The AR hype

What a fantastic article in Ad Age by the hand of Matthew Szymczyk.
There is little that I can add to it and judging by the number of comments on his post, a lot a people seem to have a strong opinion about how marketers and agencies are using Augmented Reality.

I have seen this happen time after time again. (Digital) technology being hyped and used without any link to marketing objectives. What is driving that?
Three potential causes:
1. the 'trendy marketer' briefing his digital shop to 'do an AR campaign', demonstrating that his/her brand is contemporary and understands today's consumers.
2. the digital shop selling solutions that are fun to do through fear: 'this is the new thing, everybody is doing this, if you don't do this you are being sooo old school!'
3. A combination of 1 and 2
The solution:
1. put your consumer's needs central
2. define smart business and communication objectives
3. as an agency and as a marketer judge any technology solution by its capability to help achieve the business objectives and put yourself in the place of the consumer.
The video examples demonstrate that AR has a lot of potential. Click on the title to see more.

Survival of the fitest

WARC reports on a research conducted by Forrester that was designed to understand what agencies we employ in the digital space.
Results of the research should not come as a surprise. This is my take out.

What it tells us is that we have come at a crucial phase in the evolution of species. The old, monolith species are being challenged by new, nimble and more specialised ones.
Advertisers like the old species because they know and understand brands and are a one stop shop. Yet, they also like the new one because they have the specialised skills and in depth understanding of digital that the old species do not have.
What species will survive?
Personally I don't think this is a case of either/or. In order to survive the monoliths will need to become a conglomerate of small and nimble. The challenge being, how to connect the dots so as to offer an integrated solution to customers. This will be an on going evolution: new media will continue to emerge and with them new service providers.
If the monoliths don't offer the services, customers will turn to the specialised shops.
The old species will have been warned: go to sleep and you'll never wake up again. You need to remain vigilant all the time, ready to adapt to the changing environment and the challenges of the new species.
I wonder what Darwin would have to say about this?

lean back surfing

If you thought surfers are a lean forward active and engaged crowd, you're wrong.
Judging from the Google Zeitgeist 2009, surfers are really lazy.

How else can you explain that many of the fastest growing search terms are social networks related? Rather than typing 'Facebook.com' in their browser, they type 'facebook' on Google, to click through.
Not convinced by my argument? In Belgium 'Google' ranks amongst the fastest growing search terms on ...Google. Two possible explanations: those folks are completely crazy (not to be excluded completely) or they are plain lazy.

Between crazy and lazy, based upon my own experience I choose the latter (you would not expect me to admit I'm crazy, would you?).
I have a search bar open all the time and rather than opening my browser and typing in the url, I just type in the search term and click through from within Google. I actually do this quite often to surf to sites that I visit on a regular basis and where I know that Google will enable me to click through to the page that is of interest to me rather than having to navigate through the site, which is much more time consuming.

Now that I come to think of it, i actually do this several times per day and it would consist of the majority of my 'Search' activity. I realize that this is n=1 and that this is probably not a solid enough sample size to explain global search behaviour.

So it would be interesting to find out how people do actually search and what % of search is real search vs using Google as a 'guide'. Behaviour of one vs the other is different. If I search, than I will consider the different options. In the other case, I can almost blindly click through to the exact site or page I am looking for...

I would really be interested to see the absolute numbers and the top ranking search tersm, rather than trends. I believe MSN publish absolute numbers...

Getting bored? Social media again

In Sites Consulting conducted a rather massive research about on line, trying to understand who is on line and what people really do.
The created this on line video to advertise their research, which in itself is rather interesting.
As usual, it triggered some thoughts:
Firstly, as a brand it is indeed about joining the conversation, it is not about Twitter or Facebook as the new advertising channel.
Secondly, the conclusion says it all: to some extend we can see what is happening, yet we don't know how to use it.
I believe the latter is extremely challenging:
Firstly because there is little margin for error: Errors can spread quickly and at a global level.
Secondly because social media prove to be rather volatile: by the time you grasp how to use them for marketing purposes, they will have changed, evolved, or might have been replaced by the next new hype.
Click on the title to watch the video

social media...again

Social media from a different perspective...

Interesting article by the hand of Taddy Hall in Ad Age explaining Twitter's decline.

My understanding is the following: Twitter was hyping as a result of it's newness and the fact that the 'currency' is the number of followers you have. Since we now realize that followers do not mean anything, unless they really actualy do follow, number of users are going down.

If that's true for Twitter, what does that mean for Facebook. I was an 'early adopter' and used to collect friends as a proof of well, euh popularity probably. After some months of active use, I've come to realize that I don't care of what over half of these friends are doing, since they are no real friends in real life.
As a result, I stopped using Facebook to connect with my real friends and actually virtually stopped accepting invites.
Technically I am one one the 300 million users. In reality however...

Based on n = 1. Will Facebook be victim of it's success, much the way Twitter seems to have become victim of it's own hype?

Social media, but different this time

I find myself talking way too lot about social media.

Why is that? Agreeably they're big and attract large crowds, but the again, is 300 million users on FB really that big if you compare to total global population?

Reason why I talk a lot about social media is because a lot of articles are being published about social media that trigger thoughts. So again today: I found this article in Warc about Coke being the best user of Facebook, followed by Starbucks. Not sure what the criteria are. If it is total number of fans, than hell yeah, Coke should by far be biggest and best since it has by far a bigger user base than Starbucks.

No, what attracted by attention is the clever way Starbucks are using Facebook: to distribute coupons for their ice cream! It serves at least 3 objectives. they reward their fans on FB, which I assume are loyal consumers. They sample a new product line, generating at the same time traffic to their stores.

This is what separates the men from the boys. This is real marketing, not just playing around and experimenting. That's social media as part of an integrated marketing strategy and not just social media for the sake of social media. Starbucks, I am impressed.

What we can learn from the agming industry?

Yet another interesting article on Ad Age.
Not for the reason that a video game now hit all the entertainment industry box office records. We knew they could do that; we know wince a long time that the gaming industry is big, big business, bigger actually than the movie industry.
Not for the reason that the video game is moving closer to the movie industry in terms of look and feel of the graphics.
No, it's interesting because it proves that mass marketing works.
Here you have a bunch of gaming guys that go like, hey, we have a property that has the potential to appeal to a broader audience, let's mass market it, whilst not forgetting about our core target groups. So they do, some game footage serves as a TVC (cheap to produce too) and before they know, the game is the biggest hit ever.
In the meantime proving that TV still is a very effective medium, even against (non hard core) gamers. And cleverly adapting their plan to reach hard core gamers too, proving that social media have a role too, as long as it is not bolted on, but used for a reason.
No rocket science, all common sense. Well done chaps!
As usualy, clicking on the title will give you more detail.

Where to spend your money?

Half of our advertising money is wasted, yet we don't know which half it is...
Whilst this adagium might have been acceptable in the sixties or seventies, I find it totally unacceptable today. Budgets are too high and times are too insecure to continue wasting money.

So I was happy to come across and article in WARC by Frank Harrison, who is Strategic Resources Director Worldwide, ZenithOptimedia, with as title 'Unravelling the Gordian know of brand contact'
In this article he explains how Zenith Optimedia have been using MCA to help marketers maximise the effectiveness of their marketing mix.
I skip the details, which was published in the Quarter 4 2009 issue of Market Leader and jump immediately to the last paragraph which talks about 'Universal Brand Contact Insights'.

Gut feel and facts tell me that there is much truth in what Frank is saying:

• don't underestimate the power of WOM
• don't underestimate the power of sampling
• TV is very effective, but beware, don't over spend in TV
• Radio and newspaper, and I add outdoor to that, are great tactical media but you quickly reach diminishing returns

At the same time, also according to Frank, what is true for one target group or product category, might not be for another. Question therefore is: How are you making sure you are not wasting 50% of your company's budget?

new agency compensation models, procurement,...

Interesting interview in Ad Age with Tara Comonte, IPG Media Brand's CFO and COO.

She has a very clear and sound perspective of where the added value of procurement lies.

I believe her comments about compensation models are spot on. It's time to move to different models. Remunerating agencies for time spent on a job does not seem right these days. Good also to hear that agency leaders are accepting accountability for their customer's business results through the compensation model.

Enjoy the reading by clicking on the title

social media an advertising tool?

One of the biggest problems we marketers have is that we love to hear ourselves talk.
We just like to see our products in the showrooms or the shelves. We love to see our ads on TV. We like to see our banner ads and web sites. That makes us feel proud. It's something we can show our family and friends and neighbours.

This propensity to talk drives our behaviour in social media. Hey, is this not a great tool to talk to our consumers, and the great thing is, they respond by saying how fantastic and great our brand is.
In order to do so, we set up fan pages, or at least facilitate them, so that we can count our friends, which is giving us something new to brag about.

This is completely missing the point. First, we should stop calling social media 'media'. They are not media in the traditional sense of the word: vehicles that we can use to talk to our consumers. They are rather listening devices. To listen to what the consumers are saying about our brands. Whether they like it or not. What they like about it or like less. What they'd like to see changed.

It's one big open research platform that we should not spoil by sending interfering messages.

So for the first time, ssssht, let's be quiet and listen

regulators and social media

One of social media's major benefits, when used as an advertising medium, might well turn against it and this is why.

Social media strength are the fact that they're social. If someone recommends you a product or a service, it's not advertising, it's WOM and we all know the power of WOM. It's just so much trustworthy. It's your pall recommending you to buy a certain product and that is so much different from all the exaggerations in advertising.

This obviously has not gone unnoticed to advertisers and we all started using social media as a way to advertise our brands.

So far regulators have not stepped in heavily. It is fair to say that with so many new platforms emerging and evolving constantly it is probably difficult to follow up on this as a legislator, who have to go through long and time consuming processes to create new laws.

I believe it is beneficial that clarity is created and guidelines are provided to advertisers. Preferably through self regulations, if needed by law. On basis of that advertisers know what rules to observe and can decide whether and how to use social media. Today, it is too much of a Wild West and honestly, that is beneficial to nobody.

Turning a company around

Now that's amazing. Whilst some companies are thinking about changing the way they do marketing and still others are carefully piloting new approaches, some are just doing it.

Take P&G: since many years respected for it's solid and very successful, yet not very innovative way of advertising. These last coupe of weeks I am swamped by articles about the great stuff P&G is doing on line. And it's not the type of company that decides to shift focus and budget because that's what a senior leader has decided to do. No, this is P&G: fact, figures, research, ROI!! (or at least, that is what I expect P&G to be).

Either they attract attention because what they do on line is good, or they attract attention because they are good at ... attracting attention. One thing is for sure, they were yet again mentioned in a WARC article about a study from Deloitte, Beeline Labs and the Society for New Communications Research.

Question: what is it that these guys at P&G are doing that we should be copying? Answers, anyone?

On line content from advertisers

Warc reports on a Cincinnati Enquirer article about..guess who..increasingly creating on line content.
It being P&G I can only imagine they have plenty of measurement tools demonstrating the added value and ROI of such an investment.
And even if that is not the case, doing so is not stupid. They provide relevant information about their brands packaged in bite size formats for on line digestion. Entertain and inform.
The added bonus is that it enables you to capture consumer data and start that long term relationship with your prospect and future consumer.
Digital allows advertisers to become media owners of some sort.
Interesting times ahead.

the power of clik through

Ad Age report on a very interesting piece of research conducted by Comscore and Starcom in the US. Only a minor percentage of people actually click on banners. Those people make up the vast percentage of click through. So what do we call them: the heavy clickers?
Does that mean that banners do not work? No, because the probability for people that have been exposed to banners to visit the site in the days after having been exposed to the ad is higher than for people who have not been exposed. And search is again playing an important role in this area.
What does it learn us: that click through is not necessarily the best metric and more importantly that you should be adapting the design of your banner based upon this knowledge.
Click through on the title to learn more.

No big brother watching me

The power of on line advertising might turn against it.
Ad Age reports on a study from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California, Berkeley. Whilst 'the Internet' allows advertisers to do behavioral advertising, the consumers do not like the tools that allow them to do so...
If consumers have to chose between being exposed to ads that are of no real interest to them, or to give up some of their privacy to be exposed to relevant ads only, they prefer the first. Maybe not the end of mass marketing after all. Click on the title for more details

Unilever's digital approach

WARC reports on how digital media are managed at Unilever. It's clear that at Unilever digital is becoming an integrated part of their marketing communications. No more siloes, but digital integrated into everything they do.
"Digital media offers a unique way of connecting with consumers, and is now "woven" into all aspects of the marketing strategy employed by Unilever, the FMCG giant, according to Rob Master, its North American media director.Speaking at the recent OMMA Global conference, Master said that just two years ago it was difficult to see how brands like Hellmann's Mayonnaise and Lipton Tea could successfully embrace the growing range of digital tools available."Could I have been that unimaginative? The answer is 'Yes, I was.' At Unilever, we've gotten a lot more focused and a better understanding of where the consumer is going," he argued.As part of this process, social media is "woven" into the Anglo-Dutch's company's commercial communications, and has a "role underneath everything we're doing."Indeed, Master suggested that the "scale we got with the 30-second spot no longer exists. Social media is less about a channel and more about the fabric of our campaigns."

Diet Coke webisodes

Personally I haven't seen any of the webisodes, nor was I aware. Also, I would like to see more real facts about the success of the previous campaign.
Yet, what is important is that we try, experiment, measure, learn from what we do, replicate what worked and change what worked less well.
Our TG is interested in the content we bring: let's keep that. 5 min is too long: let's make it shorter. This is the only route to innovation.
Click on the title to read more...

What a plan...

I must admit I'm impressed.
When I first read about Reckitt's $20M investment in on line video I was in doubt. Do they know more than we do? Is this a negotiation tactic? Are the really serious about this? Reckitt? Can't be!
As it turns out, they are people with a plan, or rather: a strategy and a plan.
They knew what they wanted, how to get it, what to pay for it and how to measure it.
Now that, that I call a plan.
Click on the title and be inspired!

chocolate or whipped cream: both

WARC's US editor Geoffry Precourt report on a presentation by Carat's Mike Hess to ad:tech Chicago 2009.
Whilst I spare you the technical details, there is so much truth in the underlying analysis, which I quote here: '...The '80s were about forecasting models, about multi-varied analysis that supported psychographics. In the '90s, the emphasis was on panel data and marketing-mix modeling. In recent years - the naughts or the '00s - it's been all about the Internet and, finally, presenting data from the Internet in an integrated way. And while we don't have all the answers, we're moving toward them."
The biggest obstacle to integrating various sources of research, he said, is that "offline and online data have been operating in silos. The goal now is to integrate them and take advantage of their complementary nature."

On line or TV, On line AND TV

A couple of days ago I reported on a piece of research about what are most effective days of the week to reach your consumers with on line video.

Ad Age is now reporting on what day parts are growing faster for video.
What this shows is that people mostly watch on line video at times when they normally do not watch TV: daytime (when they're supposed to be working...)
Next to that on line video is growing fast during early morning and late evening. This would indicate that prime time remains very much TV prime time.


Now, this is my theory: people have an unsatisfiable hunger for audiovisual images. On line is offering that in places and at times when TV is not available, or when TV content is not at it's best. So people do it all: watch TV during prime time and on line video during other day parts. This might explain why TV audiences are not really going down in majority of markets. click on the title for more details.

all videos are the same, however some are more...

Click on the title to read this excellent article and proof that 'the internet' is slowly becoming a more mature touch point.

Whilst learnings from the entertainment industry, more precisely the movie industry, might not apply to any other industry, in fact it most probably won't, this article learns us is that we should not just dumb our TV content on line.

Do you know what is the best day to reach your Target Audience with on line video content?

How Deep Are Marketing Budget Cuts?

From eMarketer

Shared via AddThis

eMarketer reports on a Survey amongst marketers about what direction they expect their marketing budgets to go. What's your best guess? Up or down?

Well, as might be expected the outlook is still not very positive. I guess there is still a lot of unclarity about the economy and how this is impacting performance of companies.

At the same time, it's less negative than in the first half of the year. Another sign of slow recovery?

Going Viral

Viral marketing is a term that is much used, much abused probably.
Many have tried it, few have succeeded.
Click on the title to watch a video with some ingredients for success.

Do You Know Who's on Twitter? - eMarketer

Do You Know Who's on Twitter? - eMarketer

Shared via AddThis

The logical and right answer is: a lot or people and more precisely a lot of young people.

What I found more surprising though, is the 'activity map' of Twitter.
Twitter seems to be animated by very few very active people. The rest...just consume that content
Could we conclude on line media are not too different from off line media: A very small percentage of people create the content that is being consumed by the coach potatoes?

The next step in audience measurement

I seem to become obsessed by measurement. Why's that? Because I've come to realize that measurement is the only way to progress, the only way to make change.



The difficulty so far was that on the one hand we were being delivered audience data, with no link to sales, on on the other hand have our sales data, with no link to marketing communication.

And yes, through some modeling work and other research efforts we are trying to bridge this gap. Sometimes very successfully so, but not nearly enough.

In the US Starcom did a pair of upfront deals using so-called secondary guarantees based on consumers' purchasing behaviors and lifestyles. We'll be able to link audience data to purchase behavior. You can find more details in an Ad Age article by clicking on the title of this post.

Is it perfect from a methodology perspective? Probably not. It does not take into account the quality of the creative and does away with POS activities. Yet, it is definitely a step in the right direction.

At the same time: Brand Marketers Embrace Social Media

Brand Marketers Embrace Social Media - eMarketer

Shared via AddThis

Now this is a nice follow-up on my post earlier today, and please allow me to be cynical for a second: we'd rather act like lemmings, throwing ourselves off the cliff than to stand out from the crowd and survive.

So whilst, in a rare case of honesty, our media consultants are telling us that social media are big, but not sure how to handle that beast, marketers have decided to jump and invet more in social media. The scary thing is that at the same time they admit not having the measurements in place. Ever tried to sell, say TV, to your boss this way: 'I'm not sure what it's getting us, nor the impact on your brands, but hey, it's big...'?

I can only repeat my advice: do it, but do is cautiously and wisely and measure whilst you do so. Because, if it's a success, we want you to do more. If not, we want you to learn from it.

The Future of Media » Blog Archive » Still think social media is a fad?

The Future of Media » Blog Archive » Still think social media is a fad?

Posted using ShareThis

Nice piece of work on Social Media. Interesting data, although I would think most of it is not new to media professionals.
Even more interesting is the article though and especially this sentence: 'Right now, essentially we’re asking them to go on a lot of faith. Because we don’t have all the answers–not even Facebook does, although the Lab collectively suspects they will continue to lead the way and are getting closer.'
I read this as: it's huge, it's massive, but we don't know really how to use it. We don't know what works, and what not... We don't know the ROI.
Would that mean that we don't use it? No! You want my advice: use, but with caution and make sure you have systems in place to learn from what you do.

Display Ad Success Beyond the Click - eMarketer

Display Ad Success Beyond the Click - eMarketer

Shared via AddThis

Yet another article on the power of Banners vs TV. The clash of the titans continues. In one corner nimble, yet powerful digital marketing tools, in the other corner, big, bulky, slow, but mighty TV advertising.
After 1000 rounds the jury still is still not conclusive of who the winner is.
Mr e-mktg juryman has declared digital as winner. There is no doubt in the mind of Mr. TV juryman, that TV is the clear winner. They both have a huge amount of evidence to support their believes!

Maybe we should bring in a third party juryman, one that brings with him a neutral set of metrics, that allows us to equally measure TV and online and truly compare. And you know what: I don't care! In this match there can't be a winner, there shouldn't be a winner. Rather than have them fight against each other, I would like to see them join forces!
So, stop this useless battle and integrate, because that is what our brands need.

TV is dead, or not, yes it is, no it isn't...

As media professionals, over the last couple of years, we have witnessed many debates about effectiveness of of the various media channels. One of the most interesting and heated debates is the one about the future of TV. One day you read an article about the end of the 30" commercial, if not of television. The other day you stumble across a survey which claims that TV advertising remains as powerful as ever.

Why do we always talk about TV. Why is nobody telling me that the radio 30" commercial is dead?
I believe there are many reasons for that:

Firstly, in most markets TV is the most important medium in terms of time spent by consumers/audiences and budget invested by advertisers. That makes it the obvious victim.

Secondly, we tend to watch TV on a TV screen, the screen which is now believed to compete with other screens in and around the house. Comparing on line with TV therefore seems more obvious than to compare on line with, say radio.

Thirdly, television is the most recent of the mass media (before the Internet), therefore the only one that has not yet proven it's survival qualities. That alone makes it a easier victim than, let's say, radio.

Fourthly, TV advertising was once the proud symbol of western capitalism and of mass marketing. This makes it the prefect victim for some good 'old school marketing bashing'.

So, whilst we all sit and watch in amusements and witness all those insults, attacks and counter-attacks, we seem to be missing the key point. The question is not about which is stronger, TV or on line. The question is how we as advertisers can make best use of this vast array of contact points that we have at our disposal. How to use them in conjunction. How to make it bigger than the sum of the parts?

What made my mind wander off like that? Yet another survey, which will most probably trigger another debate, about the effectiveness of TV.
I copied an extract from the article. I hope you enjoy the reading and find it useful.

'TV ads still best says new survey

Data sourced from Financial Times; additional content by WARC staff,20 August 2009EDINBURGH:

A new survey commissioned for the annual Edinburgh International TV Festival reports that TV advertising is up to three times as effective as any other medium. The survey by Deloittes and online research firm YouGov asked 2,123 people in the UK to name the three advertising media that had 'most impact' and TV was the clear winner with 64%. Next came newspapers on 30% followed by magazines, radio and outdoor. Internet search, which has made huge inroads into the advertising market in the UK and elsewhere, scored just 12% while online display scored 8%. A total of 18% of respondents said they had gone to online video sites to see an ad again.The survey also found that 44% of respondents had researched a product online after seeing a TV ad, while 31% had bought a product in-store with 21% buying online. "TV was rated nearly three times more impactful than the next form of media," said Howard Davies of Deloittes.'

The French might have cracked it

Interestingly, while Ad Age is reporting on the industry joining forces to understand the combined impact of the various screens, the French might have cracked it.

So I found out reading an article titled 'The French experience – Measuring the audience of a medium beyond its original form' by Laurent Battais, from Médiamétrie in France. The article explains how Médiamétrie has joined forces with the UDA (French advertisers organization) and representatives from the TV, Radio, Press or Internet advertising sales houses brokers, as well as media agencies.
Objectives were to (and I quote): 'to meet the needs:
for measuring the performance of a media brand irrespective of the distribution medium;
for monitoring the consumption of audiovisual content over all of the distribution media;
for enabling advertisers and media agencies to optimise their multimedia investments.'

Whilst the methodology used is obviously pretty complex, the French have approached it very smartly, by not reinventing the wheel, but combining data from existing tools.

So now, we know what the cumulative reach potential is of a radio station A with website B, rather than guessing it.

Is the this holy grail? Obviously not. The methodology has it's limitations. For instance, it is not developed to optimize buying. Also, the deliberate choice was made not to create a common currency across media. A TV GRP is not a radio GRP.

The tool being ready, field has been conducted and data are available. I am eager to find out how this impact our planning and if there are learnings we could benefit from in other markets too.

Should we go viral?

If the data about the impact of these viral campaigns are to be believed, we should all massively go viral.

What are the ingredients for success?
1. A healthy dose of seeding
2. Built-in interactivity: let the consumers mash up your creative
3. Last but not least: Strong and Entertaining Creative!

I'd say: content is still king. Forget about even trying to go viral if you don't have the right creative.

The enduring Influence of TV Advertising

In case you started to doubt about the effectiveness of TV advertising....

Oscar Jamhouri from 'Integrated Marketing and Communications' and Marek L. Winiarz from 'Method Marketing Communications' published a very interesting article in The Journal of Advertising Research, with the very long title: 'The Enduring Influence of TV advertising And Communications Clout Patterns In the Global Marketplace'.
They used MCA (Market Contact Audit, a tool somewhat similar to Optimix) to come with the following conclusions:

1. TV remains one of the most influential contacts
2. TV retains its clout against the digital competition
3. TV clout is greater in Asia than Europe / North America
4. TV is influential with the young demographic

Does that mean that we should do TV only? Of course not. What is says is that TV is not dead (yet) and that continuing to invest money in TV advertising is OK. At the same time: we know that multi-media is both more effective and efficient that TV centric. TV is OK, so long as you don't overdo it!

Understanding Integrated Media

Phil Gullen sent me article that he's written for Admap Magazine years ago. Whilst reading it, I could only conclude that it is still as valid today as it was then.

Of course the world has evolved in the meantime and so have we. Yet, there is a lot of truth in Phil's article. Basically he is confirming a lot of things we've been saying for so many years and he's giving it a practical twist.

No, I'm not going to make life easy for you. I'm not going to post the article here. You'll have to reach out to me if you want to read it.



Johan











Enjoy your reading

From TV centric to...

Interesting article on measurement in AdAge MediaWorks. Now that consumers in the US are increasingly turning away from the TV screen, towards...others screens, advertisers, media owners and agencies desperately try to understand the impact of their communication efforts.


The same content can be viewed in different ways, on different screens. Barriers between TV and 'the Internet' are increasingly blurred. Research however is still very much technology driven, not allowing us to understand what the combined impact is of the different contact points.


In the US a JIC (joined industry committee) was created representing advertisers, media owners and media agencies. They have joined forces with the purpose of developing a research tool that can help them understand the combined reach and frequency of the various screens. It's not going to be an easy one and it's going to cost a lot of money, but the added value clear.


In the meantime, let's make sure we track the impact of our communication on our consumers: IMC Tracker is coming your way!

Marketers Need Metrics to Integrate Traditional and Digital Media - eMarketer

Marketers Need Metrics to Integrate Traditional and Digital Media - eMarketer

Shared via AddThis

Now this is an interesting article with a much broader scope than what the tittle suggests. What do US advertisers identify as the biggest challenge in integrating off line and on line media? Knowledge! 'Having metrics to properly allocate the mix of traditional and digital media'.

This means that if we want to become better at what we do (which I would hope all of us aspire to) we need to have the right measurement tools and make sure we capture actionable insights. This means we need to work with K&I to make sure that creating a better understanding of the ROI of our media investments is high on our priority list. Budget is an issue? Yes, but one that can be overcome with the right level of perseverance and creativity: there are media owners out there who are dying to prove the effectiveness of their media channel! And let's not forget too that our media agencies have a role to play

Marketers Embrace Twitter over Facebook - eMarketer

Marketers Embrace Twitter over Facebook - eMarketer
Shared via AddThis

Marketers are embracing Twitter more than they do Facebook. Is this because Twitter is delivering higher ROI or because Twitter has been more hyped? Difficult to say. Experience will tell.
Question remains: should we be investing more on Twitter?
Maybe so, but before we start shifting funds, let's consider the following: Nielsen NetRating pannel of 250.000 US internet users shows that Twitter.com under-indexes on the youth market by 36%. In June 2009, only 16% of Twitter users were under age of 25, whilst they make up nearly 25% of active US internet users.*
This said, Twitter is a rather powerful beast, reaching almost 11% of all active internet users in the US in June!
* more details in Nielsen News article of July 30th.

Welcome

Welcome to the The Media Wire.

The Media Wire is a blog that is created as a platform to share media facts and insights on a regular basis. What are the big trends out there that you as a media- or marketingprofessional, should be interested in. Don't expect big and bulky reports. The Media Wire is only offering snapshots of the local and European media landscape.

And since it's on line, it's interactive. It's a tool to dialogue and exchange information. But whilst doing so, please remember this is an open platfrom!

Enjoy and please remember, I am open to your contribution and comments.

Johan Houben