Advertising with the WOW factor

As B2C advertising is suffering from similar problems and limitations as direct marketing media; low responce rates, low impact, and increasing market resistance; it is vital for advertising companies to search and embrace new technologies that will allow their clients a higher and sustainable ROI.

This can only be achieved by harnessing the full power of the internet; something that companies such as Adwise seem to be getting closer to. Although the idea of floating banners is not the best solution, what can be commended is the ability of their technology to reach users across portal and geographic borders, individually and without the use of rudimentary, and increasingly controversial tools like cookies.

Technologies like these focus on the users' online behaviour and not on largely inacurate profiling methods (such as ABC1s). Furthermore, they allow advertisers to reach their most profitable market segments in a highly targeted manner, for as long as the user is online, which allows for more effective campaigns.

The search is on for more, higher impact technologies without waiting for the elusive broadband, technologies that can trully liberate the creative genious and excite end users. Once found, online ad agencies can then enjoy the trust of advertisers, the benefits of their budgets and higher CPM rates. The company that finds this "Holy Grail" will, no doubt, enjoy exponential growth.

Advertisers are looking for advertising WithOut Waste (WOW); lets bring it to them. For more information on my findings, please email me.

In addition.....

Advertisers who look solely at CPM are committing the fatal error of viewing media space/channels as commodities. Sure, there needs to be an industry standard measure so that marketers can compare "apples with apples" but the CPM should be a topline guide, at best.

Brand/Advertising Managers who are wise enough to restrain their media buying agencies and who look at the more qualitative aspects will enjoy true "ROI".

For years, traditional media owners have been shackled by this notion of CPM. If they sell their space/time on the basis of a dry, meaningless index they reduce their brand to the same level as pork bellies and steel. Also, their entire revenue stream becomes dependent on fluctuations in audience/readership. They really should be aiming to develop a more consistent offering and touting the benefits of brand association and the unique purchasing habits of their audience.....its the quality of prospects rather than quantity of prospects!

Online, advertising-model properties followed the same route and are currently suffering the consequences. Why was there so little attention to the customisation/personalisation, customer data and the unique brand relationship that the Internet offers?

On 14:57:47 19 April 2001 ashley wrote:
>It is certainly difficult to argue against a desire for
>increased ROI. However, I'm not sure that the answer is a
>"search for more, higher impact technologies".
>
>Firstly you need to define what is meant by ROI - could be
>sales, could be profit, could be market share, could be
>brand awareness, could be page impressions, could be PR
>value etc. If you assume it means getting more money back
>than you put in (most common and obvious take) then, from
>an online point of view, you should work out what a
>customer is worth to you. How profitable is customer A
>over his / her lifetime versus customers B,C, or D. You
>might find that A customers give great ROI whereas D
>customers actually lose you money.
>
>If you can say that an A customer is worth on average,
>say, £100 to you (a lifetime value calculation) then
>you might say that you are prepared to pay £30 to
>acquire an A customer. If you've done your sums correctly
>and manage to keep your customer acquisition costs in
>check then you should get a good ROI. D customers might on
>average be worth -£100 so you need to minimise the
>number of D customers you have or work out ways to stem
>the costs associated with D customers.
>
>If you are clear on what you are prepared to pay for what
>kind of person it makes CPM negotiations and advertising
>decisions that much easier. If you track what referrals
>you get, how many of them convert and the type of
>customers you acquire, you can easily tell whether you are
>getting value for money or not.
>
>My point is that CPM rates in themselves aren’t
>really that valuable. It is often the case that one advert
>(Advert A - let’s say a banner advert or newsletter
>promotion) will deliver higher click through rates than
>another (Advert B) but that the customers you are referred
>from Advert B don’t then convert and, worse, the few
>that do turn out to be customer B types who actually lose
>you money. Fat lot of good the high CPM has delivered.
>
>Furthermore, if you know what you are prepared to pay and
>you know what kind of click through rates to expect, it
>doesn’t matter that much what the stated CPM rate is
>or whether click through rates are 0.5% of 1% as you will
>negotiate to a bar that you know will deliver value. Yes,
>higher click through rates, above your expectations, then
>deliver added value and should be strived for (through
>creative execution, targeting etc.) but at least you can
>be confident that you will achieve an acceptable ROI.
>
>Currently I think that companies should worry less about
>finding high impact technologies to deliver their
>advertising and focus first on getting their own tracking
>and reporting systems, metrics, customer value and
>segmentation strategies sorted out. The internet and other
>digital media were always sold as being unprecedented in
>their accountability among media. This is true, but it is
>taking a while for companies to achieve this level of
>digital intelligence. This is now happening, however,
>partly because the market has matured past the previous
>build, build, build focus and, ironically, because of the
>dotcom backlash which has seen a re-focus on demonstrable
>ROI and getting the most out of what you’ve already
>got.
>
>My strong suspicion, backed up by some research, is that
>high impact technologies will win you high click through
>rates to begin with just because they are new and groovy
>so customers are intrigued. This fast wears off. More
>importantly a) were you forced to pay through the nose for
>this new technology? and b) were these customers merely
>intrigued by the “high impact technology” and
>not in the slightest interested in the advertiser’s
>product or service? Either way it’s difficult to
>show ROI.
>
>P.S. I’ve found advertising in newsletters delivers
>very good ROI. It’s just text so very lo-fi, but it
>is cheap and quick to create, it is very targeted and the
>cost per user rates are typically much better value than
>their CPM equivalents.
>
>Where are others seeing the greatest ROI from online
>advertising?

The internet has not had the attention it "deserves" because it has not delivered on its promise; until recently all it has offered has been a glorified, digital version of the print media, with a little moving advert here and an automated page turner there that took too long to turn the page. Over promisse and under delivery is the plague that has pummelled the industry into the estate that it is in.
It is only by offering improvements to the status-quo that this industry of ours can be the contender it ought to be; not the uderdog of the media estable as it currently is the case.
Ideas and innovation that deliver resuts and advancements have been the forces that have taken every industry forward; the internet, with its current limitations, is able to deliver much more than what is currently available.
I agree that CPMs are not the best pricing method there is, but as you rightly say, they are a standard; and the industry does need standards as well as clarity. Having worked in the city in a previous life, i found nothing wrong with the pricing of commodities; these are by and large the results of supply and demand economics, a law that is present even in nature and which works rather well. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, wouldn't it be more constructive to adapt the prevailing methodology to include an alement of supply and demand?
Thus, if your offering provides a higher quality audience it follows that the advertiser will pay more to access it, as the demand for this access medium increases, so do your prices; offcourse the opposite is true, but then again, it is up to you to deliver true value to your client. In this scenario your client can be sure that he is paying what your offering is really worth (to the market at large) and you can take full advantage of your clients' price elasticity and thus enjoy higher margins. Alas, only if you can deliver and attract the required demand.
Price fluctuations can, and will bring profits to the better competitor.
Furthermore, it also covers any "quailitative" caveats that the client requires; for example, Brent crude, being a highger quality oil (higher carbon content) commands a higher price than say, oil from Dubay.
All this allows for clarity of pricing and for a more liquid industry, one in which one has to innovate in order to stay ahead of the field.
I strongly believe that trading advertising space in a way not dissimilar to the way in which say stocks are traded can offer great benefits to both, buyer and seller; amongst which will be the renewed trust that clarity of pricing can bring.
On 17:10:48 19 April 2001 murray wrote:
>In addition.....
>
>Advertisers who look solely at CPM are committing the
>fatal error of viewing media space/channels as
>commodities. Sure, there needs to be an industry standard
>measure so that marketers can compare "apples with
>apples" but the CPM should be a topline guide, at
>best.
>
>Brand/Advertising Managers who are wise enough to restrain
>their media buying agencies and who look at the more
>qualitative aspects will enjoy true "ROI".
>
>For years, traditional media owners have been shackled by
>this notion of CPM. If they sell their space/time on the
>basis of a dry, meaningless index they reduce their brand
>to the same level as pork bellies and steel. Also, their
>entire revenue stream becomes dependent on fluctuations in
>audience/readership. They really should be aiming to
>develop a more consistent offering and touting the
>benefits of brand association and the unique purchasing
>habits of their audience.....its the quality of prospects
>rather than quantity of prospects!
>
>Online, advertising-model properties followed the same
>route and are currently suffering the consequences. Why
>was there so little attention to the
>customisation/personalisation, customer data and the
>unique brand relationship that the Internet offers?
>
>On 14:57:47 19 April 2001 ashley wrote:
>>It is certainly difficult to argue against a desire
>for
>>increased ROI. However, I'm not sure that the answer
>is a
>>"search for more, higher impact
>technologies".
>>
>>Firstly you need to define what is meant by ROI -
>could be
>>sales, could be profit, could be market share, could
>be
>>brand awareness, could be page impressions, could be
>PR
>>value etc. If you assume it means getting more money
>back
>>than you put in (most common and obvious take) then,
>from
>>an online point of view, you should work out what a
>>customer is worth to you. How profitable is customer A
>>over his / her lifetime versus customers B,C, or D.
>You
>>might find that A customers give great ROI whereas D
>>customers actually lose you money.
>>
>>If you can say that an A customer is worth on average,
>>say, £100 to you (a lifetime value calculation)
>then
>>you might say that you are prepared to pay £30 to
>>acquire an A customer. If you've done your sums
>correctly
>>and manage to keep your customer acquisition costs in
>>check then you should get a good ROI. D customers
>might on
>>average be worth -£100 so you need to minimise
>the
>>number of D customers you have or work out ways to
>stem
>>the costs associated with D customers.
>>
>>If you are clear on what you are prepared to pay for
>what
>>kind of person it makes CPM negotiations and
>advertising
>>decisions that much easier. If you track what
>referrals
>>you get, how many of them convert and the type of
>>customers you acquire, you can easily tell whether you
>are
>>getting value for money or not.
>>
>>My point is that CPM rates in themselves aren’t
>>really that valuable. It is often the case that one
>advert
>>(Advert A - let’s say a banner advert or
>newsletter
>>promotion) will deliver higher click through rates
>than
>>another (Advert B) but that the customers you are
>referred
>>from Advert B don’t then convert and, worse, the
>few
>>that do turn out to be customer B types who actually
>lose
>>you money. Fat lot of good the high CPM has delivered.
>
>>
>>Furthermore, if you know what you are prepared to pay
>and
>>you know what kind of click through rates to expect,
>it
>>doesn’t matter that much what the stated CPM
>rate is
>>or whether click through rates are 0.5% of 1% as you
>will
>>negotiate to a bar that you know will deliver value.
>Yes,
>>higher click through rates, above your expectations,
>then
>>deliver added value and should be strived for (through
>>creative execution, targeting etc.) but at least you
>can
>>be confident that you will achieve an acceptable ROI.
>>
>>Currently I think that companies should worry less
>about
>>finding high impact technologies to deliver their
>>advertising and focus first on getting their own
>tracking
>>and reporting systems, metrics, customer value and
>>segmentation strategies sorted out. The internet and
>other
>>digital media were always sold as being unprecedented
>in
>>their accountability among media. This is true, but it
>is
>>taking a while for companies to achieve this level of
>>digital intelligence. This is now happening, however,
>>partly because the market has matured past the
>previous
>>build, build, build focus and, ironically, because of
>the
>>dotcom backlash which has seen a re-focus on
>demonstrable
>>ROI and getting the most out of what you’ve
>already
>>got.
>>
>>My strong suspicion, backed up by some research, is
>that
>>high impact technologies will win you high click
>through
>>rates to begin with just because they are new and
>groovy
>>so customers are intrigued. This fast wears off. More
>>importantly a) were you forced to pay through the nose
>for
>>this new technology? and b) were these customers
>merely
>>intrigued by the “high impact technology”
>and
>>not in the slightest interested in the
>advertiser’s
>>product or service? Either way it’s difficult to
>>show ROI.
>>
>>P.S. I’ve found advertising in newsletters
>delivers
>>very good ROI. It’s just text so very lo-fi, but
>it
>>is cheap and quick to create, it is very targeted and
>the
>>cost per user rates are typically much better value
>than
>>their CPM equivalents.
>>
>>Where are others seeing the greatest ROI from online
>>advertising?

Web-Based advertising must be controlled by Marketers! NOT Techies!
all that these marketers need understand is the limitations of all the technologies available, whilst techies must understand the whole of the marketing mix and a host of other factors.
When this is done, the results can be quite amazing; as an example I give you the Shoshkeles. A technology conceived in South America and being promoted by www.unitedsitesofamerica.com.
Please check them out if you havent already, this way you can appreciate what it is that I have been talking about in this forum.
This is the technology that comes closest to the technology that I have been championing.

They are high enough in impact to be memmorable; my favourite one is the NIKE advert.

On 17:10:14 17 May 2001 shilen wrote:
>Two thoughts from a marketer:
>
>1) When choosing between media, of course I need to
>compare like with like, but the two over-arching criteria
>must be:
>
>a) Will this media allow me to get my message to the RIGHT
>consumers?
>
>b) Will this media engage these consumer in a way that
>ensures they understand and remember my message?
>
>For example, TV is great at (b) but as it is mass media it
>scores low on (a). Furthermore as it is mass media, as a
>marketer you end up creating a brand message that will
>work for the 'lowest common denominator' consumer you are
>targeting. Take press, great at (a) as I can pick my
>publication to suit my target consumers and as a result I
>can tailor my message (rude for lads in FHM, conservative
>in Readers Digest). As a result the right messages are
>seen by the right consumer BUT press is very unengaging
>(when was the last time you laughed out load at a press
>ad?).
>
>Why am I posting all of this? Well I guess it is to say
>that as suppliers of a media (a new one) you need to
>working on both fronts. You MUST provide the measurements
>that can show me as a marketer that advertising on the web
>is going to get to exactly my target audience in the
>numbers I want and at the cost I want. But this only gets
>you half way there - you also need to keep pushing to make
>web-based advertising more and more engaging (and by the
>way I don't for a minute believe that DHTML is it!!).
>
>2) Here's a radical thought for you - I believe the single
>biggest opportunity for 'sellers' of new media to brand
>owners is to ensure they get out of the 'buying banners is
>just like buying a half page in the Sun' mentality. What
>do I mean by this? Well imagine if when TV started out the
>owners said brands could create programmes for themselves,
>rather than just buy 30 second slots between programmes
>(actually they did but that's a very long story!). Well
>now apply that to the web - stop selling space on sites,
>sell the sites. The biggest marketing potential on the web
>is to use brand sites that build communities of consumers
>around them that are based in the brand's essence. The
>equivalent of producing a half hour TV programme that
>lives your brand values that attracts exactly the right
>audience - now how much better than a 30 second slot in
>the tea break is that!
>
>For anyone that's interested I've done some work on
>persuading brands of this approach to web-based
>advertising (and interestingly of the benefits of creating
>TV programmes rather ads!).
>
>
>
>On 14:57:47 19 April 2001 ashley wrote:
>>It is certainly difficult to argue against a desire
>for
>>increased ROI. However, I'm not sure that the answer
>is a
>>"search for more, higher impact
>technologies".
>>
>>Firstly you need to define what is meant by ROI -
>could be
>>sales, could be profit, could be market share, could
>be
>>brand awareness, could be page impressions, could be
>PR
>>value etc. If you assume it means getting more money
>back
>>than you put in (most common and obvious take) then,
>from
>>an online point of view, you should work out what a
>>customer is worth to you. How profitable is customer A
>>over his / her lifetime versus customers B,C, or D.
>You
>>might find that A customers give great ROI whereas D
>>customers actually lose you money.
>>
>>If you can say that an A customer is worth on average,
>>say, £100 to you (a lifetime value calculation)
>then
>>you might say that you are prepared to pay £30 to
>>acquire an A customer. If you've done your sums
>correctly
>>and manage to keep your customer acquisition costs in
>>check then you should get a good ROI. D customers
>might on
>>average be worth -£100 so you need to minimise
>the
>>number of D customers you have or work out ways to
>stem
>>the costs associated with D customers.
>>
>>If you are clear on what you are prepared to pay for
>what
>>kind of person it makes CPM negotiations and
>advertising
>>decisions that much easier. If you track what
>referrals
>>you get, how many of them convert and the type of
>>customers you acquire, you can easily tell whether you
>are
>>getting value for money or not.
>>
>>My point is that CPM rates in themselves aren’t
>>really that valuable. It is often the case that one
>advert
>>(Advert A - let’s say a banner advert or
>newsletter
>>promotion) will deliver higher click through rates
>than
>>another (Advert B) but that the customers you are
>referred
>>from Advert B don’t then convert and, worse, the
>few
>>that do turn out to be customer B types who actually
>lose
>>you money. Fat lot of good the high CPM has delivered.
>
>>
>>Furthermore, if you know what you are prepared to pay
>and
>>you know what kind of click through rates to expect,
>it
>>doesn’t matter that much what the stated CPM
>rate is
>>or whether click through rates are 0.5% of 1% as you
>will
>>negotiate to a bar that you know will deliver value.
>Yes,
>>higher click through rates, above your expectations,
>then
>>deliver added value and should be strived for (through
>>creative execution, targeting etc.) but at least you
>can
>>be confident that you will achieve an acceptable ROI.
>>
>>Currently I think that companies should worry less
>about
>>finding high impact technologies to deliver their
>>advertising and focus first on getting their own
>tracking
>>and reporting systems, metrics, customer value and
>>segmentation strategies sorted out. The internet and
>other
>>digital media were always sold as being unprecedented
>in
>>their accountability among media. This is true, but it
>is
>>taking a while for companies to achieve this level of
>>digital intelligence. This is now happening, however,
>>partly because the market has matured past the
>previous
>>build, build, build focus and, ironically, because of
>the
>>dotcom backlash which has seen a re-focus on
>demonstrable
>>ROI and getting the most out of what you’ve
>already
>>got.
>>
>>My strong suspicion, backed up by some research, is
>that
>>high impact technologies will win you high click
>through
>>rates to begin with just because they are new and
>groovy
>>so customers are intrigued. This fast wears off. More
>>importantly a) were you forced to pay through the nose
>for
>>this new technology? and b) were these customers
>merely
>>intrigued by the “high impact technology”
>and
>>not in the slightest interested in the
>advertiser’s
>>product or service? Either way it’s difficult to
>>show ROI.
>>
>>P.S. I’ve found advertising in newsletters
>delivers
>>very good ROI. It’s just text so very lo-fi, but
>it
>>is cheap and quick to create, it is very targeted and
>the
>>cost per user rates are typically much better value
>than
>>their CPM equivalents.
>>
>>Where are others seeing the greatest ROI from online
>>advertising?

Shilen, I'm glad that the headline was controversial enough to catch your attention, that was the intent.
I'm happier still that you looked at the site, that was the aim.
In my limited experience, I fail to see the ineficacies of interruptive adverts; perhaps a clearer description of what is an interruptive message would clarify this.
After all, we never ask for TV adverts, nor advertisements in publications, not counting the constant bombardment of unrequested messages on the radio, e-mails in our screens, banners on the sites we visit, etc...
My perception has always being that we need to provide the consumer with an experience, entertainment &/or information, in order to build audiences that we can then monetize.
I am hereby assuming that by Consumer Centric Marketing you mean such things as Online Communities and the like. please correct me if I'm wrong.
I, in no way can argue their efficiency - economic and otherwise - , my only concern is that these communities must be marketed themselves, and as such, must rely on other media to attract their vital members.
If, however, you mean that Consumer Centric Marketing is about finding more about the consumer in question, and tailoring, not only the products, but also the messages; then, I am with you all the way.
The technology that I champion will surpass every other media in the way it achieves this, as it will build profiles based, not only on demographics, but also on the real online habits of the consumer.
What's more, it will give the advertiser the tools to reach individual consumers with highly tailored messages in real time, and even facilitate geographic campaigns.
Moreover, it will deliver its messages in a way not dissimilar to Shoshkeles, only with far more impact, and independent from any site.
This technology will have a significant level of intelligence built in, so, as an example: " a consumer is involved in a chatt discussion about a wine, the technology will pick up on this and deliver a message prompting the chatter to consider a cheese that compliments that particular wine perfectly"
Offcourse there will be limitations on the amount of messages that are delivered to a user in any one hour period (after consumer research, tests and focus groups) just like television; and because of its real-time and intelligent delivery, it will compliment Online Communities as the media to allow the full monetisation of the project.

My comments on Techies Vs. Marketers was just to bring out a theme that we all feel, but fail to express. We SHOULD all concentrate on our core competences, but its difficult to draw the line when the techies dont really understand what it is that marketers need, and thus, fail to deliver.

On 13:14:16 19 May 2001 shilen wrote:
>Sam, had a look at the site. It's really interesting
>technology and some of the examples are great. Some,
>however, are not...
>
>The technology is good in one way - it brings the brand to
>life and provides some form of experience. In some cases
>this experience can even be tailored to the consumer. At
>it's best then, when it really plays to the brand's
>essence and proposition and it really has the end consumer
>in mind, it could be a good form of experiential
>marketing.
>
>But...it still 'forces' itself on the end user. I didn't
>ask for the ad. At it's worst this could be just a higher
>technology interstitial - nightmare scenarios for
>consumers...
>
>Don't get me wrong - it's great technology but the key
>questions / challenges I have are:
>
>1) I don't believe it is up to marketers to understand the
>limitations of any media. It's the marketers job to say
>this is what I want to say about my brand with this end
>result. It's the creative & media agencies' job to
>understand enough about the brand and it's target
>consumers to recommend a strategy and execution. So, as a
>marketer I am always asking myself, how come I seem to end
>up directing my digital agency so much as to how the piece
>of technology they have just shown me should be used for
>my brand?
>
>2) I have a strong belief that marketing on the web can
>and should be so much more than the newest piece of clever
>programming. 'Interruption' marketing will never, in my
>humble opinion, provide the kinds of effectiveness (and
>therefore ROI) that real consumer-driven marketing can. I
>guess that's a challenge from me...anyone got any views on
>this one?
>
>
>
>