If we want to get advertisers to shift their branding dollars into the digital marketplace, it is imperative to find a way to make branding accountable.
After all, the main reason for the large shift of advertising dollars from offline to online is due to the greater accountability that one offers versus the other.
As was pointed out to me at a recent lunch, advertisers especially like online advertising because they can see an immediate correlation between the advertising effort and intent to purchase. If that correlation can't be made, advertisers see less benefit in online advertising.
Branding offers an unique problem in that there is seldom an immediate, short-term correlation between branding and sales. The objective of branding is usually long term, to build equity in the brand so that when a sale does occur down the road, it can be done so at a higher margin.
Which is why many designate branding to be more art than science.
So, if not sales, then what should we be using to validate the effectiveness of a piece of creative so that more brand dollars can be shifted to the online platform?
Well, let's look at a couple of givens.
Each commercial message is of a certain length. While in the offline marketplace this length is usually :30, in the online world, no such restrictions exist. The length of the spot is only limited by the strength of the creativity, or lack of such, that the agency exhibits in making it.
The question is, should the advertiser care, once their spot is opted into by viewers, whether their spot is watched to completion or not? If the objective is an immediate sale or request for more information, then no, not really. All that matters is that the viewer moves on to the next step and calls the number or asks for the brochure.
Length of view is irrelevant.
But in the case of branding, isn't there more value offered to the advertiser if their two-minute spot is watched for the full two minutes rather then, say, just the first ten seconds?
From a strictly dollars and sense point of view, there certainly seems to be. An average produced second for a commercial these days costs around $12,000. If data comes back saying that these seconds are not being watched, is the advertiser getting his or her money's worth?
I think most would argue no.
Especially in regards to branding. If the objective of the spot is to build equity in the brand, then wouldn't more equity be built up if people watched more of the spot rather than less?
The equity of a brand is the value of a brand beyond what it costs. It is something that is created over time.
If so, then doesn't viewer time spent, all other things being equal, become a measurement of equity? And wouldn't viewer time spent become a way to make agencies accountable for the efficacy of the brand messaging that they charge so much to create?
If online wants to attract the larger branding budget of advertisers, then it needs to find a way to make branding accountable. To do that, online needs to find a way to make the objective of branding accountable.
If the objective is equity, then what is the measurement?
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
How Long Should A Commercial Be?
I find this to be an interesting question in lieu of emerging digital platforms.
It's not a question advertisers have to worry much about on linear platforms. On linear platforms, commercial length is set. The choice is pretty much fifteen, thirty or sixty seconds.
But on digital platforms, it's a different story. Oh, we know that intrusive commercials——pre-roll and in-stream——will stay short and only get shorter as advertisers continue to mistakenly believe that if they intrude for less time, perhaps viewers won't think that they are intruding at all.
Fifteen-second spots are already becoming fives. And five-second spots are becoming one-second spots. (I'm sure that you share my fascination in seeing where it goes from here.)
But it's on the non-intrusive side of the digital platform where it's starting to become really interesting. The side where viewers can opt-in to advertising about products and/or brands they are curious about. As well as leave when they want.
On this side of the platform, where length is not mandated by schedule, how long should a commercial be?
I've been asking this question to a lot of people recently and the answer I get the most often is, "As long as it takes."
Perfectly good answer. But, of course, it then requires me to ask another question. As long as it takes to do what?
It seems to me that the only right answer here is, as long as it takes to achieve the objective of the commercial. And it seems to me the only people that can tell us how long that needs to be, are the people at the ad agency that will be creating the commercial.
Let's say the objective of the commercial is to convince BMW owners that Mercedes is a safer car. Well, Mr. Agency, how long will it take to do that? Not how long will it take for your agency to work on it to accomplish this, but rather, how long will you need to communicate with a consumer to convince them of such?
I can only imagine that most agencies will find this to be a rather awkward question to answer. After all, they've never had to do it before.
What's worse, they can have as long as they want to get the job done. They will just need to decide and tell the client how long that is.
Now let's say, in this case, the agency said that they would need two minutes and seventeen seconds to convince BMW owners that Mercedes is a safer car.
Fine.
The agency goes and produces a two-minute and seventeen-second spot and the advertiser runs it on a digital platform where viewers can opt-in to watch.
The data comes back saying that of the viewers that clicked-in to watch, average viewing time was seventeen seconds.
What does this tell us?
Well, one could argue that it tells us that the objective of the commercial wasn't achieved. After all, didn't the agency say that it would take two minutes and seventeen seconds to achieve the objective? If they could have achieved it in seventeen seconds flat, then they should have done a seventeen-second commercial.
It certainly would have saved the advertiser some production dollars to produce a shorter commercial. And let's not forget, the agency was allowed to have as much or as little time as they thought they needed. The final decision was theirs.
Should the advertiser hold the agency accountable for delivering or not delivering the objective? You would think that they would want to, wouldn't you?
Can they?
Well, that's how Viewer Time Spent Compensation works.
By paying for content creation based on the amount of time the viewer spends with the commercial, the advertiser can hold their creative agency accountable for achieving the objective of the commercial.
Or not.
If viewer time spent averaged only seventeen seconds, the agency would lose money on the job. Which only seems fair.
But if the agency crafted a spot that engaged and involved viewers for most, if not all, of the spot, then they would end up making more then they would have if paid on an standard hourly-fee basis.
And worth every penny.
Imagine your an advertiser. And a viewer has just opted-in to watch something about your product or brand of their own volition. It doesn't take a large leap of faith to imagine that the longer that this viewer is involved with your brand messaging, the more impact your brand will have on this viewer.
If for no other reason than this viewer is there of his or her own volition.
Viewer Time Spent Compensation allows an agency to be paid based on their creative ability. A handful of agencies will like this a lot. After all, they'll see it as a way of allowing good work, i.e. involving/engaging work, to be worth more than bad work.
Less creative agencies will find fault with the idea.
At least, initially.
Because down the road, as agencies start to divide up between those who believe in their creative ability and those who don't, advertisers will be able choose the type of agency they want to work with.
And how they want to pay.
If I was a betting man, I think I know on what side I'd put my money.
It's not a question advertisers have to worry much about on linear platforms. On linear platforms, commercial length is set. The choice is pretty much fifteen, thirty or sixty seconds.
But on digital platforms, it's a different story. Oh, we know that intrusive commercials——pre-roll and in-stream——will stay short and only get shorter as advertisers continue to mistakenly believe that if they intrude for less time, perhaps viewers won't think that they are intruding at all.
Fifteen-second spots are already becoming fives. And five-second spots are becoming one-second spots. (I'm sure that you share my fascination in seeing where it goes from here.)
But it's on the non-intrusive side of the digital platform where it's starting to become really interesting. The side where viewers can opt-in to advertising about products and/or brands they are curious about. As well as leave when they want.
On this side of the platform, where length is not mandated by schedule, how long should a commercial be?
I've been asking this question to a lot of people recently and the answer I get the most often is, "As long as it takes."
Perfectly good answer. But, of course, it then requires me to ask another question. As long as it takes to do what?
It seems to me that the only right answer here is, as long as it takes to achieve the objective of the commercial. And it seems to me the only people that can tell us how long that needs to be, are the people at the ad agency that will be creating the commercial.
Let's say the objective of the commercial is to convince BMW owners that Mercedes is a safer car. Well, Mr. Agency, how long will it take to do that? Not how long will it take for your agency to work on it to accomplish this, but rather, how long will you need to communicate with a consumer to convince them of such?
I can only imagine that most agencies will find this to be a rather awkward question to answer. After all, they've never had to do it before.
What's worse, they can have as long as they want to get the job done. They will just need to decide and tell the client how long that is.
Now let's say, in this case, the agency said that they would need two minutes and seventeen seconds to convince BMW owners that Mercedes is a safer car.
Fine.
The agency goes and produces a two-minute and seventeen-second spot and the advertiser runs it on a digital platform where viewers can opt-in to watch.
The data comes back saying that of the viewers that clicked-in to watch, average viewing time was seventeen seconds.
What does this tell us?
Well, one could argue that it tells us that the objective of the commercial wasn't achieved. After all, didn't the agency say that it would take two minutes and seventeen seconds to achieve the objective? If they could have achieved it in seventeen seconds flat, then they should have done a seventeen-second commercial.
It certainly would have saved the advertiser some production dollars to produce a shorter commercial. And let's not forget, the agency was allowed to have as much or as little time as they thought they needed. The final decision was theirs.
Should the advertiser hold the agency accountable for delivering or not delivering the objective? You would think that they would want to, wouldn't you?
Can they?
Well, that's how Viewer Time Spent Compensation works.
By paying for content creation based on the amount of time the viewer spends with the commercial, the advertiser can hold their creative agency accountable for achieving the objective of the commercial.
Or not.
If viewer time spent averaged only seventeen seconds, the agency would lose money on the job. Which only seems fair.
But if the agency crafted a spot that engaged and involved viewers for most, if not all, of the spot, then they would end up making more then they would have if paid on an standard hourly-fee basis.
And worth every penny.
Imagine your an advertiser. And a viewer has just opted-in to watch something about your product or brand of their own volition. It doesn't take a large leap of faith to imagine that the longer that this viewer is involved with your brand messaging, the more impact your brand will have on this viewer.
If for no other reason than this viewer is there of his or her own volition.
Viewer Time Spent Compensation allows an agency to be paid based on their creative ability. A handful of agencies will like this a lot. After all, they'll see it as a way of allowing good work, i.e. involving/engaging work, to be worth more than bad work.
Less creative agencies will find fault with the idea.
At least, initially.
Because down the road, as agencies start to divide up between those who believe in their creative ability and those who don't, advertisers will be able choose the type of agency they want to work with.
And how they want to pay.
If I was a betting man, I think I know on what side I'd put my money.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Perhaps The Behavior We Should Be Targeting Is Our Own.
Behavioral Targeting was one of the big topics of conversation at the recent ANA Conference held in Phoenix. According to Stuart Elliot of the New York Times, those who attended “heard speaker after speaker address the growing popularity of what is known as behavioral targeting”.
The logic behind behavioral targeting, at least on the surface, is difficult to refute. By targeting messages based on user behavior, we will be able to place more relevant ads in front of more interested consumers.
Makes perfect sense. At least, in theory.
My problem with behavioral targeting is that it seems to sidestep one of the most important behaviors of viewers. To see if you agree or not, I’ll need you to answer a simple question.
When you skip commercials at home, are you actually skipping commercials, or, are you skipping the interruption to the program you are watching?
If you’re skipping commercials, it means that when confronted with a five-commercial pod, you wade through it commercial by commercial,
skipping those that aren’t relevant, and watching those that are.
Is this the way that you do it?
Or, do you put the pedal to the metal (actually, the thumb to the fast-forward button), speeding through all five commercials in around eight seconds, so that you can get back to the show that you were watching?
If this is the case, and the mother-in-law research I conducted seemed to indicate such, then isn’t this the behavior that we should be targeting?
In other words, before focusing all of our efforts on trying to get the right commercial in front of the right person at the right time, what if we put more effort towards finding ways to make it so that commercials don’t intrude?
It seems to me that this would only help to make relevancy even more, well, relevant.
Of course, it could be argued that we aren’t proceeding down this path due to our own past behavior that clearly indicates that we like to be paid based on impressions.
Impressions offer big numbers. And, in this business, we like big numbers. Even though we all know that the number of interested viewers, at any one time, for any particular product, is actually quite small. If we were paid based on just the number of those that were interested, well, that would change everything wouldn’t it?
Most noticeably, our Christmas bonuses.
So, instead of changing our behavior, we push a solution that is inadequate at best. Who knows, maybe no one will notice.
Which is pretty much the same argument used by those men who convince themselves that a comb-over makes them look irresistible.
Marketing, in the past, was all about creating control over the consumer. As control has shifted, so too, has the purpose of marketing. Today, marketing is about figuring out how best to concede control.
Continuing down the path of intrusive advertising is forcing yesterday’s idea of marketing into today’s digital marketplace.
An uncomfortable fit at best.
And why, perhaps, it’s our own behavior that we should be looking at, before we start targeting others.
The logic behind behavioral targeting, at least on the surface, is difficult to refute. By targeting messages based on user behavior, we will be able to place more relevant ads in front of more interested consumers.
Makes perfect sense. At least, in theory.
My problem with behavioral targeting is that it seems to sidestep one of the most important behaviors of viewers. To see if you agree or not, I’ll need you to answer a simple question.
When you skip commercials at home, are you actually skipping commercials, or, are you skipping the interruption to the program you are watching?
If you’re skipping commercials, it means that when confronted with a five-commercial pod, you wade through it commercial by commercial,
skipping those that aren’t relevant, and watching those that are.
Is this the way that you do it?
Or, do you put the pedal to the metal (actually, the thumb to the fast-forward button), speeding through all five commercials in around eight seconds, so that you can get back to the show that you were watching?
If this is the case, and the mother-in-law research I conducted seemed to indicate such, then isn’t this the behavior that we should be targeting?
In other words, before focusing all of our efforts on trying to get the right commercial in front of the right person at the right time, what if we put more effort towards finding ways to make it so that commercials don’t intrude?
It seems to me that this would only help to make relevancy even more, well, relevant.
Of course, it could be argued that we aren’t proceeding down this path due to our own past behavior that clearly indicates that we like to be paid based on impressions.
Impressions offer big numbers. And, in this business, we like big numbers. Even though we all know that the number of interested viewers, at any one time, for any particular product, is actually quite small. If we were paid based on just the number of those that were interested, well, that would change everything wouldn’t it?
Most noticeably, our Christmas bonuses.
So, instead of changing our behavior, we push a solution that is inadequate at best. Who knows, maybe no one will notice.
Which is pretty much the same argument used by those men who convince themselves that a comb-over makes them look irresistible.
Marketing, in the past, was all about creating control over the consumer. As control has shifted, so too, has the purpose of marketing. Today, marketing is about figuring out how best to concede control.
Continuing down the path of intrusive advertising is forcing yesterday’s idea of marketing into today’s digital marketplace.
An uncomfortable fit at best.
And why, perhaps, it’s our own behavior that we should be looking at, before we start targeting others.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The NetWorth Of Your Online Advertising
Look up the term "Net Worth" on Wikipedia and you'll find the following definition.
"In business, Net Worth is the total assets minus total liabilities of an individual or a company. For a company, this is called shareholders' equity."
It seems to me that "net worth" can take on another meaning in regards to advertising online. Of course, to do so we will need to make one word out of two, so Net Worth becomes NetWorth.
But beyond that, everything remains the same.
For example, if we wanted to determine the NetWorth of a specific commercial online, it would work something like this.
NetWorth = total assets minus total liabilities of the commercial.
In this case, the asset is the commercial itself. Let's call it a "commercial asset."
To determine the NetWorth of that commercial we just need to subtract the total liabilities. So what are the liabilities of online advertising? Not from the point of view of the advertiser. But rather, from the point of view of the viewer.
If the commercial is intrusive, most viewers would consider that to be a liability. If the commercial does not allow the viewer to be in control, to fast-forward or opt-out when they want, another liability.
If the commercial is not relevant to the viewer, yet another liability.
If the commercial speaks in the voice of the marketer and not the consumer, if it treats the viewer with a lack of respect, if it's inauthentic, or re-purposed, or over-used, yet more liabilities.
Following this formula, you'd come to the conclusion that the NetWorth of most commercials running online is very small. And, you'd be right.
The commercial itself could be brilliant, an asset among assets. And yet, because it was not delivered in the context of the viewer being in control, it becomes a liability.
According to Wikipedia, Net Worth for a company is also referred to as shareholders' equity. The same, unfortunately, holds true for the NetWorth of a commercial.
Which is no doubt why the equity that shareholders (customers) feel for most brands is as low as it is.
So take a look at your advertising. Figure out its NetWorth. If it's high, consider yourself lucky. If it's not, consider doing something different.
Because while the Net Worth of a business is not deemed to be a fair expression of the "market value" of the company, the same cannot be said for advertising.
In the digital economy, the NetWorth of your commercial has a direct correlation to the "market value" of your brand.
"In business, Net Worth is the total assets minus total liabilities of an individual or a company. For a company, this is called shareholders' equity."
It seems to me that "net worth" can take on another meaning in regards to advertising online. Of course, to do so we will need to make one word out of two, so Net Worth becomes NetWorth.
But beyond that, everything remains the same.
For example, if we wanted to determine the NetWorth of a specific commercial online, it would work something like this.
NetWorth = total assets minus total liabilities of the commercial.
In this case, the asset is the commercial itself. Let's call it a "commercial asset."
To determine the NetWorth of that commercial we just need to subtract the total liabilities. So what are the liabilities of online advertising? Not from the point of view of the advertiser. But rather, from the point of view of the viewer.
If the commercial is intrusive, most viewers would consider that to be a liability. If the commercial does not allow the viewer to be in control, to fast-forward or opt-out when they want, another liability.
If the commercial is not relevant to the viewer, yet another liability.
If the commercial speaks in the voice of the marketer and not the consumer, if it treats the viewer with a lack of respect, if it's inauthentic, or re-purposed, or over-used, yet more liabilities.
Following this formula, you'd come to the conclusion that the NetWorth of most commercials running online is very small. And, you'd be right.
The commercial itself could be brilliant, an asset among assets. And yet, because it was not delivered in the context of the viewer being in control, it becomes a liability.
According to Wikipedia, Net Worth for a company is also referred to as shareholders' equity. The same, unfortunately, holds true for the NetWorth of a commercial.
Which is no doubt why the equity that shareholders (customers) feel for most brands is as low as it is.
So take a look at your advertising. Figure out its NetWorth. If it's high, consider yourself lucky. If it's not, consider doing something different.
Because while the Net Worth of a business is not deemed to be a fair expression of the "market value" of the company, the same cannot be said for advertising.
In the digital economy, the NetWorth of your commercial has a direct correlation to the "market value" of your brand.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
According To The ANA, Media Is The New Creative. Is The ANA Right?
At the most recent ANA conference just completed in Phoenix, one of the themes that emerged is that Media is The New Creative.
It's an interesting theme, and while I understand the logic—distribution and context in the digital marketplace rivals creative execution in importance—I can't help but wonder if thinking this way does any of us any favors.
The reason is that the digital marketplace is all about accountability. And if accountability is going to be properly assigned, then we have to be able to delineate between who did what.
Media should be accountable for exposure to the message, not involvement in the message. Creative should be accountable for involvement in the message, not exposure to the message.
Yes, I understand that websites are now considered to be both media and the advertising message itself. At least in the case of Nike.
But even within websites themselves, there will be videos which can be measured separately and held accountable on their own merit.
The problem with the industry, up to now, is that there was no delineation between media and creative. A commercial would run on broadcast TV and we would have no idea whether it involved viewers or not. Creative was basically a commodity. Since creative could not be measured on its own, good creative could not be distinguished from bad creative.
The result being that good work cost the same as bad work.
The digital marketplace finally offers us the opportunity to change all this.
If only we'd let it.
If only we could stop the so-called Masters of Marketing from throwing out bon mots like "Media is the New Creative." Or, how about this one — "Insight Into Foresight", another theme from the conference. Apparently, this somehow refers to how technology can enhance targeting capability.
Clear as mud, right?
And here we wonder why those of us in the communications business have such a hard time communicating.
It's an interesting theme, and while I understand the logic—distribution and context in the digital marketplace rivals creative execution in importance—I can't help but wonder if thinking this way does any of us any favors.
The reason is that the digital marketplace is all about accountability. And if accountability is going to be properly assigned, then we have to be able to delineate between who did what.
Media should be accountable for exposure to the message, not involvement in the message. Creative should be accountable for involvement in the message, not exposure to the message.
Yes, I understand that websites are now considered to be both media and the advertising message itself. At least in the case of Nike.
But even within websites themselves, there will be videos which can be measured separately and held accountable on their own merit.
The problem with the industry, up to now, is that there was no delineation between media and creative. A commercial would run on broadcast TV and we would have no idea whether it involved viewers or not. Creative was basically a commodity. Since creative could not be measured on its own, good creative could not be distinguished from bad creative.
The result being that good work cost the same as bad work.
The digital marketplace finally offers us the opportunity to change all this.
If only we'd let it.
If only we could stop the so-called Masters of Marketing from throwing out bon mots like "Media is the New Creative." Or, how about this one — "Insight Into Foresight", another theme from the conference. Apparently, this somehow refers to how technology can enhance targeting capability.
Clear as mud, right?
And here we wonder why those of us in the communications business have such a hard time communicating.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
To Circumvent or Cultivate Viewer-Control. Part II
It seems as if the networks and cable operators are at it again, doesn't it?
According to the article that ran yesterday, to entice the networks to put their best programming on VOD, Cox and Time Warner are claiming that disabling the fast-forward button during commercials is the answer.
By doing so, they are saying it's better to circumvent rather than cultivate viewer- control. This was the wrong answer two years ago when I first wrote about this subject and it's the wrong answer still today.
The arguments for continuing to circumvent control are curious. One EVP from NBC Universal Networks said, "We need to engage our viewers and provide advertisers with full value for the ads they place."
I couldn't agree more. But circumventing viewer-control is not the way to do it.
Perhaps what he really meant to say was "entrap" not "engage." Engagement is something that the viewer provides, not the programmer or the operator. By circumventing viewer-control, we have as much knowledge as to whether viewers were engaged or not as we do with broadcast TV.
None.
If you think about it, the logic is really quite simple. If a viewer is engaged in a commercial, they won't fast-forward, will they? It's only when they're not engaged that they fast-forward to try and avoid it.
The problem isn't really viewer-control at all. The problem is that some still believe that impressions have value. By circumventing viewer-control, what we are basically circumventing is the possibility of a new business model coming into play.
One would think that advertisers would be leading the outcry against this latest logic put forward by the networks and cable operators.
Consider: By giving the viewer the control to fast-forward through their commercial, the advertiser gains knowledge as to how well their commercial did, or did not, engage with viewers.
As we all know, knowledge is power.
Once an advertiser knows how engaging their commercial is, measured by viewer time spent with the commercial, they can then hold their ad agency accountable.
By giving the viewer control, we bring accountability to the process.
Circumventing control, circumvents accountability.
As for the creative agencies, why would they not want viewers to be in control of their commercials? Most agencies today are paid on an hourly-fee basis. If they do a great job, craft a wonderful commercial, they are, in fact, leaving money on the table.
The hourly-fee system basically treats the craft of creating commercials as a commodity.
What agencies are held accountable for today is sales, which they truly have little control over.
Granted, when there was only one agency of record, that agency could be held accountable for how well a product moved off the shelves.
But today, instead of an agency of record, most advertisers have a record number of agencies. If all of these agencies are accountable for sales, it means no one agency actually is.
What a good creative agency should want to be held accountable for is what they do have control over—the quality of their creative product. If this was the case, then the more engaging their work, the more they would make.
Giving the viewer control offers advertisers a way to gain accountability over their agencies, while a the same time, it allows agencies to be held accountable for something that they actually have control over.
To put it in terms more Zen-like then most will feel comfortable with, the only way to regain control is to give the viewer complete control.
Or, in other words, we need to learn to let go.
Hard, I know.
The first rule of wing-walking is to never let go of what you have until you have hold of something else. Our industry is currently standing on the wing of the plane, afraid to let go.
And the plane is losing altitude.
How far do we have to fall before we jump?
According to the article that ran yesterday, to entice the networks to put their best programming on VOD, Cox and Time Warner are claiming that disabling the fast-forward button during commercials is the answer.
By doing so, they are saying it's better to circumvent rather than cultivate viewer- control. This was the wrong answer two years ago when I first wrote about this subject and it's the wrong answer still today.
The arguments for continuing to circumvent control are curious. One EVP from NBC Universal Networks said, "We need to engage our viewers and provide advertisers with full value for the ads they place."
I couldn't agree more. But circumventing viewer-control is not the way to do it.
Perhaps what he really meant to say was "entrap" not "engage." Engagement is something that the viewer provides, not the programmer or the operator. By circumventing viewer-control, we have as much knowledge as to whether viewers were engaged or not as we do with broadcast TV.
None.
If you think about it, the logic is really quite simple. If a viewer is engaged in a commercial, they won't fast-forward, will they? It's only when they're not engaged that they fast-forward to try and avoid it.
The problem isn't really viewer-control at all. The problem is that some still believe that impressions have value. By circumventing viewer-control, what we are basically circumventing is the possibility of a new business model coming into play.
One would think that advertisers would be leading the outcry against this latest logic put forward by the networks and cable operators.
Consider: By giving the viewer the control to fast-forward through their commercial, the advertiser gains knowledge as to how well their commercial did, or did not, engage with viewers.
As we all know, knowledge is power.
Once an advertiser knows how engaging their commercial is, measured by viewer time spent with the commercial, they can then hold their ad agency accountable.
By giving the viewer control, we bring accountability to the process.
Circumventing control, circumvents accountability.
As for the creative agencies, why would they not want viewers to be in control of their commercials? Most agencies today are paid on an hourly-fee basis. If they do a great job, craft a wonderful commercial, they are, in fact, leaving money on the table.
The hourly-fee system basically treats the craft of creating commercials as a commodity.
What agencies are held accountable for today is sales, which they truly have little control over.
Granted, when there was only one agency of record, that agency could be held accountable for how well a product moved off the shelves.
But today, instead of an agency of record, most advertisers have a record number of agencies. If all of these agencies are accountable for sales, it means no one agency actually is.
What a good creative agency should want to be held accountable for is what they do have control over—the quality of their creative product. If this was the case, then the more engaging their work, the more they would make.
Giving the viewer control offers advertisers a way to gain accountability over their agencies, while a the same time, it allows agencies to be held accountable for something that they actually have control over.
To put it in terms more Zen-like then most will feel comfortable with, the only way to regain control is to give the viewer complete control.
Or, in other words, we need to learn to let go.
Hard, I know.
The first rule of wing-walking is to never let go of what you have until you have hold of something else. Our industry is currently standing on the wing of the plane, afraid to let go.
And the plane is losing altitude.
How far do we have to fall before we jump?
Thursday, October 04, 2007
How To Scale Creative In An Economy of Niches
It seems more and more people are starting to become aware of the problem.
This week it was Dave Morgan, Chairman of Tacoda, who wrote
a piece called "Why So Little Relevance?"
In his column, Mr. Morgan was wondering why, with all the sophisticated ways we now have of targeting the right ad to the right person at the right time, we still so rarely see ads that are truly relevant to you, the viewer?
Back in July, Joe Marchese wrote a piece called "Targeting To What End?" Joe raised the same sort of questions. Yes, we can now target more precisely, Joe argued, but what are we going to put in front of those that we target?
Joe, as usual, is right. The video advertising that's currently available has not been designed to be targeted as precisely as technology now allows.
And the fact is, it may never be. Mr. Morgan offers some suggestions from scaled platforms, to creating advertising that can be assembled in a modular fashion, to advertisers practicing restraint from "their senseless bombardment of consumers with irrelevant ads."
And while we know that the last suggestion will never happen, I'm afraid that the first two sidestep the actual problem.
The cost of creating great advertising.
The current economics of commercial production can only be justified through large audience size and repeat exposures. Neither of which will be part of the niche audiences now forming online.
Sure, advertisers can pay less for production. One can always pay less. But paying less does mean advertising of a lesser quality. To some, that's acceptable. But to most, it will become tiresome quickly.
And while there are those that argue that technology has now democratized the tools so that anyone can make a commercial, they are only right to a point.
The cost of the tools to make a great commercial are within anyone's reach.
But, the talent isn't.
And it will show in the final product.
The remaining option is also one that comes to us through technology. And that is to be paid for creating the content on a results basis. No, I don't mean sales when I talk about results. What I mean by results is how engaging or involving the creative is. This is something that is in the control of those that are actually making the commercial.
As well as something that can be measured today on digital platforms as time spent.
The more time viewers spend with the commercial, the more the commercial is worth to the advertiser. And hence, the more the agency and production company should get paid for creating it.
Ironically, in this case our targeting capabilities can actually be put to use. After all, if we can now target the right ad to the right person at the right time, the ad should prove to be extremely relevant to all who come in contact with it.
If an agency can't involve viewers under those situations, then heck, they should be penalized.
And those that can create involvement should be rewarded.
In other words, if you want advertising to become more relevant, we first need to make it become more relevant to the bottom line.
No, not the advertiser's bottom line (sales).
But the agency's.
This week it was Dave Morgan, Chairman of Tacoda, who wrote
a piece called "Why So Little Relevance?"
In his column, Mr. Morgan was wondering why, with all the sophisticated ways we now have of targeting the right ad to the right person at the right time, we still so rarely see ads that are truly relevant to you, the viewer?
Back in July, Joe Marchese wrote a piece called "Targeting To What End?" Joe raised the same sort of questions. Yes, we can now target more precisely, Joe argued, but what are we going to put in front of those that we target?
Joe, as usual, is right. The video advertising that's currently available has not been designed to be targeted as precisely as technology now allows.
And the fact is, it may never be. Mr. Morgan offers some suggestions from scaled platforms, to creating advertising that can be assembled in a modular fashion, to advertisers practicing restraint from "their senseless bombardment of consumers with irrelevant ads."
And while we know that the last suggestion will never happen, I'm afraid that the first two sidestep the actual problem.
The cost of creating great advertising.
The current economics of commercial production can only be justified through large audience size and repeat exposures. Neither of which will be part of the niche audiences now forming online.
Sure, advertisers can pay less for production. One can always pay less. But paying less does mean advertising of a lesser quality. To some, that's acceptable. But to most, it will become tiresome quickly.
And while there are those that argue that technology has now democratized the tools so that anyone can make a commercial, they are only right to a point.
The cost of the tools to make a great commercial are within anyone's reach.
But, the talent isn't.
And it will show in the final product.
The remaining option is also one that comes to us through technology. And that is to be paid for creating the content on a results basis. No, I don't mean sales when I talk about results. What I mean by results is how engaging or involving the creative is. This is something that is in the control of those that are actually making the commercial.
As well as something that can be measured today on digital platforms as time spent.
The more time viewers spend with the commercial, the more the commercial is worth to the advertiser. And hence, the more the agency and production company should get paid for creating it.
Ironically, in this case our targeting capabilities can actually be put to use. After all, if we can now target the right ad to the right person at the right time, the ad should prove to be extremely relevant to all who come in contact with it.
If an agency can't involve viewers under those situations, then heck, they should be penalized.
And those that can create involvement should be rewarded.
In other words, if you want advertising to become more relevant, we first need to make it become more relevant to the bottom line.
No, not the advertiser's bottom line (sales).
But the agency's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
