|
Published:
11/28/2012
Loved this Michael. Thanks for making my job easier :)
|
|
Published:
11/9/2012
Georgie,
Exactly, your "unicorn" line was actually visual, and that was the main point of my article. That a resume or CV is basically designed to fit everyone in a little box. If you want to get noticed you have to find a way to make that box sing, and dance, etc...
The vast majority of resumes, CVs, never even get looked at. Worse, which I did not even touch on in my article is that robo-resume filter programs employed at most of the biggest companies pre-emptively filter resumes based on a set of criteria. That is why I advised changing the headlines etc... to match the job skills listed. This is one of the best ways to get through that first line of defense by companies HR departments.
There are many companies in the US who will not even consider candidates that did not graduate from certain Universities... ahem, GoogleMicrosoftFacebookAppleYahoo I'm talking to you... so their robo-filter programs actually screen for one of those Universities. If your resume does not have that on it no human ever sees it. There is a way, however, to fool them. When listing your University, if it does not happen to be one of these, list "School of Hard Knocks, The Harvard University of Real Life" ... At least you'll get by the filter. You may get immediately discarded but you have a better shot than before.
But before anyone starts to think this ins unfair, last time I checked I believe Google gets something like 10,000 resume submissions a day... a day. If they did not employ these techniques it would be impossible for them to hire the number of people they need to. They HAVE to choose certain initial criteria... and so does any company that becomes a hot place to work.
|
|
Published:
11/8/2012
Lynn, because someone is obviously NOT "10-feet tall and bullet proof" there is a subtle usage difference, with a not so subtle reaction difference; confidence without being arrogant. A sense of humor, without someone feeling they are being insulted.
Whereas communicating that I am a Ninja Rockstar Marketer (which BTW I am) conveys this feeling of wanting to punch me in the face. That statement is one which closes people off to hearing any more. It is false ego, and usually communicates the insecurity of the person making the statement.
I AM NOT a Ninja Rockstar Marketer, however, when I put "(which BTW I am)" after that statement I can almost see how the distaste that appears on peoples faces... as if they just popped a sour-patch kid in their mouths. In fact, even if I continue to tell people that it was just an overt example of what I was talking about to illustrate a point, and I do not believe that about myself, that feeling does not go away for people.
That is the challenge, and the key lesson here. Words can evoke feelings that are not easily changed with more words. I am not 10 feet tall and bullet proof. I am however a Digital Unicorn. Just saying it makes me laugh... and that is why it is me.
If someone finds it too irreverent and not business like enough or judges it, that's ok, because that is them, not me. And that's ok. Those who do respond to the irreverence and the way my mind works will be a better fit for me.
Find the statement that is YOU and that makes people stop and take notice.
|
|
Published:
11/8/2012
Check out the Jane Ashen Turkewitz post on the iMedia Blog about "6 Ways to Use Social Media In Your Job Search" ... Great advice and tips about your job search. She's Managing Director of TalentFoot so she knows...
http://blogs.imediaconnection.com/blog/2012/11/05/6-ways-to-use-social-media-in-your-job-search/
|
|
Published:
10/25/2012
The Book I Mention Below is Edward R. Tufte's, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0961392142/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0961392142&linkCode=as2&tag=s0ba6b-20
|
|
Published:
10/25/2012
Yes, Jo, the word Infographic in its purest meaning is more where the visual is such that it communicates with limited textual context. That the assemblage of information is presented in a way where the visual itself brings meaning to what would normally be lost in a spreadsheet of data. The classic examples are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nightingale-mortality.jpg">Florence Nightingales mortality rate Infographic in the Crimean war or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minard.png>Charles Minard's Infographic of Napoleon's invasion of Russia.
However the term has somewhat morphed in modern day marketing as a more graphically appealing way to present information than Powerpoint. From that standpoint marketers have been shackled to Powerpoint's visual presentation slide metaphor for the last 15 years, and at least re-meaning this information in an "infographic" format forces the user to dispense with much of the text.
That is not to excuse this usage. Graphics should do much more than simply display information in a visually compelling manner, however, I would not underestimate the "visually attractive manner" aspect of displaying information. It is but a first step toward better information presentation and usage.
However, not all information can show relevant properties or relationships of data, as there needs to be relevant properties and relationships that exist to show. Some of it is just informational, and as such would normally be relegated to a textual assault via Powerpoint.
In this case I could have used the score ratings from ALL of the people who responded to my survey in a graphical way breaking them down by gender, and geography to visually provide something that someone could delve more deeply into. Unfortunately my sample set would have had to been much higher, about 1,200 respondents, instead of 127.
However, your point is valid, and all infographics should seek to provide a visually compelling graphic that can be teased apart.
If I had more time to gather more respondents, and more time to put the graphic together maybe I could have accomplished such a feat :) Thanks for your input and feedback. It is important that people know there are more compelling ways to present information.
I would suggest they start with http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0961392142/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0961392142&linkCode=as2&tag=s0ba6b-20">Edward R Tufte's The Visual Display of Quantitative information.
|
|
Published:
5/10/2012
It was actually student at The Miami Ad School that did the Victoria Secret idea for QR Codes. May VS should hire them to do their guerrilla advertising.
|
|
Published:
5/10/2012
Turns out I may have been giving Victoria Secret a little too much credit. That example is a concept from ad students. Nice to know the next generation of ad creatives is as fascinated with boobs as my generation. Ugh ;)
|
|
Published:
5/10/2012
"20 ways to use QR codes correctly" My newest article on QR Codes is live on iMedia.
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/31742.asp
Check it out. Spread the virus!
|
|
Published:
4/24/2012
I just presented 20 great marketing examples of QR Codes, followed by 20 ways to NEVER use a QR Code at the iMedia iMoms Summit.
You can download the presentation for FREE (normally $10) Just follow me on Twitter @seanx https://twitter.com/seanx and I will send you a Direct Message with a link and a code for the free download.
|
|
Published:
3/28/2012
Thank you for the feedback Wendy. I am a curmudgeon sometimes. I say what is often in people's shadows. I have worked with, and been a part of some amazing organizations. The vast majority of people are trying to do their best for the client, however, there are often times when agencies continue to run into truly frustrating and clueless clients.
There are also countless arrogant agencies who understand nothing about how their clients actual organizations function. Some of them are considered the most well respected, and most creative agencies on the planet. However, they also tend to attract certain personality types.
For those who seek to be knowledgable about their business and marketing on the client end they will read this and laugh. For those who are insecure they will be paranoid (but they already were.) For agencies or clients that treat each other with respect they will be a bit offended and sad (as you were.) And for those agency personnel who have had these thoughts but are not comfortable with themselves they will get outraged and insolent because they are ashamed they have those thoughts (I have had those responses.)
In the end it is about a relationship. If you have a great one then keep it. If you do not, seek to make that relationship great.
|
|
Published:
12/15/2011
Chip,
Sometimes, without malicious intent, employees try to fill in a timesheet three weeks late and reconstruct what they have done. It is highly improbable they they are accurate in those circumstances, and the research I have done while auditing shows that about 10%-35% inaccuracies occur.
I am sorry that you feel that I cast dispersions on an entire industry and that the title offended you; however your subsequent responses were not directed at the issues I raised in the article, nor did you refute any of them. You instead engaged in a personal attack as to my character, which I find repugnant. That instead of arguing the merits of your defense you chose to personally attack. I would suggest looking at the reasons for that style of response. It is not very flattering.
My intent is to shed light onto an issue, however unpopular it is. To possibly provoke people into action to change it. And I offered suggestions as to how they could change it for the better. Change it in a way that I have seen agencies thank clients for.
Maybe you will realize over time when you have been in the agency business a much longer time, that taking a look at some of the practices we may be unconscious of, or have not put attention on, helps our entire industry survive, move forward and thrive.
|
|
Published:
12/15/2011
Chip,
It seems as if you are still frustrated. It would be interesting if I was a client to be on meetings with you. Clients do need people like you who are passionate about their work.
It is possible that there is some underlying basis for your anger. I would just ask you to be in inquiry with it.
It also sounds like you work at an agency, from your opinion, where not a single employee has ever filled out a time sheet I accurately. Congratulations.
Beyond my sources I have had over 30 people contact me directly thanking me. You seem to continue to miss the main point of the article is that it's the structure of the business not the intention of the agencies. I.e. the ways clients are being ripped off is endemic to the structure of the way they bill.
Some agencies have different structures. Most tend to go with an hourly rate.
I neither apologize for the article nor what was written, nor it's title. That it is my assertion, that due to agencies structures in the way they bill, that the majority are inaccurate in their time reporting that supposedly justifies their costs. That is NOT to say that the value of that agency is not worth that work, it is to indicate that "hours" are a poor proxy for value and effectiveness.
It seems that you are holding to some dogmatic belief that, from what I have seen, is not supported by the evidence. I would hope that, as has been indicated to me by several people, that they are going to take a look at their structure and they way they bill to ensure it is more integrous.
|
|
Published:
12/15/2011
Thanks for your response. I hear that the article upset you in many ways and you are angry. Is that accurate?
My article was neither misleading, nor deceitful. It was, at its core shedding light on some of the issues we need to fix as an industry.
I do not admit, nor did I state, writing the article without a basis or foundation. That would not be principled journalism. I have 11 independent sources currently working in agencies with a combined tenure of 108 years in the industry.
I do admit that my style is not having firmly held beliefs in my writing. That in no way indicates it not being factually accurate.
Yes, I could have stated "sometimes some agencies do this" however, my experience, and those of my sources indicate that it is rampant. I also rarely choose the titles of my articles. What you are holding to is some firmly held belief that most agencies have 100% accurate time reporting. I find that suspect as all of my sources who represent the major agency holding companies, as well as several mid and smaller agencies, have indicated the problem of time reporting is wildly inaccurate to the tune of between 15-35% and a systemic blight on our industry which paints us as hourly employees. That is what I listed in the article as a problem issue. Most I have spoken to, and all of my sources, would like to see a system where we are employed for value, not time.
Something is eating at you, something that was triggered, and in those cases I suggest looking inward not outward as to what is at the core of it. You ask who I am?
As to who I am, I have audited several agencies reporting practices of the years. I have a slew of creative awards from OneShow pencils, and Addy's to Cannes Lions and everything in-between. I have also worked client-side running marketing globally for companies with $80 Million budgets, and have purchased over a billion dollars of media in my 20 year career.
It seems that you got bent out of shape but the article title. I am going to assume you are a creative director, if only for the vehemence which you hold your belief system, and your creative prose. As such, I know you realize the purpose of a title. To get someone to read the copy.
I do not say that to be insulting, but as a way that you can have the opportunity to re-read it with open eyes. I was not indicating through the article "intention" of deceit but however a system problem.
Maybe you can use it as a way to look at some of the processes at your agency and ask "Do we do this?" "How can we structure the way we bill clients for value?" Maybe everything at your agency runs perfectly, maybe not. But the key is to always be willing to look inward to check our moral compass and make sure that the ways we are conducting our business accurately value what we offer.
|
|
Published:
12/14/2011
Thanks for the comment Chip. Usually the issues that trigger someone so vehemently have some truth for them, especially when they start to sling personal insults. It is a standard psychological defense mechanism. However, it was exactly the reaction I am seeking. For only when we are confronted with the reality of what we do not want to face do we have an opportunity to change it.
Obviously the article affected you in some way. I suggest you read the two articles I wrote on "5 Reasons to Hate Google"
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/28827.asp
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/28839.asp
Of particular relevance is the conclusion at the end....
"Before you go agreeing with me on any of my points, let me explain why I write the way I do. You might have read my columns before but not understood my apparent outrage. So I'll let you in on a little secret: It's a trick. My writing has little to do with firmly held convictions or beliefs, but much to do about writing in a way that arrests, causes momentary outrage or exhilaration, and thus stirs debate. By planting a flag on one side, I give readers something to push against. I take positional stances on issues for that reason. So I can be your fodder, or proxy, for ideas. So you can rebel or support its ideation. For only in that dynamic tension do we all move forward as an industry."
Although I did use that persnickety word "ideation" again.
My point in the article that seems lost on you is that the model is broken. To Otmara's point in the comment below yours we should be charging based on value of the work, not on the hours, which is what most agencies do. I am sure that your agency provides exceptional value to your clients, but if you are justifying it based on hours it does your agency a disservice.
If an agency charges a fee for a project, rather than justifying it through hours, or the agency charges a retainer that is not based on hours but on a set of services then it behooves the agency, and it's personnel to work efficiently, and hence be more profitable.
If an agency however bills and structures their agency based on billable hours then it is the most inefficient employees who inadvertently benefit the agency, and thus work degrades over time. Hence the difficulty in this model retaining clients.
Most clients look at agency services as, well, a commodity. When an agency charges a flat-rate per hour to that client what it does is say "All of our employees are interchangeable. They are just cogs we plug into your account." Hence my advice in the article that you pick your team.
We need to start to get into the business of charging for the value of the work, and take a financial stake in it, rather than pricing ourselves as a commodity.
|
|
Published:
10/21/2011
@Mathias Now that is creative usage, and what agencies should be thinking of when they want to incorporate technology. Maybe I could do a follow up article or eBook on all of the creative usage from people that have read the article and contacted me to serve as a guide for agencies to help spur ideation.
Hmmm....
|
|
Published:
10/20/2011
@robwilson
You are correct sir. When I referred to Flash implementation in Web Browsers I was specifically referring to Desktops, and Laptops. However, I stand by my statement. The ease with which Flash is implemented still holds. Apple decided, and I must add CORRECTLY decided, to not have Flash on iPhones & iPads. Therefore it was their choice to include based on their assessment of the value that Flash brought to those platforms. So I could really add another Sean's Law in there.
Sean X Law 4: The ubiquity of a technology implementation across platforms of distribution (Desktop, Laptop, Tablet, Mobile) is related to the processing requirements and bugginess of the software being distributed.
Sean X Law 4a: Note that Law 4 also related to how much you pissed off and ignore a particular operating system before they expand into different platforms because it's market share wasn't relevant enough to fix the software.
;)
|
|
Published:
10/20/2011
You didn't scan the code did you Adam? tsk tsk ;)
|
|
Published:
10/17/2011
@james Glad you got the joke of me directing the first QRCode to a non-mobile page of my bio while saying their usage is stupid. A lot of people didn't get it, which kind of illustrated my point to begin with. ;)
I figured it was best to use me for the butt of the joke :)
|
|
Published:
10/14/2011
Steve, thanks for the comment but the analogy doesn't hold water for me. The Web I see as a medium, and the QR Code as a marketing tactic. The QR Code is failing for the reason I mentioned, a lack of creativity in their implementation. When all a QR Code does in most implementations is direct people to thd homepage of the website that is printed next to it, it is moronic.
It would be the same as a Print ad with a web address that just duplicated exactly what the print ad said.
So why do that if we can type faster on our phones, and why do it all that way? Just because I made a comparison of level of penetration of knowledge in the medium was to partially illustrate that the audience who does know what they are, and are likely to use them, would be insulted by such a banal usage.
|
|
Published:
10/14/2011
I just had Ilya Spekhov from www.qriket.com contact me. Check out their site. They're based out of Toronto and designed a "real-world mobile game" around QR codes
|
|
Published:
12/15/2010
No, I propose that Zagat be smart enough to realize that if you do not build the user base first, that you will lose out as someone crowd sources more efficiently (as did Yelp.)
And that you continue to offer the maroon book while doing it. People, and companies will still pay for the maroon book because it always makes a great gift, and sometimes you want to quickly just take a quick look in the book rather than start up a computer.
Zagat's believed too strongly that they had to lock down the internet. I believe they thought it would too cannibalize their book sales. It's a very short sighted view. If Zagat had taken to earning less over that period of time, and had opened up their content, they would have had the user base that those lone banners would have brought in significantly more income than the few users they did attract online.
AND Zagats could have stolen away the concept from YP.com and other yellow pages type sites where you can buy advertising when you know someone is local, due to contextual relevancy, which they could have even outsourced the sales portion for.
That combination makes Zagats a significant multiple over when the rev they would be getting from their estimated online user base (I ran the numbers.)
The Zagat's audience is also a premium foodie audience and the CPM's they could have demanded IF they were smart enough to go for the user base first would attract some very high end marketsers.
So, you have the ability to know where someone is looking to go to eat. [geo location]
The type of food they would be looking at [context on multiple levels]
An ability to book restaurants and tie into Open Table for a lot of reservations [significant rev share]
A premium foodie user base [high income attracting local high end merchants which could be syndicated]
What they have now, from what they could have been with a little more vision, and a little less fear of holding the golden goose [maroon book] too tight has cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.
|
|
Published:
4/27/2010
You make some valid point below in the comments, but I still believe, based on historical evidence, in my statements.
1. Consumers will not tolerate ads.
I disagree here strongly. Consumers "say" they do not want ads. What they tolerate is mind boggling in a single day in ad exposures. If an application is loaded with too many bad ads, then the consumer experience will be affected negatively, hence the application will get a bad rating, not appear in the top applications and slowly fade back. This format actually helps create the balance. Of course consumers will tolerate the advertising. I remember in 1995 when I saw the first banner ad on Wired, and everyone freaked out. It's all about a value exchange, and if the app is free consumers have little to bitch about... even though they will.
2. Budgets
At a billion ad opps a day it is not a format that will be ignored. Also, and here is the key point, not all advertising is equivocal. I would much rather do an iAd at the expense of almost ALL online banner advertising on the web. I believe it will be more impactful and immersive, and you have to understand one fundamental concept with what we do. "An impression is not an impression if it doesn't impress anyone." And we have long be mired in online banner advertising, which is heavily skewed toward the over 70% of clicks represented by only 12% of the population. It's just not doing the job. I'd take an iAd over an online banner ad any day of the week for impacting consumers. Q, E, V, CI (Quality, Efficiency, Volume, and Consideration Impact) are the only main measures we should be concerned with in online advertising. It is all about balancing them together. Yes, iAds do not have the V yet, but almost everything else they will be more impactful on.
3. As for Open or Closed, I believe in Open, however, in some cases the chaos generated by it does not help but hurt the medium as a certain point. The freedom of the web browser case in point. The chaos in the Andriod marketplace on different versions, dimensions makes development more difficult, as does the ability for developers to be compensated. This is the fundamental difference, the developers will reap 60% of ad revenues for iAds. Another question below is on who will develop iAds? Well, the 100,000 iPhone developers, and even more that know HTML5, and you're wondering who will be creating these ads? I think when we all get out of the myopic view that WE have a stranglehold on digital content for clients it ill be a rude awakening. Case in point Conde Naste who just opened their internal team to do external advertising, and Kenneth Cole is already using them for a project. My point is that unless online ad agencies jump on this format quick we will soon find ourselves the traditional agencies in this equation.
|
|
Published:
9/12/2008
I am not debating that banners are now a standard. I was around when there were not even standardized sizes for banners... that truly sucked. The IAB at least was able to get that.
It's just a crappy standard. It was created before we understood the medium by people, well, like me unfortunately. WIRED was the first site I saw one on. I remember when in '96 we were still saying how great the internet was... no advertising... the dissemination of content, ideas, thoughts, the democratization of information. And I was IN advertising. We were going to change the world.
We created that standard because a lot of us were working in traditional. It made sense, an online billboard. We didn't understand at that time the difference between passive consumption while driving, and active information seeking. How could we, it was totally radical from anything we knew. A ever growing massive Hypercard stack.
Like our own Democracy, the promise of the Internet has, over the last 13 years, changed. The illusion of freedom under a controlled system of power. I am continually impressed with Craig's List. A site that could made millions, if not billions if it was controlled by someone else. But for them, enough money it seems, is enough. They have replaced almost an entire model of classified advertising in newspapers with something, that is, essentially, free. Is that good? I do not really know, but it seeks to change the model. Evolve.
It's that after the implosion we stopped creating true innovation in advertising online. Standards actually preclude that in a way. They stifle innovation by locking us all into systems. It is a symbiotic relationship. We need those standards to grow fast, we need them to create a harmony of navigation. Without them we are chaos. But in the chaos emerges radical ideas.
We are now a real industry. With real jobs. Real titles. Real companies. Luckily many of us still get away from having to wear "real" business attire ;)
The societal impacts of what we do are profound. Let's seek to do them with a little more aesthetic.
Can we create an ad format that benefits the consumer and does not just seek to pound them into the pavement with mass attack? I do not know, but we should at least still step back once and awhile and try.
ranty rant signing off...
|
|
Published:
9/11/2008
Well, lo and behold, there actually is a company that allows almost anyone to get into banner advertising, AdReady, which has a banner creation tool.
Interesting, although, it leaves a little too much decision up to the client as to colors and look. But that is, unfortunately, what the market probably demands.
Ah, there are designers for a reason.
http://www.adready.com/
|
|
Published:
9/11/2008
Thank you Rick, for you and Jeanne, and all the support that the iMedia family has shown me over the years. I am truly blessed to feel a part of it's extended family.
|
|
Published:
9/8/2008
Great article Marissa. We'd have a great debate on many of the issues, but I love your insights. :) Keep writing.
|
|
Published:
8/19/2008
Zero Cool... I should also be posting with one of my old handles, but alas my hacking and phreaking days are long gone. ;)
It's not far fetched to think of advertising as a relationship. Hell, sometimes it's even a healthy relationship. But what drives good relationships is the feelings that well up in them, in their bodies, when they think of the other person or in this case, your brand.
Dove's Real Beauty campaign is a phenomenal departure from the shallow consumerism we all face, but although it is not "objectifying" women as I stated, you are correct in that, it is USING them to sell the product.
It is a brilliant campaign, one of the best in year's, which allows women to connect with the Dove brand, and it is true to the brand. Ax Body Spray could not take such a positioning, but, in the end, it is about selling a product.
I wish more companies looked at their relationships with their consumers as long term investments. Most just parry to the latest trend or meme.
|
|
Published:
7/29/2008
love it Luigi! :) actually there were two research papers on the emotional impact of sensory immersive work that demonstrated higher recall. Now, they both cited that the impact was aided by those commercials already tapping into phrases used commonly that they leveraged. The Verizon "Can you here me now?" campaign being one of them. That meme helped trigger Verizon everytime people who had been highly exposed experienced saying that when talking on a cell phone. It also became a negative detractor however for those already on the Verizon network.
As to your primitive brain mammel statement that's exactly what I mean. The Internet is a conscious choice navigation method that engages the brain more. More consciously cortex processing and this less suseptible to the impacts of the limbic. There have been numerous studies on brain wave patterns while watching tv sometimes becomning delta waves. The brain experiences less conciously cortex.
All of this is irrelevant. It's all going digital. I'm not a Luddite. My overall point is that we have yet to develop online a standardized format that has the emotional impact of the :30 second spot.and we've kind of hit a holding pattern with banners, SEM. They are really the only universal standards we have. Home page takeovers and more impactful interruptive forms of adverting online are often site specific.
The mediums are just not interchangeable. They are currently both needed to impact the consumer.
My closing point was that until we develop something with the same emotional impact it's easier for large brands to leverage their offline assets in their brand attic to acheive the breakthough and resonance they're looking for.
Unlike Joseph Jaffe (sorry joe ;) I don't believe the :30 spot is dead.... Yet ;) it will be, but it will drift on life support for a long time after it's death is announced.
Great comments and thanks for raising the level if discourse. Now, about the personal attacks... ;)
|
|
Published:
6/25/2008
@Everyone. LOVE all the comments :) It's exactly why I write. And no, not all weather junkies are losers in their parents basements, but it does get your blood boiling to comment if you're not, right? ;) And that is the purpose of putting a stake in the ground and having an opinion. It stirs debate. And it is through debate that we learn, and that learning which moves our whole industry forward. If everyone agreed with me, that's nice and strokes the ego a little, but I do not learn anything that way now do I... and neither do you :) Keep the comments flowing...
and yes... I check online weather way too often, but sometimes wish I could live in my parents basement to stop paying this rent in SF. Although the social life would definitely suffer... nope, rent is OK ;)
|
|
Published:
6/17/2008
Again, completely agree with your statement. It comes to the docotomy of whaqt is good for the end user, smaller companies, and what the power brokers want. Often, quite often, they are at opposing ends.
We would NOT want to decrease competition at all. No one is more concerned with the consolidation our industry is moving towards when it comes to internet properties, innovation, and funding. This idea would have catastrophic effects for ad networks over time. But that is because the ads themselves would be more relevant to the end user. And that is good.
What is really bad is the effect it could have on pushing the little guys out of the business. The smaller advertiser without the budget for display. Then, by definition, the ads would not be as relevant to the end user due to the non-democratization of the advertiser base.
|
|
Published:
6/17/2008
I completely agree with you. I was not commenting that it was good for the end user at all. Only advertisers. In fact I would love it if more companies would seek to run revenue neutral operations.
The end-user is not at Google for Ads, they are there to find what they are looking for. The difference in what search engines do however is profound when it comes to advertising. If you are on a normal site the ad is usually a distraction; often having nothing to do at ll with the content of the site, or the relevancy of the ad.
With ad networks it is even more of a disconnect. By definition the text ads on search engines are relevant to the search. Often you will find that the paid listings are as relevant as the organic ones. Wouldn't it be great if display advertising had the same type of relevancy to the end user?
As to most display ads sucking ass. Yup. That was my statement that if they do do display that some of the democratization of their advertising would be lost as display ads require a higher level of work and are byond most smaller advertisers without the budgets for such endeavors.
|
|
Published:
5/22/2008
Awww.... someone got their feelings hurt. Boo-hoo. lol. People sometimes have no sense of humor ;) To Meredith's point, proper targeting is key, but that can be layered on top of these techniques. Maybe the title should not have been "Why Banners Fail" but say "One of the reasons that banners fail is that people do not understand how evolutionary biology techniques capitalizing on predator evolved peripheral focus can be used to increase the opportunity of the view and elevate your response." Kinda less catchy though, don't you think? I could write a book, and may, on all the challenges of banners. This was just supposed to enlighten on one aspect, I will be covering many others.
Why does targeting exist? It exists as a way to focus on most likely responders. If that focus overcomes the increase in cost, you do it, otherwise no. But that is really for another article.
This one was really to deal with the creative failing of not understanding the differences in consumption of the mediums, and the creative.
The simple techniques listed can increase response, whether measure as click, of post view by over 100%. Hey, if you want to ignore a purely incremental response for your clients with no change to your media etc... go ahead.
Evolutionary biology and anthropology are some of the most powerful tools we have as marketers. Many agencies base their programs on the dynamics of intent of the consumer. Media planners in traditional tap all resources to understand meme creation. And those agencies are the ones who are getting their messages in the social meme.
I don't know if that's "fluffy bullshit," but it's not about being "clever." It's about understanding that the purpose of advertising is not to win an award, but to illicit a response to get into the social conscious, to do what? sell products.
Obviously I upset a couple traditionally minded thinking creatives ;) Calm down boys. Understand that there are almost an infinite arsenal of tools at your disposal. Get your creatives to understand some of the things that other agencies do about the dynamics of intent and you'll all improve performance. Or remain ignorant. Your funeral :)
Now go forth and conquer.
|
|
Published:
8/7/2007
Thank you for this. Often those who do not comprehend the implications of launching microsites do not understand the underbelly that they leave behind. They are expensive, use up agency resources, become orphans almost overnight, and provide traditional agencies with fodder for winning more business. I am on a crusade, a jihad, a walkabout, to corral microsites into a cohesive strategy. "One microsite to rule them all" so to speak. The solution? A blog. Specifically a marketing blog for your company. The temporal nature of posts lends itself readily to this. Have a widget? Post it on the blog with instant download. Have a new product you want to introduce, talk about? Post it on the blog with feature shots. Have a new commercial? Post it on the blog. Why do traditional agencies have to couch everything in "immersively aesthetic" environments? It's a holdover from glossy sales literature, and CD-ROM multimedia environments. Consumers do not care. They want to get in, get what they want, get out. This is the internet, let's act like it.
|
