Two months ago our newsletter highlighted the potential risk to response from a summer of partying. We warned that the Jubilee, Euros and Olympics could prove significantly more interesting for UK consumers than the allure of many marketing messages.
As I write this on the Thursday after the Jubilee it seems we were right. We have taken a selection of results, across a range of sectors, from retail to media owners, from travel to charities.
Three big learning’s emerge.
Firstly- the scale was about what we expected. It varied by client, but ranged from 30% to 50% decline in response across the weekend.
Secondly- the impact was very short lived. The down turn didn’t really happen until Monday. Saturday and Sunday saw some short fall, but very limited compared with Monday & Tuesday when the whole world seemed to be out to lunch. Wednesday we saw evidence of hangovers, but no mass absenteeism as results climbed back to approach normal. On Thursday morning all the evidence is of a return to near normality.
Finally- the impact vary significantly by channel (and thus by inference by audience) Phone response saw the largest falls- up to 85% down on comparable periods, with mobile, web and retail sales seeing the smallest impact.
Our conclusions- we are actually taking heart from this data set. Our view is that with careful channel management and very careful timing the impact of response downturns this summer can be managed. Coupled with selection of media for value there should be opportunities for very specific investments that may yield additional growth at the expense of competitors. Do call if you want to discuss further.
Mike Colling, Managing Director
Thursday, 7 June 2012
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Free media may be free for a reason
I spent Sunday in the sun at Trent bridge, watching England demolish the Windies over a glorious 7 ½ hours. Whilst I was there I admired not just the cricket, but the carefully integrated campaigns from various sponsors. One in particular caught my attention - for an upmarket mail order wine company. They are the official wine partners of English cricket.
As a media man my first thoughts were great targeting - mostly upmarket middle aged men, with a penchant for more than the odd case or two; good presence throughout the ground, with different placements to keep my interest; right programme - big digital screens and perimeter boards.
But one placement really struck me as dissonant. They had taken (I assume as part of a total package) ads above the urinals. Trent Bridge is not the most modern of grounds, and the men’s toilets at major sporting events, especially on a hot day, are not the most salubrious of places.
Yes I saw the ad, and yes I recalled it, but with a question mark over their attention to detail, which has implications for the rest of their competence. As a media man I can hear the justification “but it’s free” coming with the placement, but this might be one of those occasions where “free” brings liabilities.
As a media man my first thoughts were great targeting - mostly upmarket middle aged men, with a penchant for more than the odd case or two; good presence throughout the ground, with different placements to keep my interest; right programme - big digital screens and perimeter boards.
But one placement really struck me as dissonant. They had taken (I assume as part of a total package) ads above the urinals. Trent Bridge is not the most modern of grounds, and the men’s toilets at major sporting events, especially on a hot day, are not the most salubrious of places.
Yes I saw the ad, and yes I recalled it, but with a question mark over their attention to detail, which has implications for the rest of their competence. As a media man I can hear the justification “but it’s free” coming with the placement, but this might be one of those occasions where “free” brings liabilities.
Thursday, 24 May 2012
Why did Facebook go public ... because they couldn’t work out how to use their privacy settings either
So it’s finally happened Facebook has floated their shares on the stock market. While many people will be keen to see how this develops others will roll their eyes at the phone number figures and the circus surrounding it.
Meanwhile, back in the real world what could this mean for advertisers? These huge figures will create significant financial pressure on Facebook to live up to the floatation hype and start to provide its manifold shareholders with some returns and quickly, but how can they make this happen? One school of thought is that with so many users (over 900 million worldwide) Facebook only needs to make pennies from each one to be profitable, but will the process of extracting these pennies make the site experience unusable, unbearable and most importantly unpopular? Simply put, to make more profit Facebook will need to sell and create more ad space which means more on site ads which is something users will find hard to swallow. One element in its favour is that the rapidly looming cookie laws should have little impact on their business due to its opt in model. This might mean that a large number of advertisers migrate to this cookie equivalent of Switzerland to enable them to attract precious users as the rest of the internet becomes some kind of no man’s land, in the short term at least.
However, the waters around Facebook seem to be getting muddier by the day; on one hand we have reports that General Motors is to cease their significant ad spend (est. $10 million) on the network due to the advertising being ineffective, saying it "had little impact on consumers' car purchases,". This is in stark contrast to the Ford Motor Company who has stated that they have had success integrating paid advertising and content together on Facebook and that "It's all about the execution. Our Facebook ads are effective when strategically combined with engaging content & innovation."
So how do we, the Facebook advertiser, see the wood for the socially interactive trees? Ignoring the recent spat between the two car giants a recent Associated Press-CNBC poll showed that more than half of all Facebook users never click on sponsored ads and only 12 percent said they felt comfortable buying anything over Facebook. Critics have also shown that metrics such as click-through rate are not where they need to be to make the advertising work. A recent Webtrends report puts Facebook CTR’s at 0.05%, which is lower than an averagely performing advertising network (CTR -c. 0.07%)and a league away from one of their main competitors Google at 0.4% on like for like display advertising. These figures are even more alarming given the platform’s market dominance and raise serious advertiser concerns as clicks are currency.
Whilst it’s clear that Facebook is here to stay I feel its very much a medium suited to relatively few advertisers and these few are fully committed to the medium, not to mention fully committed to the budget required to ensure success. Advertisers cannot just jump on board for some short term profit, they have to be prepared to test and refine just as you would with your search marketing. Not all campaign elements will work first time, but if you have something interesting to say, an interesting way of saying it and you can offer something to the user, be it content or other benefit, the chances of Facebook working for you are much improved. Even if the campaign is not a complete success a well constructed campaign with a clear objective will generate a multitude of usable learnings to ensure your next Facebook campaign’s success. On the other hand if your motivation for getting involved is that ‘everyone else is doing it why don’t we’ then chances are you could end up a social outcast!
I leave you with this helpful koan to see you right - If a tree falls in the forest and it's not on Facebook, does it make a sound?
Bodhi Morrison
Head of Digital
Meanwhile, back in the real world what could this mean for advertisers? These huge figures will create significant financial pressure on Facebook to live up to the floatation hype and start to provide its manifold shareholders with some returns and quickly, but how can they make this happen? One school of thought is that with so many users (over 900 million worldwide) Facebook only needs to make pennies from each one to be profitable, but will the process of extracting these pennies make the site experience unusable, unbearable and most importantly unpopular? Simply put, to make more profit Facebook will need to sell and create more ad space which means more on site ads which is something users will find hard to swallow. One element in its favour is that the rapidly looming cookie laws should have little impact on their business due to its opt in model. This might mean that a large number of advertisers migrate to this cookie equivalent of Switzerland to enable them to attract precious users as the rest of the internet becomes some kind of no man’s land, in the short term at least.
However, the waters around Facebook seem to be getting muddier by the day; on one hand we have reports that General Motors is to cease their significant ad spend (est. $10 million) on the network due to the advertising being ineffective, saying it "had little impact on consumers' car purchases,". This is in stark contrast to the Ford Motor Company who has stated that they have had success integrating paid advertising and content together on Facebook and that "It's all about the execution. Our Facebook ads are effective when strategically combined with engaging content & innovation."
So how do we, the Facebook advertiser, see the wood for the socially interactive trees? Ignoring the recent spat between the two car giants a recent Associated Press-CNBC poll showed that more than half of all Facebook users never click on sponsored ads and only 12 percent said they felt comfortable buying anything over Facebook. Critics have also shown that metrics such as click-through rate are not where they need to be to make the advertising work. A recent Webtrends report puts Facebook CTR’s at 0.05%, which is lower than an averagely performing advertising network (CTR -c. 0.07%)and a league away from one of their main competitors Google at 0.4% on like for like display advertising. These figures are even more alarming given the platform’s market dominance and raise serious advertiser concerns as clicks are currency.
Whilst it’s clear that Facebook is here to stay I feel its very much a medium suited to relatively few advertisers and these few are fully committed to the medium, not to mention fully committed to the budget required to ensure success. Advertisers cannot just jump on board for some short term profit, they have to be prepared to test and refine just as you would with your search marketing. Not all campaign elements will work first time, but if you have something interesting to say, an interesting way of saying it and you can offer something to the user, be it content or other benefit, the chances of Facebook working for you are much improved. Even if the campaign is not a complete success a well constructed campaign with a clear objective will generate a multitude of usable learnings to ensure your next Facebook campaign’s success. On the other hand if your motivation for getting involved is that ‘everyone else is doing it why don’t we’ then chances are you could end up a social outcast!
I leave you with this helpful koan to see you right - If a tree falls in the forest and it's not on Facebook, does it make a sound?
Bodhi Morrison
Head of Digital
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
Newspapers in the news: for better or worse?
The last 48 hours have seen two major pieces of coverage on the newspaper advertising marketplace.
The first, an article in this week’s Sunday Times business section, chimed with all our prejudices and data sets at MC&C. “Advertising spend on press has halved from £8billion to £4 billion in just 5 years”. This piece reflected the well-worn wisdom of advertising money chasing the classified efficiency of the internet, and following the eyeballs as they desert press for other media. A cursory glance at the new Touchpoints data reinforces this view - all adults now spend less than 4% of their day reading, down to 2% for the under 35’s.
But the second piece took a contrarian view - suggesting that total time spent reading newspapers had actually increased over the last two years, by about six minutes per day. Not surprisingly, this news came from what was the Newspaper marketing agency, now launched as Newsbrands, claiming that a physical presence is no longer a pre-requisite of a “paper” as an effective advertising medium. Fewer people may read a paper, but more gaze at their pixels, and total reach of online and offline is up by 1.8 million to 24.4 million readers.
Our view? Their stats are right, but there is as yet no proof of their underlying premise. Newspapers have found very few ways to monetise their online readers, for the simple reason, that unlike their offline counterparts, they don’t respond. Or at least not at the same levels, and directly to transact. If Newsbrands can help solve this gap then they will add real value, both to their publisher masters, and to the industry at large. But we see it as rather telling that they are (allegedly) being sent out to do this job, on what is a larger audience base, with a smaller budget than the NMA had to cover just the papers!
Mike Colling
Managing Director
The first, an article in this week’s Sunday Times business section, chimed with all our prejudices and data sets at MC&C. “Advertising spend on press has halved from £8billion to £4 billion in just 5 years”. This piece reflected the well-worn wisdom of advertising money chasing the classified efficiency of the internet, and following the eyeballs as they desert press for other media. A cursory glance at the new Touchpoints data reinforces this view - all adults now spend less than 4% of their day reading, down to 2% for the under 35’s.
But the second piece took a contrarian view - suggesting that total time spent reading newspapers had actually increased over the last two years, by about six minutes per day. Not surprisingly, this news came from what was the Newspaper marketing agency, now launched as Newsbrands, claiming that a physical presence is no longer a pre-requisite of a “paper” as an effective advertising medium. Fewer people may read a paper, but more gaze at their pixels, and total reach of online and offline is up by 1.8 million to 24.4 million readers.
Our view? Their stats are right, but there is as yet no proof of their underlying premise. Newspapers have found very few ways to monetise their online readers, for the simple reason, that unlike their offline counterparts, they don’t respond. Or at least not at the same levels, and directly to transact. If Newsbrands can help solve this gap then they will add real value, both to their publisher masters, and to the industry at large. But we see it as rather telling that they are (allegedly) being sent out to do this job, on what is a larger audience base, with a smaller budget than the NMA had to cover just the papers!
Mike Colling
Managing Director
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Many happy returns!
Arguably the three most important letters in business are ROI. Up to relatively recently, this acronym was applied to the key metric of calculating the benefit (return) of an investment. But in communication planning, return nowadays has a much wider bearing on measuring media effectiveness.
We think there are another four “returns” that contribute to return on investment.
1. From a purist media planning point of view return on attention assesses the means to seize attention, hold it and then measure the activities that are created. In old fashioned money this is share of voice or share of mind.
2. The second return is that of engagement – the duration of time spent participating either through conversations or the creation of social collateral such as user generated content. This return has significant ramifications relating to media value. With skip-able ads becoming the norm the belief that all of a 30” commercial is watched can no longer be relied upon.
3. Not only do we need to calculate the duration of conversations but also their intensity. A metric is needed to measure the value of the time spent participating in social conversations and how many touch-points are interacted with.
4. And lastly, return on trust as a way of measuring customer loyalty and the likelihood for referrals, the state of trust earned mainly in social media and the prospect of generating advocacy and how it impacts on future business.
Measuring the returns in social media and to some extent the wider digital world is tricky but certainly achievable, however calculating them in relation to off line is far more challenging and needs an econometric modelling approach.
Ian Prager
Planning Director
We think there are another four “returns” that contribute to return on investment.
1. From a purist media planning point of view return on attention assesses the means to seize attention, hold it and then measure the activities that are created. In old fashioned money this is share of voice or share of mind.
2. The second return is that of engagement – the duration of time spent participating either through conversations or the creation of social collateral such as user generated content. This return has significant ramifications relating to media value. With skip-able ads becoming the norm the belief that all of a 30” commercial is watched can no longer be relied upon.
3. Not only do we need to calculate the duration of conversations but also their intensity. A metric is needed to measure the value of the time spent participating in social conversations and how many touch-points are interacted with.
4. And lastly, return on trust as a way of measuring customer loyalty and the likelihood for referrals, the state of trust earned mainly in social media and the prospect of generating advocacy and how it impacts on future business.
Measuring the returns in social media and to some extent the wider digital world is tricky but certainly achievable, however calculating them in relation to off line is far more challenging and needs an econometric modelling approach.
Ian Prager
Planning Director
Monday, 23 April 2012
Anti-Competitive or Competitive Advantage?
It used to be the view that brands should never mention competitors in their adverts. The reasoning was that why would you want to give them any exposure? You’re basically giving them free publicity, especially if we’re following the wisdom, ‘all publicity, is good publicity’. There are also various legal battles that one could face through mentioning that your brand is better/cheaper than another brand, although the rules have been relaxed since 2008.
In the battle of the supermarket supremacy this age-old wisdom has been replaced with what seems like a surge in comparative advertising. Take for example the Tesco versus ASDA price comparison war. We’ve even had the more upmarket supermarkets such as Waitrose creating adverts to say they’re as cheap as Tesco on a range of branded products, in a bid to keep their shoppers in times when people are tightening up the purse strings. But since every supermarket seems to be claiming they’re the overall cheapest it’s left us wondering; can they all really be the cheapest? And doesn’t it eventually become a bit like political parties – who do you trust?
However, there may be smarter ways to beat the competitor, and the recent campaign by Newcastle Brown Ale shows how well parody advertisement can work in the right environment. The creative is based around the heavyweight advertising Stella Artois campaign, with the tag line ‘It’s a Chalice, not a glass’ trying to give the brand a slightly more glamorous edge. Newkie Brown took this and turned it on its head, ‘Who uses the word “Chalice”?’ implying that Stella Artois are trying to make their drink seem fancy when it really isn’t. Whereas Newkie Brown are far more down to earth, and with a ‘no bollocks’ attitude – and note they didn’t have to mention Stella for this campaign to work.
In the fundraising world creating a unique place in the hearts of potential donors is vital. You’re certainly not going to see charities comparing themselves to other charities, as it’s not going to win the hearts of their potential donors. Or are you? We all know money is really tight at the moment with donors rationalising the causes they’re going to support so maybe there is a place for some healthy knocking copy…
Felicity Bramald, Media Planner Buyer
In the battle of the supermarket supremacy this age-old wisdom has been replaced with what seems like a surge in comparative advertising. Take for example the Tesco versus ASDA price comparison war. We’ve even had the more upmarket supermarkets such as Waitrose creating adverts to say they’re as cheap as Tesco on a range of branded products, in a bid to keep their shoppers in times when people are tightening up the purse strings. But since every supermarket seems to be claiming they’re the overall cheapest it’s left us wondering; can they all really be the cheapest? And doesn’t it eventually become a bit like political parties – who do you trust?
However, there may be smarter ways to beat the competitor, and the recent campaign by Newcastle Brown Ale shows how well parody advertisement can work in the right environment. The creative is based around the heavyweight advertising Stella Artois campaign, with the tag line ‘It’s a Chalice, not a glass’ trying to give the brand a slightly more glamorous edge. Newkie Brown took this and turned it on its head, ‘Who uses the word “Chalice”?’ implying that Stella Artois are trying to make their drink seem fancy when it really isn’t. Whereas Newkie Brown are far more down to earth, and with a ‘no bollocks’ attitude – and note they didn’t have to mention Stella for this campaign to work.
In the fundraising world creating a unique place in the hearts of potential donors is vital. You’re certainly not going to see charities comparing themselves to other charities, as it’s not going to win the hearts of their potential donors. Or are you? We all know money is really tight at the moment with donors rationalising the causes they’re going to support so maybe there is a place for some healthy knocking copy…
Felicity Bramald, Media Planner Buyer
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
The Peter Pan Generation
Better known as the “millennials” this generation is also sometimes referred to as the Boomerang Generation or Peter Pan Generation, because of the members' perceived penchant for delaying some rites of passage into adulthood, longer periods than most generations before them. These labels were also a reference to a trend toward members living with their parents for longer periods than previous generations.
What makes them interesting to marketers and media planners is that having been born somewhere typically between the late 1980’s and 2000, they are the last of the children of the 20th Century and therefore know nothing else other than digital communication and being part of online communities across a diverse number of platforms primarily mobile. Those in the workplace like structure and working in a team and because of their digital literacy are able to multitask like crazy.
Some really interesting research carried out by Nicola Payne working for Eloqua Limited shows that the millennials are mad about Facebook. They can’t get enough of it. According to Quantcast, 76% of Facebook users visit the site at least 30 times per month. If my children are anything to go by its more like 100 plus! Twitter has a rate of 57% and sites like Linkedin and Foursquare less than 1%. When advertising to the millenials the same rules apply as when talking to most groups, especially in social media circles. Be transparent – engender trust. Be interactive – they liked to be entertained. Be generous – they like a deal as much as anybody else.
So media selection seems pretty straightforward but engaging with them is something else. The Peter Pans can become the Lost Boys if you get it wrong.
Ian Prager, Planning Director
What makes them interesting to marketers and media planners is that having been born somewhere typically between the late 1980’s and 2000, they are the last of the children of the 20th Century and therefore know nothing else other than digital communication and being part of online communities across a diverse number of platforms primarily mobile. Those in the workplace like structure and working in a team and because of their digital literacy are able to multitask like crazy.
Some really interesting research carried out by Nicola Payne working for Eloqua Limited shows that the millennials are mad about Facebook. They can’t get enough of it. According to Quantcast, 76% of Facebook users visit the site at least 30 times per month. If my children are anything to go by its more like 100 plus! Twitter has a rate of 57% and sites like Linkedin and Foursquare less than 1%. When advertising to the millenials the same rules apply as when talking to most groups, especially in social media circles. Be transparent – engender trust. Be interactive – they liked to be entertained. Be generous – they like a deal as much as anybody else.
So media selection seems pretty straightforward but engaging with them is something else. The Peter Pans can become the Lost Boys if you get it wrong.
Ian Prager, Planning Director
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)