The Internetz: Kicking Newspaper's Azz Since 2008



The data is great news for internetz lovers everywhere--but the bottom line is, there is inherently nothing great about this, and it is hardly news. A few points:

  • I forget who it was that said it at a conference a few years back (earn A Media Circus points by providing this answer ) but, The New York Times does not think of itself as a Newspaper company; they are a media company

    • While I realize that NYT.com has not been able to make up for the lost newspaper revenue, we are still in a transition period.

    • How much do you think the New York Times positioning of, platform agnosticism has to do with this change?

      • (I am not speculating, I am really asking people's opinions)







  1. What do these numbers really tell us?

    1. Newspaper is dying

    2. The role of Newspaper is shifting

    3. People are becoming more eco-aware

    4. There is room for various types of media in our weekly consumption




I would say 2,3 and 4 are valid.

Newspaper will not go anywhere in my lifetime--I would bet the farm on that!

While this news is interesting, the real story is;

  • people are changing, and so are their media habits

  • we have more options than ever; let's celebrate

  • for some, it is still a cozy feeling to curl up on the couch with the Op-Ed section of the New York Times (print version)

  • Media is Media is Media

    • that last point may be meaningless, but hey--it is New Years!




Everyone: Have a great New Years Eve! There are some serious changes coming to A Media Circus in q1 2009 so--stay tuned!
Related articles by Zemanta


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Santa Focuses On Bran Muffins and Soy Milk


PalmPilot, 1998
Image via Wikipedia


The digital age has been difficult for many marketers. All too often, marketers put the technological cart before the strategic horse. Facebook (and other social networks) is a breeding ground for campaigns that focus on the features of the platform, without telling a story.This is certainly not the fault of Facebook, rather it is the fault of marketers, who have not taken the time to internalize the meaning of community and conversation. It is the fault of those that thing technology, in and of itself, is the answer.

We must not forget that, in order to compel consumers, we must offer value--and that value needs to be delivered in the form of a story; advertising 101.

A few weeks ago Palm launched a campaign for it's Centro line call; Claüs. The campaign is unique for a number of reasons:

  • While the campaign has applications, they are not the centerpiece. Palm is not relying on the ever popular "viral nature of the social graph"

    • This campaign appears to be a viral success, as there are over 60k fans, and nearly a thousand wall posts--but it is apparent that the creators of this campaign new that it takes more than a one trick pony to ensure virality

      • Some of the content is good, come of the content is not as good, but overall, this is a fun campaign



    • The two applications that are offered, are not front and center



  • There is very little branding on the page (there is some, but it is not overwhelming)


  • Through various multimedia aspects, the brand tells a story in a nonlinear fashion

    • this gives people a reason to poke around the page and look for more pieces of the puzzle



  • Free downloadable music (I strongly recommend, Samba Dreidel)


Overall this is a fun and refreshing campaign. At a time when many marketers are already dismissing Facebook as a viable option, it is nice to see a truly creative effort that shows us, it is not the platform per se, it is how you use it!

Overall Scores:

Creativity: B+

Execution: A

Conversational Strategy: B

General Strategy: A-
Claus
View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: social media)


Related articles by Zemanta




Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Branding: Without Your Brand


The King of Pepsi
Image via Wikipedia


All successful brands tell a story. Apple tells us a story about people who "think different." Pepsi tells us the tale of a new generation and Disney tells a story about imagination and childhood. These are classic American brand stories -- cultivated through traditional channels and originated (to a large degree) by the brands themselves.

This is the way the world used to work. There is, however, a new world order when it comes to brand storytelling.

The notion that brand managers ever had total control over how their brands were perceived is a farce. Still, there was a time when brand managers had a greater degree of control. The rise of social computing and other emerging channels has led to the origination of brand lore in the most unlikely places. "Dell Hell" was not a story cooked up in the offices of Dell -- it originated on a blog. On the flip side, tales of remarkable yet atypical customer service performed by Zappos employees would have been less effective if spread solely by the mouths of Zappos execs. These exceptional yarns were spun (again, to a large degree) by consumers and then amplified by mainstream media (with a little help from Zappos PR, of course).

The bottom line is that brands have less control than ever before -- but that does not make them powerless. Creative strategies can get brands in front of audiences that were previously unreachable, and in a way that could endear consumers to a brand like never before. Brands do not always have to be front and center for an initiative to have an impact. In fact, sometimes it is best if a brand is not front and center. This allows consumers to tell stories to other consumers. And at a time when consumer belief in advertising is at an all-time low, C to C marketing is essential.

Read On at iMediaconnection
Related articles by Zemanta


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Seven Strategies for Surviving the Downturn

Much like my blogging (as of late), the economy is growing increasingly anemic--and the conversations online are growing. It is hard to avoid at this point--therefore I have stayed away from the topic.

I recently went to an amazing event thrown by the Sigma Group--where I led a table discussion on social media and the topic of recession was unavoidable. The Keynote of this event was given by the great Geoff Ramsey. I was live tweeting while he was presenting and many of you asked for the presentation.

Thanks to Jenn Kim--here it is!
Fuel for Thought: Seven Strategies to Surviving the Downturn
View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: fuel for thought geoff ramsey)



Related articles by Zemanta


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

What Brand Managers Can Learn From High School Students


Scion
Image via Wikipedia


No one knows everything (I am getting pretty close though :) ) and everyone has something to teach.

  • If you are a brand manager and think you know everything about your brand, think again

  • If you are a brand manager and think you know everything about your consumer base, you are in even worse shape


Brands are living entities; changing shape and composition in the minds of consumers all the time. These changes are taking place all the time, and are different in every consumer. That said, knowledge communities tend to share brand perceptions, and it is easier to target one consumercommunity at a time.

The questions is, how do you garner information in order to best message a consumer segment.You can:

  1. Create what you think consumers want to hear

  2. Hold scientifically engineered focus groups

  3. Ask consumers to show you how they would like to be messaged


Number three has been very popular over the past few years. User Generated Content has surfaced and hit the mainstream--but letting consumers do the job of the marketer is not necessarily the answer. I have said this many times before; the answer lies in collaboration and co-creation.

Recently, Scion began a campaign that takes advantage of point three. According to Marketing Daily, Scion challenged high school students to create marketing campaigns on their behalf--but here is the kicker; Scion does not plan to use these campaigns. This is not a strict UGC effort where consumer work will be paraded around as advertising. This effort is an exercise in collaboration and co-creation, done in a very strategic manner.

Next time you find yourself in a planning cycle and trying to find the voice of the consumer, I suggest going right to the source.
Related articles by Zemanta


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

We, The Value Seekers!

A couple of month's ago, bald brother (and fellow crayonista), Greg Verdino and I took the stage at the iMedia Financial Summit in NYC. Our pitch (for the uninformed; our pitch was part of an agency shoot out, in which two agencies pitched for a mock piece of business. The case study at hand was, at its core an exercise in crisis communications management; centered around the acquisition of a local bank, by a much larger bank ) was, on the surface, something along the lines of a "customer bill of rights". For those that were really paying attention, our pitch was more than just gimmicky, vacuous marketing speak. Our pitch was about more than just marketing; it was a pitch for organizational change.

Sure, we could have pitched a catchy tag line with all the bells and whistles of a blown out, above the line ad campaign--but our core strategy had a lot more than taglines, widgets, gadgets, banners, buttons, apps and flash microsites (not that we would ever pitch a flash microsite--yes, I have a problem with them...always!). Our core strategy was to listen to the needs of consumers--in their own words, and then amplify and empower these consumers in order to allow them to collaborate with the brand. It is becoming increasing obvious that when brands and consumers co-create, on a level playing field, great things can happen!

Oddly enough, ING just launched a new campaign entitled, "We, The Savers". It has all the trappings of a modern social media/interactive marketing campaign, however for the life of me, I cannot understand how this campaign passed a few basic tests before it went live:

  • WIIFM (what's in it for me)

    • The campaign wants you to sign a declaration of things that YOU will do--not ING. Maybe I am missing something here, but if this is a social campaign, where is the dialogue. If I go ahead and sign this thing, how does ING intend to continue the conversation.

    • In essence what ING is saying is, sign this thing and expand our marketing effort--no thank you! I can be fiscally responsible on my own.

    • One of the points in the declaration is about being heard by our government--ING, if I sign this, will you help my voice become amplified? Are you prepared to send a lobbyist to congress on behalf of this document?





  • Does This Site Even Exist?

    • In a world where you are how yo are found, a flash microsite that is invisible to search engines is as good as non-existent. Sure, a ton of money will be poured into TV and out of home, but when was the last time you actually took note of a marketing URL, and then proceeded to go to it?

      • Most consumers don't want to be blatantly marketed to, without any value being offered. URL call out's from traditional media work, but I would love to see what the direct traffic is to this site (e.g. how many people get there from traditional media)

      • This is not an interactive campaign in my eyes, it is a traditional one






The bottom line is, we are at a time when we need valuable, utility based marketing in order to make the most of our marketing dollars. When the belt buckle gets tight, the powers that be will look for ROI and true proof points that marketing dollars are being spent intelligently--and I just do not see it here.
We The Savers


Related articles by Zemanta


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Characters, Detail and Metaphor (dramatic tension)



Those crazy folks over at Phillips are at it again.

Remember the "Shave Everywhere" campaign?

Of course you do, it was an amazing initiative (and very relevant :) ) Well, Phillips is milking that concept for everything it is worth with a new extension of the campaign. Phillips is asking people to submit there own tales of pubic terror, and in my opinion, they are doing a pretty good job.

  • Everyone is not funny

    • Rather than mistaking themselves for content creators, or relying solely on their agency, Phillips has teamed up with comedy site Funny or Die (they are pretty damn funny).

    • We have moved from an era of pure User generated content to one of co-creation and collaboration

    • More and more brands are finding strategic partners to work with, along with consumers, to create relevant content.  While some consumers are creative, there is a reason that certain people get paid for their creativity (at least most of the time). Working together is the ideal!



  • Same campaign, entirely new extensions

    • We all loved the "Got Milk" campaign (I mean, I guess we did) but it was fairly one dimensional.

      • This campaign has the same underlying premise, but the many iterations of it look entirely different.






There is one minor thing that really pisses my off about the implementation of this campaign. Why does this microsite have to be built in a way that does not take web standards into consideration! There is a promotional video for this contest, and I really wanted to embed it on my site. The problem however is that this site is built in a heavy flash site. No data portability.

Ratings for this initiatve:

A for creative

B for execution

D for web strategy
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Can Facebook Lead The Social Web?

Let's face it, the entire web is becoming social. By the end of 2009, all sites will have some social component to them--and why not?

  • Where there is content, there can be conversation

  • When there is conversation, there is engagement

    • Most great live presenters ask questions of their audience. They generally don't do so because they want to know the answer, they do so to keep the audience on their toes



  • When there is engagement, there is the potential for increased ad revenue (this is not always the case, but creative sales planners can, more easily, find ways to monetize content when users are engaged)


The questions then becomes, who will lead the charge in making the entire web truly social-

  1. Perhaps it will be a current social network that makes it capabilities extensible and lends its audience/tools to content providers

  2. Perhaps it will be new/open standards that drive the social web

  3. The last, least desirable option would be for every content provider to provide their own, proprietary social tool


Over the next few weeks Facebook Connect will be expanding to various content sites, making them more social. In the short term I think that this will be great. I think that new life with be injected into the partner sites. In the long term I worry about the fact that Facebook does not adhere to web standards, their platform is not truly open, and all of my data lives on the Facebook servers, with no way to get it out. This could be an issue.

On the other hand, Google is setting up a set of open standards that takes on these concerns. It will be interesting to see what happens first; will Open Social win the battle, or will Facebook open up more?

I can't wait to find out! What do you think will happen first?
Related articles by Zemanta


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

...it is how you use it!

Putting Twitter To Good Use

You need to learn how to use Twitter because all of the young people are using it, right? Um, no way!

I don't have the usage stats (kudos to anyone who can get them for me) but I don't know anyone under twenty who uses Twitter (and yes, I do know people under twenty). In fact, most people I know who use Twitter are older than twenty-five. Still, if you are a marketer learning to use Twitter in order to learn how the next generation will communicate, you are doing the right thing.

When I opened up Twittelator today, I noticed that there was a new menu item; movies. I clicked on it, and had one of those, "ah ha" moments. The underlying value of this function was not the technology (Twitter), it was how the technology was being used to parse information, and get it to me in a more relevant manner. This is, in my opinion where this space is moving. It is not about mass/micro chatter. It is about finding relevant communities of micro chatter that can give you the info you want/need--when and where you want it.

Every once in a while I have a moment of zen, where a technology reveals an underlying something that is a signifier of fundamental, sociological changes.These moments of zen only come when I let my mind wander--you don't always have to focus very hard to get your mind to interesting places.

Language is technology, and how we use language and information accelerates our culture.
Related articles by Zemanta


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

7 Ways to Get Me to NOT Join Your Social Network

There are a lot of social networks out there--we all know this. As someone in the industry, I do my best to join as many social nets as possible. I even join the branded social networks, as I am working with clients on a number of initiatives and I am always looking for best pratices and new ideas.

Recently, Mercedes launched their own social network; Generation Benz. The premise behind it is great--they really hit on all the right points:

  • collaboration

  • co-creation

  • user focused R&D

  • consumers insights

  • etc.


When I went actually join the network I had one of those, what the f*ck moments!

In order to join the network, which presumably is, in part, beneficial to Mercedes, I had to go through a seven step process. I realize that this is an aspirational brand, but don't make me work to be marketed to--jeez!

I had to capture this process and share with all of you (I recommend viewing this in full screen so you can read the text).
7 Ways to Get Me To Not Join Your Community
View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: social+networking mercedes)


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Has Blogging Reached Critical Mass?

Anyone Would Feel Small Amongst These Trees

We have all felt small from time to time. Sometimes feeling small is a challenge that many of us need to achieve big things. Still, no one has, or ever will, achieve greatness by standing still and simply looking around at the scenery. Sure, taking some time to stop and look at the scenery is essential, but if you stand and observe for too long--you too, will become part of the scenery.

This is the attitude I have always taken when it comes to social media and blogging. So far it has worked out pretty well.

If you are not currently a blogger and look at Technorati's, "State of The Blogosphere" , there is no question you will be intimidated. I imagine that the massive number of blogs today is daunting for anyone who is just getting started, but it shouldn't be, and here is why:

  • Blogging is a form of self discovery

    • I have learned more from writing my blog (whether or not anyone is reading) than from reading any other blog



  • Your blog does not have to have thousands of readers to be effective

    • We are living at the beginning of the dawn of niche media.

      • It is more satisfying knowing you have touched one person, than knowing you have been read by a thousand





  • There are no right answers, only thoughtful questions

    • If you feel you are not an authority, and have no business voicing your opinion, you are wrong.




Blogging has not reached critical mass. In fact, it is my opinion that that would be impossible--as there is always room for independent voices.
Related articles by Zemanta


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Caution Before Marketing



The above is the title I would have given my latest article over at iMedia--alas, they know best what brings in the traffic, and I love them for it :)

I bring up a number of topics that I plan on expanding upon on this blog. All of the marketing mistakes that I spell out are part of larger issues that I think about on an ongoing basis. I would love to hear which topics are most pressing for readers of this blog. I would be happy to do a deeper dive into any of these topics:

Related articles by Zemanta


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Virtual Worlds: Is The US Simply Not Ready?



Image representing Cyworld as depicted in Crun... Image via CrunchBase


Fellow crayonista and bald marketing brother, Greg Verdino and I spent a lot of time looking at virtual worlds over the past few years. Joe Jaffe claims that the two of us got our jobs at crayon due to our blogs, and it is safe to say that, had it not been for virtual worlds, Verdino and I may not have meet when we did (I am sure Greg is cursing the existence of virtual worlds and blogs at this point). :)

Much of my time spent speaking about virtual worlds as a viable marketing solution was defensive. Even now, when on panels or having conversations with agency folks, there is the occasional jab at Second Life; a jab that I feel the need to defend. While I am not as bullish on Second Life as I once was, I am still as insistent as ever about the future of virtual worlds, and their application as influential marketing vehicles.

A recent post over at Mashable spoke about how the incredibly popular, Cyworld would be shutting its doors in the US.  I had a great deal of hope for Cyworld, but according to an article on Web 2.0 Asia, Cyworld had some major flaws--flaws that could would just not fly in the US market:
Cyworld didn't seem to have sharp strategies as to how to position their service (Was it Myspace or Habbo hotel?); They didn't localize the service very well; SK Telecom, the parent company, didn't "get it" yet still tried to put a grip on the business.

Other virtual worlds are still going strong and growing in the US (Habbo Hotel, Club Penguin, Gaia Online, WeeWorld and others) but none has taken off to the same degree that Cyworld has in South Korea.

Perhaps the US is not just not ready. What do you think?
Related articles by Zemanta


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

"Blogging Is Dead"...



Illustration of a scribe writing Image via Wikipedia


...or so say those individuals who just don't get it!

Everyone once in a while I am reminded of the power of blogging--and why I began blogging in the first place. Those that know me, know that I have a big mouth and am not afraid to voice my opinion (this fact is sometimes good and sometimes not so good). I do my best to speak in my true voice on my blog. This way, when people engage me, they know what they are getting themselves into.

Fellow crayonista, Joe Jaffe, recently wrote an article for Adweek talking about the power of blogging. He mentioned Greg Verdino and me; two people that had landed jobs do to our blogs (for those of you that do not know, we both work for Joe at crayon).

I have always thought of my blog as my business card and my resume (a point Joe makes in his article). If you want to know my thoughts on a given subject related to marketing, chances are, I have written about it in the last three years.

I certainly don't think that the sheer act of writing a blog makes you recession proof, but there is no better way to get your voice heard at a time when companies need to choose who their best voices are.
Related articles by Zemanta


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Starbucks is Now Following You on Twitter




Starbucks logo Image via Wikipedia



Starbucks is not new to the social media space. They have done some very interesting, yet questionably successful initiatives--mystarbucksidea.com being the most notable.

I got a message today that Starbucks was following me on Twitter. I had heard about their presence, but had not really taken a look into it. I felt that this would be as good a time as any to dig deeper.

On first glance it appears that Starbucks is doing everything by the book:

  • Transparent

  • Non-Corporate Voice (vernacular)


  • @evanhecht Hey ... Sorry, I had a bunch of stuff to do today. I wish I could spend ALL my time here with you, that'd be way more fun



  • Value Adding presence


  • Attention all voters! Come in on Tuesday after you vote, get a Free cup of drip Coffee. http://tinyurl.com/joethere


  • They are following their followers


  • My finger hurts. 1200 new Followers in the past 3 days. I just got through following the new Twitter-ers. Welcome! 1:24 PM Nov 6th from web


    • Overall I would say that Starbucks is doing a pretty good job. Starbucks also used Twitter as a way to communicate a promotion they were working on:

    Starbucks on Twitter Starbucks on Twitter

    Some may have taken issue with a brand using Twitter as a promotional vehicle. I say, as long as they are upfront and are adding value, it is perfectly fine.

    I would love to hear others stories about Starbucks on Twitter; as they have been around for a little while already.
    Related articles by Zemanta


    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    The Future Of Information or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The API



    RSS has drastically changed the way in which we experience media. In a recent article in Ad Age, Steve Rubel talks about a statistic that says, only 11% of internet users subscribe to RSS feeds. Rubel makes the following statement:
    RSS is easy and relatively cheap to adopt, so there's no reason for marketers to avoid it -- but I don't see it growing rapidly

    I agree with Rubel that there will not be a major uptick in internet users knowlingly subscribing to RSS feeds. That being said, I think that this statistic is fairly insignificant, as RSS drives the way in which a great deal of  information is spread across the net, whether consumers are aware of it or not. RSS is also a key element in feeding infomration to search engines. RSS is one of the fundamental components behind the social web.

    Another key element that has become part of the backbone of the social web is the API. I recently wrote an article for Minonline explaining the significance of The New York Times campaign finance API (as well as other API's recently launched).

    The article starts with the following:

    The world of media and information has reached a crossroads. The speed at which information is disseminated has increased exponentially. This new, lightning fast mediation has made the reliance on traditional media vehicles impractical for many people—and subsequently has led to the downturn of many traditional media companies.


    Amidst a sea of confusion and , at times, outright gloom; one traditional media company has shined like a light—guiding other struggling media companies to the shores of restitution. That company is none other than The Grey Lady; The New York Times.


    The New York Times Company recently launched The Campaign Finance API (the first API, in a series API’s). It certainly was a big day for big media—but this launch did not get a whole lot of fanfare. Neither did the subsequent launches of the TimesTags API and the Times Movie Reviews API.



    The lack of mainstream attention towards these launches came as no surprise to me; still, if you are in the media industry (especially publishing) and this news did not jolt your world a little bit, you may want to keep reading.

    If you want to check out the rest of the article, head over to Minoline.com.

    Yes, I would love to read the rest of the article, please take me there
    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    We Agree, Brands Should Join the Conversation, but Do They Always Have To Be Nice?



    London Heathrow Airport Image via Wikipedia


    I just stumbled across an article about the formation of a Facebook group by British Airways employees. This controversial group serves many purposes, one of which is to mock passengers.

    These were employees of the company, and not spokespeople for the brand, however, this article got me to thinking about a few things.

    1. In an era where, consumers are constantly leveraging their new found empowerment in order to bash brands, what rights do brands have?

    2. How aggressively can a brand vocally oppose consumer activity before consumers begin to get irate?


    I am in no way suggesting that it would be a good strategy for a brand to create a Dell Hell type fiasco about it's consumers, but if consumers are consistently doing things to employees of a given company that create a negative work environment, should the brand have the right to talk back? One of a brand's most important assets are it' employee's, should they not be taken are of?

    One of the popular gripes of BA employees expressed in the Facebook group is the following:
    Passenger that puts boarding pass/passport in his/her mouth and then hands it back to you

    Now, I cannot imagine why that is a frequent occurrence, but if it is, it is a bit gross. The question is, what can British Airway's do about it? They can make an announcement to all passengers saying, "please do not put your passport in your mouth or any other body crevice", but somehow I do not think that would go over too well. They can add some language on their website that addresses this issue, although not many people would ever see it. It is a tough call.

    Here is my next question--what does British Airways do with these employees?

    I tried to sign up for the group, and it is restricted so, as a consumer of the brand I cannot get in to see these comments. Is it against company ethics to have an employee only forum, where consumers are ridiculed? The answer is most likely, yes.

    At the end of the day there is no excuse for berating anyone, however, over the last few years it has become perfectly acceptable for bloggers (and consumers and large) to rip brands to shreds online (for cause or not). I love the fact that everyone has the ability to effect change, but what I see happening is some citizen journalists lashing out against brands at the tip of a hat; diluting the over all pool of consumer complaints. It is no wonder that employees sometimes want to talk back--we are, after all, human beings.
    Related articles by Zemanta


    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    Google: Quality Ads or Quality Bottom Line?



    Google in 1998 Image via Wikipedia


    In their endless pursuit of relevant advertising, Google has made many changes to the way in which they serve ads. Many of these changes have gone against surface level laws of profitability. Things like, excluding advertisers for being irrelevant, making one advertiser pay more for the same ad space another advertiser is paying less for etc.

    In the end, what Google has done is created a new way to think about advertising. Google has shown us that advertising can add value to an experience--it can even be part of the experience.

    Today Google announced some changes to the way in which they price ads. These changes have some wondering whether Google is continuing their quest for the ultimate in  relevant advertising, or gearing up for the continued economic slowdown.

    The two major changes are:

    • More precise Quality Score calculation

    • Higher quality ads above the search results


    The Google Adwords Blog and Techcrunch each do a pretty good job of explaining the intricacies of these new factors. For the sake of ease, I will copy how Google defines each:
    More precise Quality Score calculation
    Clickthrough rate (CTR) is the most significant component of Quality Score because it directly indicates which ads are most relevant to our searchers. As you probably have observed, ads in high positions typically earn better CTR than those in low positions, because ads in high positions are more visible to searchers. To calculate the most accurate Quality Scores, it's important that the influence of ad position on CTR be taken into account and removed from the Quality Score.

    In the coming days, we'll update the portion of the Quality Score algorithm that accounts for ad position. This will result in more accurate Quality Scores, ensure that ads compete fairly for position based on their quality and bid, and enable Google to show the most relevant ads to searchers by rewarding high-quality advertisers with better ad positions.

    This first change makes sense, but I am wondering; if an advertiser gets rewarded for being highly relevant, gets good ad placement, and then speaks to a consumer's needs when serving an ad, should they not be exponentially rewarded for that? It seems the advertisers that continuously adheres to Google's best practices, and continually achieve a lower minimum bid for higher ad positioning, should continue to be rewarded (at a higher rate than others). By discrediting an advertisers ability to get to the top and continue to reward them for good CTR, Google may piss off some advertisers. On the flip side, this virtuous circle that an advertiser can enter into may block out other relevant advertisers, costing Google money

    Change #2
    Higher quality ads above the search results
    We're also improving the way we determine which ads show in the yellow region above the search results. These positions are particularly valuable to advertisers because they are prominently positioned on the page. Given their prominence, it's especially important that these ads be high quality; we therefore place extra emphasis on quality when determining which ads to show in this location.

    To appear above the search results, ads must meet a certain quality threshold. In the past, if the ad with the highest Ad Rank did not meet the quality threshold, we may not have shown any ads above the search results. With this update, we'll allow an ad that meets the quality threshold to appear above the search results even if it has to jump over other ads to do so. For instance, suppose the ad in position 1 on the right side of the page doesn't have a high enough Quality Score to appear above the search results, but the ad in position 2 does. It's now possible for the number 2 ad to jump over the number 1 ad and appear above the search results. This change ensures that quality plays an even more important role in determining the ads that show in those prominent positions.

    Keep in mind that these enhancements may cause changes to your ad position, spend, and performance. We're launching these updates soon so that you'll have enough time to review your accounts and prepare for your holiday season advertising. While we don't believe that any immediate changes are needed on your part, we encourage you, as always, to watch your key metrics and to make adjustments as appropriate.

    The strategy behind this one is a bit more confusing. It is obvious that Google wants someone in the top spot at all times because, that is the most coveted piece of real estate on the page. This post talks about the need to meet a certain "quality threshold" (odd that they are using language other than "quality score").  The post goes on to say:




    if the ad with the highest Ad Rank did not meet the quality threshold, we may not have shown any ads above the search results. With this update, we'll allow an ad that meets the quality threshold to appear above the search results



    For those of you that do not know it, here is the formula for Ad Rank:


    Ad Rank = CPC bid × Quality Score


    The language above can be interpreted as follows:


    If you are bidding more, thus fulfilling one variable of the Ad Rank score, and are receiving a higher Ad Rank, you can potentially meet the quality threshold (not quality score) and get bumped to the top over another advertiser who is bidding less. Granted, your quality score has to be good, but it seems they are saying that, in the past, good was not good enough; and now it is.This is a tough one. On the surface level it is presented as being all about quality, but I am not so sure about that.


    I realize that their is some ambiguity here, but I feel my interpretation of this language is fair--as the Google post is very vague in my opinion. I am thinking long and hard about what this means (I am even thinking, I am over thinking this) but I do believe Google has a board to answer to, and they are in no position to improve quality at the expense of their bottom line.



    I am awaiting, and welcome people to come and tell me I am wrong. Do me a favor though, if you are going to do so, please be as descriptive as possible--thanks!





    Related articles by Zemanta




    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    Conferencing During Hard Times

    I go to a lot of conferences--well, I have gone to a lot of conferences. I am, however, at a point where I really need to focus on the task at hand (client strategy) and take a step back from the conference scene. I will miss the networking component of conferencing, but just because I am not present at a conference does not mean that I have to miss the content.

    I think that a lot of us in the media space feel this way. I also think that a lot of small business owners simply do not have the time to take an entire day and devote it to learning as, they have clients to serve.

    Network Solutions understands that, at a time when everyone is concerned with their bottom line, many of us do not have the luxury of attending conferences. With that in mind they have created a virtual conference for their target audience--the small business owner.

    Disclosure-- My colleague Jane Quigley has been working on this event with crayon client; Oovoo.

    The event is tomorrow, it is free and you don't have to leave your office! No travel expenses, no playing catch up on email all night--you can get the content in a few hours and get right back to work :)

    Here is a list of some of the speakers:

    Some pretty impressive folks in there!

    For more info-

    Solutions Stars, Facebook or Upcoming
    Related articles by Zemanta


    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]