Advertising 2.0

Crossing the Chasm

While reviewing Advertising 2.0 topics, I will frequently refer to concepts presented in Geoffrey Moore's Crossing the Chasm. A great book that has certainly influenced me and many others.

Type "Chasm" in the search bar of this ISAT Banner.


The primary concepts I'll be referring to evolve around the bell curve that represents technology adoption by population. So, imagine a simple bell curve with a line down the middle. 50% of the population sits on either side of the center. Now lets draw two more lines in the curve, each at one standard deviation (left and right) from the center. One standard deviation is about 1/2 way from the center to the end on each side. And lets draw two more lines at two standard deviations. Now you should be visualizing a 6 part bell curve where the largest portions are near the middle.

The names of these groups - from left to right - are 1, "Inventors" 2. "Early Adaptors" 3. "Early Majority" 4. "Late Majority" 5. and 6. are non-adaptors. Now, if we look at how technology is created and accepted, its starts on the far left with the "Inventors" who sell their technology to the "Early Adaptors." Most technology life spans live and die in these two areas. What makes a hit technology is the ability for that technology to "cross the chasm" between the Early Adaptors and the Early Majority.

Within each market segment, there are needs and desires of that group which differ from the needs and desires of any other group.

Inventors see a problem and take unrelated technology to solve it. Truly the "way out there" people.

Early Adaptors are tinker-ers. Within their area of adaption, they want to be able to use the invented technology and will put up with Beta testing (in fact, most want to be able to beta test). This group sees the new technology as an opportunity and will tinker with what is broken by applying related technology solutions.

Early Majority see technology as productive. "A better mouse trap." This group will not put up with broken elements. They do not want to tinker, they want a working solution that will make their life better.

Late Majority sees new technology as a last resort. "I have to do this because I'll be fired otherwise." This group does not buy technology, technology is forced on them.

Quick case and point, Microsoft based PCs vs. Apple PCs. In the 1980s, MS Dos was successfully targeted and won over the Early Adaptors - IT Departments and 'geeks' for lack of a better word. Apple targeted the Early Majority, but there was little to no market - simplified to Schools and Graphic Arts. The Early Adaptors ridiculed Macs because they could not tinker, Macs were hermetically sealed computers. Now, we see Macs making a return as computers have crossed the chasm and people seek productivity solutions that "just work." I'll stop here on the MS vs. Mac example before going too far.

BTW, you can't leapfrog. You can try, but unless its nuclear fusion, good luck. Most technology that has crossed the chasm is riding the coat tails of others within the Early Adaptor segment. The Bleeding Edge is usually not the financial winner.

Advertising 2.0 Model

1. The Marketing Partner designs a Direct Branding ISAT campaign integrated with the advertiser's eBusiness platform.

2. The ad serving network is provided with interactive code, which is delivered on the publisher's site based on the media network targeting.

3. The code executed for the viewer at run-time.

4. The advertiser's eBusiness platform presents content to the viewer based on the relationship between the viewer and the advertiser.

5. The viewer and advertiser engage in a 1:1 relationship while never leaving the publisher's site.

6. 100% of the viewers are presented with the advertiser's desired action, which is transacted directly within the ISAT Banner.

Current Advertising Model

1. A marketing partner develops a self contained, generic banner ad.

2. The banner creative is delivered to ad serving networks that track viewers across a group of web sites.

3. The ad serving network delivers the banner on the publisher website based on the network's demographic data about the viewer and advertising buy.

4. The viewer reads the targeted advertisement.

5. The ad server collects more data about the viewer and resells it to its entire client base.

6. If the viewer ‘clicks-thru’ to the advertiser’s web site, the advertiser can attempt to execute a transaction from the viewer—this ‘click-thru’ happens less than 1% of the time. Which is why banner advertising ROI is not based on direct sales.

Another View of Advertising 2.0

I've recently done a search for others talking about Advertising 2.0 and found another point of view is one of social interaction. This definition of Advertising 2.0 would concentrate on the publisher-viewer relationship. Where the brand plays second fiddle to User Generated or User Enhancing experience.

And as fate would have it, a perfect example of social engagement advertising is found here:
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=46951&Nid=22631&p=313505

So, in my proposition from yesterday, the advertiser is responsible for taking the lead in providing a personal viewer experience. While the social side of Advertising 2.0 would suggest that the advertiser provides the canvas, but the viewer is responsible for taking the lead in providing their own experience. In both cases, we are talking about a user envolved, personal experience, the difference lies in how that experience is initiated.

What is Advertising 2.0

Certainly a good place to begin is by defining Advertising 2.0. My concepts of what makes Advertising 2.0, revolve around the advertiser-viewer relationship. Basically, the idea that advertisers need to become involved in their advertising efforts and engage viewers via their banners as they would if the viewer were actually on their web site directly.

In my marketing material I describe it this way, "The web was originally built to publish information, and at its inception, web publishing consisted mostly of promotional web sites and ad banners. Since then, web sites have evolved to include eBusiness applications, integrating core business processes with web technology. As the use of the web has evolved, online advertising has not evolved with it."

Banners are passive representations of their parents, no different then traditional advertising. To be sure, some ads are 'interactive,' but being interactive is not a replacement for being directly active and engaged. Ad networks tend to hold more knowledge about an advertiser's customer then the advertiser does. My point is that advertisers need to have and use technology similar to the ad networks when serving their ads and the ads need to be integrated into their eBusiness system.

Therefore, I present that Advertising 2.0 is active engagement between the advertiser and viewer.

Thoughts?

In the beginning...

To begin, I have a vested interest in online advertising and I make a living by selling advertising solutions.

That being said, my first web site client in 1994 was Miller Brewing. In 1995, I purchased the keyword "Beer" on Yahoo which would then display a banner before the search results. The advertising buy was exclusive and for a flat monthly rate of $1,000. That was a long time ago and since then, clients and the industry have battled for a better advertising model.

After the Internet crash I sat with my team to explore what the future of the web and online advertising might become. I started writing a white paper titled Advertising 2.0 back in 2001 and have continued to evolve the concepts. So, as today is as good as any day to begin blogging, here we are.