Archives for posts with tag: research

Microsoft have conducted a piece of research which goes further towards showing the need for an integrated approach to digital marketing where display advertising and search engine marketing are concerned.  Off the back of the overused Atlas example which suggested a 22% uplift in conversion could be produced from a combination of search and display, and Yahoo’s piece which suggest similar impact, Microsoft have launched their own research which backs up the previous reports.

The figures which have come out of the Microsoft report show a 2x improvement in website visits through a combined approach along with a 54% increase in likelihood of a user conducting a brand search if they had been exposed to a display advert.

You have to take into consideration the producers of these pieces when reviewing the results they show you.  Atlas earn their money based on the amount of activity you are undertaking so have a vested interest in increasing it (plus they earn off both impressions and clicks with display).  Yahoo have seen a downturn in the last quarter in the premium CPM display advertising and so it is in their interest to get you buying more.  And similarly Microsoft need something to prop up their lack of progress in paid search.

So you have to take what they say with a pinch of salt, but that’s not to say there is nothing at all in it.  i do believe an effective online plan involves a balance of all elements.  Search as the flexible, movable return based feast, affiliate marketing as the finite guaranteed return and display advertising to boost the brand and increase awareness.  That said I am an advocate of flexible solutions for display advertising and don’t think that any placement is worth more than £10 CPM, there isn’t enough branding to warrant anymore than this amount.

So whilst I would view the actual stats displayed with an air of scepticism, the general principal is sound in my opinion.  A balanced approach with a blend of channels means you get the best of each without placing all your eggs in one basket.

View Microsofts findings here

I was reading Marketing’s fourth annual survey into the top loved and hated brands and noticed the fickle nature of the public in their views on brands, and undoubtedly linked, their advertising campaigns.  What struck me from the survey, more than the strange appearance of AOL at number 2 in the top 50 hated brands even though their UK profile doesn’t warrant such a high profile spot, was the number of brands named highly in both the most hated, and most loved lists.  In the main list you actually only have two brands appearing in the top 20 of both, these are The Sun and Nokia (via ngage in the most hated), but if you get down into the different tables for the individual markets it is much more apparent.  I suppose you could just argue that the more you drill down by market, the less brands their are and so the more chance of a brand appearing in both lists but if you take such a broad market as “fashion” you would imagine there are enough brands out there to limit duplication.  But yet in this particular category 3 brands appear in the top 5 for both hated and loved!  Topshop is number one hated and number 5 loved, Levi’s is number two loved and number 4 hated, and Next is number one loved and number 3 hated.  How can brands be perceived in such a different way?  Is it simply that such well known and high profile brands are more likely to stir an extreme emotion in users where as slightly lesser brands stay under the radar a little more?  Your guess is as good as mine.  I have listed some of the other occurences of this below, focussing on the digital areas of the survey (as that is the topic of the blog after all!):

mobile networks love and hateinternet service providers love and hatesocial networks love and hate