The day job has got me more and more thinking about web 2.0, and perhaps more significantly the need for it; and I’m not just talking about from a corporate point of view, where we get into site stickiness and page views and stuff, while important it is something I will come back to.

First I want to touch on why the Internet needed to evolve and how Marketers rightly need to start thinking one step further than the banner.

In the early days of the internet, by that I mean the mid 90’s. The web was forced into 3 business models: print publishing business model;  e-commerce (loosely translated as a shop that everyone was too afraid to buy from) or finally a pretty shit library (the kind of one where if you cracked open a coffee and sat on the floor, you’d be politely asked to leave…well almost).

Luckily, clever people through whatever motivation – boredom, I suspect – saw that not only, did you need to make sites full of worthwhile free content but you also had to make it engaging.

Right, I’ve said it, engaging! This is the only word you need to remember in this entire post. Web 2.0 is based around engagement. This will range from contribution via commenting or on a more progressive site users will generate a large if not total proportion of content. Providing the site has content that users find valuable to trade in their time for, you can be sure that better interactivity will ensure the site is more engaging, which will build loyalty, which in return builds, traffic.

Some of the best social media sites, techcrunch, mashable, digg and revison3, to name but a few are awesome at engaging with the community they serve. These communities are as diverse as world cities, but they all habour one dream, to engage with the people that visit and start a conversation with them, be that heated debate or sharing ‘coolness’.

While the Internet has made its evolution from the web 1.0, to web 2.0, advertisers are still one step behind. At this point I would like to congratulate those that have made it at least to the web, those that haven’t, don’t worry recession is here, time to spend a little less for a lot more. Getting back to my ultimate point, advertising online is still surprisingly traditional, even ad formats haven’t changed, pick up a Newspaper and see the leaderboard, skyscraper and variations on other ad formats… I’m not saying these aren’t here to stay, because they are, and they work (kind of). When they do, they suck you through to a screaming and pushy sales landing page, buy me, BUY ME NOW!!!. This is where the online marketing is missing a trick. As it is this page, that should be engaging, asking visitors their opinions, getting them involve, creating an environment that deserves time being spent.

To be engaging is the next step for online marketing; to create a community from communities, to drive traffic to a site that wants to listen, wants to allow you to interact, wants to get people you respect and admire involved, so together you and your brand can do something ‘wonderful’.

This is the Conversational Marketing approach…and luckly for us all there are companies pinoeering this method and examples and debate will be opened in the next post.

(PS – Conversational Marketing won’t be around forever, but it is the next logical step, until web 3.0 touches down and fills our space – if anyone knows what that looks like, give me a heads ups)

Right! I hope the distinction between the two is fairly obvious, but those who have no idea what CPA, CPC and CPM are please click here, here and here. So in reading this weeks NMA I stumbled across an article which put these heavy-weights of the online world into competition. I’m thinking to myself, surely they are just tools to achieve totally different jobs. Hence the very reason they exist in the first place.

Acquisition has long been the bastion of any direct marketers dream, and in times of the ‘credit crunch’ – how I loath the media for whipping us up into that frenzy, but that’s another story for another time; acquisition is a measurable, definitive return on investment, it does in effect what it says on the tin. At no cost to the advertiser despite the number of displays, the only persons whom potentially loses here are the media owners.

CPC is the bigger brother of internet marketing terms compared to CPA, it is much more established, and widely used, especially by the oh so adored search engines. This models has it own flaws, but impressively it does force the media owner and the advertiser to think about what they are doing. A strong and well targeted message will drive clicks and hopefully the right people to the right landing page. The media owner just has the risk of weighing the money they get from clicks as opposed to a CPM deal.

If CPA and CPC are brothers, then surely CPM is the daddy of Online and in many respects where advertising started in the first place, by wonderful graphics that would entice the mind, conjuring images that make for empathy and understanding of the brand values….wait we might have something here, is display advertising about branding, surely not…

I’ve had time to calm down, and realise that it largely is. Branding is the cornerstone to why CPM is important and will remain. If you really want to be clever about it, you may want to start tracking clicks on display advertising like you would for click advertising, I bet the clever ones can see how this might help measure ROI, but remember you’re still trying to connect the brand to the conciousness of a fickle audience.

So what has this taught us, well CPM will remain in some form or another, just like it has in the traditional media space, and CPA/CPC will be that tatical marketing that looks to shift services and/or products by a strong call to action and a great offer, the other conerstone of marketing beyond branding.

Intrusive ads really tick punters off...

Intrusive ads really tick punters off...

HOT OF THE PRESS:- Apparently theres new research to suggest that intrusive ads annoy people, and annoying ads are not good for your brand rep…

Excuse me for being a Mr know it all, but isn’t this bleedin obvious. Everytime I tell someone non-digital that I’m in online advertisng they reply – “Is it you who make those annoying smiley faces pop up on my screen.”

Although it’s not the first piece of research on this matter, (others here, here & here), hopefully those marketeers still spending their ad $$ budgets on ‘intrusive’ online ads will wake up and stop giving the rest of online advertisers a bad name. Who are these brands who continue to bug us all? Well the report highlighted 888.com, Dulux, Ford, Garnier, Halifax and L’Oreal as being among those with the most mentioned…

In my opinion, Online advertising should always look, where possible, to add or enhance the users experience online. It should never look to detract from it or hinder it in any way, and ad formats such as pop up / overlays / ads with sound / and to a certain extent certain expandables can never be seen to be adding to the users experience.

Yes – some ad vendors / media owners may argue that as a method for getting infront of targeted audiences it’s second to none. And sure, they may remember you alright, but for all the wrong reasons.

So for those of you who knew it already, pat yourself on the back. For those that didn’t, heed advice from above otherwise you could soon be walking the plank with your brand…

Yes the launch of the iPhone hasn’t escaped my notice, and finally after much resistance here is an iPhone 3G related post.  It was announced today that Carling’s innovative iPint has reach numero uno on the iTunes free app downloads chart.

For those of you who dont know (where have u been…???!!!?), with software 2.0 iPhone users with both new and both existing iphones can download specifically created aps. There’s both paid for and free apps, with the majority of branded content being distributed for free. When Apple opened the app program for developers back in Oct 07, those companies that were listening saw the chance at some great exposure and branding across the iPhone user community. And Carling certainly saw this opporunity alright! Their app acts a reacts like a real pint – See how it works here!

The whole concept of the iPint is brilliant – can you imagine the sheer level of interaction with this thing? The app for sure has enjoyed a great viral uptake and you can expect this to continue in the short term at least. So well done Carling – I think the iPint is a stroke of genius. Shame the beer still tastes crap though…

Other iPhone branded apps include lastminute.com’s travel phrasebooks, BA.com’s arrivals checker, TripAdvisor’s restaurant app, as well as numerous RSS news based apps.

Stay tuned as in the coming week’s I’ll be reviewing my favourite branded apps! In the meantime, anyone have a favourite branded app? Thoughs…

So finally there’s some research to support the notion that CTRs are not a good ’sole’ indicator for an online campaign’s sucess…

Why? Because if recent-ish research (February to be precise) from StarCom media is anything to go by then just 6% of the online audience account for half of all clicks for online graphical advertising units. The report entitled “Natural Born Clickers”  argues that these heavy clickers distorts the reality of display advertising click-through metrics, and suggests that “the click is dead” as go-to measurement of effectiveness for brand-building display advertising campaigns.

So who are these heavy clickers? Well the report state that they tend to skew towards Internet users between the ages of 25-44 and households with an income under $40,000. Ouch! Not the most affluent of target markets then hey…! Apparently, heavy clickers are also relatively more likely to visit auctions, gambling, and career services sites – a markedly different surfing pattern than non-clickers…! So if you are in any of those industries keep counting those clicks, otherwise listen on…

The above research forms part of a wider call from industry leaders (such as EVP of Com Score) for a new set of metrics that can better demonstrate the effects of banner advertising for branding campaigns online (see also Impact Blog). As While CTRs may still offer a useful measure of sucess for some direct response campaigns, clearly they are the wrong measurement for brand-building advertising and consideration/preference campaigns online.

So the dialogue begins – some bloggers have argued that the online people clicking on ads are those that are small site owners looking to boost their CPCs and generate small bits of revenue, whilst some even claim that they may be proffesional ‘clickers’ employed by media owners to boost CTRs of underperforming campaigns. In my opinion this is a particuarily pessamistic and over the top view on things - just because some of the online audience may  have banner blindness and may never click on a banner ad, this shouldn’t mean that others who were presented with a highly targeted ad with a strong call to action wouldn’t click throgh.

And what are your thoughts? Is the overreliance on CTRs a thing of the past?

The Conversational Marketing Summit

So yes it was over a month ago now, but hey I’m catching up so bare with me. It was great to be over in New York for Federated Media’s summit on coversational & social media, and ways brands can engage audiences in these new mediums online.

I particuarily found it refreshing to hear from marketing execs for some of the worlds biggest brands (particuarily tech focussed brands) showcase how they had been utilising social media platforms as branding excercises. Andy Lark from Dell discussed the ‘Regeneration’ graffiti ap campaign which they ran on facebook, Marcy Shinder of American Express discussing the OPEN online resource centre while Mike Hoefflinger from Intel discussed their plans to increase the online portion of their budget to at least 50% by 2009.

You can get a decent round-up of the conf from Tim Leberecht’s post on Cnet. If you fancy checking out some of the sessions, you can get full length videos online. Also if you are interesting FM are running another conference on CM, this time it’s in San Francisco (November 2008 ). See you there!

Best Session:- There was a panel discussion on ‘Measuring Conversational Media’ and how marketers should measure whether their campaigns are sucessful. It was wholeheartedly agreed that clicks and ctr as metrics are simply not a good indicator of campaign performace, although the industry has propogated this for so long. Some interesting research was discussed regarding CTRs / clicker profiles thanks to a fascinating recent report conducted by Starcom entitled ‘Natural Born Clicker,’ (more to follow). All parties agreed that their needed to be more concise co-operation between media owners, agencies, advertisers and the IAB to establish a set of better metrics, and place pressure on agencies to facilitate a shift away from an over reliance on CTRs.

Best CM Campaign Example:- Dell’s Regeneration campaign that ran on facebook was a great example of marketing in social media at its very best. The campaign recieved a massive response rate, and most alarmingly the interaction time with the Dell brand was remarkable – some users spent hours creating their pieces of art for the Dell competition.

Though to take away:- Right at the start of the summit John Batelle announced Federated Media’s new CM tracking toolkit - which should go some way to helping advertisers monitor the sucess of their campaigns, other than standard clicks and CTRs. More to follow on this…

And so I conclude...

Everyone seemed to clear off as I took to the floor...

So my first forray into digital marketing – my 2006 final year marketing thesis on Viral Marketing.

I’ll never forget the day everyone “discussed” their proposed topics in a room, could they have been any more boring? - I knew I needed to do something else, something a little different. When I presented my idea to my proffessor the blank gaze I recieved in return said it all – she had never heard of viral marketing, or as it happens had the majority of her colleagues at the university.

The problem was/is that online marketing is growing at such a rapid rate thats its pretty hard to keep up at times, and as a result a lot of students studying markeitng degrees at UK uni’s are being advised to examine more traditional forms of media. But surely that’s an area that needs the least research? What about the new forms on marketing springing up in this new media age – conversational marketing, social media marketing, rss advertising, blog marketing, and the list goes on. Why aren’t students encouraged to add new research / material to much needed new areas of digital marketing, as opposed to adding to the clutter of existing research?

Anyway, enough of me rambing. The dissertation can be downloaded in here (sans appendix) – I hope that someone finds some use for it, and if you do let me know what!