Archive for the ‘Brand Management’ Category

Geo-Demos that Work

Sunday, January 13th, 2008

Great Local Marketing Campaign 

After my post on PRIZM Clusters, I got a decent amount of hate mail from people who did not completely read or misunderstood the post.  I don’t think geo-demographics are useless; I think they work quite well for the applications they were designed for and make sense – when there is something specifically geo-centric about the task at hand.  My problem is not with geo-centric models, it’s with Marketers using these models for purposes that don’t make sense.

Here’s a case where using geo-demos makes a ton of sense, and includes a fantastic customer-centric marketing execution for good measure, where the marketing plan is strategically and operationally integrated into the business model.

The company is Duncan Roofs.  Now, if you have ever thought about the way neighborhoods are formed, you understand that many of the homes in a particular area were originally built at the same time.  You also know that the households in a neighborhood generally share the same socio-economic status - disposable income and so forth. 

The first variable – age of house – has a direct correlation to needing a roof.  Since roof shingles generally have a life of 20 years, you get cycles of roof replacement in a neighborhood every 20 years, give or take.  In other words, it’s likely that if a roof needs replacing in the neighborhood, other roofs nearby need replacing.

The second variable – income in neighborhood – goes to acting on the need to replace the roof.  If the homes in the neighborhood are owner-occupied and there is disposable income, a roof in bad shape gets replaced.  There is too much downside with a bad roof to ignore, if you have the money to replace it and you own the house.

So what we have is location predicts not only the need to replace a roof, but also the likelihood to act on that need.  Rock simple, classic geo-demo stuff.  “Place” is a true driver in this model, not just some kind of tag-along data that’s nice to know but not strongly predictive.

Enter Duncan Roofs.  The day before they do a job, they have folks go through the neighborhood hanging an envelope on the door of each house with this package inside – a letter and a fridge magnet impregnated with cinnamon.  Smells real good!  But the copy in the letter is the killer part of the campaign (click to enlarge if you want):

geo-demos

Let’s tear apart why this copy and campaign work so well.

Tomorrow morning we will be replacing the roof at (address in neighborhood).  Our crew will begin work at 7 AMThey will be as quiet as possible, however by nature, our work is somewhat noisy.  Please accept this cinnamon Teddy Bear refrigerator magnet as our apology for any inconvenience we might cause you. 

Notice this letter does not open with a sales pitch, or “About Us” or any of that crap.  The open is about me; it provides timely and directly relevant information for me.

After I get past the “surprise and delight” of the cinnamon magnet, I get a piece of information that is directly useful to me.  Instead of “What the hell is that racket” in the morning my reaction will be “Oh, that’s the roofers that gave me the magnet.”   This information is highly targeted and directly relevant to me – and I might even chuckle about it when the noise starts.  It sets up a very positive image of the company in my mind; they are service-oriented and respectful.

We hope you will use Teddy to hold notes on your refrigerator and think of us when you or someone you know needs a new roof.

The first part of this sentence is probably there just in case you were clueless about what the magnet was for and how it could be used.  Appropriate in tone once again, the magnet is not emblazoned with their logo; that would spoil the “for me” part and make it less likely I would actually use it.  The magnet does have their name / phone number on the back, hidden from view during normal use.  More importantly, the second portion of this sentence directs your mind to ask a question: By the way, do I know anybody that needs a roof?  Hmm, just the other day Jerry was saying….

Perhaps you will have the opportunity to observe us at work.  If so, I trust you will be favorably impressed with our efficient and professional work habits. 

In other words, “Hey man, we’re tearing your neighbor’s roof off!!  Come check it out!”  They literally invite you to market their company to yourself by visiting the job site.  Now, you don’t know it yet, but Duncan has a business model that matches the brilliance of their marketing.  They literally put on a huge show like you have never seen before on a roof job – it’s highly orchestrated, almost ballet-like in precision.  Not just a few guys grunting with scrapers and hammers, they show up in 3 or 4 trucks with 20 – 30 guys and literally give you a new roof in one day.  They have to – the marketing is already kicking in, and they have a lot of jobs to do after this one!

Clearly, if you were “in the market” for a roof job, you would be compelled to go check them out, right?  After all, getting a new roof is not small change and can be extremely disruptive, not to mention quite likely to trash your plants and property if not done with some care.  If you are in the market for this kind of work, there is a lot of upside for you to literally “watch the demo”, if you know what I mean…

If you have any questions about our work, our foreman or myself will be happy to answer them.

There are folks swarming all over the place – all dressed in uniforms, all polite down to the last person.  All of them have permission to talk to you and of course refer you to the “foreman” – you were invited to talk with the foreman in the letter, right?  It’s a machine – people standing there watching and blown away by the speed of the job, and several “foreman” basically working the crowd for leads – in a respectful way.  They ask, “Do you have any questions?”  Execution, execution, execution.  Planned straight through; everybody knows what’s going on and what role they play in the marketing machine.

Definitely not a Meatball Sundae.

Give us a call for a free estimate.  You’ll be pleased with the professional service and unbelievably low prices.

More business model.  Of course you don’t have to show up to see the job, you can just call us.  I don’t know much about replacing roofs but I bet the way they do these jobs in a single day has something to do with their pricing.  In other words, they have such a pipeline coming from this marketing campaign that they “make it up on volume”, if you know what I mean.  Labor is obviously the highest cost is a roofing job, so something about the way they do these jobs and the “culture” they have developed (employee retention?) allows them to charge less than many other roofers.  Not to mention the customer benefits of getting this messy, noisy job done in one day…

Place your trust in a third generation business that has been serving this area since 1918 and stands behind our work for the life of the roof.”

This is all the “badge” stuff from your home page – you know, the Trust seals, BBB, guarantee, and so forth.  It’s a persuasive and very clean close with no backpedaling or asterisks.  Interesting that the phone number is not below the sig, I wonder if that is intentional to keep the close a bit softer.  The phone number is quite obvious up at the top of the page, so I don’t think they are losing anything here – but wonder if they A / B’d phone number location?

Given the quality of this idea and marketing execution, that would not surprise me a bit.  I imagine the roofing guys running Yellow Pages ads are absolutely getting skunked by this incredibly targeted and tightly executed campaign.  The campaign hits exactly where the demand is with surprise and delight and throws in a theatre act to boot.  Not to mention doing a job that normally can take a week or two in one day – that’s a hard core benefit to the consumer.

All this “Brand” carries though to their web site, where the Methodicals can find out the details of why they are the best choice.  I would kill the scroll box, of course.  The fact they don’t put a URL in the letter is kind of interesting; another potential test but I think there is probably a good reason – they don’t want to kill any momentum the letter generates by introducing potential distractions or raising new questions.  For potential customers who are web-oriented and would naturally just go looking for a web site, a Google search on “Duncan Roofs” brings the company up as the first 5 entries!  So they’re not really losing out by messing up the close with a URL – they want you to go see the show!

Duncan Roofs has reinvented one of the oldest business models around from top to bottom and execute perfectly.  The campaign is timely, relevant, customer-centric, word-of-mouth, and social all rolled into one.  Yep, those ideas work offline too.

Your thoughts on this campaign?

*** Where Are Your Brand Manners?

Thursday, January 10th, 2008

Here’s an article giving quite a few examples of companies taking the route I covered in the CMO: Strategic Seat is CCO post.  Interesting that the majority are direct marketing companies and at one, customer service reports to Marketing.  This Marketing department views their job as “service to the customer”.  Now that’s a Marketing department I would feel at home in.

Marketing is indeed a much greater force to be reckoned with when it is strategically and operationally integrated into the brand promise and product offerings and not just a Meatball Sundae.  But somebody has to think that through and make it happen. 

How about you?

Here’s the link:  Where Are Your Brand Manners?

 

Marketing through Operations

Wednesday, January 9th, 2008

OK, so to review, here’s the premise.  Customer-centricity is something companies want to embrace more than ever.  Company can do this through a Chief Customer Officer, but why isn’t a Marketing exec taking the reins on this issue?  In direct marketing companies – where customer-centricity is not just a fad, but has a decades-long history – the Marketing folks know that Operations typically contains a goldmine of customer-centric Marketing opportunities they can take advantage of.  Many of these opportunities come from problems with empathy and context - or for the more technical folks out there, “Usability”.

Yes, you can optimize the service side of a business just like you can optimize a web site.  Here is how:

1.  Do you have a relationship with a peer in customer service?  If not, that’s really short-sighted for a marketing person who wants to be viewed as a strategic thinker – find someone, OK?

2.  Does customer service record the reason for each call?  If not, that’s nuts.  Most every call center system provides this capability, but you do have to turn the damn module on and populate it with the reasons people call.  So if the center is not using this functionality, get talking about how to get it turned on.

3.  You and your customer service peer need a list of the reasons people call.  Get this by talking, of course, with the agents.  If such a list does not exist, create it.  If such a list does exist, review it – it’s probably filled with crap or default reasons that don’t really have much to do with your business.  This is the most common mistake I see made in the “customer centric” area – using default call reasons not customized for the business.

4.  Once you have the module running and the call reasons right, make sure the agents know how important it is to status every call correctly.  Tell them by statusing calls, you plan to make their jobs easier by reducing routine problem calls, allowing them to spend more time on quality of call and resolving complex issues.

5.  Determine how to report on compliance with correct statusing.  If you don’t do this, all your effort will be subject to failure.  Hint: Do not provide agents with a giant ”other reason” bucket; force accurate call accounting by providing a full and complete call reason set that only allows a very small percentage of “other reason” ticks.

6.  Find out from Customer Service or Finance what the internally acceptable “cost per call” calculation is; what does Finance think it costs to take a customer service call?

7.  In conjunction with customer service, study the reasons people call and think about how to reduce the need for those callers to call.  This project is about reducing or eliminating the triggers for a call.  Why do they call?  FYI, most really customer-centric companies have a meeting on this topic every week.  At HSN, we had this meeting every day.  Why?  Because we could react in real time.  If you are in an interactive business, perhaps you can too.

8.  In many cases, you will find they call because of things marketing does or could affect, for example:

  • Confusing language or other problems with marketing materials / advertising – this is a huge category which includes all kinds of bad Marketing execution – wrong or expired coupon codes, collateral distribution problems, etc.
  • Incomplete or confusing instructions or product packaging
  • Incomplete or confusing installation process or procedures
  • Pricing or bundling logic issues – the options don’t make sense to the customer
  • Problems with call center script language or logic
  • Illogical touch-tone trees or branching problems
  • All kinds of similar problems with the web site too numerous to mention here

Note to web analysts reading this:

Sound familar?  After you optimize the web site, find out if they will let you join the BI unit and optimize the business.  Idea: Optimizing a VRU / IVR is really no different than optimizing a web site using path analysis – think about it.  Traffic sources, the funnel, leaky bucket, pogo-sticking.  Same thing.

9.  Get off your GRP-lovin’ ass and fix the operational problems Marketing is causing or can affect. 

If you are saying to yourself, “But I don’t have control over a lot of the items on this list” then ask yourself why that is.  All this stuff is about copy and presentation, and heck, you’re the expert in those areas, right?  So why don’t you have control over these issues?  Did you ever ask for this control?  If not, why?  That’s what a strategic thinker would do, because all these customer contact issues directly affect customer value and retention.

This stuff is marketing.  It directly affects the value of the customer and customer retention, not to mention word-of-mouth.  You want that new fangled social media thingie you bought to boost sales, right?  How about optimizing the customer experience with your company?

Oh, I forgot, less than 30% of you said increasing customer LifeTime Value is a top marketing objective.  So I guess less than 30% of you should move to the next step.

10.  Measure the reduction in phone calls for these problem areas you have fixed, calculate the cost savings, present to senior management.

Extra credit: measure the increase in customer satisfaction, if that’s all you can do.  Better than nothing.  Hopefully you have some kind of statistically correct, longitudinal study going and can measure satisfaction properly.

Super extra credit: measure the actual reduction in customer defection and monetary value of this reduction.  That’s the right thing to do and will boost the monetary value of your actions tremendously.

11.  Pitch strategic seat at the table / Chief Customer Officer responsibilities using knowledge from “why they call” study and resulting operational modifications.  You will have no shortage of future issues to work on.  Somebody has to do it, might as well be you.

12.  Convene cross-functional team, you will need it.  Get best and brightest from every area of the company or unit.  At minimum:  Marketing / Sales, Customer Service, Finance, IT, Distribution

13.  Start fixing more stuff that pisses the customer off, generates calls, and truncates customer value.  Achieve customer centricity.  After all, they tell you every single day what pisses them off. 

Why don’t you fix this stuff? 

Any takers?  Anybody doing this?  Any Marketers think they will get resistance if they start poking their nose into customer service land?

 

CMO’s: Strategic Seat = Chief Customer Officer

Sunday, January 6th, 2008

Pursuing Ron’s analysis of Forrester’s Evolved CMO study, and it being the Year of the Customer (again), a couple of things seem clear.  

The lack of, or loss of, a strategic role for the CMO - the Deconstruction of Marketing - comes at the same time the Chief Customer Officer (CCO) concept is ascending.  Given an environment accepting of the CCO idea, why would any CMO aspiring to a strategic seat simply let this CCO opportunity slip away?  Clearly the CCO is a strategic seat, and a combination of Marketing and Customer Service responsibility isn’t unrealistic in a customer-centric org.

So I’m left with this: Do most Marketers have the required empathy to run customer service?  Do they have the capability to get down with people interaction, as opposed to blasting the nameless, faceless masses with messages?

In the spirit of not being a Consultainer, I’d like to provide some concrete direction to any Marketing folks who might be looking to “Prove that you deserve” a seat at the Strategic table.  The logical entry point is through this CCO idea.

The first question I would ask myself is this: Do I have control over all the Marketing, everywhere in the company?  Or have I ceded control of some Marketing issues to different operational groups?

For example, did Marketing write or approve the call center scripts?  How about the pathing logic and language used in the IVR / VRU?  Do you control the look and feel of invoices and packing slips?  How about installation or assembly instructions, are they easy to follow and do they use customer-friendly language? 

What about service counters, what does the signage look like?  Is there a good flow, do customers understand where to go and what to do?  Is the collateral up to date?  How are customers greeted?

All of the above is Marketing in a customer-centric world where relevance and authenticity is critical.  As a Marketing person, you’re an expert on language, copy, and presentation (if not emotion and empathy as well).

Why is it not your duty to bring these skills to all the customer-facing activities your company engages in?  Is it possible the customer service manager or IT programmer is better than you are at creating a great-looking, customer friendly, value-added packing slip?  If so, that strategic seat is something you will have to give up.

If you want a seat at the strategic table, you have to prove you understand the operational side of the business, and how you can affect it positively with great marketing ideas outside of the marketing silo.  Special bonus and faster advancement for actually measuring and proving the positive effects Marketing can have on the operational side of the business.

In fact, I will tell you that in many cases, your Marketing is not working as well as it should because you have not been influencing the operational side; here’s a real world example.  More real world examples here and here and here and here.

I will give you a specific plan for taking action on this CCO idea that will work at most companies in the next post.

P.S.  And don’t get me started on packing slips – have you ever actually seen one from your company?  Would it help to know that 95% of the ones I see from e-commerce companies that are not catalogers are little more than a copy of the order confirmation e-mail?  With all the e-mail header crap and all included?  No logo, no brand gestalt, no helpful information, no upsell suggestions?  How’s that working for a “customer experience”?

What about you?  Do you stick to “Marketing”, or do you shove your nose into the Operations side and get Marketing things done in Customer Service, Fulfillment, and other operational areas? 

Commerce Channel Management

Wednesday, November 28th, 2007

The following is from the November 2007 Drilling Down Newsletter.  Got a question about Customer Measurement, Management, Valuation, Retention, Loyalty, Defection?  Just ask your question.  Also, feel free to leave a comment. 

Want to see the answers to previous questions?  The pre-blog newsletter archives are here, “Best Article” reviews here.

 Q:  We are a manufacturer with a cool product not really on the net and right now, but we are entering stores.  I wonder, is it wise to try to sell on the net before retail markets have the products or not – is it better to hold off until the retail markets first have the products and then launch them onto the net?  Does the net really help sell products or does it create copy cats?  Trying to find the best way to go – any advice would be greatly appreciated.

A:  Great question.  Answer is “it depends” and it’s difficult to be more specific without knowing more about the product and your marketing plans.  But in general, if you want to optimize the profitability of the product launch and you are paying for media, you should think about these choices as a “chain” or series of events each with a specific but interconnected strategy for each channel.

An example would be DRTV or infomercial products, which generally are launched at a higher price into the spot TV channel (cable networks, etc.).  Here sales are made at a very high margin but the volume is generally low; the Objective is to generate awareness and hopefully make a profit, but breaking even is OK because you essentially have the media “free” and that will help drive the next step.

Based on all the awareness you have generated with TV spots, you then can go to the TV shopping channels and say, “Look, people know this product because we have already pre-sold it for you.  We will let you sell it at a lower price if you will drive volume”.  And that’s typically exactly what happens; most of the profit on the product is made here.

From the spot TV, the audience knows the product sells for $19.95 or whatever, so when it is offered at $14.95 on the shopping channel they think it’s a great deal and the volume is tremendous.  Typically, the spot TV would still be running at this stage, though sales from that channel will have peaked.

Once sales get soft in the TV shopping channel, you then introduce the product online and in stores.  This is essentially “end of lifecycle” for the product, where you are simply trying to make sure you don’t get stuck with any.  You sell that at cost plus to the onliners / retailers and they blow them out at $9.95 or so.  You don’t end up wearing the inventory and everybody is happy because the spot TV / TV shopping has generated plenty of awareness, people pounce on the product, and it moves very quickly through retail.  Typically no TV would be running at this stage because you couldn’t sell any at the original price.

Now, I’m not saying you should follow this model.  But what I am saying is the decision you are trying to make is more complex than “should we”, it involves understanding which channel can do what for you and at what price.

For example:

You said you are “entering stores”, but did not say if you / the stores are running any media to support this effort.  If you are not running any media then I would get on the web and sell the product for retail price or higher.  This generates some awareness / demand / trial but preserves the margins of the retail partner, and hopefully your direct profits will cover costs.  You basically get “free media” from the web (as in the spot TV example above) and the retail folks will love it because it will drive sales in their channel.

If you / the retailers are doing a lot of paid media support, then I would not sell on the web until sales through retail get soft.  Then you are in a position to undersell them or liquidate on the web based on the awareness you have generated offline.  This doesn’t mean you should not have a web site, you should, and it should tell people which retail outlets they can buy the product in.

On the other hand, if there is a razor / razor blade model built into the product (think a doll with add-on sets of clothing), you could sell the primary razor product and some of the blades in retail, then develop more targeted / segmented / rare blade offerings that are exclusive to the web for online stores.

Again, it’s very difficult to make the “right” judgment on this question not knowing anything at all about the product, whether there are supplemental / follow-on products, whether there are continuity pieces involved (collections) and so forth; and especially not knowing what the nature of the retail relationship is.

But I think you get the general idea.  You play the strengths of the channels off each other, generally in some sequential way, depending on what the marketing / media plan is and the characteristics of the product.  That is, if you are interested in optimizing media spend versus sales.  If you have an unlimited media / PR budget, then sure, sell it everywhere!

Hope that helps.

===============

Comments?  Questions?  Better ideas?

 

 

Nielsen//Net Ratings & comScore DustUp

Monday, July 16th, 2007

Quite of a lot of discussion regarding Nielsen’s (and previously comScore’s) decision to add “duration of visit” as a metric used to rank sites for the display advertising buyer.  They played the engagement card in the press release, the implication being longer duration = higher engagement.  This ticked off the web site analytics side of the house.  A thread in the web analytics group (scroll down for all messages) has all the gory details of the debate on this.

My take is this move really has nothing to do with how you analyze a web site for navigation / actions / conversions and so forth.  The web analytics folks are over-reacting and misinterpreting the intent.  They point out “duration” is not a particularly good metric for many web site analysis applications.  But that’s a different issue.  This move is not about the way we analyze behavior on the site, it’s about:

1.  The display advertising purchase model
2.  A ranking of web sites for that model

It’s not hard to imagine the longer you are on a site, the more likely the display advertising would be seen and an impression registered in the brain.

It’s about being engaged with *display advertising*, not being engaged with your web site or your business.  Buyers of that kind of media would like to know duration, because it makes sense to them and is used with other electronic media.

Whether Frequency or Duration is a better measure for web display advertising has yet to be seen, but I’d bet on the latter as being the best - for exactly the same reasons the web analytics community thinks duration is a bad idea for site measurement.

Briefly, the argument against using duration for web site measurement is along the lines of usability – the longer it takes to accomplish a task, the worse the web site is at satisfying visitors.  But I would argue when you are task focused you’re not nearly as good a target for display ads, are you?

The only mass media that doesn’t use duration as a measurement of audience quality is print.  The macro conclusion you could make – based on what these measure-ers of all things media are doing – is that display advertising on the web is more like TV and Radio than it is like print.  That makes complete sense to me.

For more info on why it makes sense, you can check the web analytics group for my post.

Interested in bigger picture on this?  Check out my posts in the web analytics group on defining online engagement and how to use it.

Online Brand-ing Series

Monday, July 2nd, 2007

The following posts were written sequentially but appear on the blog chronologically which makes a hell of a mess of trying to understand a somewhat complicated topic.  This post creates a sequential index for future reference:

Why Can’t Johnny Brand?

The 3% Solution

Online, the Web Site is the Ad

Where You Should Stick Your Ad and Why

**** Where You Should Stick Your Ad and Why

Friday, June 29th, 2007

A list of the posts in this series on Brand Management is here

By way of iMedia Connection is this article by Joseph Carrabis of NextStage.  The piece is about ad placement on a web page – and how most of the current Display Media placement ideas are just plain terrible or wrong.

Given my recent posts on display advertising, and in particular Online, the Web Site is the Ad, I thought this article would be a great read.  I met Joseph at the eMetrics Summit and attended his presentation, which was a fascinating brew of cultural anthropology, brain-works stuff, and social modeling.

As this article bounced around the Brand-ing world, the reaction was pretty much this: he’s probably right, but there’s nothing much we can do about it.  If you ask me, they’re right.  But the thing that shocks me is this: not only do you have these folks completely ignoring what happens after the click, but also you have them essentially saying “we know it sucks but hey, what can we do?” about the screwed up nature of the display impression itself.

I’m not sure how the Brand-ing folks can sell display as a “mass media” with a straight face.  These are the fundamental reasons why Johnny Can’t Brand.  No “weight”.  Strapping together completely fragmented impressions does not create a mass media.  They are probably going to need a Google AdSense kind of mechanism to create practical value for this display space.

By the way, kudos to iMedia for having the guts to publish an article like this.  If you are interested in the measurement of media, you really should check this article out.  What do you think?

Online, the Web Site is the Ad

Thursday, June 21st, 2007

A list of the posts in this series on Brand Management is here

OK, so hopefully we know the difference between a Brand in the classic sense and today’s notion of Branding.  I’m going to resist going into the history of Brand Management here because I think many people in this medium simply don’t think the past has any lessons to offer, you know, “it’s different this time“.  My experience has been that the channels and the tools may change, but the basic psychology driving human behavior is remarkably resistant to change.

So, instead of a long (and probably boring to most) review, let’s go ahead and just stipulate a couple of things from history to get started:

1.  When mass media came on the scene, it was possible for the first time to market a product nationwide instead of market by market against the local offerings.  The biggest problem you face doing this is the chatter about the local offering – it is made in town, by a local person, and all the local people use it.  There is history – “my mother used it, her other used it”, etc.  In other words, Word of Mouth.  The mainstream concept of ”Brand” was created to address this problem – namely, to create the impression of a premium product superior to the local one you could sell for a higher price than the local offering based on creating aspirational images of the product in people’s minds.  “Housewives who really care about their families buy only the purest and most hygienic bathroom tissue”, etc.  These aspirational images created Intent (or Interest and Desire, if you prefer the AIDA-S model).

2.  Brands worked, perhaps largely because though the advertising might imply that “everybody who is anybody uses Brand X”, there was really no check or balance on this notion.  People simply couldn’t communicate frictionlessly enough to handle any kind of “fact checking”, nor did they really want to.  Sure, you could ask the neighbor over the fence how he liked his new Ford, but that was about it.  Bathroom tissue?  Not.  Word of mouth was weak and very localized – unlike the mass media Brands concept.  In fact, you might not even like the product, but if there were enough really cool ads running on TV about the Ford, your neighbor would be impressed you owned one, and that was enough for you!

So then what happened?  We started to get “mass media word of mouth” through the web catching up with the mass media of the Brands, and now you’ve got a problem.  There can be too many people counteracting the Brand message if it is not honest.  Purely aspirational messages can be deflected or called on the carpet.  Consumers can ask peers if “everybody” is using Glade plug-ins or not, and they can directly ascertain what their “risk” is to not provide a “fragrance greeting in every room” based on the experience of others (I’m not picking on Glade here, just an example).  Consumers can mentally and somewhat empirically challenge the idea of whether having Glade plug-ins make life “better” in some way.  They can even find out if the product is a fire hazard.

All this communication about products on the web fundamentally changes the original Brand model, doesn’t it?  When you can do your own fact-checking on any ad or Brand statement in just a few seconds?

You can’t simply trot out aspirational messages anymore or make claims about superior quality without running the risk of getting into Brand trouble.  In other words, the Advertising itself has been stripped of the “blind aspirational” role - and with this removal, so goes the Intent portion of the Advertising equation.  The Aspirational stuff, and with it the generation of Intent (Interest, Desire), has moved to the web. 

If people want to find out if the Brand promises are true, they go to the web.  Hopefully, the company has something online that convinces people the Brand promise is true, and that is where Aspiration and Intent then kick in.  After the web site experience.  Intent leads to trial, and then the aspirational stuff is fed back to the web by consumers who have had a positive experience with the product.  Then you have Brand.

Brand is now the experience, the trial, the usage, the service.  Brand now requires a peer-confirmed aspirational message.

Without the aspirational role now handled by the web, mass advertising is left with the Awareness job – a job it actually does quite well, thank you.  In fact, these ads can drive negative Intent, as the Awareness drives discovery of the underlying negative chatter.  If you own a Ford and think it sucks, and everybody on the web says it sucks too, then it sucks.  Doesn’t matter what the Brand ads say. 

Some folks are taking advantage of this new mixed media model.  For example, you can go on the web and tell people yourself how cool your new Ford Fusion is.  Have you heard of the Ford Fusion?  Seen the mass media ads that encourage you to go on the web and check out “user reviews”? (Marketing / IT folks, can we find a better word than “user” for this context, please?  How about Owner?  Member?)  This is mass media doing what mass media is good at – awareness - and the web doing what online is good at – Interaction, Intent, Brand.  Each media taking on the task it is best at within an integrated campaign.  Mass media generates Awareness through real “weight”, the web site generating Intent through positive Brand interaction.  Intent leading to trial.  Trial leading to Brand.

Now, let me take a moment to specify that “Brand interaction” at the web site is not playing some goofy game on the Brand’s web site where “exposure to the Brand name” is the end goal.  That’s the Awareness thing again.  That’s the Brand-ing folks again.  ”Exposure” is not the function of the web site in this model.  Intent (Interest, Desire) is the function of the web site, the aspirational confirmations, the peer reviews, the decision to take a test drive.

There is also a less traditional but no less important Brand role the web site plays under this model, particularly in services.  Mass media generates the Awareness, prospects go to web site, the web site sucks.  Can’t find any mention of the content from the mass media on the home page, there is no scent.  Can’t use the navigation to find any reference to the mass media campaign, and the on-site search can’t find the campaign either.  No store locator.  Can’t figure out how to open the high interest checking account or request more information.  Visit Done, Brand = Bad.

If Intent is generated on the web site, the web site must be up for the job in more ways than one.

So, where does that leave our friend the Banner?  As I said,

I would stop trying to turn the banners themselves into ”mass media”; stop worrying about awareness and intent and all that stuff based on the Banner alone.  Set the Banners in underneath the mass media campaign as Bridge Media, a “reminder” media reflecting the mass campaign taking folks directly to where you want them to go on the web site or microsite.  And then look at your awareness and intent – not based on the Banners, but on the interaction of visitors with the banners and the web site as a package.  This would be a new media approach to the new media, as opposed to trying to force the old display model into new media.

In simple terms, for online, the web site is the ad, not the Display unit or even the Search unit.  The Brand interaction and resulting “Brand Proof” happens at the web site.  And that is where you should do your measurement, not on the transitional or Bridge Media leading to the web site.

OK, there’s your model.  Let’s go back to our three media quotes that kicked this sequence off:

1.  “The net is not a branding tool or a quick-reach vehicle, but when used in conjunction with other media, it helps to seal the deal with the consumer.” – Bill McOwen at MPG, the media buying unit of the mega-agency HAVAS, as reported in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required).

My take: Drive authentic Brand interaction and confirm aspirational messages – “seal the deal” – on the web site.

2.  “I don’t think banner ads are a total waste of money, but they’re not very effective”. – Trond Riiber Knudsen, Senior Vice President of Strategic Marketing at Nokia, as reported in the McKinsey Quarterly (registration required).

My take: Forget trying to use Banners to generate awareness, unless you are talking about micro-segmentation of some kind, which, let’s face it, will be “not very effective”.  If you’re going micro, use Search.

3.  (bold emphasis mine) “…banner ads may provide a valuable function in fostering familiarity even if those that view them never click through to the source of the ads. The downside for advertisers is that any evaluation of the positive impressions that this familiarity creates, even one based on false premises, is enough to make those positive feelings vanish.  This suggests that familiarity-based advertising may work best for impulse buys, where more detailed evaluations aren’t likely to occur.” – Journal of Consumer Research, as reported here.

My take:  Forget using Banners to generate Awareness or Intent - it doesn’t really happen anyway.

So, is executing against this model very hard?  I mean, other than the politics of which agency gets to “run” the campaign and which silo approves what creative and so forth.  That’s a mess, but not strictly a Marketing problem, it’s an Organizational / Vendor issue.  I would ask any agency folks in the middle of this to again, simply look at what is happening around you

Can we be very far away from a time when the interactive agency makes a legitimate pitch to be in charge of the TV for these campaigns?  After all, the web site is where the Brand action is.  TV – just Awareness, you know.  No “Branding” really going on there.  How about some of the direct agencies getting into the Brand game?  After all, they understand persuasion, the behavioral linkages required between the media, and are for the most part media agnostic, generally choosing the most efficient way to get the job done.  Are you direct folks up for some Brand work?

Stir in a little Google / DoubleClick, a little MSN / aQuantive, plus some Yahoo / Real Media, and I think you just might have the match needed to light this new media Advertising model on fire.  When they (especially Google) start testing the true economic value of Display versus Search, and as the Display media moves more towards an auction model, the Brand measurement focus will shift to the web site itself, and away from the Bridge Media generating the visit.  As a bonus, this united approach really gets rid of the whole “view-through” measurement problem since the metrics that matter are measured at the site – the “true origin” of the visit becomes much less important.

Agencies, get rid of the old media Display model in the new media.  You’ve had a decade plus to make it work.

The web site experience is the Impression, folks.  Let’s measure the value of the media based on the behavior of the audience, OK?

The next post in this series is here.

The 3% Solution

Tuesday, June 12th, 2007

A list of the posts in this series on Brand Management is here

Without getting too deeply into the Math (and if you wish to, feel free to post) the web simply does not have the “weight” to move the needle like TV does.  It ends up our ol’ offline advertising friend GRP’s (Gross Ratings Points = Reach x Frequency)  mean something.  But “you can’t measure the web that way” has always been the cry from online Display ad proponents.  Yea, no kidding.  

This from ARF’s Online Reach & Frequency Committee:

“When a banner or other type of ad is served, it is rarely exposed to the full audience of the site or even the full audience of the page served. As a result, there is no relationship between the site’s audience and the audience for the advertising.”

Hmm.  Houston?  That’s what you call a problem in media, a problem that makes any criticism of the GRP / TRP way of life simply slide off the radar.  Christ, at least with GRP’s we have some kind of yardstick, some tangible notion of “weight”, however inaccurate.  At least GRP’s are consistent, which I can deal with.  We used to worry about frequency imbalances, you know, over / under delivery on Frequency to certain segments.  Or, sure, people get up and go to the bathroom during the ad or use a VCR and skip the ads.  That’s all nothing compared to this little online problem we have here with Display Advertising and audience measurement.  Perhaps we’re just going about this whole Display Ad thing in the wrong way, trying to force an old media business model into a new media environment?

In 1991 when I was at HSN, we actually tried to convince Nielsen to measure the HSN TV audience in Cume Quarter Hours.  They went right over the edge.  ”That’s a radio measurement” they sneered, like I didn’t know.  “Why is radio measured differently than TV?” I asked, feigning innocence.  “Because radio listeners behave differently than TV viewers”, they said.  Oh, I see.  So audience behavior defines best practices for audience measurement?  Cool beans, man.  I’m with ya.

Because, you see, my pointy-headed little Nielsen-ites, the way people primarily watch TV Shopping is by flipping into and out of the shopping program while they are watching something else on TV - something else you folks, by the way, are assuming they are watching straight through.  Lots of people, for example, flip to HSN during the ads on the other TV Networks.  The behavior is different, it’s a lot more like radio where people are constantly changing stations, which is why radio uses Cume Quarter Hours, right?

Silence from the Nielsen-ites.

Then, “We’ll get back to you on this”.  They never did.  Wouldn’t even take my calls.  I think they were hoping TV Shopping would just go away.  Meanwhile, a TV network that supposedly had “no viewers” sold a billion dollars worth of stuff that year. 

No viewers, indeed. 

I think you can probably see where I am headed with this.  But I’m not letting you off the hook yet.

I may be the only one reading this old enough to remember the launch of cable television.  Yes, there was a time when there was no cable TV.  Back then, our friends at Nielsen operated strictly with the diary system, and surprise, surprise, cable TV never got any ratings.  No viewers.  Years and years of lobbying later – with the broadcast networks doing everything they could to pressure Nielsen into sticking with the diaries - Nielsen installed the meter system.  For the first time, you could actually tell what TV channel people were tuned to.  And the ratings for cable TV absolutely exploded off the charts.  The trade pubs were all “Who knew?” and all the major agencies were “Mea culpa!” as they dove in head first and spent billions on cable network advertising.  Good thing to, because a lot of those early cable networks were on the verge of going belly-up.  Not too many years later, total cable programming viewership exceeded total “broadcast” programming viewership for the first time.

No viewers, indeed.  Ends up people were doing a lot of “flipping” with that new-fangled remote control thing that came with the cable box.  Yes, flipping.  From channel to channel.  Can you imagine it?  Viewers don’t sit still and watch the entire program through to the end?  And you mean to tell me viewers wouldn’t spend the time to write every flip down in a diary?  Or remember every flip in the end of the month rush to fill out the diary from memory?  C’mon, who knew?

So now we get to online display ads, and we’re back in Houston again (with apologies to those of you who live in Houston - a great city).  The onliners are simply not measuring this audience stuff correctly or not measuring it at all, depending on your point of view.  And the end result is Online Display ads simply don’t work as “mass media”, you can’t get any ”weight”, so you can’t move the needle at the checkout aisle for a Brand Manager.

Based on past experience, I’d have to say this: the behavior of the audience probably has something to do with this measurement problem.  Call me crazy.  But the fact of the matter is advertisers want to understand the audience for a media, and once they do, they’re pretty likely to jump in with both feet, just like they did into cable TV when they got the measurement right.  Unless, of course, the measurement indicates Online Display ads are basically equivalent to advertising on matchbook covers in terms of any mass-media “weight” you can get.

If you’re looking for an answer to this particular online display advertising measurement problem as it stands today from me, I’m not that smart.  There are plenty of people with deeply vested interests in this area to chase down the “right” answer if the Display industry chooses to stick to the old media model.

But may I suggest that this answer will not be found in an “old media” model.  I think it’s possible that because of the extreme fragmentation in this online media, you simply can’t get to any kind of measurement that makes sense from the old model mass media perspective.  The closest you can get to an old media idea is the “Yahoo HomePage Takeover” kind of trick, where you basically know what visits to the HomePage will be and you have a single “forced” point source for the ad.  Now you’re getting closer to a GRP-feeling kind of measurement, if you exclude robots and all the pingers and everything else that’s not human.

That still doesn’t take into account the behavior side, the fact that most folks on the web are there to get something done in one way or another, not to sit passively being entertained.  So unless what your ad has to say is directly related to the task at hand, it simply isn’t going to make a difference, if it even registers as an impression.  Most of this display advertising has been so irrelevant to the visitor for so long that people don’t even see the ads any more.

At this point, I bet you think my opinion of banner real estate is that it’s useless.  That’s not the case.  I think the way this space is currently packaged, used, and measured is illogical and defies what we know about human behavior.  I also think there’s a pretty good chance you can never aggregate enough exposure to this space to create “weight” comparable to mass media, or that if you can do this aggregation, the expense of doing so drives the cost of the media beyond what it costs to do the same job – with a lot less pain - on TV.

I mean, that’s the underlying problem, the real root cause, right?  At some point, when you’re trying to create a “mass media weight” in a totally fragmented environment like the web, the expense of not just the media but the damn administration of it gets so high you might as well go out and buy yourself a basket full of TV and Radio.  Which is exactly what the Brand folks do.

Sure, you can do some highly targeted Display stuff that works out pretty well, filling in against “lost audiences” and so forth, and there are examples of this approach around.  But let’s agree this kind of execution is not “mass media” by any stretch of the imagination, OK?

So Jim, what would you do with the banner space to make it worth purchasing by mass media folks?  Reject the offline mass-media model, and create a behaviorally appropriate model for online Display, one that directly and effectively supports offline mass media as opposed to trying to be the offline mass media.

I would stop trying to turn the banners themselves into ”mass media”; stop worrying about awareness and intent and all that stuff based on the Banner alone.  Instead, use banners to bring people to a microsite / web site, where they can be delivered a tangible experience of some kind.  Then run these packages underneath the mass media: use the mass media to do what it is good at – generate broad awareness.  Let the banner / site package come in behind and take care of the intent and engagement.  The proper execution of this idea is as a TV –> Banner –> Microsite integrated campaign – I’m not talking about just slapping a URL on a TV ad here.

And then look at your awareness and intent – not based on the Banners alone, but on the interaction of visitors with the banners and the web site as a package.  This would be a new media approach to the new media, as opposed to trying to force the old display model into new media.

By taking this approach, you align yourself with the behavior of the consumer, and slash out a tremendous amount of noise on the measurement side.  The measurement population becomes ”Of those who are interested enough to click the banner” versus “Of those who we continue to bludgeon to death with irrelevant advertising”.  To help people get their heads around this, the closest offline compare is probably Magazines, where the audience has pre-selected themselves as being interested in a topic and the ads are more like part of the content rather than an intrusion.  This is roughly the way the behavior would play out online for a Display / micro-site package.

This approach would require agencies to go “beyond the banner”, and we know it’s not cool for agencies to care about what happens “after the impression“, despite what is going on in their space.

So, 3% of the mass-media budget is OK with you agency folks, then? 

Next time: Let’s talk a little bit about what a Brand and Brand Advertising really are, leading to why a banner / site package might make a lot of sense to the mass-media folks controlling the other 97% of the spend.  The next post is this series is here.

As always, comments on the above are welcome!