I wriggled in my chair, feeling very uneasy about his comment, but decided that there would be a better time to challenge his POV. The truth is he is not alone in his thinking. I still run across many people all the time who hold that same sentiment. Those of us who work with brands who have broader views of the potential of digital know that this is not true, but we still hear it quite often.

So, we should be thrilled with the eMarketer article that came out last week proclaiming “Brand Advertising Outshines Direct Response in Digital.” Right?!?

Isn’t this the day we have been waiting for, when we can say, without seeing the doubting look from the other side of the table, that digital CAN be used for branding as well as direct response?

Well, yes, and no. The trouble is that the reason online is finally getting credit, and dollars, for branding campaigns is because of the growth of video. Not that digital video is a bad thing, and certainly not because digital video doesn’t drive branding. I am a big proponent of online video, and have seen it make a material impact on brand metrics for clients.

The reason it bugs me is because, in many people’s minds, it is considered the ONLY thing, or the primary thing, that drives branding. Why? Because, as more dollars have come online, this shift has attracted strategies that are considered sacrosanct in the traditional world from people who have a limited understanding of the potential of digital. But, this belief - that branding is best done via video - is just as troubling to me as the idea that digital should be all about direct response.

This black and white thinking must be overcome. Digital is not just about direct response. Video is not the only vehicle for influencing brand perception. Holding onto these beliefs holds back our creativity and our ability to provide complete strategies for brands which create good experiences for consumers.

And experiences is the operative word. Branding is best achieved by experiencing something. Yes, watching a video can be an experience, but it is not the only way to create an experience.

When branding online really shines is when we can create experiences for consumers that are meaningful, relevant, and interactive. And that’s hard to do.

The same goes for direct response. It’s pretty easy to measure everything by a very simple metric like cost of clicks to conversion, but it’s also pretty lazy. There is a lot more to it than that. When direct response really shines is when we can creative experiences for consumers that are meaningful, relevant, and interactive.

Most of us won’t do it, however. Because it’s just easier to hold onto our black and white thinking.

Tweet This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

I guess it’s this second point that has me worried.

I admit I have been a bit surprised by Facebook’s ascendance. Although it has a huge audience, the promise of brands being able to directly interact with fans made me think that Facebook would have a harder time attracting ad dollars once a brand reached a certain concentration of fans. Afterall, once a brand had a certain critical mass of fans, it should be able to reach out to them directly, in a way creating less of a need to spend advertising dollars.

But, I was wrong on a few counts. I was wrong because, despite it all, what still drives most media buying is eyeballs. Regardless of where those eyeballs are, or what we should be doing with those eyeballs, or what the return on that ad spend is, the metric of choice for most media agencies is still “how efficiently can I achieve reach and frequency?” Despite the fact that it is an outdated and mostly meaningless metric, reach and frequency still rule.

I was also wrong because brands, despite their desire to attract as many fans as possible, still don’t have a great idea of what to do with them once they get them beyond vapid attempts to generate comments. I, personally, have a grown a bit tired of brands asking questions like “Who is your favorite character from Lord of the Rings?” This was a real question posed by Amazon on January 6. Not that I don’t love the Lord of the Rings, but the question seems to me one of those examples of trying too hard to generate conversation. In a misguided attempt at humor, I responded to the question several times by naming my favorite Harry Potter character. I, of course, thought my comments were incredibly witty, particularly my choice of the “Sorting Hat” as my favorite character. No one else did. Especially not my kids who thought I was being a dork.

The failure at comedy aside, my objective was really to make the point that, despite all of the dollars being thrown at Facebook to grow fans, most of the time brands are doing very little to nurture real, meaningful, business changing, customer-centric conversations with their fans. And if the final calculus of what makes marketing on Facebook valuable is the number of fans you have or the cheap CPM you were able to negotiate, then I fear we have missed the point entirely.

What makes Facebook so valuable is that we can get authentic, honest, open comments from our customers. Instead, too many still want to treat it like every other controlled media channel - to own the message, direct the conversation, protect the brand.

Instead, we should be using the opportunity Facebook offers to our brands to listen to customers, engage them, provide service to them, etc. This takes careful planning, a well-considered strategy, and a not insignificant investment in people and time. But if brands can stop thinking of Facebook as a great media channel and instead think of it as a great customer connection channel, we might just be able to get the full value out of what it offers.

It’s just really hard to calculate that down to a CPM.

Tweet This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

Look, as someone who was on the receiving end of a $6 billion acquisition - when Microsoft bought our original parent company aQuantive - I can tell you without any reservation: if someone offers you $6 billion, you take it!

But, when things are going well, we all have a tendency to overestimate our own value, and basically, get greedy.

Image link

Groupon’s downfall may indeed be its success. It helped to usher in the ever-growing boom of daily deal sites. Not that they were the first, but they were the first to really go mainstream. Now that there are so many competitors, people are starting to ask if there are just too many discounts and offers out there.

I agree that over-saturation of deals and offers can be a bad thing. But coupons, discounts, and sales are nothing new, and they are never going away.

From my perspective, the problem is not that there are too many deals out there, but that there is too little effort put into personalizing deals for consumers.

Every day, I am inundated with offers that range from restaurants to spas to car detailing to the Seattle Tug of War event. I am not joking about the last one. The problem - most of these offers I could care less about.

A client I was working with once said: “A deal for something no one wants is not a deal.” Truer words were never spoken. You can offer discounts until you are blue in the face for the latest PalmOS tablet, but if no one wants them, anything short of $0 is probably too expensive.

Now, I guarantee that representatives from Groupon or other daily deal sites will counter that deals are personalized in their service because I get offers for local restaurants and businesses. Well, that’s sort of personalized, but only on the broadest level, and not very meaningful.

And I understand that the appeal of these sites is reaching a broad, new audience, and potentially offering them something that gets them to try something they never would have otherwise. That’s a good thing - every once in a while. But even brands are beginning to question the ultimate value of offers that drive in one-time users.  (See my previous post Is Groupon Bad for Brands)

We tout personalization all the time in our business. But most of the time, what we are talking about is a massive segmentation. We put consumers into boxes based on behaviors or demographic data, and treat that like it’s something akin to 1:1.

Now I also realize that true personalization is hard to scale, and that over segmentation doesn’t often offer a return commensurate with the effort it takes. I get that. But at some level, I, as an individual, should be catered to.

The area of digital personalization that has always stuck in my craw as something that no one addresses is allowing people to make choices or volunteer their preferences. I have written about this before but I think organizations like Groupon, etc., could potentially find more interested consumers if they would tailor offerings to what people want.

This might just make them more differentiated, more relevant, and more interesting to consumers on a daily basis.  Maybe then we wouldn’t feel like we are swimming in daily deals.

And I reiterate: “A deal for something no one wants is not a deal

Tweet This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

Image link

Focusing on “on-the-go” tools, what I like about Michaels’ approach is that they are thinking about what kinds of things their customers want and expect from the brand. I don’t think it’s so much about “engaging with Michaels whenever and wherever they choose” as their senior director of digital marketing put it. I mean, yes, that’s true, but basically all brand apps allow for that “opportunity”, and, more importantly, that is a generic and table stakes comment that doesn’t really get at the heart of what they look to have done that is so customer-centric.

What is most intriguing to me is that they have made the most important aspects of the Michaels experience accessible via the app to enhance the in-store experience. The better quote by Anthony Price of Michaels was this: “we’ve been able to add significant depth to our in-store experience by offering mobile versions of project sheets to give customers ideas, instructions, and inspiration . . .” He also added “whenever they want it” to the end of his sentence, which again makes it seem like he forgot that the most important part was that it enhances the experience in the store specifically.

This is a very customer-centric solution.  Evidently, customers very often need project sheets to accomplish their crafts. I would imagine (not being a Michaels customer myself) that sometimes those project sheets are hard to find, are limited, are being used by others, require employee assistance to find, etc. By making the sheets available via mobile device, the customer can control the experience, and Michaels makes sure that the information they need is immediately available to them - ensuring a better in-store experience and likely increasing the likelihood of sales.

Another customer-centric approach they have taken is making coupons available on the device. Why this is so important is because it appears that customers have come to expect and rely on these coupons as a core part of the shopping experience with Michaels.  Forgot your coupon at home?  No problem!  Even better is that the coupons can be used at the point-of-sale. Now, I am not sure if the POS system is like at their stores, but if it is truly a “live” system that allows for scanning of coupons at the register, then Michaels is a bit ahead of the game. I have had several conversations with retailers whose point-of-sales systems are so inflexible that they don’t allow for coupon or other types of transactions at the register. If Michaels has gotten around that, kudos to them.

Michaels also allows customers to scan bar codes to create shopping lists via the app that can be saved and referred to later. Again, nothing ground-breaking there, but if they have also tied that data into their CRM and personalization systems so that customers can get custom offers or product information, again, Michaels is ahead of the game. For a craft retailer who relies on customer passion and inspiration, the more they can tap into the specific needs and desires of customers, the more they can leverage that into increased loyalty and sales. Surprisingly, this is something that still appears to be rarely done by most retailers, and should be a fairly simple endeavor.

So, good for Michaels for heading into the mobile marketing fray in a focused, customer-centered, and clear approach, and for know that it doesn’t have to be cutting edge to be good - it just has to be true to the brand experience and fulfill real customer needs.

Tweet This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

Image Link

Also very interesting is a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly entitled Why Content Isn’t King. The crux of the article: “The dirty little secret of the media industry is that content aggregators, not content creators, have long been the overwhelming source of value creation. . . . The economic structure of the media business is not fundamentally different from that of business in general. The most-prevalent sources of industrial strength are the mutually reinforcing competitive advantages of scale and customer captivity. Content creation simply does not lend itself to either, while aggregation is amenable to both.”

It’s been making me think about a couple of things. Primarily, are content creators such as news organizations with editorial staffs doomed to be relegated to producing expensive content that others monetize better via distribution? Are we going to be limited to a few “super sites” where all users go?

Ben Elowitz of Wetpaint sees what is happening as the destruction of the searchable web or “document web” - in essence where the web was all about destinations with discreet content, to the social web or “connected web” where the focus of the internet is on making connections between people - ultimately our people, the people we individually want to connect to.

The announcement of Google+ today seems to indicate that Google is thinking about it. And if Google is thinking about it, then there is something there to pay attention to.

In this world, destinations don’t necessarily die. But it does mean that they become less important, a means to an end if you will. The focus on spending money to drive users to a website probably becomes much less important than finding the best way to distribute your content. And distributing that content may be a matter of simply allowing people to find and share things easily wherever they are on the web (which, is increasingly, mostly Facebook).

If aggregators are the kings, we all have to become much better at figuring out how to leverage the handful of platforms that dominate (note that the top 5 web sites garner almost 70% of all digital revenue). And be ready for those platforms to shift over time.

It also means that monetization of content has to change. Driving users to a website to consume content and serve ads may be dying. But, if distribution and aggregation are where the money is, where will content creators find revenue? We can’t all just become aggregators. And quality content is still at a premium. People need it and want it. God forbid if all of our content looks like YouTube and Facebook postings on what my cousin had for lunch today. The aggregators need good content.

Although I don’t pretend to have all of the answers, there are a few models I can see evolving.

1. Sponsorship in the distribution. Content creators will have to find ways to monetize their content as they distribute it, rather than just via their own destination. That can include ads, sponsorships, etc.
2. Subscriptions. Despite the fact that subscriptions can reduce audiences significantly, the truth is that they still produce a good amount of revenue - much more on a per reader basis than ads can. You only need a fraction of subscribers to generate the same revenue as the advertising audience.
3. Micropayments. People pay small amounts of money for all sorts of things, and my guess is that we are going to be seeing more and more of that. I can see a future where some company finds an easy and convenient way to get users to pay a few cents to read an article. Heck, if there’s a market for it, iTunes will figure it out.

Again, I am not sure how this will pan out, but one thing is for sure, somebody is going to have to figure out something, and soon. Content creators have to make money. Pure and simple. The irony is that the valuable content that aggregators distribute is dependent on great content (or, increasingly crappy content if you make big budget movies, as evidenced by the horrible movies coming out every summer).

Currently, content may not be king, but aggregation will be meaningless without good content. My guess is that this is a temporary phase until someone in content creation can figure out how to make money. Afterall, as Google+ leader Vic Gundorota says”Great content leads to great conversations.” There is no distribution without good stuff to distribute.

Tweet This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

Each day is like Christmas. I eagerly await the next day’s deal to see if it’s something that I should get. And I am not alone. A recent eMarketer article noted that US Internet users subscribe to three daily or weekly shopping emails or newsletters. And the majority of them read all of the messages and access them at least once a day.

Image Link

So, while I am crazy, at least I am not the only one.

But the massive growth of daily deal sites and emails brings into question just how valuable they are. There is no doubt that they bring in new customers for retailers and drive sales (Gap and Amazon had massive user response). The issue is at what cost?

A recent article from Forbes indicates that some major brands have some major reservations about daily deals. Leaders of these brands are concerned that these deals dilute brand value, attract the wrong types of users, hurt profitability, and put downward pressure on pricing.

On the other hand, it is clear that offers drive sales. In my years of working with retail brands, there is no question that the better the offer, the clearer the price point and discount, the more likely it is to drive sales.

So what is a brand to do? It seems nearly impossible to stay away from deal sites, and more and more media companies are getting in on the act - Google, Facebook, etc. Not participating opens opportunities for competitors. Participating risks diluting your brand or bringing in the wrong audience.  Deal sites are here to stay.

My take is that brands should participate, but need to do so in a way that attracts the right type of users and doesn’t frustrate their current customers. Brands should also find ways to create opportunities to reward loyal users and/or invite loyalty from the new customers they drive with these programs.

Some suggestions:

• Make the offering for something that people would not generally try or buy from you, or to create demand or interest in a new product or service, off-peak hours, etc.
• Make the offering dependent on more than one visit or on signing up for a loyalty program - create commitment from the customer, rather than making it a one time deal.  Give an extra discount or incentive to loyal customers.
• Make it an offering for something that you need to get rid of, treating it like an outlet store
• A la Barnes and Noble, make it for something relatively low cost in hopes that customers will spend more. Barnes and Noble offered $20 of value for $10. I can guarantee that most people spent more than $20.

Better yet, brands should be considering creating their own types of Groupon-like programs, and use Groupon to advertise them. Overstocks, refurbs, etc. offer brands plenty of opportunities to run their own discount services, and often separated from the core brand. Email programs, text programs, even Twitter and Facebook accounts should be used to propagate offers. Many studies have come out recently that show that customers don’t want to “talk” to brands or be friends with them. They want offers and discounts.  As brands become more savvy about what content needs to be created to drive value in owned and earned media, they will learn that promotional content will be the most read and passed along, creating the most buzz.

Yes, brands run the risk of diluting their products or services by participating in daily deal promotions, but there are only so many brands that can get away with not discounting to drive sales in a short period of time or bring in new customers. The smart ones figure out how to do so in a way that is sustainable and profitable, driving good customers and creating or reinforcing loyalty.

Tweet This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

Facebook recently hired Mark D’Arcy in what appears to be an effort to create better advertising experiences for brands on the network. Twitter has gotten more aggressive in creating ad products that are minimally intrusive to the Twitter stream and yet can monetize the data that they collect from tweets.

YouTube is also taking on a bold experiment - it appears to be eschewing the premium content creators like movie studios and television networks and instead focusing on content created specifically for YouTube distributed through channels on the site.

Image Link

It is doing so because, so far, the huge amount of inventory and audience YouTube has collected is proving to be challenging to monetize in large part because it is hard to make “brand safe.” There are no good ways yet for brands to really understand the content their ads will run against in the same way they can with television content.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that YouTube is planning to spend as much as $100 million to commission low-cost content created exclusively for the Web. The article also reports that they are unwilling to spend similarly high sums for access to content from movie studios like Netflix has done. Other content options appear to be in the works as well.

It’s a bold move, and one that will be interesting to see play out over the next several years. Whether it succeeds or not really comes down to what users want when it comes to video content, and where and how they access and discover it.

Consumers have not yet quite taken to originally produced online content. My experience with branded entertainment developed for online distribution is that it can be challenging to create the audience for it. Much more successful is content that originates in broadcast or cable TV or movie studios, is heavily advertised to draw and audience, and then is distributed in digital channels.

This is not to say that entertainment created specifically for the web can’t work or won’t take off. The success of Funny or Die, for instance, is an example of what can work. However, episodic content successes are few and far between, and these are the types of content that draw in users and keep them, and more importantly, really draw in advertisers.

This point is important - advertisers like to see a consistent, reliable audience for content, and like to understand the context of programming. Episodic content offers them that opportunity more so than random short and long-form content of the type often created for the web.

There is little question that how we access video on our television monitors will change dramatically over the next several years, and this is what Google/YouTube are preparing for. The expectation is that high-def content will come through the web onto our television sets en masse relatively soon.

Google is placing big bets that users are agnostic about how they access content, and that they will be inclined to discover it in the same way that users discover information on the web - via search. I, for one, am not so sure.

In a previous post, I was pretty pessimistic that users will use a search interface on their TV’s. Not because the technology is hard to solve - putting keyboards on remotes or using mobile phones or tablet devices is already here. Instead, it just doesn’t seem to be a viable way to discover content.

Search works when people have an idea of what it is that they want and are trying to find out more information. However, when it comes to entertainment, consumers need to be able to discover content. That happens in a few ways - via advertising, via word-of-mouth, etc. But channel-surfing, a ubiquitous activity, is not predicated on the kind of searching that users do in search engines.

This, to me, is the biggest challenge for original content online, and goes back to my original point - branded entertainment online is hard to make work because people have to know about it and be aware of it to even bother to access it.  Creating “channels” for content is an interesting and probably good first step on YouTube’s part, but it doesn’t substitute for having popular content that people seek.

Movie studios spend millions upon millions of dollars to advertise their blockbusters because they know that they have to drive people to the content. TV companies spend millions of dollars running their own advertisements on their own channels. For original online content to take off, the audience for each piece of content needs to be created to attract viewers and advertisers.

I am interested to see how YouTube is planning for that aspect. Everyone in the media business is on the edge of their seats to see how this plays out.

Tweet This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

We had a get-together with high-level sales folks from iAd (formerly of Quattro) and I was expecting interesting conversation, witty banter, and lots of opportunities for our clients to get an early entry into iAd. I was excited to see the promise of iAd. I had blogged about how iAd would usher in a new age of mobile advertising. I was expecting to hear how Apple had forged new ground in the ad space, and would help advertisers find the accountability needed to get mobile advertising really moving.

Image Link

However, the conversation in the meeting focused on these areas: $1 million minimum spend. Advertisers would pay both a CPM and a CPC for ads. There would be no tracking beyond clicks, and no access to information via typical ad serving reports. There would be no behavioral or data-based targeting based on third-party data. And, they would be going directly to clients to initiate sales.

In the meeting, I asked a few questions, and challenged a few assumptions. Advertisers don’t want to pay for impressions as well clicks, I said - just one or the other, but never both. Most advertisers are not willing to throw a million dollars at something untested and unproven, I insisted. At the very least, advertisers will want to know how their ads are performing, given the size of the investment, I posited. I was told that Apple would make this work - that my concerns were noted, even echoed by others, but not seriously considered.

I was curious to see how this would pan out. I knew for some clients, the opportunity to reach their core audiences in new ways was still important enough to try the iAd. We have had experience running iAds and some clients have even renewed.

I continue to hope that the iAd evolves and addresses many of these issues.  Even more so, I hope they they can meet the potential of what iAd can be.

Some recent news coming out shows that I was not alone in my thinking. A recent article from Business Insider does a good job of pointing out some of the key areas where iAd seems to be facing challenges, and where they could focus improvement:

• Control: iAd controls all aspects of the ads, and limits what brands can do with them.
• Negotiation: usually the bread and butter of a media professional’s job, there is no negotiation on rates.
• Data: advertisers still have a limited view into performance, and no tracking systems are allowed.
• Options: there are ways to get rich ads onto apps that don’t require brands to go through iAd.
• Agency relations: iAd has not done a good job of building relationships with agencies.
• Cost: They have chopped the minimum spend to $500k which, while not chump-change, is a significant decrease. Even at a lower minimum, many advertisers still find this too high of a price to test.

What I would still like them to address is the missed potential for the iAd to get mobile advertising to finally, really take off. Yes, mobile advertising will increase in the next several years, but not as much or as quickly as it should.

And iAd had/has every chance to change mobile advertising forever.

The mobile phone is the one screen that is with us every day, practically all day. It’s the one screen that is personal and therefore most targetable and personalizable (if there is such a word). It’s the one screen that is focused almost entirely on interactive communication above all else. It’s the one screen where we can create and connect the data between digital and physical, home and work, inside and outside and really understand consumer behavior.

In many ways, it is the ultimate marketing communications platform, with the greatest promise. The potential to create an unparalleled marketing platform is right there, and Apple and the iAd are/were in the prime spot to capture this opportunity and change another industry.

It is my hope that we continue to see advancments in where iAd is going, and that it reaches its true potential to revolutionize mobile advertising.

Note that this post has been updated.

Tweet This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

Image Link

The real question is whether content or information in the digital age has any real hope of avoiding becoming free. There are far too many permutations and content issues to deal with for me to have any hope of covering them in any depth in this blog post (read Chris Anderson’s article on Free from Wired). However, the core issue of value versus cost in an age when digital technology has changed the equation is something we can think about a bit.

Only a few things really drive value, and I would argue those come down to the following:
1) Scarcity - how hard is it to find, access, create, replicate, and/or replace
2) Quality - how durable, well crafted, or refined is it
3) Necessity - how important or vital is it (real or perceived)

In the digital age, quality and necessity still matter, but scarcity becomes the bigger issue. Technology makes scarcity challenging. Search engines make content and information easy to find. Editing and publishing programs make content easy to create. Communications and social applications make it easy to replicate. And, digital media is never “gone” - it can always be copied and replaced.

So, while great music or writing still have value, the fact that technology makes it so easy to create and find and share makes it difficult for it to hold its value.

Which is why making users pay for content that can be digitized is going to be very hard to make work over the long run - unless content creators and publishers become better at the technologies which create scarcity. What Google and Bing and iTunes should have taught us better than anyone else is that technology matters as much as content in the digital age.

In many ways, Google and Bing and iTunes are really media companies dressed up as a technology companies. They may think themselves to be technology companies, but what do they really do? They distribute content - or at least access to content. Sounds like what media companies do. After all, isn’t that what television stations and magazines do?

More challenging is that they make distribution or access to this information easily available to consumers (free in the case of search engines), do not create content of their own, and then charge brands a premium to be associated with access to customers.

Now, the New York Times is a media company as well. But it, like most media companies, is not a technology company, which is why making its content - which is high quality - maintain its scarcity is going to be a challenge.

What media companies- particularly news-based media companies - need to understand is that they must become technology companies as much as content companies. They must become fully digital in their approach to content creation. If paywalls are going to work, they have to be both impenetrable and provide content that is valuable, irreplaceable and not easily sharable.

Or, they can forgo paywalls altogether and actually try to become modern digital content creation companies and draw users into experiences that are unique, valuable, and attractive. Perhaps they need to rethink the nature of news altogether. What are Twitter and Facebook afterall but newsfeeds at their core?

I get worried when I see that news media companies are trying to move into the digital age with the same people and ideas that served them well in the pre-digital age. They need new thinking, new ideas, and people who understand technology and digital content leading them.

I want great news and content companies like The New York Times to survive and thrive. Heck, I even still subscribe to the paper version of my local newspaper because I believe a strong independent news media is vital to our democracy and way of life. But I also know that these companies have got to be more inventive in their approach to their business problems in the digital age. Continuing to model their businesses on the ways of the pre-digital age are doomed to fail.

Tweet This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post 

But selecting ads is a far cry from desiring more ads, or even choosing to keep ads. A few articles came out recently, however, that address these very things.

First, the New York Times reported that AT&T is working with Placecast to allow marketers to “geo-fence” events or stores, and push ads to users who have signed up to receive them. Only when a user has elected for this service, and is in a specific area, will he/she receive a text message.

Second, MediaPost reported that a new service called AdKeeper allows consumers to keep ads for future viewing and allow them to share ads. As long as the ad doesn’t have an expiration date, the user can come back to the ad indefinitely.

Image Link

My question is - will either of these fly? Do consumers really want more ads than they are already getting? And do we really believe consumers will keep ads and revisit them?

Let’s do a few quick thought experiments on these two items.

First, “placecasting.” Let’s imagine that placecasting really takes off and I have signed up to receive text messages when in the vicinity of a store or event. I go to the local shopping area, and my first stop is Starbucks. I get a message. Next, I head to Barnes and Noble, and get a message. Then, the Apple Store, Eddie Bauer, the Gap, Johnny Rockets, Urban Outfitters, the grocery store, and Pottery Barn. And I get message, message, message, message, message, message, and message. At what point does receiving messages become so annoying that I turn it off?

If placecasting is anything like the “alert” you get every time someone posts something on Facebook or sends an email, my guess is pretty quickly. It didn’t take me long to shut those alerts off.

Now, ad keeping. My issues with it are on several levels. First, the service is cookie-based, meaning I will have different ads saved on different computers. Second, ads stay “live” as long as the advertiser has not put an end date on the ad - which means that many ads will either disappear at some point or will be out of date. Third, unless there is a killer offer in the ad, why would I save an ad? Watching ads is possible already on YouTube, and I am just not convinced that users will really want to save and view ads later. Skipping ads is much more likely than saving ads.

So, is there any scenario in which these services can survive?

I can only see one. Both of these services will only be viable if the quality and value of the ad/offer is kept extremely high. If AT&T allows any advertiser to use geo-fencing to send ads, and users get endless texts on offers of limited value, users will shut down the service quickly. If AdKeeper wants to develop a service that advertisers will actually pay for, it will need to ensure that ad standards/offers are very high, otherwise, advertisers will find that no one saves their ads, which means that AdKeeper offers little or no value.

Greed is the key. If both AT&T and AdKeeper can keep their greed in check, sacrificing short-term revenue for long-term viability, they may be able to make these services fly. My guess, however, is that they will not, and management will blame a poor product rather than a poor executional strategy for failure.

Tweet This Post  Buzz This Post  Delicious This Post  Digg This Post  Reddit This Post  Stumble This Post