Archives for posts with tag: Display Advertising

Google’s latest move into the world of behavioural targeting has been hit with a lot of publicity, but in reality, all they are doing is catching up with the game.  Yahoo and Microsoft have been using behavioural targeting functionality based on users search queries and pages browsed for a number of years, and charging a premium for the service.  But now Google have stepped into the game and all of a sudden it is big news again.

Obviously anything Google announce is going to be big news, but there isn’t much really to their new service that isn’t available in other portals.  They have tried to cover themselves from a privacy perspective by allowing people to select their areas of interest but really, is anyone other than those working in the digital arena going to now where to find these settings? No.  In reality the ability to select and deselect interests is a token gesture to the privacy police.  And of course they are going to sell it to advertisers as an opt in on interests and charge additional for the targeting options.

There is added complexity with Google due to their adsense network and it not being only their properties they would be targeting you on, but other than this, it is nothing more than Yahoo and MSN have been doing with their display advertising for years.  Of course the major benefit of Google is they will have much more data to work with than Yahoo and MSN combined so the targeting should be more accurate and more detailed, but other than that, its just Google catching up in the display advertising game.

The latest rumour circulating of how the twitter owners plan to monetise their recent surge in users comes curtousy of Marketing magazine, which in itself, is evidence of twitter gaining further mainstream coverage.  In an interview with Biz Stone, cofounder of twitter, Fiona Ramsay quotes Stone as saying, ‘We are noticing more companies using Twitter and individuals following them. We can identify ways to make this experience even more valuable and charge for commercial accounts.’

Reading between the lines of the article it sounds to me Stone said it more as an idea than the definitive solution to monetising twitter, but is this the best he can come up with?

Obviously there is value in twitter for businesses.  They gain access to their customers in a conversational manner, something you don’t get outside the realms of social networking.  The ability to push messages at your consumers in real time, and more importantly, gain feedback on your product/service from an engaged audience, certainly has some value.  But how much value?  and is it enough for companies to want to pay for an account?  I have my doubts.  Especially when individuals at said company could set up personal accounts and act on behalf of the company without any associated costs.

A much simpler model would be ad funded, maybe not in the traditional way but in a more flexible, targeted way, as Facebook has started doing.  Everyone on twitter expresses an interest in one thing or another.  Through the small bio they write to accompany their profile, through the website link they choose to list, but more importantly, through the updates they make, some up to 50 a day!  Due to the way in which people use twitter, they constantly refer to products and activities which they use or partake in as part of their every day life.

People tweet about their phones (mostly iPhone and Blackberry at the minute but others will catch up!), they tweet about their laptops, their lifestyles, and just about everything else that is going on in their life.  A search on twitter for “valentines day” for example reveals that hundreds of people who have mentioned it in their recent tweets.  Now imagine being a flower company, wouldn’t you pay to hit these guys with a targeted advert around now?  You could even use smart technology to interpret the senitment of the statement to avoid hitting those with an “I hate valentines day” sentiment so as to avoid compounding their misery!

In fact, keyword level targeting with a sentiment filter could be awesome (can you tell I am writing as I think!?!).  Imagine being able to target those who were mentioned your competition in a negative way.  Hitting somebody who writes “broadband provider X sucks, I have been on the phone for hours!” with an ad for your alternative broadband package with 5 star customer service, priceless!

The continually evolving conversation of twitter could make it a highly exciting prospoect for advertisers (there have been 41 more velntines based tweets since I wrote the above!).  As an advertiser you could track tweet trends in real time and evolev your campaigns to match.  Facebook’s targetting platform is great, but it is pretty static as it is based on profile information more than anything else.  Twitter would have a potentially endless stream of inventory for topical products and services and this would make the advertising platform a hugely exciting prospect.

Im sure the top dogs at twitter are consider these options as we speak, but I sure do hope that charging for commercial accounts isnt the best thing they come up with!

Google has announced its genius solution to conundrum of how to get a return on its $1.6bn purchase of YouTube in 2006.  They have decided that the current rate of £25,000 a day for homepage advertising on the video sharing site is too cheap! And so they are putting the daily advertising rate up by 28% to £35,000. Genius!  OK, so they are making the homepage advertising options a little more interesting with expandable videos and potential full homepage takeovers but really, is this the best Google come up with?

Homepage takeovers and sponsorships are going to be the last thing on brand advertisers minds in times when return on advertising spend is more critical than ever.  Surely a more innovative and flexible advertising solution would have been a better option and attracted a broader range of advertisers rather than the few who are willing to fork out £35,000 for a days advertising.

The success of the latest Facebook and MySpace solutions is built on the fact they are flexible and accessible to all.  There are thousands of businesses out there who are dying to tap into the social media masses and they now can, through the latest Facebook and MySpace platforms.  This will keep the two networks going in a time when large budget advertisers are tightening the purse strings.  Who is going to be buying a £35,000 homepage takeover on YouTube when times are tight?

Unfortunately Google have dropped the ball with this one for me, it wouldn’t surprise me if they were heading back to the drawing board in 6 months time due to a lack of uptake on their latest proposition.

The migration of news and newspapers online has been steadily happening over the past 5 years.  I personally no longer feel the need to buy a newspaper on a week day as I know I can get all the news I need from me Google homepage, and also more recently twitter, without the need to payout for it or scour through pages of uninterested garbage to get to the useful stuff.

RSS readers and social news forums bring the best, most important news stories to my attention in an instant and give people access to such a vast amount of news that there is no way that once a day, physical publications can keep up.

But for the newspapers, print is important.  It has traditionally been where they earn their money.  Print advertising is still big business and it is these offline placements and inserts where the publications have traditionally cashed in.

News stories earlier in January however indicated that a shift change could be coming.  Reports on the Guardian website announced that US newspaper the LA times, was earning enough revenue from its online advertising programme to cover its entire editorial payroll, without taking account for offline advertising.  This is pretty huge news in the newspaper world as, even though all the publications use online advertising as an additional revenue stream, this has never, to my knowledge, been such a significant percentage of revenue.

In the same week it was reported that the financial times were making 80 staff redundant as they looked to streamline their business and invest more heavily in online and digital channels.  Whilst these two stories alone are not enough to suggest the future of newspapers is online, are they representative of a shift change in the newspaper market and indicative of the path the industry is set to take?

Whilst I think it would be difficult to build a mainstream news brand and publication purely online, it would be less difficult for an existing well known newspaper as they will already have a readership.  And with the revenues reported by the LA times a purely online presence could be very profitable.  It would also remove a lot of the overheads associated with offline media and make for a much more streamlined organisation.

Of course the advertising model would need to be sound.  Much of the premium CPM placements are dying a death as people look for more accountability from their online marketing spend but so long as the publication can keep innovating and offering flexible advertising programmes then there is no reason they couldn’t see the same success as the LA times has done.

Guardian Article – History in the making in LA

Digital Bulletin – Financial Times accounce 80 redundancies

Yahoo have disclosed their Q3 revenues and they aren’t good, a measly 1% increase on the same period last year and down $20 million on Q2.  The announcement comes hand in hand with them announcing they would be cutting 10% of their workforce to improve cost efficiencies.  This is no great shock in the current economic client but it is the breakdown of revenues which shows the most interesting facts.

Paid Search and performance based display advertising, such as Right Media and their Yahoo Direct Programme, were actually up a much greater percentage than the overall picture with the drop in revenues coming from “premium display advertising”, i.e. the CPM based placements across the Yahoo portal.  This ties in with what I have spoken about before regarding the future of digital media buying being a more flexible, reduced cost environment with many more placements being bought on an auction model or at the very least on a CPC basis.

There are two main causes for me believing this is the way digital display advertising needs to go:

1. The Global Economic Climate: advertisers cant afford to be paying premium CPM rates in the name of “brand building” when the economic climate is so fragile.  The next 12 months for advertisers, both on and offline, is about making sure a return is gained on advertising spend, and £20+ CPM, is never going to bring about a direct return no matter who you are.

2. Advertisers are Getting More Savvy: being from a paid search background and working for a results driven agency, when I spent some time media buying I was astounded at the stunts that some publishers tried to pull with their CPM’s.  Just because it is a high traffic or niche area of the site does not mean that anybody is paying anymore attention to the ad on that page than they are on the less popular pages.  An ad is an ad and 99% of Internet users can spot them a  mile off.  Thankfully more and more companies and media buyers are now beginning to think this way too and not buying the expensive slots thus meaning prices fall.  The old model of media buying also doesn’t play to the strengths of online, they make no sense.  So I am advertising online, where I can review performance real time, change ads real time, but your telling me I have to book for a minimum one month period no matter how it performs? It just doesn’t add up.  Publishers need to start operating in the online world rather than the offline media buying world.

So even more evidence from Yahoo that traditional media buying online is on its way out, but who can be the first to capitalise from it with an effective flexible ad platform?