Think buying on social networks is all the same? Think again. LinkedIn's director of ad sales, Steve Patrizi, gives you the inside scoop on leveraging the space.
Introduction: If there's a consistent story in social networking, it's that the sector has seen rapid growth without commensurate gains made in terms of ad dollars spent. While that's true of the category in general, it's clear that not all social networks are created equal. To find out how LinkedIn differs from the pack, we spoke with the company's director of ad sales, Steve Patrizi.
iMedia: What's the most common mistake you see advertisers making on LinkedIn?
Steve Patrizi is director of ad sales at LinkedIn. Steve Patrizi: One of the big mistakes we see happening is overestimating people's tolerance for interruption and intrusion. We've experimented with some creative that expands too aggressively or liberally, and our members are very quick to let us know that it created a poor experience for them.
That's bad for everyone -- us, the advertiser and, most importantly, the member. And I get why advertisers are looking to those options; so many publishers are putting so many more ads on a page that these advertisers are desperately trying to find ways to stand out from all of that noise, and are resorting to getting in the way of what users are trying to accomplish. But many of our advertising partners understand that users have come to LinkedIn to be productive and successful, and that because our page design is relatively light, the best advertising has strong, relevant creative that stands on its own and speaks specifically to why the user is there and adds value to what they're there to do.
iMedia: There's been a gap between time spent online and ad dollars in the space. While that gap is narrowing, a more specific gap persists when it comes to total time spent on social networking sites as compared to the rest of the web. With that in mind, what is the right role for social networking as part of an overall marketing strategy?
Steve Patrizi: Well, I think it's less about how much time is being spent and more about how that time is being spent. If you're spending a bunch of time perusing someone's photos, it's not clear what types of messages that person might be receptive to -- maybe a new digital camera, maybe a dating service. But is that a better use of dollars than displaying that same message in another medium or vehicle, and should the dollar amount allocated necessarily scale with time in that instance? Hard to know.
But if you're spending time reading the answers to a question you posted on LinkedIn about expanding your business into global markets, then messages that present solutions to that type of problem seem particularly relevant and well-suited. The way we think about the "role" for social networking won't be very different than the way we've thought about any medium: What is the specific reason someone is using this medium, what does that tell me about their specific mindset, and what does that tell me about how I should reach them and with what message? On a site by site basis, those will be the questions asked, rather than, "A lot of people are spending a lot of time there; doesn't that mean I should throw my dollars there?"
We're already seeing evidence of this -- dollars are being spread out to more niche/vertical properties that have a very clear focus and purpose and away from the big, broad portals.
Next page >>