Comments on: Thinking Of Shifting All Of Your Advertising Online? Not So Fast…

By: dedicated server

dedicated server — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:08:19 +0000

I’ll go and sticky this if you get some good replies

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:20:51 +0000

Hi Kimmo,
You have made a good point. Lower cost advertising is appealing to many businesses. Still, if it’s popping up all over the place it’s hardly reaching a target audience, and causing considerable irritation to boot. So it’s a good idea for marketers to slow down and consider where they ought to be spending their advertising dollars. That generally means allocating monies into several vehicles and putting a concerted campaign together, as Lewis pointed out. Without those factors, companies might as well flush their money down the drain.
Thanks for weighing in, Kimmo. I appreciate your input.

By: Kimmo Linkama

Kimmo Linkama — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:57:42 +0000

I think the flow of marketers to online media is mostly a cost-driven approach to a demand-driven problem.
People (and companies) are not buying as much as they used to, so the solution for vendors is to switch to less costly media. Which, alas, doesn’t work as well as they thought.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:47:26 +0000

Julian,
You’re right about this: many of the internet ads that pop up are not for all of us. And many are annoyed by them; especially when we arrive on sites we really want to read, including blogs. But the point about proper targeting of prospects is an important one, in that case. Right? I mean: why would advertisers place ads indiscriminately at this stage of the game? It’s a waste of their time and money since they’re not likely to reach many of the consumers in their intended audience.
Thanks for weighing in, Julian. I appreciate your comments.

By: Julian Lockhart

Julian Lockhart — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:53:03 +0000

I don’t like ads for acai or whiter teeth masquerading as personal blogs.
That being case there is something to be said for annoying ads that are hard to close, etc. The fact is they convert more(for the time being).
I think that the people who are annoyed by these ads(myself included) need to get that these advertisers are NOT marketing to us. And they don’t really care if we are annoyed. We probably weren’t going to buy anyway.
These ads are designed for and work on a particular demographic.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:03:37 +0000

Asquaredgroup,
Your observation correlates with the findings in the research from the Brandweek article. What you said is tantalizing: “There are much more effective ways of marketing, both online and off.” Can you elaborate on that and give us some of your ideas in this regard? I’d love to hear them.
Thanks for weighing in, asquaredgroup. Much appreciated.

By: asquaredgroup

asquaredgroup — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:52:44 +0000

I spend, on average, 15 hours a day online. There is always more than one place to get the information I need. If a site has sound-augmented ads, ads that block text, or ads that are difficult to close out, the site will lose me.
There are much more effective ways of marketing, both online and off.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:51:04 +0000

Thanks for the kudos, Strategic Growth Advisors. As is the case with all good marketing, a clear strategy has to be put in place first. Then the right mix of tools and tactics go a long way to implementing that strategy.
I appreciate your commenting.

By: Strategic Growth Advisors

Strategic Growth Advisors — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:21:48 +0000

Now this is one post most online marketers and entrepreneurs will really find useful!
Thanks, Tim, for clarifying things. Nowadays, the most common mindset is “once you go online, you’ll go big time!”
Keep those posts coming!

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:15:14 +0000

Jesse,
Thanks for thinking this through with solid answers to the questions posed in my post. I appreciate it. You’ve spoken for a lot of people today who have the same pet peeves you’ve cited about internet advertising. It’s irritating when we want to read something, only to have an ad expand over the material and block it from view.
Like your idea about interactive advertising and instant gratification. With rapid technological advancements and advertisers looking for ways to best the competition, I expect we’ll see your ideas to come to fruition sooner than later. But, as you point out, there are still some “hurdles to overcome”.
Good stuff, Jesse.

By: Jesse Kanclerz

Jesse Kanclerz — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:07:25 +0000

Hi Ted,
This reminds me of another recent article I read about Southern Comfort deciding to shift all their advertising online. Gutsy, possibly crazy move on their part? We’ll have to wait and see how it pans out. Now to answer your questions.
What internet ads irritate you?
Ads that expand when you hover over them, especially when they interfere with the usability of a site. One example that got my blood boiling was an ad on the right hand side of Businessweek’s Business Exchange. When submitting an article to the site, the ad would cover up the check boxes for the topics you’d like to assign to the article (and NO option to close it!). As of my writing, it looks like they’ve removed the ad.
What kinds of ads would you like to see on the Internet?
Perhaps more interactivity in display advertising. For example, say I’ve been listening to alot of Kayne West songs on last.fm lately. I wouldn’t mind last.fm showing a display ad telling me about his upcoming concert in the area (relevant) and an option to purchase a ticket right in the ad without leaving the site (satisfies my desire for instant gratification).
I could see this type of arrangement benefiting both last.fm (getting paid by commission not cpc) and concert promoters (reaching an audience more likely to buy, and being able to attribute ticket sales to display ads). Not to mention, I, the consumer would find it helpful.
This type interactive display technology exists, Tailgate Technologies comes to mind, it’s just that I’m not seeing too much of it in practice, probably because there’s quite a few hurdles to overcome.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:35:04 +0000

Hi Kevin,
Strong insights and I thank you. Polls are always all over the board and results depend upon so many variables that it’s sometimes hard to know what delivers a clear and accurate picture and what doesn’t.
I’ll say this, though. As more and more businesses opt to advertise online, they ought to do some planning and take many issues into account, as Lewis, Tom, Paul and you point out.
I wasn’t aware of the BMW kerfuffle but now I’ll have to find out about it. Hijacking sites to promote brands is not a good idea. I agree: this is counter-productive. As you said, what will they do with our cell phones???
If DF readers agree or disagree, please weigh in on this topic or any other issue raised by my post and the comments made.
Thanks, Kevin. I appreciate your input.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:29:04 +0000

Hi Paul,
Thanks for weighing in. I always appreciate your insights. You’ve said many important things here, not the least of which is targeted relevance. Intelligent, targeted advertising campaigns whether in traditional media or on the internet ought to be marketers’ focus. Using web intelligence and better utilizing the date it generates, as you suggest, makes perfect sense. What better way to target the right people with the right message? That’s relevance. . .
Your insights are always appreciated, Paul. Thanks again.

By: Kevin Horne

Kevin Horne — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:58:12 +0000

Ad technology has turned this into a game (battle?) of wits between marketers and consumers.
Let me make a quick aside first – be careful of comparing polls of usage from each side (marketer/consumer). Most polls will show an imbalance toward online advtg since it is the only thing a lot of businesses can afford. If Fox told you that they would let you run an ad on American Idol for $500, you’d do it in a heartbeat. But instead, you can only plunk down such a tiny amount on search marketing.
Anyway, I thought the hoo-hah over the BMW “take-over” of the NYTimes.com home page yesterday was telling. Not only took over the site, but your PC controls and display (you can read about it and the blowback elsewhere). Maybe it’s me, but this kind of “outwitting” of the user experience seems to run counter to promoting a brand in a positive way. And it will only go on, as the techies try to find ways to outwit TiVos, cookie deletions, site navigation, etc. Can’t wait to see what they do with our cellphones.

By: Paul Barsch

Paul Barsch — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:57:57 +0000

Hi Ted, great topic. Tom said something noteworthy, “…If an advertiser has something worthy to say and it’s actually RELEVANT to them/what they’re doing at that moment…”
To me, this is one of the key challenges of advertising and an area where online advertising can make an impact, esp in terms of behavioral targeting. I’m not sure of the correct terminology but “dumb” ads served by an ad server go to mass audiences – they have no intelligence behind them in regards to relevance. Behavioral targeting systems will help improve online advertising by targeting ads based on keyword, search, http referrer data, or cookies. Even better, the website user who self identifies or “signs in”, thus allowing a company (with the requisite technology) to pull up a customer profile that contains behavioral characteristics (such as purchase history, or clicked items) and use that information to serve a more relevant offer. This is web intelligence.
Dumb, loud and irrelevant ads work probably as well on the internet as on TV. The future is behavioral targeting to help categorize user generated web data for more effective segmentation and relevant offers.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:26:14 +0000

Thanks, Lewis, for sharing your wisdom with us. You’re right: targeted, well-executed marketing campaigns make sense. General advertising doesn’t work; the marketplace is too fragmented.
Love this statement: “Therefore, we need to advertise in the right place and with some class. They’ll find us if we have what they want.”
Now can advertisers just dial it back and tone it down a bit?

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:19:54 +0000

Ted,
I agree with Tom and would have written the comment myself had he not said it first. Here’s my personal takes:
1. We have to consider advertising as part of our marketing mix.
2. However, mass marketing is a mistake. When possible, we need to advertise only on shows and in print that matches the interests of our ideal customers.
3. If we advertise, we need to do so in a campaign. Hit and miss advertising is a huge mistake.
4. Young consumers might enjoy the noise, if it’s creatively produced and features something in pop culture.
5. Older consumers have already decided what they want or need. Therefore, we need to advertise in the right place and with some class. They’ll find us if we have what they want.
I could go on, but you get my point. Generalizations in marketing no longer apply, and creating mass advertising just doesn’t work as well as they once did.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:32:23 +0000

Hi Tom,
You’ve shared many good insights, and I thank you for weighing in on this topic. Excellent point: “My take would be that that data isn’t saying that folks dislike internet advertising anymore than regular advertising, it’s saying they just don’t like to be interrupted while they surf. This makes sense because internet is an active vs passive activity.” I’m sure you’re right about this. We all get tired of being bombarded endlessly by advertising. Even worse: we dislike being yelled at, which, as you point out is an increasing problem. Advertising decibels are rising as marketers vie for our attention, but they need to consider that instead of engaging us, it’s turning us off. Whether the ads appear in traditional media or online, too loud is too loud, folks.
Thanks again, Tom, for adding a great deal to my post.

By: Tom Martin

Tom Martin — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:16:29 +0000

Ted
Interesting data. My take would be that that data isn’t saying that folks dislike internet advertising anymore than regular advertising, it’s saying they just don’t like to be interrupted while they surf. This makes sense because internet is an active vs passive activity.
As for those cover ups, loud soundtracks, don’t see that as any different than a commercial on TV where the adv has jacked up the soundtrack volume to a point where is scares the hell out of you when it comes on because it’s so much louder than the show you were watching.
Bottom line, IMHO, consumes are in general tired by being yelled at. If an advertiser has something worthy to say and it’s actually relevant to them/what they’re doing at that moment, consumers will pay attention… no need to shout, just a little whisper to let them know you’re there.
@TomMartin
http://www.twitter.com/TomMartin