Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising. Show all posts

Thursday, January 17, 2013

The Great Native Advertising Debate


The debate on native advertising is, like native advertising, multifaceted. Even without fulling grasping what it is, people are debating if it useful for digital marketers. Let's take it step by step.

What is Native Advertising?

DigiDay posed this question to some digital execs. The responses are riddled with industry terms, like organic, monetization and ad units. Even worse, some used the word native in describing it; that would be an automatic DQ in Catchphrase.  However, I thought Ben Kunz’s response was wonderful. He says, “The intent is to have a paid message break out of the advertising clutter in a new way, by elevating it to appear like the real unbiased content users are seeking.” I think this is excellent because it covers native advertising on both social platforms and digital publications.

On Social Media


On social media, native advertising comes in the form of sponsored stories and promoted posts/tweets. This content is just like any other content a user would post to the platform/medium, except that the content owner PAID (so now we consider them an advertiser) to reach a larger audience.  

In a Spin Sucks article Gini Dietrich used an example of an Instagram campaign where users tagged photos of Jay Peak ski resort to #jaypeakresort. User-generated content is NOT native advertising. That is earned media. Initially, I thought that if a business had paid users to post the "user-generated" content that could be, but after analyzing more for this post, I decided that is still not native advertising. The native aspect means it, as Kunz explained, must appear like the content users are seeking on that platform. Because the medium is the one that controls the way content is displayed (and thus can be the one to manipulate it), they must be the one selling the native advertising. In the Jay Peak’s example, it would only be native advertising if Jay Peak paid Instagram to show photos tagged with #jaypeakresort higher on feeds (not just chronologically) for other similar tags, such as #ski and #snow. (Instagram, five percent of all profits from this new revenue-generating plan is a great way to say thank you.)

On Digital Publications

Digital publications’ native advertising is an advertorial. I’m sure you’ve seen them in magazines. An article about how a brand name pharmaceutical helped someone get their life back on track. It appears like a human interest piece, except that somewhere it must identify that it is paid content. Rather than the publication (the medium) selling reach, they are selling the space that appears like the content the user is seeking—articles in this case.

Is Native Advertising Deceptive?

For social media, native advertising is always clearly marked as a sponsored story or promoted tweet, so I don’t think it is deceptive in that aspect.  In the Facebook example image above, using a user's name walks a fine line, but Facebook offers you the option to opt out of being used in ads. As for digital publication’s native advertising, The Atlantic got some heat following a sponsored article from The Church of Scientology. It was marked as Sponsor Content at the top,just as an advertorial in a print publication would. However, the comments section seemed to be the rough spot for this native advertising. Would it be less deceptive if comments were turned off and another notice indicating that it is an ad (thus no comments necessary) replaced the usual comment box? 

Does Native Advertising Work?

As Dietrich said in her article,  nearly everyone knows how to “click past banner ads, watch the required five seconds of an ad before skipping it to go on to a video, click out of pop-up ads, and fast forward through commercials during television programs.” But having your ads appear where the audience is “listening” doesn’t necessarily mean they will attune to it. For instance, Pepto Bismol ads on my Facebook news feed are incredibly disruptive. This could be because the content choice for the medium was bad or just the wrong medium altogether. Using Pepto Bismol, let’s see how both of these matter in using native advertising.

Choosing the right content

Their picture of a big ol’ bottle of the pink stuff on my Facebook newsfeed turns me off, because I see it for what it is, an ad. A picture of an empty pizza box and someone holding their stomach may have pulled me in. My friends post status updates about their latest food conquests, so sharing similar content makes sense.

Choosing the right medium

Had I been on WebMD reading up on symptoms of heartburn, a sponsored article about Pepto Bismol treating heartburn would definitely be relevant. Seeing that big ol’ bottle of the pink stuff would almost be comforting to me in that medium.

Now that you know more about what native advertising is and how it works, will you try it?

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Facebook Funny Business Part II


When I wrote my original post about Facebook advertising, I hadn't planned on another. However, with so much buzz about the drop in post reach, I just had to weigh in.  Since the change to Edgerank has occurred, the amount of people my page posts reach is only about 58% of the amount before the change. Thus, I decided to test out a promoted post again. This past week, I ran a promotion on a post from the week prior. That post had reached even less people than others as of late. 

I was very happy with the results. The paid reach was nine times that of the organic reach. We also got about 18 new page likes in that time, with only 10 showing as coming through the promotion. My concerns from last time were that many global fans didn’t seem connected to our brand. The two post shares seemed shady in that manner (no comment just a straight share to their timeline which had many other shared posts), but the new page likes were legitimate and tied back to employees at our global affiliates/business units.

 I didn’t run for the full ad spend, so it only cost $4.45. Unfortunately, that price is not what large brands will be able to get, as Mark Cuban shows.

Sure he and many other marketers are upset, but as another blogger put it do we have much room to complain about the drop in reach when it is a free service. I tend to agree. Do people complain about LinkedIn’s premium membership pricing options? No, because those have been established from the beginning. Had a sophomore in his college dorm thought about how to monetize and build out advertising packages for a college who’s hot or not site, we may not have even had a reason to be upset.

Regardless of if we should be angry or not, a new workaround is being tested to allow page fans to get notifications/alerts whenever the page posts new content. Until it is officially announced as other updates to Facebook are to all users (do most even read those?), will you ASK your fans to do this to receive all of your page posts? Will the average Facebook users truly understand the necessity or think it is just another loop to jump through?

Friday, August 17, 2012

Facebook Funny Business


Surely you've heard the disappointment many advertisers are voicing about Facebook ads (and likely investors are voicing as stocks plummet). In case you haven't here are a few examples:

After GM pulled their ads, I defended Facebook—but really all social media marketing—in that it should be used for engagement and not necessarily assessed by how it affects ROI. As one blogger put it,“Social media is very much like an executive: It has unquestionable value, but it's neither easy to measure nor perfectly measurable.” Plus I had really great success with a Facebook ad campaign back in 2010. You know back when they were still Facebook FAN pages.

I was working as a marketing manager for a shopping center. The page had only 159 fans (cut it a break, it's a local business) when I started at the end of November 2009.  By reaching out to my network (all people close proximity to the center) and promoting the page on other advertising, the website and within the center, the fans had increased to over 500 in May 2010. 


Since I was teeing off our big summer event series, I decided to try Facebook ads to get more fans. In one month’s time we more than doubled our fans to 1,300 and all for about $100. With the influx of fans, engagement increased by 450 percent!


Sure, sure. That was then and this is now, but the way I see it is that targeting may be the problem for these other brands. I had it a little easy working for a local business; I geo-targeted my ads and focused only on friends of current fans. For a global company, like the so-called Virtual Bagels, it is not quite the same.

I work for a global B2B company now (it’s been quite a change) and have been managing our Facebook  content for about two months, since it was finally decided by upper management that social media won’t really work as just a promotional platform.  I hadn’t managed a brand page for over a year and a LOT changed. (For the lack of change Zuckerberg has in his wardrobe, he makes up for it in privacy, timeline, etc updates).  Yet, I still— begrudgingly considering the funny business others have had and the whole crap about having to pay to reach people who already like the page—find myself pleased with the results of a recent Facebook ad purchase.

Now I may be comparing apples to oranges, but I just recently launched a promoted post for the page. Promoted posts don’t allow targeting, and quite frankly, I didn’t even know exactly how they worked. According to Facebook, “When you promote a post, it will be shown in the news feeds of more of the people who like your Page than you would reach normally. Friends of the people who have interacted with your post will also be more likely to see the story in their news feeds for up to 3 days from when the post was first created.” NOTE: On the same Help page Facebook also mentions that when you DON’T promote that nothing has changed about how your posts are shared with the people who like your Page. Mary, Mary—quite contrary! But I digress ...

While I checked the post throughout the promotion, it seemed like I was running into the same trouble described in the BBC News articles. The reach was 5x that of our usual post, but the people liking the post seemed odd. Many were from India, not working in my company’s industry. One commented with just a link back to a Facebook page for some childhood star out of India, which I hid as spam. However, I checked the names against our company directory and found that one was a current employee. And looking at the pages I could, I saw the same spam comment was placed on another person who had liked the posts page.  All just a matter of linking one person who engaged with one of their friends and then one of their friends and so on.

I had postponed the promotion when I thought I was only reaching fake accounts. By that time, I received a comment (aside from the spam), which—sorry to say—is a big deal since we only tend to get likes, from someone legitimately interested in the organization, some more page likes from others in the industry and a much wider reach than the usual post. All of that for about $6.50? I’ll take it. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe bots or fake accounts don’t exist, but it does mean it doesn't have to happen to everyone.

My advice to others questioning Facebook ads: target, target, target! And as for promoted posts, if you are a global company, promote the content that is universal.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Targeted online advertising, a thing of the future for some, soon to be the past?

I'm too cheap to buy a subscription to Women's Wear Daily which is upsetting since I'd love to read more on their article titled "Fashion Brands Rush to Web but Not to Advertise." I'd love to know the reason as to why they are choosing to update websites and engage in social media, but not advertise. 


What made me so interested in why they are not jumping on the opportunities for online advertising is reading more updates on the future of online advertising. While online ad spending is increasing (see graph from eMarketer.com article), the business of targeted ads has a bleak future. Don't get me wrong... I stand by my targeted campaigns as through mine I've maintained above average click-through rates (CTR), according to results by Eyeblaster's Research Global Benchmark 2010. Alas, the days of targeted ads and the ability to analyze your online advertising media's demographics and traffic through sites like Quantcast may be few and far between as PRIVACY keeps getting called into question. 


A group of industry leaders are pushing to set standards on companies that track user's online habits and behaviors so that the issue is contained without government regulations. The initiative was started last summer with Seven Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising. With the goal of the principles to make consumers aware, educate and eventually offer privacy options, I don't see how much progress has been made when as an advertiser--someone with a real investment in this--I'm hardly hearing much on this. Of course as an advertiser I don't want to lose targeting, but as a consumer privacy is important. Regardless of the consumer-advertiser dichotomy, not much has been said or implemented to either party. So, I can only guess the FTC is breathing down the necks of these ad targeting companies and regulation changes are imminent... 


So now I come back to the main question... fashion brands why NOT take advantage of  this successful marketing tool before it is changed (much more so than with advents of technologies)? If that WWD article has the answer to this, please, do share! 




Other sources:


US Online Advertising Spending as a Percent of Total Media Advertising Spending, 2008-2014


To Stem Privacy Abuses, Industry Groups Will Track Web Trackers

Monday, June 14, 2010

Forgo the craze and get creative

I'm incredibly interested in the new trends in digital marketing and advertising; yet, this article below got me thinking about the benefit of sticking to traditional media. In an older post, I had mentioned how Olay and Proactiv really thought about what traditional advertising meant for them and how to break out from it. Now I've got to thinking this... as everyone else is breaking out of traditional media in the terms of traditional vs new/digital media maybe it is the time to stand out in the old arena! 


Thinking back to my radio sales days, I started out helping to sell spots and then turned into handling only new media ads... and boy were there a lot of different ones and a lot more the station group was hoping to offer. So the media is changing to focus on digital advertising as the thought is that advertisers want to move into that. Wouldn't that mean those old spots aren't getting as much attention and would be selling for less and to less people? Increase your reach and your frequency! 


So with that money you are saving on your spot, you can put in some dough to developing really interesting campaigns. But better yet, if you are focusing on traditional media and don't spend all that time @replying to every customer whom tweets about your product/service then you have the time to build some amazing creative.  


Another way to break through the clutter... don't jump on the bandwagon of clutter! In saying all that, I'd still recommend focusing some time and money in digital as having a true marketing mix to cover all different channels really helps your reach!

Dwindling Brand Creativity Narrows Cannes Film Predictions

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Generation-spanning branding is no new thing

After having posted my last blog about the glaring differences in buying attitudes and practices from generation to generation, I found the below headline quite catching. The author suggests that with brands like Starbucks, Pinkberry, Ugg and Twilight we are entering a “new reality” in advertising and brand building.

One commenter suggested that most of the aforementioned brands really just denote social power which everyone tries to buy into regardless of age. Yes, some people buy into Starbucks for the assumed status it gives them over their 99-cent-convenience-store-coffee-drinker counterparts. I believe Starbucks really has a more alternative brand built around the music and art and environmental projects it supports, but those associations bring a sort of high-class cultured status to Starbucks image. I don’t believe it was Starbuck’s intent to market to everyone, but in marketing to what most everyone believes is status quo they have done so.

On another note, I’d like to argue that this is not at all a new reality. I’m pretty sure Hasbro played out the family game night campaign long before the advent of video games.  Since parents must support the brands their children buy into, toys and activities have always reached parents and kids alike.  After all, a child can say I want, I want, I want but it is up to the parents to literally buy into the brand. Take for instance, Disney. Who doesn’t want to go to the happiest place on earth? As much as kids love the characters and storylines, adults do too. For more than 20 years we’ve been hearing our favorite superstars tell us that what’s next for them is going to Disney!

Disney, Starbucks and the like haven’t had it easy. I have to agree it does take a great understanding of what your brand is and making it clear to your consumers in order to reach everyone. However, it is entirely important to note how building a status around your brand helps in reaching any generation. Also, new media or innovative advertising and branding hasn’t made this possible; we have established brands that appeal to the masses and have been for years.  If brands didn't appeal to multiple generations the reality would be that your target generation would take your brand to their grave... yikes.



What Generation Gap?

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Thinking outside the box in advertising...

Not to be too cliche (as my title would make you believe otherwise), I think when trying to make your brand stand out among others you must really decide what is the "box" in which you associate yourself. Proactiv and Olay both found great ways to step outside their conventional advertising. Even though they are both skincare brands, their traditional forms of advertising were very different--Proactiv with a buy-now infomercial approach and Olay with the common consumer product ads. Both companies are getting a lot of hype having flipped their approach. Olay is now using infomercials that discusses more about the science of the product, and Proactiv has developed a campaign around catchy phrases about "being Proactiv" placed in usual ad space in top-selling magazines rather than the back with all that crap. I found this particularly interesting because being in shopping center marketing it seems that print is the usual channel for shopping center ads, but I've focused mine on online and radio. We are seeing some great response to both of these more unconventional forms of advertising for our industry!


Trying to Move Up From a Fast-Talking, Buy-Now Approach

Olay Infomercial Hoping to Boost Trials