Google’s long awaited entry into the virtual world has taken place in the last week with the launch of their competitor to Second Life, lively.com.  According to the Google blog the initial idea came as they “looked around the social web and wished that it could be less static”.  I’m not quite buying that seen as Second Life has been around for a while now but that
doesn’t mean it isn’t an interesting entrant.  Much like in Second Life you create an avatar for yourself although in Lively.com this is in more of a cartoon vein and in more of a Sims fashion.  You can also create your own rooms within the world and customise their look and decoration.  You can then hang out with your friends in the rooms you create, which brings in the social element.    The interesting part comes with how and where you engage with lively.com.   The system enables you to embed your room into your blog or website, and interact with it directly without the need to visit lively.com.  Whether this is enough of a selling point I am not sure but lively.com will certainly appeal to the youth market more than Second Life and lets face it, the younger generation are much more likely to spend ours chatting to friends online, even more so if they create a cool avatar for themselves in the process.  I was never a big fan of Sims, and never really got into Second Life, so I don’t think Ill be rushing along to set my account up.  But if the Alexa rankings below are anything to go by lively.com could create a bit of a stir in the world of social media.

An investigation has been launched by the IAB and the IASH into the misplacement of display ads within the ad exchange community.  The investigation comes after the Yahoo! owned exchange Right Media was implicated for ad misplacement and NMA spotted ads for brands such as T-Mobile and easyCar on the explosivefightvideos.com and also large blue-chip companies such as ING direct and Orange advertising alongside pornographic content.

Right Media have responded by saying, “When content is inadvertently miscategorised by a member of the exchange, we help our members communicate to correct the situation. We have rigorous standards and guidelines for our members.”  But critics are calling for all display advertising exchanges to become IASH compliant to ensure ad misplacement does not occur.

This instance and the examples listed clearly show the dangers of using ad exchanges and blind networks as part of your media plan.  Although the promise of cheap impressions and large volumes can be tempting, the reality can often be misplaced adverts and ads appearing in inappropriate locations.  If you are going to use these channels, then make sure they are controlled and regulated and don’t be tempted by the cheapest, run of site options, at least make it channel specific so you can have some idea of where you are going to be appearing.

Google has announced that it will now be accepting 3^rd party ad serving tags for its placement targeting network in the US and has plans to roll this out in the UK in the near future.  This is a big step for them and no doubt is linked to the double click acquisition in some way.  The Google Image ads network has long been a no go area for media planners due in no small part to the fact they didn’t accept 3^rd party tags.  This announcement could mean a big growth spurt for the network as it should attract more advertisers which in turn should attract more publishers and also publishers of a higher quality.  I would argue that Google needs to clean up their network a little in order to improve quality but you cant dispute the fact they have a large number of sites on board in a large number of verticals which could be tempting for the niche advertisers trying to build an effective media plan.  There’s no doubt the ability to select individual sites, the flexible pricing and now the acceptance of 3^rd party tags makes Google a viable option for future media plans and one good media planners should investigate.

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!

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.