Digital Marketing in the Internet of Things

Marketing has become more complex very quickly in the last 2 decades. We went from worrying about how to make clever and funny commercial to being worried about how our ads and message is consumed across multiple platforms and screens. With the arrival of apple watch the landscape grows only more complex.

Apple watch may not be as ground breaking as the iPhone, but it does provide another device and screen for marketers to worry about. It is not just another screen that is increasing the complexity it is our interaction with the additional device. The use case for an Apple watch is different from our phones and tablets... it is even different from other wearable devices such as fitBit.

The review of the apple watch hints that not all companies have figured out how to build an app for this new channel and I am sure it will take some time before people perfect it just like it took a while for iPhone apps to reach their full potential. I am also sure that some marketers are going to completely miss how to advertise on this channel but it will be interesting to see who will be the first to get it right and how they do it.

http://venturebeat.com/2015/04/08/the-initial-apple-watch-reviews-are-quietly-brutal/

The Next Social Media Frontier: Live Streaming

First was facebook, then youtube and twitter, then Instagram and snapchat and now meerkat and periscope. It went from text, to pictures, to video, to disappearing pictures, and now we have live disappearing video.

Companies had to figure out how to successfully adopt and integrate each new channel into their strategy. Some companies have embraced digital marketing extremely well (Old Spice) while other have crashed and burned (Comcast). I am sure that this will be no different with some companies developing really clever and useful ways to integrate this, like broadcasting product reveals to the most loyal followers for example, while Comcast will broadcast its workers sleeping on the job.

I also have no doubt that this will be successful since reality television is already successful (I blame MTV) and there are youTube celebrities (I still blame MTV). So to think people would want to watch other people live their lives in realtime instead of living their own doesn't surprise me, after all there are millions of people that watch other people enjoy regular meals by themselves.

People have different perspectives, different interests, and who am I to judge but the scenario the author describes where people tuned in to watch him pick a lunch place... really? No offense to any of my friends, but I don't think I am ever that bored or have that much free time to tune in and watch one  of my friends picking a lunch place.

It is also interesting that 150 years ago the only way we could watch something is to be there in person and witness it ourselves. Video allowed us to be able to enjoy the content any time, any where. And now we are going back to witnessing it our selves in real time... granted we don't have to physically be there.

As I mentioned, it is not hard to envision this being successful, after all people have been tuning into live webcam shows since the 90's. I can't help but wonder, however, how lonely we feel in this ever increasingly connected world that we choose to watch someone else do mundane tasks just so feel part of someone else's life.

http://venturebeat.com/2015/03/26/celebrity-app-deathmatch-meerkat-vs-periscope/

Brick and Mortar in the Digital Age

Google has been an internet company since the day it started. It has pioneered the way digital marketing is done and has helped numerous merchants bring their stores into the digital age. While google has tried branching into hardware with google glass and chrome book its sweet spot has remained software.

That is until it decided to open a brick and mortar store. With this decision google has definitely decided to go the other way of most companies. Businesses are constantly increasing their online presence while minimizing the physical network but here google is doing the opposite.

If i had to guess google's primary goal with the store is probably to promote their brand. They want us seeing the google name not just when we are on the internet but also in the real world, even though that time is constantly decreasing. But this does raise an interesting question, how much does the brand benefit by being in the real world as well as the digital one? Whatever the answer is, I can't wait until they open one in NYC.


http://goo.gl/H7fExa

Geico Winning the War Against Ad Skipping

My greatest nemesis on the internet is the 30 second ad that is standing directly between me and that funny cat video I desperately want to watch. My biggest decision of the day: will the last 15 seconds somehow justify the 15 seconds I already wasted or should I just accept the sunk cost and move on?

Well, one company has finally noticed my struggle and did something about it. Geico has developed a new internet video campaign that tells me everything I could possibly want to know in the first 5 seconds and if I choose to keep watching I am rewarded with an adorable dog eating food off the table or some other attempt by Geico to be cute.

Here is one of those ads:

These ads aren't quiet as clever or as funny as ESPN but at least I watch them without completely regretting my decision. Well done Geico for finally doing something about how we consume ads on youTube and developing a tailored strategy to the channel.

http://goo.gl/Liayuh

Fragmentation VS. Context

The article discusses the challenges that the multiple screen experience poses for advertising since we no longer all watch Justified at one time on FX. That leads to the metrics that companies are used to become worthless because Nelson's viewership numbers are less and less representative of the true number of people that watched the program. In addition, the multiple screens erode economies of scale that come from showing a single advertisement to millions of people.

I would argue for the potential upside, however, since multiple screens offer better context about the user. If I know a person is watching an episode on their mobile device then there is a higher certainty that a person watched the ad since they can't flip the channel. You can also tell what a person is doing and can offer better ads. Not to mention you have better information about the individual watching the ad as opposed to the household.

If a young business professional is heading home from work on a train then why not offer a grocery discount along the person's rout or a happy hour special near their home. So yes the scale of the ad is diminishing but the ROI is increasing because of better context and intent of the customer. And as google has proven context is more profitable.

http://goo.gl/kiHNjP

Breaking News: Facebook is focused on Advertisers

Ok, so maybe between all the ads and promoted material in our news feed on Facebook this isn't breaking news. This does, however, raise an interesting question: at what point do ads become white noise?

Facebook's claim that an ad only counts when we see it sure sounds great, but I am pretty sure most of us don't consciously notice most of the ads. There is research that shows that even unconscious viewership of ads helps promote brand awareness but no one has figured out how to really measure the ROI of that.

Also with the now explicit statement of focus on advertisements what happens to the users? Is it so engrained in our daily life that innovation to make Facebook more important to us no longer matters? I understand that Facebook is now a public company and it must address it's bottom line first, but does that mean we no longer matter? I am not sure I can handle more advertisements in my feed and less information that I care about... like if that cute girl in the office is single or not...

Google has managed to stay focused on the user experience and keep us in mind while trying to milk every single penny from advertisers. I love chrome, gmail, google maps, google flights, and everything else because it is seamless and efficient experience across all tools. And the best part is that google keeps improving it, the new google docs layout is great.

On the other hand, I find myself visiting Facebook less frequently and don't really use any other tools in its ecosystem. I might be an exception though, since the company is making tons of money. It will be interesting to see how far Facebook can push its focus on ads before it realizes it needs to focus on us too.

http://goo.gl/4sQiC0

Closing Open Networks

Significant number of current digital marketing platforms have been built as open networks that have no barriers (e.g., facebook, pintrest, and twitter). They have relied on links, references, and affiliate networks to increase traffic to their sites. As a result, users with large number of followers were able to monitize their accounts and earn large paychecks from middle man. This was great for the users but hurt the companies while they were trying to figure out how to earn money from the billions of users.

As the pressure from investors increased to show a profit and these companies started thinking about going public it was no longer in their best interest to keep these networks open and let other make the money from their users. They started developing their own advertising platforms and affiliate networks. As these networks grow larger they will continue pushing out the middlemen that were piggybacking on their networks. These companies can afford to do that, since in the end they own the customer experience.

The question that arises is that what will the industry and as a result digital marketing look like as these companies become oligopolies and more importantly what will happen to innovation.


http://goo.gl/YlVJj6

Attribution is the Name of the Game

Last week someone proudly said "Digital marketing accounted for 8% of our new account sales last week". My first two thoughts were:

1. That seems low...
2. How the hell did they even come up with that number?

The person was trying to justify the digital marketing budget and get an increase for next year. Based on only 8% I would definitely cut the budget since it seems high ineffective compared to the millions that were spent. The more interesting questions though was the second thought, How were they able to attribute 8% to marketing and know it wasn't something else? I didn't see any regression models backing up the claim.

On one hand with digital marketing we are able to measure campaigns more and able to make decisions based on data. The question that remains: are we measuring the right thing? And are we attributing the cause to the right lever? How do we know it was digital marketing that caused that sale and not something else like word of mouth and the sale just happened to come through the digital channel? We got the sale, so does it really matter in the end what caused it? Yes it does if you want to maximize the return on investment. We want to invest more in things that work.

The company Marchex is trying to move the needle in the attribution game by finally tracking click-to-calls leads and provide better insights to companies. With $4 billion spent on click-to-call advertisements last year, they are addressing a significant blind-spot.

It is going to be interesting to see what other companies try to tackle this space by accurately and precisely attributing sales to the different campaigns and marketing channels to help drive more optimized marketing budgets.

Source:
http://goo.gl/bH4zy3

Is the Superbowl the Next Christmas?

Christmas has outgrown the month of December and has consumed Thanksgiving with Christmas decorations starting to go up as soon as Halloween is over. Just like Christmas, the Superbowl is growing past the 3 hours on that last Sunday of the season. It started with ESPN and 24/7 access during the 2 weeks leading up to the game and now with us being connected 24/7 it is evolving into a month long, multi-channel experience.

According to Google people start searching for Superbowl related content way in advance of the game and that trend has grown rapidly in the last few years.

People are searching for everything from ads and highlights, to good recipes. So from an advertisement standpoint it isn't enough to create a funny 1 minute commercial anymore. One needs to craft an experience around the game that starts well before the kickoff and can be consumed in more ways than just the television set. Companies need to tease content ahead of time like Budweiser did last year and package related content together that their customers will be interested in. Like the perfect wings recipe to along with that ice cold Pepsi.

So while the game is guaranteed to excite this season with 2 pre-season favorites going head to head this week, it will be just as exciting to see which companies takes the Superbowl experience to the next level.

And now for the best Superbowl ad of all time... feel free to comment with your pick:

Source: goo.gl/BXW5aQ

The Next Marketing Frontier

Video games have become the leading form of entertainment, growing from a $1.5 Billion market in 1982 to over $100 Billion in 2014. Gartner is predicting that the video game market will grow another 11% in 2015. In 2013 people spent 2.2 Billion hours watching e-Sports and that number is projected to grow to 6.6 Billion hours in 2018.

Some of the biggest games such as League of Legends and DOTA (Defense of the Ages) have 70 and 8 million active users respectively. Additionally these games are generating high revenues with League of Legends generating $624 million from micro transactions. In comparison, Box who went public today with a market cap of about  $3 Billion only generates $125 in revenues. This year's League of Legends championship was watched by 32 million people, granted 111 million watch the Super Bowl every year but the NFL spends a lot more money on marketing.

With all these captive users and audiences one would expect billions of dollars being spent to advertise during these events and for product placement within games. That, however, is shockingly untrue. In fact the gaming industry is expected to only generate $300 million in advertising revenues by 2018.

One possible explanation is that eSports is still a young industry with Starcraft really being the grandfather of the industry. Broadband and YouTube is really what enabled for these communities to move out of their mother's basements and into the mainstream. That has only happened in the last decade. As a result companies haven't figured out how to exactly monetize advertisement spend in the media channel. One thing is for sure though, as gaming becomes more mainstream the advertising dollars will follow.

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2614915
http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_industry
http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/03/a-marketers-dream-league-of-legends-dota-2-help-e-sports-rack-up-2-4-billion-viewer-hours-in-2013/
http://fortune.com/2014/07/24/esports-sponsors/
http://www.dailydot.com/esports/league-legends-lcs-grand-final-32-million/