We’re at a strange period in the brief history of online advertising. After 5 years of 30% YOY growth for online advertising, the dramatic economic slowdown will put a damper on all forms of advertising, including online. While online will likely grow faster than all other forms of advertising in 2008, the growth rate could be in the single digits for the first time in 5 years, and who knows what to expect for next year.
Despite the continuing growth in online’s share of overall advertising, many in our industry continue to be confounded that the share hasn’t grown even more than it has. One of the most prevalent arguments is that it’s taken too long for online standards to become established, buying campaigns across many sites continues to pose challenges, and it is still much easier to buy advertising on TV, radio and print than it is online.
Another concern is that consumers ignore online ads, or the ads themselves lack any emotional connection…this could be caused by either poor creative, poor copy - or a poorly planned media buy. But we think another culprit is online ad clutter - too many ads competing for the consumer’s attention. My colleague Jon Gibs just conducted a Webinar on this topic and rolled out our new custom clutter metric - you can download the presentation from our download library later today. I’m interested to know what you think - is this issue impacting your advertising effectiveness or ability to position your site?
Tags: ad clutter, clutter metric, online advertising
I researched a sample of 15 retailers (and a few direct to consumer manufacturers) spanning apparel and accessories, school supplies, computer hardware and software, and ancillary consumer electronics/entertainment categories for the period July 2008 and August 2008, the typical Back To School shopping period. I also looked at online advertising activity for these companies for the same period using our AdRelevance service.
It is worthy to note that Dell and Target are the two heavy hitters on online advertising impressions compared to all others in this sample. Although Amazon and Wal-Mart had significantly fewer online ad impressions than did Dell and Target, Amazon saw huge traffic to its site and Wal-Mart saw significant traffic as well. It seems that Dell has invested proportionately significantly more in online advertising during the BTS period to drive relatively lower traffic to its site than the other retailers.
For other retailers such as Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City, OfficeMax and Office Deport, their spend levels and traffic seem proportionate. Does online advertising drive traffic? There is evidence it does, and there are other critical factors that drive online traffic, such as relevancy of retailer to the specific shopping period or need (here BTS), strength of the Brick & Mortar and/or online brand, etc.
Tags: back to school, online advertising, retail
Several of my recent Buzz Tracker projects have included a close look at viral marketing or viral word-of-mouth and I’ve taken a specific interest in learning how word-of-mouth gets started and eventually reaches a viral level. Some brands fear viral word-of-mouth, like when a video of a Burger King employee taking a bath in the restaurant’s sink appeared on YouTube in August 2008 and quickly earned over a hundred thousand views. Despite any attempts at damage control by the brand, the video is still on YouTube and will remain there for the viewing public to see, even long after buzz about the incident subsides.
In contrast, an excellent example of a brand using viral word-of-mouth to their advantage is Louis Vuitton, the luxury baggage designer. A series of videos created by the brand with a focus on core values and the tagline “Where will life take you?” appeared on YouTube in early 2008 and has received several hundred-thousand views. Many consider the initiative a success, not only because consumers continue to watch the videos and pass them along to others, but also because revenue for the brand grew 14% in the first six months of 2008.
For every brand that successfully launches a viral marketing campaign, there are brands that are leery of entering the space and brands that try but fail. I have seen campaigns that I personally think are creative and interesting, but generate very little buzz and a disappointing number of hits. On the other hand, there is a long list of successful campaigns, but what specifically makes these campaigns reach a viral level? How and why do consumers first learn of these videos and what makes them want to pass along links and discuss them with others?
Many of the answers to these questions aren’t clear cut or “one size fits all”; however, brands that may feel overwhelmed should know that there are a few basics that should be at the core of a viral marketing initiative. While certainly not a comprehensive list, here are a few thought starters. First, the video should be highly relevant to issues or events that are key to the brand, such as a product launch or damage control for a high-profile issue or crisis. Second, the video needs to be sincere and authentic to the brand and what it represents. Third, remember that a video can have a long shelf life online; the face or brand image represented in the video needs to stand the test of time and be in line with the long term brand strategy. Brands should also keep in mind that if they fail to take the plunge into viral marketing, they may be left behind while competitors use CGM2 to their advantage.
Tags: online video, viral marketing, word of mouth
My colleague Pete Blackshaw has been talking about a search optimization metric he calls Shelf-Space Analysis, which looks at where branded web content appears within search results for general terms related to a topic of interest. So I decided to run a little test of my own. I searched in Google for 10 different diseases — from more to less serious, from well-known and widely diagnosed to more rare. I looked only at natural search results, not at sponsored search links. I wanted to see whether the branded website of any treatment (or any pharmaceutical manufacturer) would show up in the top 10 search results for any of these disease categories.
The result? Not one branded site appeared in the top 10 search results for any of the disease categories I searched. (In case you’re wondering, the terms I searched on were: asthma, allergies, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, breast cancer, prostate cancer, insomnia, Crohn’s disease and alpha-1 antitrypsin.) The top search results invariably included links to Wikipedia, well-known healthcare information sites and government sources. The national disease organizations or foundations also have good representation, as does the Mayo Clinic.
Here are some numbers behind these findings:
I decided to take the search a step further and look through additional search results for two diseases to see how far in I would need to go to see a branded treatment/pharma site appear in the results. I chose two diseases that are very different: breast cancer because it is so widely recognized and so many companies have initiatives related to breast cancer research, treatment and support, and alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency because it is much less commonly diagnosed and therefore should have fewer players vying for search placement.
- For breast cancer, the first branded search result I found was #47, a link to the Avon Breast Cancer Crusade. After that, #81 links to the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer. Aside from these two, there were no other branded links among the first 100 search results.
- For alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, results #22 and #40 go to the Mercksource.com resource library. #67 goes to the branded web page for Prolastin, one of the primary treatments marketed for this condition. There are no other pharma/medication-branded links in the top 100 search results - including sites for two other main prescription treatments for the condition.
All I can say is, wow. I anticipated that search optimization might not be maximized for pharma-branded websites, but I am honestly surprised by the extent of these results. Given the value of search for finding healthcare information, based on our recent survey and healthcare webinar — one-third of survey participants told us that an Internet search engine is their first source for finding healthcare information online — an updated search strategy may be just what the doctor ordered. (Pardon the pun.)
Tags: disease, pharma, search
We’re all familiar with the barrage of advertising consumers face on a daily basis. It makes sense that the more advertising messages that appear within a medium, the less likely consumers are to remember or be persuaded by any particular advertisement - this is the effect of ad clutter. But how do you account for ad clutter in your online campaigns? We’ve developed a new custom “Clutter” metric to measure its impact. Blending online audience data from NetView and advertising data from AdRelevance, the clutter metric pretty simple:
Number of Impressions (from AdRelevance) / Total Minutes = Clutter
This metric can help media planners and advertisers target sites with less clutter for maximum effectiveness, while giving publishers even more quantifiable data to position their sites for increased ad spends. For more information, see my article in our September client newsletter.
On October 10th, I’ll host a webinar and present details about this metric, its formulation, and the assumptions behind it. I’ll also provide sample data, and take a look at which specific demographic groups are exposed to high levels of clutter and which advertisers tend to be in more or less cluttered environments. Find out more and sign up for the webinar here.
Tags: ad clutter, advertising
