CEO | Catalyst S+F :: A San Francisco based marketing capital firm

Secrets Of A Digital Evangelist (Mediapost 3.21.12) 0

The role of the digital evangelist inside a large brand can be a difficult one. The road is marred with people who’ve taken on that responsibility before, and in many cases they’ve left feeling unfulfilled at best, or battered, bruised and beaten at worst. It can be a thankless job as you spend every waking hour developing innovative strategies, evaluating an endless stream of intelligent, venture-backed companies and holding one-on-one meetings to educate and expand the horizons of your colleagues. But don’t lose hope! The day of reckoning is upon us (or at least its very, very close).

I know many people who’ve played that role in brands, and I’ve played that role in agencies that wanted to drag their brands kicking and screaming into the digital age. It can be considered a pretty sexy job, to be positioned as the expert in a trailblazing category of media. It can also drive you crazy, because more often than not you’ll get buy-in from people in face to face meetings, but when push comes to shove and the dollars are being allocated, you may not see your conversations come to a satisfying fruition. To be successful in that role, wherever you may be, I do have some advice…

1. Start At The Top

When you first take on that role, even in the interview process, you want to go as high as you possibly can in the organization to get buy-in on innovation. Speak to the CMO, but also speak to the CEO and the CFO if you can, because most of the time the budget allocations for marketing include all three, not just the CMO. You want general buy-in from all the involved parties that innovation is looked on favorably in the organization, and that your ideas will be supported and the first place to cut the budget won’t be in the innovative marketing bucket.

2. Focus On Key Colleagues

This is a political decision, but it is an important one. You need to focus your efforts on no more than three people in the organization at the brand manager level, or possibly the director level, who are interested in being, and want to be viewed as, innovative. These are going to become your best friends in the organization. They will control specific budgets, they’re going to want to advance in their careers, and they’re going to be interested in digital. You invite them to meetings, you engage them in healthy discussion, and bring them to dinners, parties and events. I know it sounds a tad bit cheesy, but these are the people you want tied to your hip. You want them to go to bat for the ideas you develop together (yes – together). The rest of the people should be involved, but you will know quickly who your lowest-hanging fruit allies will be and the rest may end up playing second fiddle.

3. Don’t Take Center Stage All The Time

This one is not so easy. You need to make sure that the ideas you created, or were involved in, are seen as coming from other places in the organization. You are to be the “man behind the man” or the “woman behind the woman”. It’s your job to make sure everyone else sees the benefit of the digital platform, and that they’re perceived of as innovative. You don’t need the attention because everyone will know you were involved, and that is good enough. It’s your job to evangelize the platform, not take all the credit. That may mean you miss out on the internal award at the marketing conference, but that’s ok. You can’t take an award to the bank and cash it in – you get compensated on other metrics and those are what you should be focused on. If your partners win, you win.

Of course, patience is also a must in this role, because at least half of your ideas will never see the light of day. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t work on them. Think of it as practice. You need to put in the time, and sharpen the pencil that is your brain, in order to come up with the best ideas. The best ideas are the ones that will succeed and you will be viewed as a success as a result!

Posted on: 03-23-2012
Posted in: treffiletti.com

The Contradiction Of Google And Facebook (Mediapost 9.28.11) 0

For the last three years I’ve listened to the debate about whether Facebook will be around, much less dominant in 10 years, and if you asked me the question last month my answer would have been yes. However, if you asked me that question anytime this past week my response has changed. Dramatically.

Facebook is simply making too many mistakes. They seem to have attended the same professional schooling that birthed the CEO of Netflix, or Qwikster, or whatever they call themselves this week. Facebook changes its privacy policy like I change Pearl Jam t-shirts on a weekend. They futz with the interface of my news feed, adding triangles and squares and call-outs. They change the parameters of who’s posts will show up in my news feed at a whim and without my consent, forcing me to uncover cleverly hidden ways to return the feed to its original appearance. They cease sending me updates as to when people post on my page, and I miss information that I would have otherwise benefitted from. In sum, they attack my habits as well as invade my privacy in a way that doesn’t foster much loyalty or allegiance.

Google has been the exact opposite. They don’t change the interface; it’s a search box (it took 10 years for me to be able to put a picture on that page). They add features in “beta” and test them for years before they roll them out to everyone. Search results may be updated on a regular basis with slight tweaks to the algorithm, but in such subtle ways that they truly offer refined value to the consumer without causing mass hysteria. When Google does do something big, they tell you about it and offer you the chance to prepare and ease into it. When Facebook makes a change, its summarily adopted overnight and that’s that. You have no say in the matter.

What’s truly most disturbing, and what cannot be forgiven (most of the issues above are basically changes in design and can be forgiven) is that Facebook messes with privacy and Google rarely does. Facebook’s means of generating revenue is by guessing who I am and what I like based on what I post. It’s implied targeting. Google’s means of generating revenue comes from stated requests for information. That’s search targeting. Google does have a behavioral, privacy-threatening component in some of their mail ads, but for the most part they’re still based on keywords and not by scraping personal data. It’s still fundamentally targeting by content rather than audience. Google’s hat is hung squarely on the hook of search, whereas Facebook’s hat is hanging by a thread to the hook of privacy and inter-personal communications.

Another contradiction between Google and Facebook is that Google came out almost as an altruistic effort to organize the world’s information (and, of course, “do no evil”). They gave away search functionality to sites, they gave away search to users, and they fostered an image of usefulness and respect by their peers. From day one, with Zuckerberg’s attitude and approach, Facebook came off as antagonistic, selfish, and only in it for the money. When they released Facebook connect to the world, attempting to expand the social graph and make it easier for the world to share information, they did so by stating this would give them more access to more information. It came off positive at first, but companies understand there was never an altruistic idea behind that move.

Maybe it’s simply my perception, but for the first five years of Google’s life, they did everything right. They came off altruistic, mutually beneficial, and simple. From inception, Facebook has come off as greedy, immature, and only in it for themselves. Google’s pledge was to the consumer, whereas Facebook’s pledge was for its shareholders. I understand that this is a business, but if you look at how Google did it and where they are now, it’s hard to argue success. In the tangible world it’s the difference between Apple and Microsoft. Google and Apple feel like brothers of another mother whereas Facebook and Microsoft feel like a match-made-in-heaven.

So if you ask me where things will be in 5-10 years, I have to think predict that Facebook will lose some of its luster and position in the marketplace. It’s not to say that someone else will come along and replace them as the giant of the social web. It’s more to say that something will come along and change the way we view the social web, and Facebook might get left in the dust.

Or maybe I’m wrong. What do you think?

Posted on: 09-30-2011
Posted in: treffiletti.com

Tech companies and “the service problem” 0

Over the past few weeks I have had occasion to talk with a
number of digital leaders who lamented the experience of working with tech
start-ups. I want to start by saying that these critics are not people who
don’t appreciate innovation – to the person, they love it – but at the same
time they find it difficult or off-putting to deal with the companies that are
driving the change in the industry.

Versus
our experience with the media companies we deal with on a more regular basis,
service from tech firms generally doesn’t stack up. Our core complaint is that
the tech company is there when an IO needs to be processed, but impossible to
reach when you want to talk about business issues or address issues in a
program that is running.

While
sales people tend to be thinner on the ground for tech firms than media
companies, that doesn’t excuse bad service. The ironic thing is that while
media companies are desperate to hear more about business issues – to be
treated as partners – tech companies tend not to be. Not always, but
frequently.

So
why aren’t tech firms as responsive? First, I think we need to recognize that
the tech world values TECH, not service. VCs are primarily concerned with the
quality of the tech team, thinking that for the right product other disciplines
can be backfilled in. Not an excuse, but a fact just the same.

Second,
most consumer facing tech solutions were devised to meet consumer needs, not
advertiser needs. We all know that most media-rooted properties – magazines for
instance – exist because advertisers want access to an audience AND consumers
want information. So media companies tend to be more flexible about providing
more and more intrusive ways to reach out to readers. Contrast that with a service
like Twitter. I will wager that virtually no attention was paid to advertiser
needs when that product was first conceived. The result is a service that is
highly appealing for consumers but harder for brands to get their heads around.

Third,
media company models and service structures were conceived in an era of
information scarcity – where producing, say, the best shelter magazine meant
consumers got exponentially more “with you” than “without you.” Scarcity meant
more revenue, and that they could afford to pay for more service providers. By
contrast, au courant tech companies are developed in an era of consumer control
– where that shelter content competes with thousands or tens of thousands of other
“fish in the sea,” and the vast majority of those “fish” offer up their content
for free. It is only natural, then, that those companies place more emphasis on
ensuring that they deliver what consumers want rather than what advertisers
want.

Fourth,
great service for advertisers tends to focus on qualitative factors, custom
offerings, and high touch experiences. Those are not the core strengths of tech
companies. I think of it like this. That tech CEO is trying to change the
world, not change the way I feel about anti-perspirant stains on fabric. Not an
excuse for bad service, but something to consider as we ponder what we can
realistically expect to get from them in terms of service.

Finally,
they really haven’t had to care about us until recently. Put yourself in their
shoes for a sec. If your sole source of revenue is a VC, and the VC vales tech
leadership over everything else, what incentive would you have to build out a
partner services org? But as those VCs shift to wanting tech companies to start
generating revenue more quickly, the companies themselves need to find ways of
satisfying the very people that make that possible. In addition to their
consumer users.

In
a market driven economy, money talks, and if a tech company wants $500K of your
budget, you have the right to expect them to treat you right, answer your calls
and messages, listen to your needs and go back and see if they can address
them. If they don’t do those things, they shouldn’t get your money.

There
is no excuse for bad service. But it might be useful to give a well meaning
team the benefit of the doubt if they really are in the process of changing the
world. In many cases, these teams are filled with people who must make up their
service strategies as they go along, and it is possible that you could forge a
great relationship with a great company in the process of helping them better
help you.

But
marketers absolutely have the right to expect service to improve over time. In
my view, dealing with a few growing pains along the way is acceptable if the
tech company really is transformational in nature. But persistent crappy
service isn’t acceptable. And even the largest transformational tech companies
need to remember that just as consumers have thousands of choices online, so
too do marketers.

Posted on: 09-25-2011
Posted in: Oldest Living Digital Marketer

Start-Up Watch COD: Crowdtap makes influential people available to brands on demand 0

We all understand the value of consumer feedback for marketing ideas. By involving consumers at various stages of products and marketing program development, we can drive better results and a more efficient use of resources.

Of course, market research has been around for decades, and has helped brands get in better touch with how to meet consumer needs. But the costs, time, and complexity of developing and fielding traditional research studies make many companies decide to “wing it” instead of seeking feedback. The results often aren’t pretty.

Getting connected to consumers is even more important these days, because consumers play a much larger role in shaping the brand identities we work on. How can we get crucial feedback while also addressing some of the problems of the traditional market research process?

is a…hmm…how do I describe it? Social services company? Social research technology platform? The challenge is that it’s a whole lotta things. It’s a combination research sample/brand participation community/crowdsourced marketing/influencer marketing platform. Essentially they have recruited an energized and enthusiastic community, profiled them minutely, and made it easy for marketers to access them for a variety of purposes.

The profiling enables Crowdtap to give marketers REAL TIME access to populations within their target audiences. In addition to simply asking respondents questions, Crowdtap analyzes the content of their FaceBook pages to determine interests and eligibility for other marketing programs through which they can earn money,

In exchange, community participants get virtual rewards as well as cold hard cash for participating. When they reach a $10 earning threshold, they can take the money in the form of a gift card. In addition, five percent of their earnings are given to charity.

Another interesting layer for Crowdtap is a points system through which you earn badges and can participate in more activities. This adds a fun game mechanics dimension to the platform.

Here’s an interview of the CEO, from Served Fresh Media.

Crowdtap describes its value prop in terms of two key marketer needs:

Insight: The platform and community can provide real time research into virtually any question a marketer might have – about a product, about media, even a campaign. They offer multiple service levels, from a free version with limited capabilities for small business to larger versions geared to enterprise. Charges are based upon cost per action, so they relate to how many people you want in your sample. But the charges are quite reasonable, especially if you typically use conventional market research methods to communicate with customers and prospects. The platform includes multiple choice polls, open ends, and real time discussions with one or more respondents at once.The company can also establish “brand crowds” for more long term participation by respondents.

Influence: Crowdtap also offers brands peer-to-peer marketing opportunities by mobilizing individuals with high influence to communicate your product story to their social graphs. Influencers spread the word about brands in a variety of ways. Crowdtap can connect them to sharable/embeddable content that they can distribute across their social presences. Alternatively, they offer a sampling program that helps companies collect feedback about products and services quickly and easily. Third, they offer a program through which influencers host house parties in support of a brand.

One interesting use of this platform has been as a tool to help agencies gauge consumer reaction to creative concepts. Certainly the affordability of this solution makes it appealing to agencies.

CrowdTap is one of a growing number of start-ups that are causing genuine disruption in the market research world. Based upon the buzz they are getting, the disruption that this particular company is driving is very positive indeed.

Thanks to ad:tech for publishing this first!

Posted on: 04-30-2011
Posted in: Oldest Living Digital Marketer

Start-Up Watch COD: Chango: Is it time for you to start Search retargeting? 0

Thanks to ad:tech for publishing this first…

Ask virtually any marketer what the most effective marketing tactic they use is, and chances are they’re going to say Search. After all, if you can deliver a message when people are actively seeking info about your product – or even better, looking for a place to buy it – then the odds are pretty darned fine that you can make a sale.

It’s bottom of the funnel “I am ready to buy stuff” in many cases, which has great impact on DR response rates.

The issue with Search, though, has often been scale. Even with the tremendous reach of search leaders like Google and Bing/Yahoo, there is a limit to the number of people actively searching for your product today. Ergo, there a limited number of search results pages on which to appear. Add to that a CPC battle royal for top placement on those pages and the walls on search volumes close in.

The question is: How do you leverage the effectiveness of search related marketing across more prospects and customers?

A company called has one interesting answer. They are focused on “search retargeting,” or the ability to target ads to searchers AFTER they have left the results pages of Google or Bing.

You visit Bing and search for an item. You get your results and off you go. That’s where Chango kicks in, delivering ads to you related to the category you searched for. These may appear on contextually relevant pages or on general interest pages. Because the focus here is on qualified audience first.

To use Chango, a brand imports its set of keywords to the platform, and Chango serves dynamic display ads to people who have recently searched for one or more of those terms. Whether or not you were the number one ranked sponsored search result on the page, Chango gives you the opportunity to powerfully communicate your offering to those searchers across the web. Chango can also accommodate multiple landing pages and the like.

Here’s their CEO telling their story:

from on .

With Chango, you don’t need to create banner ads for each keyword. Rather, the platform combines your search text with images that you upload, creating graphical ads using clean and clear templates.

To deliver ads against these searchers, Chango purchases qualified inventory on the major ad exchanges.

Publishers partner with Chango to increase the value of their inventory. Chango pays them on a CPC basis, and because the search retargeting yields highly targeted audiences, the pubs can drive higher yield from these impressions. Because Chango ads appear in the graphical ad spaces on a page, they can be used in conjunction with contextually targeted Ad Sense programs.

We all know that Search data is very valuable for bottom of the funnel efforts. With Chango, those efforts can be scaled up to reap more of that value.

Cheers? Jeers? Tweet ‘em to @CatalystaJim

Posted on: 04-1-2011
Posted in: Oldest Living Digital Marketer

The Holding Company’s Will Be Launching Sales Rep Firms Within 2 Years (Mediapost 1.26.11) 0

Here’s a crazy idea to think about; what if the large agency holding companies start to get into the publisher rep business? Hear me out on this before you pass judgment, it’s not as crazy as it sounds.

The agency holding companies have a model that requires continued growth and the fact is the agency business is shrinking. You can see earnings releases from the big 5 that will contradict what I’m saying, but if you slice and dice the numbers you’ll see that as a whole, revenue generated by all agencies in the US put together is probably going down. Some companies are winning due to consolidation, but margins are getting squeezed, especially when it comes to media.

Hence, the birth and fast adoption of DSP’s and the automated buying tools that many agency holding companies are investing in. The biggest success of this in the agency world is Cadreon, which seems to be continuing a fast pace of growth. The agencies are finding a way to commoditize that portion of the online ad business that is based on data and standardized units. There are also a number of companies that are creating “network” solutions for non-standard units, so the trend here is to automate, decrease the staff, and increase the margin against this portion of the business. It’s logical.

Not all the online media can be commoditized, and that leaves some large, stand-alone, well-branded publishers who will continue to staff a sales team and service the agencies, but what if the agencies began to pitch the publishers with a model that was based on guaranteed inventory, decreased staffing costs and increased profitability? That is a formula that many of these publishers, many of which are having profitability issues of their own, would listen to.

If I were the CEO of one of the holding companies, I’d begin to build a business plan that created a rep management service to consolidate the sales efforts, cross media (including online and offline) for vertical categories of publisher and guarantee the revenue to the publishers in exchange for them taking their sales teams off the streets. In doing so they would decrease the costs of those publishers, they would lock in the premium inventory they need for their clients, and they would become a one-stop-shop for all media (targeted and untargeted) for their clients. They could still sell the media to their competitors at market prices, probably making money on the deals, and they would sell the media to their own clients, making money on the difference between their upfront buys and the selling price to their clients.

It may sound like a conflict of interest, but if you dive a little deeper you can find that the holding companies are already getting into this business little by little and it makes sense. Their job is to get their clients messages into the hands, eyes and ears of the target audience. If they happen to represent that media or buy it separately, there’s minimal difference. In many cases the holding companies already do deals for kick-backs and commissions on the flip side, so why not just bring it out into the open. They have to make money somehow, right? Additionally they already own the DSP’s and in some cases the networks where the money is being placed, so the conflict already exists and many people don’t seem to mind too much.

The rep firm model has taken a nose-dive in recent years, but if you consider that it still works for premium, cross-platform inventory which is not well-serviced through a commodity trading desk than you can see where the opportunity lies. And for publishers, who are combating rising costs to sell their inventory in a cluttered market, this represents a solution that though unconventional, still satisfies their needs.

Think about it. The holding companies are going to reinvent the business at some point. It may not be overnight, but if they can control the flow of media dollars on both sides of the equation, then they can set prices and maintain profits. It’s not a monopoly because anyone can get into the market if they can be competitive, but it is an interesting idea. What do you think? Tell me on the Spin Board!

Posted on: 01-30-2011
Posted in: treffiletti.com

The Internet’s Greatest Marketing Bloopers 0

Everyone loves a good blooper — until your own brand becomes the butt of the joke. Let’s examine some digital flubs and what we should take away from them.

Who doesn’t love a TV blooper? They are fun to watch — flubbed pronunciation, forgotten lines, double entendres. You don’t even need to be a mean person to enjoy them because bloopers are mistakes, but not deadly ones.

In an environment as dynamic and ever changing as digital, it’s natural that even the smartest in the digerati make bloopers in judgment or execution. Many such online marketing bloopers are the result of the changing reality brought on by the advent of digital, and as such are quite understandable. But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from them.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, then perhaps this article can help us avoid straightjackets by pointing out a few digital bloopers and what we should take away from them.

1) Don’t assume you can isolate messages

The web provides enormous opportunities to segment and tailor creative messages. But it also breaks down demographic, geographic, and other boundaries. Segmentation and tailoring does not prevent some segments from hearing and seeing what you are saying to others.

Remember this ad from Absolut, which depicted the pre-1848 Mexican and U.S. borders? Run only in Mexico, the ad was designed to be a funny nod to Mexican pride. The brand surely felt it had found a powerful visual to help la gente identify with the brand. Unfortunately, right-wing American bloggers got hold of the ad, and within hours were lined up to ban Absolut, call it reverse racist, and on and on. Former CNN personality Lou Dobbs switched to Grey Goose over it.

Now, in large part due to income disparities and population, Americans drink more Absolut than Mexicans. So the company had to scramble to apologize to Americans who might have been offended. Here’s what the brand issued:

“This particular ad, which ran in Mexico, was based upon historical perspectives and was created with a Mexican sensibility. In no way was this meant to offend or disparage, nor does it advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment, nor does it reflect immigration issues. Instead, it hearkens to a time which the population of Mexico may feel was more ideal.”
– Paula Eriksson, VP of corporate communications, V&S Absolut Spirits

But from a digital perspective, the key takeaway is that you need to assume that everyone can see everything.

2) Avoid building the branded destination website

Most of us have created a digital something in the misguided hope that significant numbers of people care about it and our products as much as we do. If you’re like me, there’s a $500,000-plus error in your past that reflects this sort of “Field of Dreams” mentality.

It wasn’t so long ago that lots of brands were building massive websites in hopes that consumers would spend half their online time interacting with branded games, participating in brand chats, talking to brand experts, etc. While less common these days, the branded “destination” site still appears periodically in the digisphere.

It’s fairly unlikely that you can attract and hold the sort of audience you are dreaming of. Why? Because just as The New York Times shouldn’t go into the chewing gum business, you probably shouldn’t go into the content business. It’s not what most of us do. Better to stick to what you know.

The classic example of this is Bud.tv, a $30-million experiment that folded in 2009. Now, hold the phone. I am not ragging on Bud here. If any brand could develop a compelling content destination, it’d probably be these guys. After all, the company “gets” its customer and knows how to bring the funny in a 30-second spot.

But even Bud couldn’t define and deliver a place where its customers would want to “live” online. The hype and anticipation of Bud.tv were ultimately met with lukewarm consumer response — despite a broad range of decent-to-good video, activities, and game content on the site.

The hard, cold reality: Bud makes beer, not movies and games. And you make pine-scented air fresheners or electronics or weekend getaways or whatever it is that you make. Not entertainment.

3) Don’t field social media programs just before the weekend

Arguably, no one is better at marketing to moms than Johnson & Johnson, so its misstep on Motrin was a bit surprising. Motrin developed a tongue-in-cheek ad that poked fun at moms who love baby slings — fabric baby carriers that keep your child right next to your body. Motrin suggested that moms who wear them cry more than moms who don’t, presumably due to back and neck strain. Here’s the ad:

The video went up late on a Friday. While of course social media is a 24/7/365 proposition, most marketing and PR people are at home on Saturdays, and probably not monitoring the social sphere for consumer reaction. But as Motrin soon learned, mommy bloggers and mommy Twitterers do not take Saturdays off.

The maelstrom of was , and it built throughout the weekend. By the time Monday came along, Motrin faced a tsunami of angry moms.

Motrin responded quickly. Down the ad came, and with its disappearance the controversy more or less ended.

We could dissect the ad and try to take creative lessons. But hindsight is 20/20. I think its best that we remember that we live in a connected world, and individual opinions matter. And when we don’t participate in the dialogue about our brand, bad things happen. So never field campaigns or social media on the weekend. Because listening to early reactions is critical to ensuring success. Had the campaign gone out on a Monday, J&J could have addressed the concerns in near real time, provided it was using one of the many social insights platforms currently available. Nothing good comes from not being around at launch time.

4) Never claim “hackproof”

When a medium reaches more than a billion people, it’s safe to say that there is someone out there who can hack whatever you can make. How long does it take before Microsoft launches its latest security update before the next virus hits?

It’s not just software that has been hacked as well as shamed online. The people who make Kryptonite bicycle locks found themselves in a whole mess of negative publicity http://www.engadget.com/2004/09/14/kryptonite-evolution-2000-u-lock-hacked-by-a-bic-pen/ way back in 2004 when Engadget was able to pick its signature high-end lock using only a ballpoint pen.

And of course there’s LifeLock http://www.lifelock.com/, which famously posted its CEO’s social security number everywhere to prove how protected its members are. While said CEO was able to use the service to avoid damage to his credit, his identity was stolen many times. Meaning people used his social security number in a variety of ways, but none had material impact on his credit. Because LifeLock had stated or implied (tomato-tomahto) absolute security, it lost the PR battle, even if its CEO can still easily get a new mortgage.

In short, claiming hackproof is like waving a red flag in front of 6.5 billion bulls. You might be able to outrun the pack, but at least one is getting its horn into your gut.

5) Don’t “wing” it without a social media policy

It seems that many companies have recognized the importance of social, and the value of a “live” company presence in social media. Unfortunately, some jumped straight to social media execution without first developing a sound social media policy.

Hospital nurses cell-photoing an embarrassing X-ray and on a social net . Earnest social media managers making statements that are inappropriate. The number of examples in which companies would have been helped by offering explicit and well-considered social media policies is legion.

Fortunately for those who made or are making this misstep, many organizations have made their social media policies public, and reviewing these can help companies understand, anticipate, and address potential issues before they arise. With all these examples publicly available, there’s no reason or excuse to wing it anymore. Naturally, companies need to strike a balance between natural and genuine thoughts and opinions with the need for strong corporate controls. Fortunately, more and more companies are succeeding.

6) Don’t ignore privacy concerns

Most industry participants are certain that advanced targeting technologies pose no threat to consumer privacy. That doesn’t matter anymore. What matters is that consumers and the government think that they pose a threat. The WSJ article last July was just one of the stories that are slowly rousing public concern about online privacy.

You can say people are confused. You can say people are being paranoid. Or moronic. But you are in the people-pleasing business, not the people-judging business.

“Judge not lest ye be booted out on your snotty arrogant a*s, you self righteous b*stard.”
(Book of Jim 1:1).

Ask if privacy concerns matter. Or now defunct http. Or better yet, ask , FTC chairman .

The self-regulation efforts from a cross-industry coalition, encapsulated in the “Power i” program, have created a great means of informing the public and enabling cool, rational decisions about advanced targeting. Get on board.

Many thanks to the fine people at for publishing this first.

Posted on: 01-3-2011
Posted in: Oldest Living Digital Marketer

4 Companies Making A Difference In Your Quest For Engagement 0

Teaser: One thing that’s apparent in the rush toward engagement — there is no one way to drive it. But here are just a few of the solutions that can help you sustain the vital marketing relationship.

Highlights:

Solve Media’s Type-In replaces captchas with relevant brand messages
EXPO TV leverages consumer insight to create a video community that advice seekers and brands can join
AOL’s Project Devil enables consumers to explore brand messages and information on their terms in a low-distraction environment
The Meebo Bar gives publishers an easy way to make their content social and drive incremental viral traffic
Gigabytes of speeches, articles, and blog posts have pointed to the need to drive deeper engagement with consumers. It’s a topic that goes right to the heart of digital media’s advantages — two way communications and the opportunity to deliver bona fide experiences. But in all of this discussion, the definition of engagement quickly gets squishy.
• Is a click engagement?
• How about a “like”?
• Is there a minimum time threshold required to qualify as an engagement?
• Do we need engagement standards across the industry?

One thing that’s apparent in this rush toward engagement — there is no one way to drive it. Both new and established companies are taking different approaches to the goal. Today I want to discuss four companies with that are making distinctive in-roads toward helping marketers forge deeper connections with audiences. Each company’s product is designed to create ongoing brand impact — a rich real-world experience, or greater message recall, or delivery of deep and compelling information to drive brand choice.

Solve Media: Engagement inspired by your third grade teacher

What do you do if you want to make sure you don’t forget something? Solve Media hopes we remember the advice of our third grade teachers (in my case Mrs. Briggs): You write it down, or type it into something. (disclosure, a Catalyst S+F client) was founded to leverage that idea for marketers.

The core offering is the Type-In — a unit that replaces the frustrating “captchas” that confront us when we want to register or gain access to content. Every day, almost 300 million of these exasperating captchas get filled out; many more than once because they can be so difficult to decipher. Enter Solve Media.

See the ad, type in the message, and you’re done. Here’s a short vid that makes it all clear.

“Type-Ins are dead simple,” says Ari Jacoby, co-founder and CEO of Solve Media. “Lots of companies are focusing on layers of technology and data sets to coax higher response rates. All of that is important work. But we took a different road. Our platform offers a genuine and guaranteed value exchange, without new infrastructure or privacy issues for clients. The consumer gets what she wants, and the client and publisher get real value.”

Does it work? Solve commissioned a third-party that showed a 111 percent higher level of brand recall from Type-Ins versus banners, and 12 times the level of message recall. Further, it appears that people are at least as likely to complete a Type-In versus a captcha in order to get what they seek. Internal Solve Media data indicate that 40 percent of consumers who encounter a Type-In engage and type the information correctly.

Mrs. Briggs from third grade was right.

Type-ins are sold by pay-per-completed-type-in. You only pay for those instances when consumers type the message correctly. Many large publishers are implementing this new platform because it creates new inventory, reduces customer frustration, and gives advertisers impact. Some pubs are also exploring the platform as an alternative method of paying for content. For example, a major metro newspaper could deploy a Type-In instead of charging a monthly fee for content. Since so few consumers are willing to pay cash for content, this technology offers a way to get consumers to pay attention and for publishers to monetize their product.

Solve is newer than the other companies discussed in this piece, but they have already garnered an impressive client list, including Toyota, Microsoft, Expedia, Universal, and Dr. Pepper.

EXPO TV: Engagement through personal endorsement

We’ve all seen the data that consumers trust the recommendation of a regular person — any regular person — more than ads. More and more consumers are turning to the web to find consumer POVs before they buy. EXPO TV http://www.expotv.com/, a New York based start-up, is leveraging this consumer insight to create a video community that advice seekers and brands can join. In just a couple years, they’ve cultivated a remarkable client list.

Endorsements online aren’t new. But EXPO TV has created a community of product fans and reviewers who volunteer to deliver their thoughts in stand-up-presenter videos. Consumers appear onscreen to discuss the merits (and issues) of products.

Here’s an example:

See all at Expotv.com

This video and several others were tested in a measuring the effectiveness of consumer word of mouth videos versus commercials. The study found that these homemade creations, despite their decidedly unslick production values, have comparable persuasive power to professional ads.
It’s easy to see why so many consumers find this sort of video compelling. So compelling, in fact, that some progressive brands, like do, have made these the centerpiece of their brand web presences.

Consumers can rate any product that they like, but brands can encourage consumers to rate their offerings in a variety of ways. You can sponsor a contest, use their Tryology program to send out samples in exchange for honest reviews, even build dedicated brand pages on the site. Additionally, EXPO can distribute videos directly to retailers, who use them as an aid to sale, as in from Amazon. By partnering with EXPO, you get rights to use consumer videos whenever and wherever.
All videos are transcribed and matched to products, right down to the SKU. One result is that when you look up consumer products in Search, EXPO videos are often among the top 10 results.

EXPOTV lets consumers speak freely. They ask consumers for honest opinions. Fans praise freely. And consumers that have questions or issues are welcome to respond and add videos to the EXPOTV site as well. But what’s interesting is that the tenor of video is almost universally positive — 85 percent.

EXPO TV has more than 75,000 regular video-making participants, and its vids have garnered more than 40 million views since the platform was launched.

AOL Project Devil

A major new engagement initiative from AOL, called Project Devil http://advertising.aol.com/creative/projectdevil, has just been launched with a premier list of charter advertisers including General Mills, Unilever, Lexus, Sprint, and Procter & Gamble.

This new creative execution enhances consumers’ experiences as they interact with content, and drives significantly greater engagement. Devil does this by enabling the consumer to explore brand messages and information on their terms in a low-distraction environment.

Devil ads are larger units, 400×1200 compared to the standard 300×250 units. That gives brands a 100 percent voice on the page and offers a multitude of content in a single, unbroken space. The modular unit enables the brand to insert virtually any form of content into one of the template unit zones.

These zones can include video, interactivities, choosers, store finders, deep product information, and the like. In essence, they treat the product and the process of learning more about it as “news”. Here’s an explanatory video:

The Devil offering also makes significant changes to the overall page experience. Rather than competing for attention with a bunch of sponsored messages, Devil ads are the only paid marketing offered on those pages.

To really see the experience, you need to look at a Devil ad in the context of a web page on which it appears. This view gives you a sense of what they are going for — genuine content integration rather than garish, blinky “click now” annoyances at the periphery of the screen.

According to AOL, Devil is a paradigm shift for digital advertising, where ads have historically been designed to distract users from the content they sought. Their website puts it this way:

Most online ads today are designed to distract the user. So as ads have proliferated, the user experience has suffered — along with the user, of course. In many other media, ads are part of the experience. Far from detracting from the writing or programming, they contribute to it. Nowhere is this more possible than on the internet. Project Devil is our first step toward realizing this potential.
A nice vision and a cool unit.

Meebo: Connecting brands to my social graph

Given Meebo’s http://www.meebo.com/ heritage of making social sharing easier, it’s only natural that their solutions for brands focus there as well. Last year the company launched the Meebo Bar http://www.meebo.com/websites/. It gave publishers an easy way to make their content social and through that functionality drive incremental viral traffic.

Meebo users that arrive on the participating sites automatically see the toolbar at the bottom of their browser, in front of a small strip over the site content. As the user scrolls down, the bar is persistent, moving with the user’s field of vision. It’s polite yet intrusive — let’s call it “poltrusive.”

The toolbar offers brands several ways to communicate with consumers, drive engagements, and spread messages virally. Here’s a picture of the “unopened” toolbar, which features what they call a “media alert.”

The user hovers over or clicks on the alert, which opens a large 900×400 window. What appears in the window is up to the marketer — video, Flash, static images, interactivities, advergames, store finders — virtually anything a brand might find useful.

Engagement times average 30-50 seconds. Advertisers only pay for engagements, not impressions; the settings on the bar are such that accidental rollovers are not counted.

Consumers can also drag and drop marketing messages into their social media platforms — Facebook, Twitter, AIM, email, and more. The sharing feature encourages both longer and stronger interaction by the user, as well as free distribution of brand messages across users’ social graphs. A recent program for Hershey’s Kisses invited users to customize the wrapper on a virtual kiss and send it to friends and family through their favorite social channels. It gave Hershey a presence on lots of social networks through a single buy on their platform.

Of course, consumers’ willingness to take a message viral depends upon the creative, and Meebo offers advice to marketers on how to make messages more viral. Additionally, because the platform is a permanent part of participating sites, it affords the opportunity for dayparting. Said Carter Brokaw, CRO of Meebo:
“One way in which we differ in the marketplace is that because we have a platform that is persistent on websites, we can serve impressions based on time, and that drives engagement.”

Targeting naturally improves response rates. Marketers can choose demographic as well as psychographic and interest based targeting, or a combination of these techniques.

Conclusion

I like what these four companies are doing because their approaches start with a consumer insight and use it to create something unique.

For Solve, that insight relates to how human memory works. With EXPO TV it’s our innate desire to understand what others think. AOL’s Devil uses size, functionality, and low distraction to break through our distraction filters, while Meebo leverages our desire to interact with friends to drive advertiser value.

Leveraging consumer insight is surely essential to driving sustained engagement, and it’s great that these and other companies are taking such distinct approaches to realize the same goal.