mini-skirts

The fella who famously said 'half of my advertising budget is wasted..I just don't know which half' must be getting even more perplexed.

Two headline stories last week.
The IAB reports that 'The internet now accounts for 23.5% of all advertising money spent in the UK, while TV ad spend accounts for 21.9% of marketing budgets.'

Cue mass web v tv hysteria on twitter...

Interesting, but on further investigation (and I tip the hat to Simon Kendrick who done the digging so we don't have to) the growth in online advertising is propelled on the whole by search not display (so get back in yer box digital advertising types - display accounts for less than 20% of said online spend)

Serving only to confuse matters even further is the story from Adage that 'the number of people online who click display ads has dropped 50% in less than two years, and only 8% of internet users account for 85% of all clicks'

In reality, we all know that click thru is the most bollocks of measurement anyway, and the ratio points at something in the area of classic 80/20 rule, so no big deal.
And, again, averages really tell us nothing. Response levels and degrees of engagement are going to vary by industry sector (and by creative use of the format).

Ads that offer meaningful interaction and deliver return on interest for the user are going to be more effective. Boring, shit ads will not. End of.

I commented on Simons piece that as more and more ad supported media moves online (tv, newspapers, music, films, books etc etc) it stands to reason that ad spend will shift.
What would be MORE interesting would be to find out portion of total marketing budgets are moving from paid-for advertising spend (all media) to ‘other’ activities that tip sales in active evaluation, like customer service, utility and service driven activity.
That would be a real story.



Finally classic quote from Danish sage and former Aberdeen FC boss, Ebbe Skovdahl..

'Statistics are just like mini-skirts, they give you good ideas but hide the most important thing.'

Tweet

Add to: Digg | del.icio.us | Technorati | Yahoo | reddit

the ROI of the tiger

Pondering over the Futurelab ‘Reconsidering the Advertising Industry’ report, and in particular chapter 5 ‘Walk the Digital Talk’

The chart below represents the view of a panel of 200 CMOs, polled by Sapient, who were asked about the skills they were looking for in their agency. My initial reaction was one of ‘if only ‘twere true…’



Futurelab also speculate:
‘Digital Agencies often miss depth in communication and strategy….Many “new media” agencies outskill and outthink traditional houses on the digital front. But they often lack the broader perspective that comes with true 360°, ROI based thinking….they chase the technology rather than look at the end customer’s actual media consumption. And all think of digital campaigns rather than using digital as a platform for relationship building.'

This segues neatly onto the ROI of the tiger…

In a recent post Collaborate Marketing's James Cherkoff quotes Nick Gonzales from Inside Facebook:

‘There’s currently a metrics vacuum in the social media space and it’s being filled with traditional metrics pulled from search and display. The only problem is that these metrics don’t make sense for brand campaigns in social media.’

I would argue that it’s even worse than that, in many cases its still the largely unmeasureable traditional advertising that’s viewed as more effective despite the fact there’s not even a ‘conversion event’ ie click through.

James also addresses the ROI question with regard to social/engagement activity.
‘Compared with what?’
With that in mind, allow me to relay to you a true story.

I recently pitched a digital engagement idea which would have delivered:
- Connection with a large core group of BrandX’s most passionate advocates
- Connecting those fans with each other in the brand’s space
- Invaluable data from the above and appropriate permission to continue to engage
- 6 months of activity where the advocates create and share content
- The ability to leverage that content for SEO
- A strategy to reduce dependence on paid search over time
- Something the advocates would ‘advertise’! (ie viral by nature)
- A permanent activity based asset for the brand to reuse.
- The activity was contextual to NPD delivering a reason to buy.
- NO MEDIA SPEND (£0) (zilch) (not a fucking sausage)
- All for the same price as the MEDIA ONLY of a one month press ad across half a dozen national titles.

Whilst the idea was well received the client bought the press ad instead.
Here were those metrics, something like 68% OTS (of 5.5m) at 2.9.
That means 68% of the ‘target audience’ might ‘see’ the ad about 3 times in that month.
These numbers, of course, identify reach only and not any depth of engagement.
Head => brick wall.

With nowhere else to turn I consulted the oracle.

‘The fundamental issue is that it is very difficult to enumerate an accurate "gain from investment" when it is clear that a lot of the new marketing has an almost osmotic effect and works indirectly.
And the defence is this. If the "cost of investment" is low, as is clearly the case in much of the new marketing, then it is equally clear that only a small impact on revenues will generate an impressive ROI. ‘

The upshot is; social media and engagement activities can only be measured in the context of contribution to the overall effectiveness of all the interdependent marketing activity, surely?

The quest continues….

Footnote:
One of Cherkoff’s commenters added:
‘Do you think Nike are worried about the metrics on Nike Plus?’
Totally agree, but can I just state for the record that if I hear Nike+ rolled out one more time as a case study I will literally chew my own leg off and gouge my left eye out with a spoon.

Tweet

Add to: Digg | del.icio.us | Technorati | Yahoo | reddit