorker . Much heavy breathing ensued in the media, which portrayed the venerable Roth as a victim of the bureaucratic nightmare that is Wikipedia, and hyperventilated about how Wikipedia must be badly broken if the subject of a Wikipedia article couldn't fix mistakes about the article itself. That's been the mainstream play on the controversy, but it gets things so wrong. Most importantly, the Wikipedia article did not state that Anatole Broyard was the inspiration for Roth's character, but rather it referenced the NYTimes Book Review of the book , which made this claim (and which, by the way, remains online, unedited, unretracted, on the NYTimes website... and no one has written an Open Letter to the NY Times about it. The result of all this is ironic: Wikipedia now has a balanced article with reference to both the original Broyard claims, and to Roth's different version of things - the 'correct' outcome. Somehow, many people in the world will not pay much attention to this, and will come away thinking Wikipedia is broken, when, in fact, it worked exactly as it is supposed to." (Hugh for Mitch).
Data Barns in a Farm Town, Gobbling Power and Flexing Muscle - The New York Times . "We are at a crossroads and some tough decisions are going to have to be made. We are in the middle of the digitization of everything. But, guess what? All of this innovation requires a lot of power and energy. All of this hardware and software that we're consuming is taxing on... guess what? Yup, the environment. What, you thought your iPhones grew on trees? So, where do all of these high tech companies go to power the devices that power our lives? Yup, they go to the places where electricity is cheapest. Rural areas, etc... In this fascinating piece, you'll get a better understanding of what happens in these rural areas where agricultural farming is quickly getting usurped by data farming." (Mitch for Alistair).
What Business is Wall Street In? - Blog Maverick . "Mark Cuban is a fascinating guy. I'm especially enamored with him because he generates no apathy. People either love him or loathe him. That's a good thing. I often don't agree with Cuban's perspectives on all things, but I fell in love - head over heels - with this recent blog post on the business that is Wall Street. Does Wall Street still help companies create capital and generate wealth or has it degenerated into a Pong-like game of high speed trading technology in a race to out-speed one another? It's one of those 'wow moments' that makes you realize that even the best investors don't have an upper-hand in a world - and financial model - that is driven by the speed of technology mixed with algorithms and nothing more. It's not only depressing, but it makes you realize that your hard-earned money is probably much better off being stuffed in a mattress. Ugh." (Mitch for Hugh).
Now it's your turn: in the comment section below pick one thing that you saw this week that inspired you and share it.
Tags:
alistair croll
anatole broyad
big data
bitcurrent
blog maverick
complete web monitoring
gigaom
hugh mcguire
human 20
iambik
indiegogo
iphone
keystone XL
kickstarter
librivox
link exchange
linkbait
managing bandwidth
mark cuban
media hacks
nasa
new york times
new york times book review
new yorker
non commercial use
petridish
philip roth
pressbooks
randall munroe
rebecca rodriguez
story
strata conference
the atlantic
the book oven
the human stain
the new york times
the wall street journal
wall street
wikipedia
xkcd
year one labs








Just Another Screen
Is TV becoming just another screen?
In my next book, CTRL ALT DEL (out in May 2013), there is an entire chapter titled, The One Screen World. In it, I make the argument that the only screen that matters is the screen that is in front of you. That we're quickly moving from a three screen (or four screen) world to a one screen world (if we haven't aren't arrived there). Screens are increasingly becoming more connected. Not just to the Internet, but to one another. So, it makes sense that screens (everything from their price and functionality) will essentially become smart pieces of plastic and glass that connects us to our content. A place where the size and experience will be dictated by how we want to consume and interact with the content. In short, you can watch TV on whichever screen you like, when you like it and how you like it. One person's Homeland experience can happen in their den on a traditional TV, while another's can happen on a smartphone on the way to work in the subway, and another's can happen on their iPad at 39,000 feet in the air.
So, how is TV handling this one screen transition?
Very well, thank you so much for asking. All Things Digital ran a news item the other day titled, Tipping Point? We're Watching More Web Video on TVs Than on PCs. Here's the crux of the situation: "Consumer-tracking service NPD says TV sets are now the most popular way to watch streaming video. NPD says 45 percent of consumers report that TV is now their primary Web video screen, up from 33 percent last year. It basically swapped places with the PC, which used to account for 48 percent of viewing but now represents 31 percent. This is a story about devices: NPD figures that 10 percent of homes now have at least one Internet-enabled TV (though I bet that only a minority of them are actually plugged into the Web), and we're seeing a steady increase in the use of Web-video peripherals, like Blu-ray players, Apple TVs and Microsoft Xbox 360s."
The post PC-world.
PCs are the true victim here. Mobile devices and TVs connected to the Internet are making the PC a relic. Quickly. Don't listen to what the computer manufacturers are telling you. These are trends that are churning with exponential growth. What makes the All Things Digital piece that much more interesting is that it points to Netflix as a key driver for this shift in consumer consumption behavior. The lesson: give people what they want - cheap and easy - and they'll adapt to the new landscape faster than you can say, "social media is so yesterday, it's all about big data now." It's all about removing friction.
What eight dollars a month gets you.
When you can grab and stream a whole bunch of movies for eight bucks a month, you start seeing the truth about mass adoption (also known as The Tipping Point). People can do the math and they can do it fast. If Apple TV costs about one hundred dollars, and one month of Netflix is eight dollars, you don't have to be a math wizard to know that it's equal to about three visits to a movie theater with a friend (and we're only talking about the price of admission here). Granted, these are not the same entertainment experiences, but having access to that many movies on so many devices makes it an enticing option for those who can't afford the luxury of having both.
The cloud wins.
We're at the beginning of networked appliances, but this too is happening at a fast and furious pace. The majority of new TVs for sale are Internet enabled and, as the All Things Digital article suggests, that many people are probably not even plugging them into the Internet... yet. Once they do, and they experience Netflix, there is no turning back. Having that type of content stream is powerful, and that will push towards appliances as well. No, I'm not talking about streaming Netflix to your dishwasher, but I am talking about having full control over your appliances through your screens . The ability to not only manage the devices, but to have the devices being networked to the cloud (and one another) is going to change a lot of things about how we manage our lives (and content will be just one of the many channels).
My guess is that this is all going to happen a lot faster than the majority of us are prepared for. Do you agree?
Tags:
all things d
all things digital
apple tv
big data
blu ray player
business book
cloud computing
computer manufacturer
content
ctrl alt del
entertainment
four screen
homeland
internet
internet enabled tv
ipad
microsoft
mobile device
movie theater
netflix
networked appliances
npd
one screen world
post pc world
screen
smartphone
social media
streaming video
the tipping point
three screen
traditional tv
tv
web video
web video screen
xbox 360








September 28, 2012
The Master Of Media
Who is the master of media? Two words: Clay Shirky.
I believe that Clay Shirky is the Marshall McLuhan of our time. I realize that it is statements like this that will either make certain individuals roll their eyes and others to bail on this blog. I'm fine with that. But, before you debate, engage in discourse or dismiss me as a lunatic, I urge you to watch this TED Talk that was just posted online where Clay Shirky (author of Here Comes Everybody and Cognitive Surplus) talks about how transformative the Internet has been to our media landscape. Beyond the power of his thinking, pay close attention to his presentation skills. In particular, the language he uses, the stories he tells and how he breakdowns complex concepts by illustrating them through fascinating and digestible examples.
Boardrooms would be a whole lot more interesting if more people were like Clay Shirky...
Tags:
blog
clay shirky. marshall mcluhan
cognitive surplus
here comes everybody
internet
media
media landscape
presentation skills
ted
ted conference
ted talk








The Gift Of Facebook
Let me be clear: I am still bullish on Facebook. I am not bullish on advertising as Facebook's main revenue model.
In March of 2011, I wrote a blog post titled, F-Commerce - Rise Of The Facebook Consumer. I never liked Facebook as an advertising platform. There is a much bigger marketing and sales opportunity that exists. While I understand that close to one billion people are connected there and that you can target your message down to a specific segment, I still don't think that people are on Facebook to consume content in the same way that they are consuming media when they're reading a newspaper or magazine online (which means that they're less inclined to pay attention to ads). The reason I'm such a massive advocate for Google and AdWords is because the advertising platform fits in with the user experience (it's additive). While I think Facebook can (and will) figure out their own, AdWords-like model that best fits their environment, it still has a ways to go.
I love Facebook as an economy.
With close to one billion connected people who are there for social reasons, there is an underlying economy that Facebook is capable of grabbing (see my blog post on F-Commerce above). I was thrilled to see that Facebook is getting set to launch Facebook Gifts. With this commerce-based business, you can buy presents for your friends, get them shipped quickly and I especially like the ability to only pay for that gift once the receiver accepts it.
Physical and virtual combined.
It's cool that I can send real flowers to a friend who is celebrating a new job. It's amazing that I can send some digital Starbucks bucks to a employee who went that extra mile. It's going to be even more amazing when Facebook can scale this platform into a world where you can easily send anything physical or virtual that you desire (the latest LEGO collectible or a $200 virtual gift card to the Apple store).
Facebook is an economy.
If they can nail the experience that Amazon provides, couple it with a Square-like ability to easily make the transaction happen (just a couple of clicks) and build an engaging experience around it (check out how Facebook sends the receiver of the gift a customizable greeting card), the affiliate-like business opportunity will be unprecedented and - if they do it well - will easily dwarf advertising revenues and the like. On top of that, this type of social shopping experience creates a more direct relationship with Facebook and their community members. On top of that, comes powerful data, information, analytics and understanding of the consumer's mindset and activities when they are deeply engaged in an online social network.
Moving beyond the browser.
As more and more people connect to Facebook through their smartphones and tablets, the even larger opportunity is for Facebook to take the lead in mobile social commerce (say that five times fast). The majority of retailers are struggling to find the best e-commerce experience on the browser-based Web, and few of them are pushing full-steam ahead into mobile commerce. If done well, Facebook could provide the same type of experience that Amazon now offers third-party resellers (their own virtual "stores" within the Amazon ecosystem). It would be a virtual Facebook shopping mall of trusted vendors who are supplying timely gifts to people amongst their most social of connections.
That's not all.
As I blogged about in F-Commerce - Rise Of The Facebook Consumer, I believe Facebook can (and should) create their own monetary exchange (like Facebook Credits). Owning the consumer, owning the experience and then owning the actual currency structure that lies beneath it, suddenly makes Facebook look like a country unto itself (and yes, this is something PayPal and others will need to pay attention to).
It seems like a much more interesting business model than advertising revenue, doesn't it?
Tags:
advertising
advertising platform
advertising revenue
adwords
amazon
apple store
blog
business model
consumer behavior
content
data
direct relationship
e commerce
f commerce
facebook
facebook advertising
facebook consumer
facebook credits
facebook gifts
google
greeting cards
lego
magazine
marketing
media
mobile commerce
mobile social commerce
newspaper
online social network
papypal
retail
smartphone
social media
social shopping
square
starbucks
tablet
the facebook economy
user experience
virtual goods
web analytics








September 26, 2012
Native Advertising And The Trouble It Will Cause
It turns out that trying to standardize advertising sizes and formats may have been a bad idea for online advertising.
We used to have major challenges with delivering online advertising. We had limitations when it came to the pipe (the speed with which a webpage would load) and this forced us - as a marketing industry - to figure out some semblance of unity across publishers and agencies. It was (and still remains) one of the main thrusts of an organization like the IAB - Interactive Advertising Bureau. Publishers and agencies that are members of the organization all agree to follow their rules of standardization with the implicit goal of delivering a great result for consumers and an equal footing for publishers.
My, how things change in such a short while.
There's no need to rehash the trouble with banner advertising. Current CPM rates are low and the ability to interact with the ads has fallen off of the cliff. Do yourself a favor and don't even bother to look at what the average clickthrough rate is on this type of advertising. In the meantime, the pure definition of online advertising expands into everything from search engine marketing, email marketing, affiliate marketing and beyond. Couple that with the success of online channels like Twitter and Pinterest and you soon start to realize that the standardized display advertising models don't even figure into these experiences.
Enter native advertising.
It finally has a name. For years, I have been blogging about the Web's inability to deliver one solution that could be unified under the term, "advertising." I would argue that the challenge online advertising faces is that brands and their agencies have to constantly create new types of creative for each type of channel. You would never run the same ad on YouTube as you would on Facebook as you would on Twitter as you would on Google as you would on the site of The New York Times. Beyond that, the power of the real-time Web and analytics forces these same brands to optimize, tweak and iterate on the fly. An ad can now be a text link, a creative box, an online video and much more. Enter "native advertising." If I had to choose a close second to the big buzzwords being thrown around the digital marketing space (beyond "big data"), it would have to be "native advertising." Twitter has its own native advertising platform (Promoted Tweets), as does Google (AdWords), as does Facebook and on and on. DigiDay ran a fascinating article yesterday titled, The Atlantic Tries Native Ads, that highlights this growing trend and the many challenges that brands will face moving forward.
What is a brand to do?
Advertising is hard, hard work. Now, the publishers are really going to put brands to the test. The game of sending over the creative and running it on a plethora of spaces could quickly become a thing of the past or a game of diminishing returns as more and more online publishers realize that curated and original content wrapped in a brand performs at a much higher level. The Atlantic are not the first ones to realize the power of native advertising. The challenge, as DigiDay so saliently points out, is the massive cost hat will be incurred for the brands that want to actively participate in native advertising. Think of it this way: do you think that The Atlantic and The Huffington Post will both agree to run the same type of advertising or native advertising across both publishing platforms? I don't. Each one will want something unique and creative to their respective spaces.
Here's the challenge: native advertising is probably the best thing to happen to digital advertising... it's also going to be hardest hill for brands to climb. What do you think?
Tags:
ad standards
advertising
adwords
affiliate marketing
banner advertising
big data
brand
content
cpm
creativity
digiday
digital marketing
display advertising
email marketing
facebook
google
iab
interactive advertising bureau
marketing
marketing industry
media agency
native advertising
online advertising
online channel
online publisher
online video
pinterest
promoted tweets
publisher
real time web
search engine marketing
the atlantic
the huffington post
the new york times
twitter
web analytics
youtube








Six Pixels of Separation
- Mitch Joel's profile
- 80 followers
