Category: Advertising

Mobile Search Advertising: Hope or Hype?

A recently released report by ABI Research indicates that search advertising expenditures for mobile devices will reach $5 billion by 2013. The promise of mobile search advertising offers marketers a great opportunity to reach consumers where they are… literally! The value added benefit of mobile search to provide information wherever one is makes the possibilities for using search advertising seemingly endless.

There is only one catch to this prediction being realized: consumers have to embrace this new approach for engaging in information search. Technologies are evolving to make mobile search advertising possible. Now, it is up to us as consumers to adapt our behavior and utilize our phones and wireless devices for search purposes. The need to change behavior, coupled with users having adequate hardware to have a positive experience using mobile search, will be major influences on whether the prediction of the takeoff of mobile search advertising is realized. Link

"Git-R-Done" with Testimonials


I’m watching TV the other day and see a commerical for Nutrisystem. In the spot, NFL Hall of Famer Dan Marino proudly announces he lost 32 pounds using Nutrisystem. Then, to my shock he is joined by Larry the Cable Guy! Larry (whose real name is Dan Whitney) has done even better, shedding 50 pounds using Nutrisystem. I must admit Larry is the last person I thought would be interested in losing weight. After all, his portly appearance seems to be part of his brand image. But, he looks great less 50 pounds!

I don’t know if losing weight will help or hurt Larry the Cable Guy’s career, but his testimonial for Nutrisystem is a reminder of the power of customers sharing their experiences about using a product or service. The credibility of personal messages is high, and the “before and after” comparison of Nutrisystem’s effect on Larry the Cable Guy is a powerful message. Even though the disclaimer “results are not typical” is the most accurate message delivered in the spot, the image of a svelt Larry the Cable Guy drives home the benefits delivered by the Nutrisystem brand.

It’s the End of the (Ad) World As We Know It

The widely held belief among businesses is that traditional mass media advertising is in decline. Recent reports on ad spending in the U.S. estimate overall spending was up between 0.2% and 0.6%. A closer look at the numbers on ad spending by national advertisers tells it all.

Down:
– Network TV advertising
– Radio advertising
– Newspaper advertising (more than 7%)

Up:
– Outdoor advertising
– Magazine advertising
– Online advertising (a whopping 18.7%)

The distinction is clear. The ad mediums experiencing growth all have the capability of segmenting markets more effectively than the mediums that experienced decreases in spending. In particular, online advertising holds promise because of the potential to interact with the audience. Ad messages that invite the target to respond in some way, whether it be clicking a link for more info, printing a coupon, or just playing a game, are all ways to engage customers and prospects alike. Without engagement, it is too easy for your target market to ignore you. Don’t make easy for them! Link

Less Confidence in Traditional Advertising? The Proof is in the Budget

My last post commented on a study that found marketers today have less confidence in television as an advertising medium. The findings are enough to make followers of the advertising industry take notice, but in case some people have a “show me” mentality and need more evidence of the decline in traditional ad mediums, here it is.

An article posted on the Advertising Age magazine web site discusses how megamarketers Kimberly-Clark and Unilever are shifting marketing spending away from traditional mediums like television and magazines in favor of digital media and experiential marketing tactics. Kimberly-Clark’s story is particularly telling: the company’s percentage of marketing spending on television in 2006 was 46%, down from 60% in 2004. At the same time, spending on nontraditional media jumped to 34% from just 10% in 2004.

The new approach to marketing investments at Kimberly-Clark are reflective of changes occurring at companies of all sizes in this country. In the face of an uncertain economy and wavering consumer confidence, it is more important for marketing spending lead to a measurable ROI. We cannot assume our marketing efforts are helping our business. We need to be engaging customers through platforms that lead to stronger brand relationships and encourage our target market to spend their carefully managed dollars with us. Link

Why TV Advertising is Less Effective

A study conducted by Forrester Research for the Association of National Advertisers found that marketers have less confidence in television as an effective advertising medium. More specifically, 62% of marketers surveyed said TV advertising has become less effective in the past two years. Also, a majority said they were interested in trying newer ad platforms such as interactive TV ads, ads on video-on-demand (VOD) programming, and ad placement on online TV programs.

This news is troubling to the advertising and television industries, both of which are dependent on ad spending for their survival, but it is hardly surprising. The television audience has been fragmented for many years, and audiences have experienced further fragmentation as media consumption has moved to channels such as video streaming over the web, blogs, and podcasts. The case for television advertising is not helped by the fact that much of the creative we see in TV advertising today is not very good… OK, it’s bad! A disconnect exists too often between the message the creative people deliver and the branding needs of the advertiser.

The role of advertising, whether it be TV, newspaper (another troubled medium), radio, magazine, or other less traditional mediums, needs to be revisited. Ad agencies are adept at creating messages that are entertaining (sometimes), but how does the entertainment value of an ad message fit into an Integrated Marketing Communication strategy? A realistic view of advertising is that it can create awareness and build interest for a brand, but other tools in the IMC toolkit (e.g., sales promotions and direct marketing) should be given greater weight to persuade an audience to take action.

The Heart of the Matter: Honest Representation in Advertising

Celebrity endorser advertising is a very effective means of impacting an audience. The liking people have for an entertainer or athlete can influence liking of the brand a celebrity endorses. Likewise, a well known authority or expert can be persuasive by giving his or her support to a brand. At first glance the connection between Dr. Robert Jarvik, who developed the artificial heart some 25 years ago, and Pfizer’s Lipitor heart drug seems to be an excellent match for a celebrity endorser campaign. Jarvik is obviously an expert on heart health and speaks passionately about his desire to make a difference in this area.

So, why are there concerns about Jarvik’s role as a Lipitor spokesperson? It has been noted that Jarvik does not accurately portray his lifestyle in the current Lipitor commercial. He is seen rowing a one-man shell across a lake… except it is not him, but a stunt double. The image he portrays in the ad does not match his actual pursuits. For all of the expertise Jarvik possesses, why is it necessary to attempt to dupe the audience in this way?
Pharmaceutical marketers have been in the cross-hairs of regulators and advocacy groups, and this tactic does nothing to build trust in direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. It is one thing for an endorser to associate with a beer brand that he does not really drink (although it is bad practice), but it is quite another matter when deception on any level occurs in an ad for a product with major health consequences for its users. If pharma marketers continue to push the envelope on their advertising claims and images, opposition may begin to push back and jeopardize the future of DTC advertising. Link

Super Bowl Commercials: Winners and Losers

The Super Bowl is over and the analysis begins… no, not just why the Patriots were unable to finish with a perfect season. It is also time for the Super Bowl commercials analysis- which commercials scored and which ones flopped.

I have three categories: 1) top three commercials, 2) bottom three commercials, and 3) three commercials most likely to positively impact the brand. Top three/bottom three spots are subjective views on whether the creative message resonated with the audience. The impact category is a judgment on which commercials will lead to outcomes the advertiser desired.

Top three commercials:
1. Budweiser – Dalmation trains Clydesdale a la Rocky Balboa
2. Doritos – Giant snack rat
3. Bud Light – Fire breathing man

Bottom three commercials:
1. Hyundai – Genesis sedan; company wavered on pulling Super Bowl spots… it should have!
2. Sales Genie – Animated ads featuring Indian and Chinese characters were ineffective and borderline culturally insensitive
3. Under Armour – Too little focus on the product, a new shoe line

Top three impact commercials:
1. Tide to Go – A humorous spot that informed people about the product and attempted to drive traffic to a web site.
2. E-Trade – Talking baby effectively gets audience’s attention and could spike traffic for account applications or at least site visits
3. Go Daddy – Danica Patrick’s “Exposed” video will send thousands to the site. If the goal of marketing is to get the audience to take action, this should do it.

To view your favorite (or least favorite) commercial again, visit www.myspace.com/superbowlads.

Super Bowl Advertising Part 3 – See It Now, Buy It Later

This final pre-Super Bowl post deals with a rising trend in Super Bowl advertising. The big game has become a platform for launching products new to market or in some cases not even yet on the market. The large audience delivered by a Super Bowl and the high involvement the audience has with commercials makes it the ideal situation to roll out new products or a new advertising campaign. Movie studios have taken the idea a step further by advertising movies that might not be released for several months.

Why advertise a “product” that cannot be purchased by people once they are exposed to it? For most products, a strategy whereby you essentially say “Here is my product, but you can’t have it… at least not now” would be foolish. Why does it work for movies (if indeed it works)? This teaser strategy creates awareness for upcoming releases. Also, it can begin a buzz about a movie among people. Such word-of-mouth communication is very helpful to stimulate interest in a movie. So, be on the lookout for movie trailers during Sunday’s Super Bowl. But, don’t expect to be able to watch those movies any time soon!

Super Bowl Advertising Part 2: When $100K per Second is Good Value

The cost to buy advertising time during the Super Bowl is expensive… too expensive for many companies to even consider or it simply does not make sense in terms of ROI. But, if a company has sufficient marketing dollars to spend on a Super Bowl ad spot, the investment may not be money well spent.

Granted, the cost of commercial time is high- $2.7 million for 30 seconds this year. Add to that figure the cost to create a commercial and an advertiser has easily topped $3 million for its investment in the big game. The total cost incurred means that an advertiser is paying $100,000 per second to reach the Super Bowl audience. The size of that audience makes the Super Bowl an attractive marketing vehicle; this year’s audience is expected to be as high as 94 million people. So, if an advertiser spends $3,000,000 for air time and production, its CPM (cost per thousand people reached) would be about $32. The cost efficiency as measured by CPM makes Super Bowl advertising appealing, even if the outlay is quite high.

The question a potential Super Bowl advertiser must ask given these considerations is “How many of the 94 million viewers are part of my target market?” If it is believed the audience has substantial overlap with a brand’s target market, then Super Bowl advertising may be the best $100K per second a marketer ever spends!

Super Bowl Advertising Part 1: Don’t Overlook Non-Traditional Audiences

This week’s postings will be devoted to Super Bowl advertising. Today, the question is who should be the target audience of Super Bowl commercials? The obvious answers are men and sports fans. Such a generalization of the target audience for a televised sporting event works most of the time, but this is the Super Bowl. We are talking about a cultural event as much as we are talking about a sporting event! The audience will be very diverse demographically.

One example of a non-traditional audience marketers would benefit from reaching throught the Super Bowl is moms. According to a survey done for the Marketing to Mom’s Coalition, 80% of moms surveyed said they would watch the Super Bowl. Perhaps more importantly, 60% of moms said they watch the Super Bowl to see the commercials! So, the idea of targeting women with a 30-second Super Bowl spot is not so far fetched if the survey’s findings mirror the behaviors of moms across the general population.

Yes, it could be argued that marketers of products targeting moms would incur a certain amount of wasted spending reaching people not in their target audience. However, ads that target moms make more sense than a B2B marketer like Sales Genie, a business database and list company, running a spot targeting businesses to inquire about its list services. Reaching audiences is an expensive proposition during the Super Bowl ($2.7 million for 30 seconds), but for some brands it could be an opportunity to reach their audience through a different, yet engaging media vehicle. Link