Monday, December 21, 2009

Who Gets the Highest Ad Rates Online?

With All the Talk of CPMs Going to Zero, Here's a Survey of Who's Commanding Top Dollar

by Michael Learmonth
Published: December 21, 2009

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Online ad rates, we're told, are on an express train to zero, helped along by gagillions of impressions generated by Facebook, Twitter and its ilk, and the networks, exchanges and targeting technologies that allow advertisers to buy audience as a commodity, without dealing with individual sites at all.

And while the recession has put another hit on CPMs -- the term ad buyers and sellers use as shorthand for the cost for 1,000 impressions -- across the web, some sites can still pimp fat ad rates either by virtue of their reach, specialized audience or unique environment.

Who's getting the best ad rates on the web today? The slideshow that follows, culled from agency buyers and media sellers, is far from scientific, but gives a good sense of who can still charge bank and why.

Got some other fat CPM candidates? Leave them in the comments section.

See slide show here: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=141153

Friday, December 4, 2009

Breast Cancer Awareness

Many of you know how locked into cancer I am, and how important I feel it is to make a difference here. Have a look at how one group at a hospital in Portland tried to promote awareness.




It's a amazing how it humanizes everyone. Doctors next to lunch ladies as one.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Twitter and Social Networking



A quick post by me, and a little syndication. And yes that is my beautiful fiance's eye above my head... Always watching, always watching.

Anyway on to the blog. A number of us have been discussing Social Networking recently and how this can be effective for brands and organizations. Several digital organizations have even started departments to support this concept. My feelings are: It's not for everyone. Big CPG brands can monetize this. And small retail stores may be able to twitter discounts to local followers for a call to action. But Joe Six Pack at X Lumber Company, I'm still waiting to hear the theory.

Perhaps it gives you more content on the web, but the guy buying your timber is not gonna follow your posts on twitter, and he probably doesn't care that you went to the Blackhawks game lastnight.

I know we are all still trying to figure this game out, and by the time we do, we'll probably be too late. Nonetheless we'd love to hear your thoughts.

Here's some more info from a decent post on AdAge today:


Chalk Up Twitter's Decline to Ghost Followers
Is Your Network a Global Ponzi Scheme of Madoff-ian Proportion?



Taddy Hall
Last week, eMarketer reported data from Compete, Nielsen and ComScore showing a decline in visitors to Twitter from 23 million to 20 million.

Why might that be?

Our data here at Meteor, collected from a cross-section of sites (though not necessarily representative), shows a very clear pattern: Click-through rate on tweets is inversely correlated with number of followers. In plain English, the more followers you have the less likely they are to click on your tweets.

They are, in effect, Ghost Followers.

What's happening?

The currency in Twitter is followers. Fine, but one of the essential attributes of currency is that it is either intrinsically valuable (gold) or a proxy for value (greenbacks). And what we have with Twitter is a currency (followers) of little or no value -- intrinsic or implied.

What we have all realized is that the best way for me to get you to follow me -- more "currency" for me -- is for me to follow you. I scratch your back and you scratch mine. That neither of us pays any attention to the other's tweets is a trifling concern.

Well, you can see where this all leads: a global Ponzi scheme of Madoff-ian proportion (comical, though, not criminal).

There have always been two engines to Twitter's growth: utility and novelty. Particularly for businesses, Twitter has shown itself a useful if not revolutionary tool. And in select circumstances for private citizens -- such as natural disasters or local happenings -- Twitter is wonderfully handy.

The novelty factor had to wear off. Perhaps we are seeing the early signs of this inevitable evolution.

Twitter is not dead, but nobody really cares that I put milk on my cereal this morning.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Why Murdoch Can Afford to Leave Google for Bing

More Traffic Doesn't Mean More Money for Online Publishers

by Nat Ives
Published: November 23, 2009


NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- News Corp.'s talk about listing its sites exclusively on Microsoft's Bing sounds unpromising in several ways, but all of Rupert Murdoch's recent agitation and exploration are at least pushing one fact back to the fore: Web traffic only gets publishers so far in their quest for digital ad dollars. After a certain point, actually, traffic may not even matter.

Rupert Murdoch
AP
Rupert Murdoch
More traffic means more bragging rights and helps attract advertisers who need to reach a lot of people quickly, but each new increment of visitors is something less than a new gold mine. Most sites, for one thing, already have much more inventory than they can sell.

Would giving up some search traffic mean giving up a proportionate amount of ad revenue? "Right now it would not," said Jim Spanfeller, president-CEO of The Spanfeller Group and former president-CEO of Forbes.com. "Because no one's sold out."

"In this climate, most sites are probably sold out through maybe 40%," he added.

And ad networks typically deliver pennies for every thousand more visitors that publishers attract. "Most ad networks deliver between 16 cents and $1 for a thousand," Mr. Spanfeller said. "So even if you were taking that strategy and working with ad networks, the impact of what search was driving would be minimal."

What's more, not all traffic is equal. Readers who arrive via search are predominantly "one-and-done" visitors, not the people advertisers most want.

News Corp's. Wall Street Journal Online got 17.4% of its unique visitors in October through Google and less than 1% from Bing, according to Compete.com. But there's no way pulling out of Google would mean losing anything like 17.4% of its ad revenue.

"What's the point of having someone come [to us] occasionally who likes a headline they see in Google?" Mr. Murdoch asked in his recent Sky News interview. "Sure we go out and say 'We've got so many millions of visitors, you had better advertise' and so on. The fact is, there's not enough advertising in the world to go around to make all the websites profitable."

Friday, November 20, 2009

Can You Predict Successful Innovation? You Bet You Can

Hit New Products Aren't the Result of Just Luck or Creative Genius

by Phil Roos
Published: November 19, 2009


Popular opinion suggests that great innovation results from a mysterious combination of forces that make it appear to fall from the sky. Whether divine intervention, the harnessing of creative genius or luck, to many, innovation seems to surface at random moments and emerge from circumstances that cannot be reproduced or understood.

However, based on a 30-year analysis of 300 product categories covering 225 countries, it becomes clear this perception is false: Tomorrow's winning innovation can actually be predicted.

This is not to discount the importance of creative genius or occasional celestial help. But it is possible to determine what type of innovation will win in tomorrow's marketplace -- in essence, to see the future.

Great innovation builds on what comes before it and does not require people to make radical changes in beliefs or behavior. What often looks like breakthrough innovation is actually a small advance or twist on an established idea. That the change is evolutionary, however, doesn't keep its impact from being revolutionary.

Monitoring market evolution across the globe over time reveals patterns consistent across categories and markets.

Consumer needs evolve in predictable ways. There are waves of successful mass-market innovation that mirror a natural evolution in consumer needs.

Innovation cross-pollination
Innovation "news" that addresses those needs gets adopted in predictable ways. "News" in the form of new features/benefits first gets launched by smaller players. Competitors then add new twists, and eventually the category reaches a "tipping point" where an idea occurs with enough frequency for it to reach mass adoption. This diffusion of innovation cross-pollinates across categories and markets.

For example, Crest Whitestrips in many ways appeared to come out of the blue about 10 years ago. But an analysis of innovation patterns prior to its introduction suggests the occurrence of numerous previous products with similar approaches or delivery systems (for example, nicotine and estrogen patches, breath strips), all paving the way for Whitestrips' success. Whitestrips succeeded in the mass market by building on past news and combining it in an inventive way at the right time, addressing a natural evolution of oral-care needs.

In much the same way, Apple's iPod revolutionized the music industry in 2001, but its success was actually foreshadowed by portability, digitization and customization trends in everything from cameras to computers. Mobility of electronic devices was an innovation preceding the iPod, back to the original Sony Walkman. Thus the iPod emerged as a natural next step in the evolution of consumer multimedia needs.

The Whitestrips and iPod examples demonstrate the importance of hitting the market with the right news at the right time and in a way that addresses the natural evolution of consumers' needs. To do that successfully, it is critical to understand the four key drivers of winning innovation: business dynamics; consumer insights; creativity and design; and innovation patterns.

All are important, and a lot of good work is being done in the first three areas. But it is the fourth driver, understanding innovation patterns, that can help move the analysis from looking at the world today to projecting into the future. Deciphering existing and emerging patterns provides a view of what's going to happen tomorrow.

Understanding consumer needs
An important construct in understanding innovation patterns is a model of the evolution of consumer needs. Research indicates there are waves of successful mass-market innovation in various categories. The model can go back decades and looks at the early core motivators of the category (safety, well-being, gratification and convenience). Usually two or three category-specific motivators can be identified (things such as health, beauty and convenience). These are the primary reasons consumers come into a category in the first place.

Subsequent waves of innovation include products that deliver more advanced expressions of core motivators, the fusion of benefits and the appearance of secondary benefits. The model also plots where a category is in its evolution and shows it relative to other categories. This comparison pinpoints how a less-developed category may be influenced in the future by innovation "seeded" in more developed categories.

Based on this experience, it's easy to predict how and why consumer needs evolve. What is hard is to know what to do in response and when to do it.

This leads to a final and critical piece: identifying future innovation that will deliver against the evolving needs. To do that, all of the innovation "news" in a category can be mapped over time, much like a genealogical tree. Older or lower branches represent news that is already "mainstream" to consumers. Newer branches of the tree indicate emerging and future news, which can be identified well before it hits the mass market.

Moving beyond safe
By analyzing multiple trees across core and other categories from which innovation might be sourced, it's possible to predict what kind of innovation is likely to be adopted three to five years out. This work is a key step in helping find future white space and developing corresponding high-value strategic platforms.

It also takes a champion to put all these pieces into action, to really "see" and "be" the future of innovation within a category. The CMO plays a critical role in making sure his or her organization has the best seat at the innovation table by having the right people and the right approach in place. It takes leadership to move beyond "safe," close-in innovation and truly do the work required to be future-thinking. This is particularly challenging in an economy where each and every marketing dollar is being scrutinized. But this type of leadership is essential to position the organization and its brands squarely against the highest potential future opportunities, and to play and create in the white space that can deliver real growth.

Understanding innovation patterns is a key to defining future market opportunity and making innovation more predictable. But a little dose of creative genius is still needed to help bring identified opportunities to life, to actually create innovation that is the future of a category. A concerted creative and design effort based on evolving consumer needs and innovation-pattern learning can result in a much more future-focused, successful innovation effort.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Droga Takes a New Direction on Cleaners

Monday, November 9, 2009

New Verizon Christmas Commercial

In an effort to smash the IPhones smartphone hold on the cell phone market Verizon pushes the most popular complaint... AT&T's terrible service. Here comes the Droid. Will it gain popularity?

Here's a commercial from their $100 million spend starting on Monday.