I spotted something on Google today which I hadn’t seen before and is a new development in universal search.  On a search for “times” I was presented with the standard search results you get for a brand term but then in addition to this there was a search box contained with the results! On entering a search phrase into this box I was presented with the site search results but still with the Google SERP.  This functionality is well known and nothing new but the inclusion of the search box in the results is not something I have seen before. 

It is obviously just another element of Universal Search in action but is alos a good tool for Google to make their results as accurate as possible and keep people within their pages.  By allowing them to search within Google for keywords contained within a site you are not only enhancing the user experience but promoting loyalty and boosting query numbers at the same time, win all round.  On top of this they are also able to produce additional Adwords results on the secondary search and potentially boosting revenues as well.

 

Google this week announced the launch of a free adserving solution which is to be known as Google Ad Manager.  According to the release notes this will be a free service allowing the serving of ads across the Google network but also on third party sites.   This is an interesting development from Google and Im sure the fact the announcement was made a couple of days after the Double Click purchase was approved is no coincidence as the platform will undoubtedly harness some of the Double Click technology and.  But what does this mean to other adserving providers in the market?  Are they about to see customers leaving in their hoards to move towards this free platform? I doubt it.  If we take Google Analytics as a case in point then we can see what is more likely to be the result.   Google Analytics provides a stripped down version of many of the bigger tracking solutions which is great for smaller advertisers/website owners who want to know what an idea for what results are coming from their online activity without the complexity and in depth analysis capabilities of a full analytics package.  Many small to medium size companies use it because it is free and serves their needs.  I am expecting the same will be the case with Ad Manager.  I can’t see it holding all the sophisticated functionality of the top ad serving solutions but how many smaller advertisers actually fully utilise the capabilities of adserving? Not many I would argue.  Functionality such as retargeting, ad optimisation, message testing, are available within all the big suppliers, but are rarely used due to the necessary investment of time and resource.  So a stripped down version will appeal to these advertisers as it provides what they need for no cost.  For the advertiser/agency which fully utilises the functionality of their adserving tool, AdManager will not have the same appeal and so these people will stick with their current solution and be happy to pay a price for the increased functionality. Another reason people may stay away is the potential IP you are giving away to Google.  If you run and Adwords account, use Google Analytics, have a Google Site Map, a Google Product Feed, and then and Ad Manager solution, you are essentially telling Google everything you do to promote your website online.  Is this the sort of information you want to hand over about your company?  Another question to ask is how long is it going to be free for?  Google Analytics is going to be a chargeable service from next year and the same could be planned for Ad Manager.  It will be interesting to see how many people stick with Analytics when it is no longer free. So is Ad Manager going to change the face of adserving? I doubt it.  In fact the more interesting proposition is the suggestion by Google that it plans to make DoubleClick free in the future, but that’s a post for another day!

I read an article in last weeks revolution which made me laugh out loud.  I have known for a while that some of the more traditional media types are way behind in the digital channel and many of the larger media buyers get by on their buying power and ability to schmooze a client about the brand exposure of their digital activity.  This article however took the biscuit with its naivety about measures of performance in the digital channel.  The basis of what the author was saying was that clicks aren’t an accurate measure of online activities performance.  YOU DONT SAY!

Isn’t the biggest benefit of digital communications is measurability and accountability?  The ability to track PAST the point of impression, and all the way through to conversion (whatever the desired outcome may be).  With this is mind it shocks me that people would still be using the click as a measure of performance.  Obviously in certain instances the objective is to promote awareness and so the fact that the add got clicked on is an indication people are paying it some attention and are showing an interest in what you have to say, but these instances are few and far between.  The measure of performance should be based on the desired outcome of the campaign, whether that be sale, quote, enquiry, application, this is dependant on the industry in question.  It is archaic to still be using clicks as a measure for performance as the article rightly points out these can be out for all sorts of reasons.  Please guys, wise up and become accountable for your work.  Stop playing the vanity game with branding and clicks and begin playing the real game of driving acquisition and accountability for your clients!

Brekaing news from nma.co.uk! 

Google has completed its acquisition of ad-serving company DoubleClick, following the green light from the EU.At a reported £1.6bn ($3.1bn), the cash deal is Google’s biggest acquisition to date.

An article in this weeks edition in Marketing Week questioned the future of direct mail in the face or increased pressure from digital direct response channels.  With direct mail volume dropping 7.4% from 2006-2007 and showing a continual decline in since 2004 has the measurability and accountability of digital mediums put pay to the direct mail industry?

For a two page, center piece article  I have to say that this seemed to me like a massive over reaction to the success of digital in the past few years.  The article eventually comes to some sensible conclusions about the evolution rather than death of direct mail and EHS Brann CEO Matt Atkinson makes the most valid point “consumers are not saying they don’t want direct mail, they are saying they don’t want junk mail!”.  it is not about cutting direct mail from you marketing mix but rather becoming more intelligent and targeted in your activity.  This is likely to mean volumes will drop but not necessarily that return will follow, more likely you will just become more efficient.

Every piece of the marketing mix has a benefit, either direct return or impact on other media.  Do you think there would be so many searches for finance companies brand terms on the search engines if the companies didn’t do so much offline activity? Of course there wouldn’t, it is all about striking the balance and appreciating the impact one media has on another.  I have experienced it first hand when a company has cut offline activity as they are getting better returns online only to see a drop in overall performance as their offline exposure stops pushing people to the search engines.

With the growing emergence of digital channels it was always going to impact other channels in one way or another, after all, economic circumstances aside, there are only every going to be a finite number of people in the market for your product at any given time.  It makes sense then, that if a percentage of these people start to use the Internet to find a supplier then the number of people using the other channels should see a dip.  What marketers really need to consider though is how to make the most of the whole marketing mix in order to maximise the opportunities the market holds, and rather than wield the sword at the under-performing media, stop to think about the impact they each have on one another.

BBC’s iPlayer service is wiping the floor with its rivals in the on demand TV market recording up to 500,000 programme downloads a day. 11m TV shows were streamed or downloaded through iPlayer in January in comparison to 2.7m for channel 4’s system 4od and 2m for ITV. The massive amounts of advertising dollars spent promoting the service have no doubt prompted its dominance but will also have given the on demand market as a whole a boost as people become more aware that you can watch your favourite shows from your laptop at any time of the day and night.

The opportunity and issue now facing BBC iPlayer is how to monetise this growing service without annoying its users. Advertising in online video files has been debated far and wide and yet the most appropriate format is yet to be decided upon. Pre-roll, post-roll and overlay are the main considerations with the option of mid roll placements as well but all interfere with the user experience in some way. The key is to strike a balance between the exposure of the ad and the interference with the viewing.

Youtube are still to achieve this and at a recent seminar they were still asking the advertisers what their preference would be for the ads. Youtube have gone with an overlay style ad for in video but admitted trialling preroll and post roll with both showing negative results. I wonder whether the BBC will be able to crack the code?