Wednesday, September 27, 2006
AOL Search Data Lawsuits Arrive
Well that did not take long, but I would expect nothing less. AOL's first class action lawsuit has been announced seeking $3.25 Billion.
http://news.com.com/2061-10803_3-6119218.html?part=rss&tag=6119218&subj=news
and
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115925623918674125.html?mod=mm_media_marketing_hs_left
As I discussed on this blog, AOL Search Data for Advertising 2.0, AOL exposed a great deal of personal information. My hope, at the time, was that the release of this data was an evil act by a leaving employee. The data was made public the same week that AOL announced mass layoffs following their move to a free service. If this was an act of sabotage, AOL would be fined but could deny wrong doing. The world would chalk this up to another case of stolen data, which is bad, but ultimately containable.
As it turns out, the release was a 'thoughtful' and purposeful endeavor. Several people have since resigned, but the legal impact is just beginning and the industry impact has yet to be felt.
My greatest concern is that the general public will continue to lose faith in legitimate online businesses due to privacy concerns. The public already has lost faith in e-mail (spam) and linking to unknown sites (banners). As far as my business is concerned, these issues have provided opportunity. But, I'm not sure where the opportunity lurks when people stop using the net for personal search.
http://news.com.com/2061-10803_3-6119218.html?part=rss&tag=6119218&subj=news
and
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115925623918674125.html?mod=mm_media_marketing_hs_left
As I discussed on this blog, AOL Search Data for Advertising 2.0, AOL exposed a great deal of personal information. My hope, at the time, was that the release of this data was an evil act by a leaving employee. The data was made public the same week that AOL announced mass layoffs following their move to a free service. If this was an act of sabotage, AOL would be fined but could deny wrong doing. The world would chalk this up to another case of stolen data, which is bad, but ultimately containable.
As it turns out, the release was a 'thoughtful' and purposeful endeavor. Several people have since resigned, but the legal impact is just beginning and the industry impact has yet to be felt.
My greatest concern is that the general public will continue to lose faith in legitimate online businesses due to privacy concerns. The public already has lost faith in e-mail (spam) and linking to unknown sites (banners). As far as my business is concerned, these issues have provided opportunity. But, I'm not sure where the opportunity lurks when people stop using the net for personal search.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Is 2.0 really just a 1.0?
I've seen two emails today regarding the 2.0 status of the industries affected by the Internet: Sales 2.0 and Communications 2.0 (which was really about PR 2.0). Being as this blog is titled Advertising 2.0, are we starting to see the downturn of 2.0 status through media saturation or the beginning of a broader acceptance that things are now different.
Clearly, Web 2.0 was an off-shoot of the first wave of the Internet. A build-up and a collapse. Advertising 2.0 has also gone through an dramatic up-down-up swing. I don't think many other industries can really say they had a 1.0 in terms of the Internet. At least not to the point that their respective 1.0 time periods (assumably around the year 2000) had dramatic down turns. So, are the representatives from these industries just jumping on a bandwagon?
Or, are the representatives incorporating Web 2.0 features into their industries. I'd like to think the latter is true. If so, then we can expect a broader acceptance of the Web and hopefully online advertising into more business practices. That would be a good thing.
Time will tell, but I'd like to hear your comments on the subject.
Clearly, Web 2.0 was an off-shoot of the first wave of the Internet. A build-up and a collapse. Advertising 2.0 has also gone through an dramatic up-down-up swing. I don't think many other industries can really say they had a 1.0 in terms of the Internet. At least not to the point that their respective 1.0 time periods (assumably around the year 2000) had dramatic down turns. So, are the representatives from these industries just jumping on a bandwagon?
Or, are the representatives incorporating Web 2.0 features into their industries. I'd like to think the latter is true. If so, then we can expect a broader acceptance of the Web and hopefully online advertising into more business practices. That would be a good thing.
Time will tell, but I'd like to hear your comments on the subject.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
ED goes Advertising 2.0
As much as I dislike the continued bombardment of Viagra and related drugs, I'd like to focus today on a well-developed banner ad for one such drug. 
Despite the email notices to the contrary, Viagra is a prescription drug and cannot be sold directly online. Therefore, the ultimate goal of any online advertising is education and awareness to move the viewer to ask their doctor for a prescription.
So, why not employ some Advertising 2.0 philosophy and take the message to the viewer rather then require the viewer to click-thru to a micro site. I'm sure some viewer's whom might want to research the drug may not click-thru for fear of history and cookie trails.
Anyway, this banner includes about 10 original video clips designed to answer viewer questions. The video puts a 'face' on the problem and allows the viewer to interact with these personalized responses. The opening video is an introduction that sets the stage for three "average men" to ask questions. Each person is hot-spotted to lead to his particular video question. While they "are waiting" to be clicked upon, each guy is independently moving with audio calls to action.
Additionally, there are video testimonials - real people talking about their experiences.
The banner also includes a self-test with 5 easy multiple-choice questions. The result provides suggestions including visiting a doctor.
The only issue I have with this banner is the expansion, which I don't think adds enough to justify the additional media costs. But, that aside, this is a deep, focused and engaging banner that uses multiple content types to guide the viewer to a conclusion and action. All without requiring a click-thru.
Despite the email notices to the contrary, Viagra is a prescription drug and cannot be sold directly online. Therefore, the ultimate goal of any online advertising is education and awareness to move the viewer to ask their doctor for a prescription.
So, why not employ some Advertising 2.0 philosophy and take the message to the viewer rather then require the viewer to click-thru to a micro site. I'm sure some viewer's whom might want to research the drug may not click-thru for fear of history and cookie trails.
Anyway, this banner includes about 10 original video clips designed to answer viewer questions. The video puts a 'face' on the problem and allows the viewer to interact with these personalized responses. The opening video is an introduction that sets the stage for three "average men" to ask questions. Each person is hot-spotted to lead to his particular video question. While they "are waiting" to be clicked upon, each guy is independently moving with audio calls to action.
Additionally, there are video testimonials - real people talking about their experiences.
The banner also includes a self-test with 5 easy multiple-choice questions. The result provides suggestions including visiting a doctor.
The only issue I have with this banner is the expansion, which I don't think adds enough to justify the additional media costs. But, that aside, this is a deep, focused and engaging banner that uses multiple content types to guide the viewer to a conclusion and action. All without requiring a click-thru.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
ExactTarget Review
ExactTarget : Company
email.exacttarget.com/etweb/pressreleases.aspx?id=400
Published on: 9/10/2006
Scott Madlener, executive vice president of interactive strategy for Performance Communications Group, the company that manages Tulane's e-mail efforts, contends that allowing recipients to click around a newsletter and read while a video plays aids in message retention.
"Most companies serve video in e-mail as the end unto itself," says Madlener. "So I'm either watching a video, or I'm looking at a Web page. People have an attention span of about 21 seconds. Even if you have a 10 minute training video, people are going to get about 21 seconds out of it. What we do is add multitasking to that endeavor."
Performance Communications Group designs its e-mails so recipients can read an article and click around while the video plays. "It's e-mail for the MTV generation," says Madlener.
The response is particularly good given that some of the addresses on the file are probably no longer valid, says Madlener. "People are moving around; they might not be accessing the e-mail address that is on file," he says.
email.exacttarget.com/etweb/pressreleases.aspx?id=400
Published on: 9/10/2006
Scott Madlener, executive vice president of interactive strategy for Performance Communications Group, the company that manages Tulane's e-mail efforts, contends that allowing recipients to click around a newsletter and read while a video plays aids in message retention.
"Most companies serve video in e-mail as the end unto itself," says Madlener. "So I'm either watching a video, or I'm looking at a Web page. People have an attention span of about 21 seconds. Even if you have a 10 minute training video, people are going to get about 21 seconds out of it. What we do is add multitasking to that endeavor."
Performance Communications Group designs its e-mails so recipients can read an article and click around while the video plays. "It's e-mail for the MTV generation," says Madlener.
The response is particularly good given that some of the addresses on the file are probably no longer valid, says Madlener. "People are moving around; they might not be accessing the e-mail address that is on file," he says.
AOL Search Data for Advertising 2.0
The release of the AOL search database this summer was without a doubt one of the most scary privacy revelations in recent memory. I only know one person that is an AOL subscriber and it took me less then 2 minutes to find and verify his search history. I'm not kidding, 2 minutes. I performed one generic search and found someone's history that looked like his. Then I verified that it was him by taking one of the unique search terms and seeing if anyone else searched it. Its was him. I then showed him the history and he confirmed my conclusion.
Now, I don't know a lot of personal history of my subject. Its someone that consults with my company. I'm in contact with this person far less then any co-workers, family or clients. Two minutes... Truly amazing this data was released.
What I found while reviewing the AOL data is that most people's search histories are very personal and detailed. That this data can be used as a diary or biographic time capsule for everyone. Imagine how much detail AOL, Google, Yahoo, Comcast, etc. know about their customers and worse, how little the general publics' understanding of the impact of such data. How easy it would be to discover a co-worker's or neighbors deepest secrets. "Be kind to the programmers, for they hold more power that most will ever know."
So, how does this relate to Advertising 2.0? Well, once you can get beyond the voyeuristic nature of reviewing these search histories, you will see that all searches fall into one of six categories:
- Local Search; Restaurants, shops, people
- Medical Searches; Health, symptoms, drugs
- Product Searches; Cars, electronics, services
- Entertainment Searches; Movies, music, celebrities
- General Research Searches; History, how to, educational
- And Sexual Searches; Services, fetishes, desires
With this in mind, we can begin to analyze individual people at a micro level. However, doing this automatically is by no means accurate. Many histories are not just a single person, but rather a family. I found may histories that jumped from detailed medical searches (assumed to be mom) to online games (assumed to be a child) to home repair (assumed to be dad), all within a close time proximity. In addition to multiple people per profile, there are short and long term time cycles. A short term time cycle is how a user moves through the Internet during a single day. Different people search for similar things during different times of the day. Similarly, long term cycles are monthly, annually and life time. A good example of long term cycles would be a search pattern that looks for "3 year old birthday party ideas." That search may be repeated over and over for 3 weeks and then will not likely ever be repeated again. That's very different then a local restaurant search which may be repeated every 3-4 weeks for years.
Again, what does this have to with Advertising 2.0? Well, it has to do with the whole concept of providing the right information to the right viewer at the right time. What is the 'right time?' What is the 'right information' and who is the 'right viewer?' Certainly, static ads will almost never hit the mark. Single term keywords are not the solution. And, 'closed loop' advertising campaigns, where the advertiser's knowledge of their own clients is not used, will not succeed either. What is needed is a strategy of continued and concerned review of the online opportunities available along with continued and concerned review of real-time viewer activities.
Now that I have access to the AOL database, as well as my own databases of information, I use this data to confirm the validity of my search terms. What is the thought process (as identified via the proceeding and following searches) of a user that types in a particular search term? Are there other terms or sites that are frequently identified as pre-cursers to typing in my selected term? If so, maybe buying these terms and media on these sites will provide me a higher ROI or will get me in front of my target BEFORE they see my competitor. Maybe there are complimentary terms that are not on my list or complimentary products that I can partner with. And maybe, there are different patterns that new customers have as opposed to current customers.
Has anyone else looked at the AOL data and found additional benefits, patterns, or processes? Feel free to add comments. Thanks.
Now, I don't know a lot of personal history of my subject. Its someone that consults with my company. I'm in contact with this person far less then any co-workers, family or clients. Two minutes... Truly amazing this data was released.
What I found while reviewing the AOL data is that most people's search histories are very personal and detailed. That this data can be used as a diary or biographic time capsule for everyone. Imagine how much detail AOL, Google, Yahoo, Comcast, etc. know about their customers and worse, how little the general publics' understanding of the impact of such data. How easy it would be to discover a co-worker's or neighbors deepest secrets. "Be kind to the programmers, for they hold more power that most will ever know."
So, how does this relate to Advertising 2.0? Well, once you can get beyond the voyeuristic nature of reviewing these search histories, you will see that all searches fall into one of six categories:
- Local Search; Restaurants, shops, people
- Medical Searches; Health, symptoms, drugs
- Product Searches; Cars, electronics, services
- Entertainment Searches; Movies, music, celebrities
- General Research Searches; History, how to, educational
- And Sexual Searches; Services, fetishes, desires
With this in mind, we can begin to analyze individual people at a micro level. However, doing this automatically is by no means accurate. Many histories are not just a single person, but rather a family. I found may histories that jumped from detailed medical searches (assumed to be mom) to online games (assumed to be a child) to home repair (assumed to be dad), all within a close time proximity. In addition to multiple people per profile, there are short and long term time cycles. A short term time cycle is how a user moves through the Internet during a single day. Different people search for similar things during different times of the day. Similarly, long term cycles are monthly, annually and life time. A good example of long term cycles would be a search pattern that looks for "3 year old birthday party ideas." That search may be repeated over and over for 3 weeks and then will not likely ever be repeated again. That's very different then a local restaurant search which may be repeated every 3-4 weeks for years.
Again, what does this have to with Advertising 2.0? Well, it has to do with the whole concept of providing the right information to the right viewer at the right time. What is the 'right time?' What is the 'right information' and who is the 'right viewer?' Certainly, static ads will almost never hit the mark. Single term keywords are not the solution. And, 'closed loop' advertising campaigns, where the advertiser's knowledge of their own clients is not used, will not succeed either. What is needed is a strategy of continued and concerned review of the online opportunities available along with continued and concerned review of real-time viewer activities.
Now that I have access to the AOL database, as well as my own databases of information, I use this data to confirm the validity of my search terms. What is the thought process (as identified via the proceeding and following searches) of a user that types in a particular search term? Are there other terms or sites that are frequently identified as pre-cursers to typing in my selected term? If so, maybe buying these terms and media on these sites will provide me a higher ROI or will get me in front of my target BEFORE they see my competitor. Maybe there are complimentary terms that are not on my list or complimentary products that I can partner with. And maybe, there are different patterns that new customers have as opposed to current customers.
Has anyone else looked at the AOL data and found additional benefits, patterns, or processes? Feel free to add comments. Thanks.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
YouTube Channels: Advertising 2.0?
My thoughts about YouTube over the last year have been quite schizophrenic. I've tried to look at their business and found it easy to fall into the "YouTube is a flash-in-the-pan" group of sceptics. I have to say, in the last few months I have come to better understand the phenomenon that is YouTube and how they apply to Advertising 2.0.
Its clear that YouTube is a Web 2.0 company as the user is empowered and every new user on the system makes the system better. But from a value proposition, stripped down to the most basic element, what is YouTube's Value: Video Distribution.
Who uses this service? By 'user' I mean person whom places video online not someone who viewers it. A YouTube user is someone that is an early adaptor of video editing and yet has no outlet to place their video online. This is where I underestimated YouTube because I did not 'see' this population as very large. So, I'll start my analysis here.
The lynch pin to YouTube (and copycats) is the ability of their users to generate 'finished' video content. Finished video means video editing, which means software ownership and knowledge, computer processor and hard drive power, and time. These requirements are most likely the reason why most of the original video content is produced by younger users (say under 21).
To make a product plug: I lead the production of an on-demand video encoding application, www.isatvideo.com and www.Eye2EyeVideoPostcards.com, which were designed to eliminate the need for video editing. I thought the market maker would be easing the post-production process, not distribution. We target the early majority population and the majority of our clients are coincidentally over 25.
Getting back to YouTube, their business proposition is not defendable as proven by all the YouTube copycats. This also means that their user loyalty can be weak. So, their dilemma, until this summer, was how to make money. Clearly, moving to a subscription service, like www.isatvideo.com, was not going to work. Some sort of advertising was the answer, but what kind? Google AdSense or banners may provide some revenue, but User Generated Content sites demand the lowest values.
What I think YouTube has begun to develop is an Advertising 2.0 solution. One that, like Web 2.0, becomes more valuable as more advertisers participate. One that does not require the user to leave the site, but embraces the core values of video distribution. A solution that does not distract or interrupt the user experience, but rather invites users to participate.
The current solution: Channels!
I say current, because I'm sure additional Advertising 2.0 solutions will develop in the future. Anyway, Channels.
Channels are sponsored (revenue) and yet provide value to the user base in terms of content. The more sponsored channels the better. Music, Movies and Products. Along with companion channels for User Generated Content. And best of all, from a long term business standpoint, channels are defendable - only those with market share can compete.
Channels also make YouTube's core value proposition of video distribution more defendable. Buying Channels on YouTube becomes less expensive and provide more value to many of the likely deep-pocketed competitors that may be exploring developing their own copy-cat. In this way, Channels may transform likely competitors to paying clients.
Its clear that YouTube is a Web 2.0 company as the user is empowered and every new user on the system makes the system better. But from a value proposition, stripped down to the most basic element, what is YouTube's Value: Video Distribution.
Who uses this service? By 'user' I mean person whom places video online not someone who viewers it. A YouTube user is someone that is an early adaptor of video editing and yet has no outlet to place their video online. This is where I underestimated YouTube because I did not 'see' this population as very large. So, I'll start my analysis here.
The lynch pin to YouTube (and copycats) is the ability of their users to generate 'finished' video content. Finished video means video editing, which means software ownership and knowledge, computer processor and hard drive power, and time. These requirements are most likely the reason why most of the original video content is produced by younger users (say under 21).
To make a product plug: I lead the production of an on-demand video encoding application, www.isatvideo.com and www.Eye2EyeVideoPostcards.com, which were designed to eliminate the need for video editing. I thought the market maker would be easing the post-production process, not distribution. We target the early majority population and the majority of our clients are coincidentally over 25.
Getting back to YouTube, their business proposition is not defendable as proven by all the YouTube copycats. This also means that their user loyalty can be weak. So, their dilemma, until this summer, was how to make money. Clearly, moving to a subscription service, like www.isatvideo.com, was not going to work. Some sort of advertising was the answer, but what kind? Google AdSense or banners may provide some revenue, but User Generated Content sites demand the lowest values.
What I think YouTube has begun to develop is an Advertising 2.0 solution. One that, like Web 2.0, becomes more valuable as more advertisers participate. One that does not require the user to leave the site, but embraces the core values of video distribution. A solution that does not distract or interrupt the user experience, but rather invites users to participate.
The current solution: Channels!
I say current, because I'm sure additional Advertising 2.0 solutions will develop in the future. Anyway, Channels.
Channels are sponsored (revenue) and yet provide value to the user base in terms of content. The more sponsored channels the better. Music, Movies and Products. Along with companion channels for User Generated Content. And best of all, from a long term business standpoint, channels are defendable - only those with market share can compete.
Channels also make YouTube's core value proposition of video distribution more defendable. Buying Channels on YouTube becomes less expensive and provide more value to many of the likely deep-pocketed competitors that may be exploring developing their own copy-cat. In this way, Channels may transform likely competitors to paying clients.
