Keywords are ground zero. They are essential to your online success. You must get your keywords right or it's game over before you even get started. Mainly because keywords are the most important element of your online marketíng.
It can't be emphasized enough, especially to beginning online webmasters or marketers, choosing the right profitable keywords will largely determine whether or not you succeed with your online endeavors. You simply must get this element right or your marketing will be in big trouble.
What are Keywords?
Lets start at the very beginning, keywords are the exact words someone types into a search engine to find what they're looking for on the web. Some keywords are valuable / profitable, while others are virtually worthless.
Profitable keywords are the ones that convert into a sale, a lead or potential client/customer for your company or product. These are the words someone is searching in order to buy a product or hire a service. Someone searching for "honeymoon vacatíon packages" is probably in the market to book a honeymoon vacatíon and could turn out to be very profitable for the right website or business.
Profitable keywords are the ones where the searcher is in the right "mind-set" or frame of mind to buy what they're searching for on the web. Tailor your marketing online to target these profitable keywords and it can spell success.
So what's the whole process for finding or choosing profitable keywords to use in your marketing? Lets look at some ways to proceed...
Number of Keyword Searches?
You need to find out how many searches are made for your chosen keywords each month. Simply use WordTracker or a site like SEOBook. These will give you a preliminary number of searches made each month for your keyword. Highly popular, well-searched keywords with hundreds of thousands of searches each month will be extremely hard to rank for because you will have stiff competition from major companies with limitless resources.
I like to pick less popular keywords that get only a couple of hundred of searches each day because my chances of getting on the first page greatly increases. But don't get fixated on the number of searches, some keyword phrases that only get four or five searches daily, can still be very profitable.
For serious keyword research in a particular niche market I like to use Brad Callen's Keyword Elite which is professionally designed software that makes all your keyword research so much easier. But there are plenty of free keyword tools you can use. One handy keyword tool is Google Adwords external suggestion tool which will help you find valuable keywords.
Commercial Intent of Keywords?
But how do you know if a keyword is profitable? Well, one convenient tool is from MSN which helps you with "Detecting Online Commercial Intention" of keywords. Just type in a keyword and it will give you a percentage or probability your keyword query has commercial benefit or intent.
Conversion Rate of Keywords?
Once you have your chosen keywords in place, next you want to have a landing page that converts those keywords or traffic from those keywords into buyers or leads for your online business. This is another crucial element of your online marketíng - you must have a landing page or content/site that converts into a sale or you obviously won't make any revenue.
Keep in mind, if you're into affiliate marketing, you main goal is not to sell but to "pre-sell" your products or services. One effective way I have found to do this is to give potential customers/clients valuable information they can use in making their final purchasing choice. Comparison sites do well, as do review sites, top ten sites... potential customers use the Internet and keywords to not only find products but more so, to find information on those products. Your goal should be to provide this valuable information to make their task a little bit easier for them and they will reward you with a sale.
Long-Tail Keywords?
Long-Tail keywords are simply that: long three or four word phrases that searchers use to find what they're looking for on the web. Because they are highly specific, long-tail keywords have proven to have better conversion rates than general keywords. This is also just common sense, someone searching for a "2005 ford mustang convertible" may just be in the right mind-set to buy such a vehicle; as compared to someone searching for a more general keyword phrase such as "sports cars."
Study your website traffic logs religiously to find long-tail keywords that turn into a sale. Target these long-tail keywords in your marketing. Even buy PPC (Pay Per Click) advertising in the three major search engines - Google Adwords, Yahoo! Marketing and MicroSoft AdCenter - for these valuable/profitable keywords.
And build higher rankings in organic search for these long-tail keyword phrases. It's really not that difficult for long phrases, especially if they're related to your site; many times you can reach the top spot in a matter of days, especially in Google.
How to Rank High for Your Chosen Profitable Keywords?
Of course, the million dollar question is: HOW do you rank in the top spot for your chosen keywords? I believe the key to ranking high in the search engines (especially Google) is to be persistent in building your rankings for your keywords. Take a long-term view or approach, sometimes it may take months, even years, to rank in the top Five for your highly competitive keywords.
The best strategy is to "stick to it" and keep building relevant links to your keyword landing page. Create related blogs with valuable content linking back to your keywords. Write keyword related articles and distribute them all over the web. Create Google Alerts for your keywords and then place comments/links in the newly formed pages on the web that Google is indexing.
Be pro-active, download the SEOQuake toolbar and find your main keyword competitors. Check out their links and then go out and get the same links. Write better, higher quality content than your main competitors because Google always rewards great content. Plus, use the free Addthis.com button and let your visitors bookmark your great content in all the social bookmark sites and build your keyword links for you.
Do keyworded Press Releases with your embedded links and spread them all over the web. Get these Press Releases into Google news and other important places on the web. PRWeb.com is really a great place for your press releases since you can embed your keywords in your links.
If you can try to get your most important keywords in your domain name. Many SEO experts argue the merits of this but from my own experience and marketing - it is much easier to rank high for your keywords if you have them in the domain name. Again, it is just common sense, if you have your main keyword in the domain, this keyword is obviously telling the search engines this is what your site is all about. I have even bought domains and created sites specifically around certain keywords just to rank high.
Always remember, you have to be persistent, I have been fighting some keyword battles for over four or five years! For really profitable keywords, it can be a constant struggle to remain on the first page, but the trick is not to give up, just keep fighting away at your competitors. Persistence usually pays off in the end and those profitable keywords will have your links in the top spot. Make ranking high for those profitable keywords your number one marketing strategy. Concentrate all your marketing efforts towards getting plenty of quality traffic for those keywords and you will succeed online.
By Titus Hoskins (c) 2009
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
Gasta Social Networking; Ried Hoffman LinkedIn
Amid the increasingly crowded social network landscape, few platforms enjoy as clearly defined a role -- or as robust a user base -- as professional networking site LinkedIn. And with an estimated $80 million in funding still in the bank, the already-profitable company is in a unique position to maintain its leadership position well into the future, says CEO, co-founder, and chairman Reid Hoffman.
There's good reason to put some stock in Hoffman's assertions. After all, LinkedIn isn't his first online rodeo. Far from it, in fact. Prior to LinkedIn, he was executive vice president of PayPal, where he was actively involved in orchestrating the company's acquisition by eBay. Over the years, Hoffman has helped finance more than 60 companies, many from initial conception. His list of angel investments includes a host of well-recognized online properties, including Facebook, Digg, Technorati, Funny or Die, and Flickr.
In this exclusive interview with iMedia Connection, Hoffman details the marketing and professional development opportunities available via LinkedIn's expanding platform. He also provides insights on the competitive social media landscape, as well as what he sees as being the next hot online technology sector.
iMedia: LinkedIn entered the ad network fray last September with the debut of the LinkedIn Audience Network. What kind of results have advertisers on the network seen thus far? And how are you distinguishing this service in the crowded ad network space?
Reid Hoffman: We're really looking to improve the overall ad network landscape -- particularly for B2B marketers who have been largely underserved in this space -- by allowing marketers to target campaigns to specific audiences. I can't share any specific results, but I can tell you that a lot of advertisers find our unique approach compelling.
The LinkedIn Audience Network allows marketers to target specific audience segments based on the highly accurate data that our more than 39 million members share publicly in their LinkedIn profiles -- such as job function, company size, and seniority -- and to do that at scale across the web. So, let's say a B2B marketer wanted to reach small businesses, IT managers, or corporate executives -- we can deliver their ads specifically to those segments across a large network of quality websites.
iMedia: Where's the biggest opportunity for brand marketers on LinkedIn?
Hoffman: The biggest opportunity for brand marketers is to provide value to an audience of influential, ambitious, and affluent professionals who are focused on being successful in their careers -- help them be successful or help them enjoy success, and you'll have some loyal customers for a long time.
We're still very big believers in the value of display advertising when done right -- which not only requires great creative execution by the client, but also requires the publisher to provide the right canvas. We're able to deliver ads to specific segments based on the profile data LinkedIn members share. By limiting the number of ads on our pages, our members actually tend to interact with them as part of the LinkedIn interface.
iMedia: How can marketers go beyond display advertising campaigns on LinkedIn?
Hoffman: One way would be LinkedIn Polls, where marketers can deliver a co-branded poll to specific segments of the LinkedIn audience, and then examine the responses by job title, industry, company size, etc. We're taking this approach to another level with our partnership with CNBC, where members will take the poll online at LinkedIn and then CNBC's on-air talent will discuss the results live.
Another offering, which we're currently piloting with a few partners, is a whitepaper distribution program, where we'll help marketers distribute their content and generate leads on the LinkedIn platform. We're also seeing some smart use of "organic" LinkedIn assets as part of advertising campaigns. For example, Microsoft recently ran a campaign for its BizSpark server that features an employee in the ad itself. In one of the executions, there was a link to that employee's LinkedIn profile, where a customer could then learn more about the employee, see how they were connected to him, see who recommended his work and his professional experience, etc.
The last item that I'll mention in our innovations in advertising is the approach of stoking conversations on LinkedIn. There are some significant ways to engage in both of these areas, whether it's working with us to create and promote a "Featured Question" or by sponsoring federations of groups that are thematically similar.
Hoffman: There are two perceptions that we bump into: First, because our advertising business is only about a year or so old, there are some marketers who aren't aware that we accept advertising. Let me make it very clear: We do!
Second, there is a perception that professionals are primarily looking for jobs on LinkedIn. Finding new career opportunities or finding potential employees is definitely something we do and do well. However, it's not the only reason people are using LinkedIn. Outside research by Anderson Analytics confirms that less than a quarter of LinkedIn members are actively looking for work. We see hedge fund managers doing research on LinkedIn. We see business development professionals brokering deals on LinkedIn. We see executives asking their networks for advice on which advertising firm they should use. In fact, executives from all Fortune 500 companies are LinkedIn members.
We are more of a business professional community than we are a job site. We're increasingly seeing marketers recognize the potential of advertising on LinkedIn since LinkedIn has an audience that is made up of senior professionals who are serious about their careers.
iMedia: What are a couple of your own personal "best practices" for professionals looking to present and promote themselves on LinkedIn?
Hoffman: I actually think every individual is now an entrepreneur, whether they recognize it or not. The average job length is now around two to four years. That makes you a small business. You are the entrepreneur of your own small business. How do you get to your next gig? How do you progress in your career? All these things now fall on the individual's shoulders. They're essentially entrepreneurs in terms of the business of themselves and how they drive that. So how do you get your next job opportunity? How do you get a promotion? All of that stuff comes from how you manage the network around you. Which is, by the way, what gave me the idea for LinkedIn.
That being said, I have two pieces of advice: Get prepared and get involved.
First, invest some time in making sure your profile is complete. We offer a lot of advice on the site and at our learning resource, and there was a good piece loaded with advice here on iMedia Connection recently. But at the very least, make sure you provide a descriptive headline for what you do, provide a summary of your professional accomplishments and skills, and provide your entire work history. Be selective in the recommendations you make and those you solicit and accept, and also be selective in building out your network; who you're connected to (and who you're not) says a lot about you as a professional.
Secondly, get involved with your network. Share advice and insights in Answers, join the professional groups that matter to you, and use the Status feature to let your network know what you're up to. Put the LinkedIn Application Platform to work -- you can use the SlideShare application to share presentations, you can track what's being Twittered about your company using the Company Buzz app, and you can share recommendations about books with your network.
iMedia: What's the biggest misstep you've seen people make when presenting themselves professionally on LinkedIn?
Hoffman: There are a small number of members that see "connection building" as a sport and try to connect to as many people as possible, but in all honesty, that's not going to serve you well. It dilutes the power of your network. It's more powerful to have a small network of high-quality connections that you want to see updates from and keep in touch with than it is to have a large network of loose connections you don't know very well.
The bigger and more frequent mistake we see people make is not completely filling out their profiles. By having a profile on LinkedIn, professionals have the ability to put the right information in the hands of potential clients, partners, and employers. Essentially, you have the opportunity to make a case on the web for why someone should work with you or hire you. If you fill out your profile completely, you're putting your best foot forward online, and that's important in an age where people are doing a Google search on you before meeting you in person.
It's worth noting that this is a smart community of professionals, and they'll see through attempts at blatant self-promotion. If you're in the Answers section of LinkedIn looking for potential new clients, showcase your professional value with selective and well-thought-out questions and answers that truly add value to the community. That approach is more likely to win you new clients and also help you build better business connections.
iMedia: It's been reported that 80 percent of the $100 million LinkedIn has raised is still in the bank. What are you planning to do with all that money?
Hoffman: We've been profitable for two years now so we raised the money to give us options, whether that's through acquisitions, international expansion, or even for the development of new products.
iMedia: What will the next generation of LinkedIn look like? Where are you looking to make changes, and what new features or capabilities are you looking to add?
Hoffman: We're constantly thinking about ways we can help professionals achieve their goals quicker and more efficiently by leveraging their networks. Our goal is to help professionals find the experts and information they need to quickly answer tough work-related questions.
We're also looking at ways that we can help companies and the enterprise as a whole. For example, we just recently announced a partnership with IBM where LinkedIn functionality will be integrated into Lotus Notes, giving people easy access to their network while they're using a communication tool.
iMedia: From a business standpoint, how would you like to see LinkedIn evolve? You've hinted at an IPO in the past. How feasible is that in this economic climate? Alternately, from an acquisition standpoint, what types of companies do you see as being the most appropriate suitors for LinkedIn?
Hoffman: Since we're independently owned and profitable, we are building a company and a product to help professionals throughout their entire careers. We're passionate about building a company that will help professionals do their jobs better, and we hope to make the world a better place as a result of improving productivity on a global scale. We've always believed that there would be an IPO in our future, and since we are profitable, we can do that when it feels right.
iMedia: Generally speaking, what's the most prominent demographic on LinkedIn? What age group or demographic are you missing, and how do you plan to attract them (if you're interested in attracting them at all)?
Hoffman: Most of the third-party measurement firms (like Nielsen and Quantcast) all say the same thing: that the typical LinkedIn member is in their early 40s, is making over $100,000 per year, is well-educated, and is likely to be a decision maker in their company. Anderson Analytics found that "senior executives" make up 28 percent of the LinkedIn membership, which would amount to about 10.6 million people.
When you use those same measurement services to compare LinkedIn's audience against the traditional business sites, it appears that LinkedIn's members are younger but making more money and have more responsibility in their companies. To us, that says there's a "new breed" of professionals emerging online that may not be found on a traditional business media site: A driven audience who recognizes that their professional network can help them excel in their careers. That's the audience we intend to serve now and in the future.
iMedia: LinkedIn has gone to great lengths to distinguish itself from many of the other social networks out there, such as Facebook and MySpace. (To use your own metaphor: MySpace is the bar, Facebook is home, and LinkedIn is the office.) But do you still see these networks as your competition in a sense? And if not, who (or who else) would you consider to be LinkedIn's main competitors?
Hoffman: The main difference is that LinkedIn is 100 percent professional. When people are on LinkedIn, they're actively looking for new clients, seeking and sharing advice and insights, and advancing their careers. It's where professionals go to get business done. If you're looking to compare LinkedIn to, say, other professional networking sites, there simply isn't another site that even comes close to us in size since we have over 39 million members around the world.
We're frequently seeing LinkedIn included on the same media plans as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. We feel that that change is occurring largely because of the professional audience LinkedIn serves and the business answers that our audience is looking to address.
iMedia: While LinkedIn, Facebook, and MySpace are certainly the social networks being discussed the most, the broader landscape is a crowded one. How do you think this field will shake out? In other words, is a fractured landscape sustainable? Or at some point do you think users will grow weary of maintaining multiple profiles and looking for a one-stop social network shop?
Hoffman: Our research indicates that people will always want separation between work and play, and so we absolutely believe that people will have no problem maintaining two social profiles -- one used almost exclusively for work and business, and the other used primarily for communicating with friends and family. Beyond that, it's hard to imagine people wanting to maintain dozens of separate networks.
iMedia: In addition to your activities at LinkedIn, you're a well-known and well-respected Web 2.0 investor. How has the current economy influenced your activities on this front? And what online technology sectors, outside of social networks, have caught your attention lately?
Hoffman: I actually find Twitter and that space to be quite interesting. In fact, last year I invested in a company called Ping.fm, which is a simple service that allows you to post to multiple social networks with a single message. The ability to broadcast yourself quickly to large audiences across multiple platforms is something I'm intrigued by.
Lori Luechtefeld is editor of iMedia Connection.
There's good reason to put some stock in Hoffman's assertions. After all, LinkedIn isn't his first online rodeo. Far from it, in fact. Prior to LinkedIn, he was executive vice president of PayPal, where he was actively involved in orchestrating the company's acquisition by eBay. Over the years, Hoffman has helped finance more than 60 companies, many from initial conception. His list of angel investments includes a host of well-recognized online properties, including Facebook, Digg, Technorati, Funny or Die, and Flickr.
In this exclusive interview with iMedia Connection, Hoffman details the marketing and professional development opportunities available via LinkedIn's expanding platform. He also provides insights on the competitive social media landscape, as well as what he sees as being the next hot online technology sector.
iMedia: LinkedIn entered the ad network fray last September with the debut of the LinkedIn Audience Network. What kind of results have advertisers on the network seen thus far? And how are you distinguishing this service in the crowded ad network space?
Reid Hoffman: We're really looking to improve the overall ad network landscape -- particularly for B2B marketers who have been largely underserved in this space -- by allowing marketers to target campaigns to specific audiences. I can't share any specific results, but I can tell you that a lot of advertisers find our unique approach compelling.
The LinkedIn Audience Network allows marketers to target specific audience segments based on the highly accurate data that our more than 39 million members share publicly in their LinkedIn profiles -- such as job function, company size, and seniority -- and to do that at scale across the web. So, let's say a B2B marketer wanted to reach small businesses, IT managers, or corporate executives -- we can deliver their ads specifically to those segments across a large network of quality websites.
iMedia: Where's the biggest opportunity for brand marketers on LinkedIn?
Hoffman: The biggest opportunity for brand marketers is to provide value to an audience of influential, ambitious, and affluent professionals who are focused on being successful in their careers -- help them be successful or help them enjoy success, and you'll have some loyal customers for a long time.
We're still very big believers in the value of display advertising when done right -- which not only requires great creative execution by the client, but also requires the publisher to provide the right canvas. We're able to deliver ads to specific segments based on the profile data LinkedIn members share. By limiting the number of ads on our pages, our members actually tend to interact with them as part of the LinkedIn interface.
iMedia: How can marketers go beyond display advertising campaigns on LinkedIn?
Hoffman: One way would be LinkedIn Polls, where marketers can deliver a co-branded poll to specific segments of the LinkedIn audience, and then examine the responses by job title, industry, company size, etc. We're taking this approach to another level with our partnership with CNBC, where members will take the poll online at LinkedIn and then CNBC's on-air talent will discuss the results live.
Another offering, which we're currently piloting with a few partners, is a whitepaper distribution program, where we'll help marketers distribute their content and generate leads on the LinkedIn platform. We're also seeing some smart use of "organic" LinkedIn assets as part of advertising campaigns. For example, Microsoft recently ran a campaign for its BizSpark server that features an employee in the ad itself. In one of the executions, there was a link to that employee's LinkedIn profile, where a customer could then learn more about the employee, see how they were connected to him, see who recommended his work and his professional experience, etc.
The last item that I'll mention in our innovations in advertising is the approach of stoking conversations on LinkedIn. There are some significant ways to engage in both of these areas, whether it's working with us to create and promote a "Featured Question" or by sponsoring federations of groups that are thematically similar.
Hoffman: There are two perceptions that we bump into: First, because our advertising business is only about a year or so old, there are some marketers who aren't aware that we accept advertising. Let me make it very clear: We do!
Second, there is a perception that professionals are primarily looking for jobs on LinkedIn. Finding new career opportunities or finding potential employees is definitely something we do and do well. However, it's not the only reason people are using LinkedIn. Outside research by Anderson Analytics confirms that less than a quarter of LinkedIn members are actively looking for work. We see hedge fund managers doing research on LinkedIn. We see business development professionals brokering deals on LinkedIn. We see executives asking their networks for advice on which advertising firm they should use. In fact, executives from all Fortune 500 companies are LinkedIn members.
We are more of a business professional community than we are a job site. We're increasingly seeing marketers recognize the potential of advertising on LinkedIn since LinkedIn has an audience that is made up of senior professionals who are serious about their careers.
iMedia: What are a couple of your own personal "best practices" for professionals looking to present and promote themselves on LinkedIn?
Hoffman: I actually think every individual is now an entrepreneur, whether they recognize it or not. The average job length is now around two to four years. That makes you a small business. You are the entrepreneur of your own small business. How do you get to your next gig? How do you progress in your career? All these things now fall on the individual's shoulders. They're essentially entrepreneurs in terms of the business of themselves and how they drive that. So how do you get your next job opportunity? How do you get a promotion? All of that stuff comes from how you manage the network around you. Which is, by the way, what gave me the idea for LinkedIn.
That being said, I have two pieces of advice: Get prepared and get involved.
First, invest some time in making sure your profile is complete. We offer a lot of advice on the site and at our learning resource, and there was a good piece loaded with advice here on iMedia Connection recently. But at the very least, make sure you provide a descriptive headline for what you do, provide a summary of your professional accomplishments and skills, and provide your entire work history. Be selective in the recommendations you make and those you solicit and accept, and also be selective in building out your network; who you're connected to (and who you're not) says a lot about you as a professional.
Secondly, get involved with your network. Share advice and insights in Answers, join the professional groups that matter to you, and use the Status feature to let your network know what you're up to. Put the LinkedIn Application Platform to work -- you can use the SlideShare application to share presentations, you can track what's being Twittered about your company using the Company Buzz app, and you can share recommendations about books with your network.
iMedia: What's the biggest misstep you've seen people make when presenting themselves professionally on LinkedIn?
Hoffman: There are a small number of members that see "connection building" as a sport and try to connect to as many people as possible, but in all honesty, that's not going to serve you well. It dilutes the power of your network. It's more powerful to have a small network of high-quality connections that you want to see updates from and keep in touch with than it is to have a large network of loose connections you don't know very well.
The bigger and more frequent mistake we see people make is not completely filling out their profiles. By having a profile on LinkedIn, professionals have the ability to put the right information in the hands of potential clients, partners, and employers. Essentially, you have the opportunity to make a case on the web for why someone should work with you or hire you. If you fill out your profile completely, you're putting your best foot forward online, and that's important in an age where people are doing a Google search on you before meeting you in person.
It's worth noting that this is a smart community of professionals, and they'll see through attempts at blatant self-promotion. If you're in the Answers section of LinkedIn looking for potential new clients, showcase your professional value with selective and well-thought-out questions and answers that truly add value to the community. That approach is more likely to win you new clients and also help you build better business connections.
iMedia: It's been reported that 80 percent of the $100 million LinkedIn has raised is still in the bank. What are you planning to do with all that money?
Hoffman: We've been profitable for two years now so we raised the money to give us options, whether that's through acquisitions, international expansion, or even for the development of new products.
iMedia: What will the next generation of LinkedIn look like? Where are you looking to make changes, and what new features or capabilities are you looking to add?
Hoffman: We're constantly thinking about ways we can help professionals achieve their goals quicker and more efficiently by leveraging their networks. Our goal is to help professionals find the experts and information they need to quickly answer tough work-related questions.
We're also looking at ways that we can help companies and the enterprise as a whole. For example, we just recently announced a partnership with IBM where LinkedIn functionality will be integrated into Lotus Notes, giving people easy access to their network while they're using a communication tool.
iMedia: From a business standpoint, how would you like to see LinkedIn evolve? You've hinted at an IPO in the past. How feasible is that in this economic climate? Alternately, from an acquisition standpoint, what types of companies do you see as being the most appropriate suitors for LinkedIn?
Hoffman: Since we're independently owned and profitable, we are building a company and a product to help professionals throughout their entire careers. We're passionate about building a company that will help professionals do their jobs better, and we hope to make the world a better place as a result of improving productivity on a global scale. We've always believed that there would be an IPO in our future, and since we are profitable, we can do that when it feels right.
iMedia: Generally speaking, what's the most prominent demographic on LinkedIn? What age group or demographic are you missing, and how do you plan to attract them (if you're interested in attracting them at all)?
Hoffman: Most of the third-party measurement firms (like Nielsen and Quantcast) all say the same thing: that the typical LinkedIn member is in their early 40s, is making over $100,000 per year, is well-educated, and is likely to be a decision maker in their company. Anderson Analytics found that "senior executives" make up 28 percent of the LinkedIn membership, which would amount to about 10.6 million people.
When you use those same measurement services to compare LinkedIn's audience against the traditional business sites, it appears that LinkedIn's members are younger but making more money and have more responsibility in their companies. To us, that says there's a "new breed" of professionals emerging online that may not be found on a traditional business media site: A driven audience who recognizes that their professional network can help them excel in their careers. That's the audience we intend to serve now and in the future.
iMedia: LinkedIn has gone to great lengths to distinguish itself from many of the other social networks out there, such as Facebook and MySpace. (To use your own metaphor: MySpace is the bar, Facebook is home, and LinkedIn is the office.) But do you still see these networks as your competition in a sense? And if not, who (or who else) would you consider to be LinkedIn's main competitors?
Hoffman: The main difference is that LinkedIn is 100 percent professional. When people are on LinkedIn, they're actively looking for new clients, seeking and sharing advice and insights, and advancing their careers. It's where professionals go to get business done. If you're looking to compare LinkedIn to, say, other professional networking sites, there simply isn't another site that even comes close to us in size since we have over 39 million members around the world.
We're frequently seeing LinkedIn included on the same media plans as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. We feel that that change is occurring largely because of the professional audience LinkedIn serves and the business answers that our audience is looking to address.
iMedia: While LinkedIn, Facebook, and MySpace are certainly the social networks being discussed the most, the broader landscape is a crowded one. How do you think this field will shake out? In other words, is a fractured landscape sustainable? Or at some point do you think users will grow weary of maintaining multiple profiles and looking for a one-stop social network shop?
Hoffman: Our research indicates that people will always want separation between work and play, and so we absolutely believe that people will have no problem maintaining two social profiles -- one used almost exclusively for work and business, and the other used primarily for communicating with friends and family. Beyond that, it's hard to imagine people wanting to maintain dozens of separate networks.
iMedia: In addition to your activities at LinkedIn, you're a well-known and well-respected Web 2.0 investor. How has the current economy influenced your activities on this front? And what online technology sectors, outside of social networks, have caught your attention lately?
Hoffman: I actually find Twitter and that space to be quite interesting. In fact, last year I invested in a company called Ping.fm, which is a simple service that allows you to post to multiple social networks with a single message. The ability to broadcast yourself quickly to large audiences across multiple platforms is something I'm intrigued by.
Lori Luechtefeld is editor of iMedia Connection.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Gasta keywords:Fathom SEO
Do your keywords support your site? Unfortunately, the answer is no for many people choosing keywords for search engine optimization purposes. According to Mike Murray of Fathom SEO, people depend too much on tools such as Keyword Discovery, Google Keyword Tool, and SpyFu. These tools can be helpful, but there is also a great amount of research on your part that needs to be done.
There must be a web page to support every keyword. Similar words do not count; they must be exact. Make sure your keywords are a good investment. If you choose the wrong keywords, you’re going to lose money and waste time.
Mike refers to people who do this as “people with their heads in the clouds.” He says people who dream up keywords are not going to have success in their efforts and need to come back to earth and be practical.
Mike suggests looking at the following factors when selecting a keyword list:
- Keywords in domain name
- Website analytics
- Competitors’ rankings
- Inbound links
- Where you ranked today, which page ranked, and on what search engine
Also, look for value in your PPC campaign. If someone is paying for a keyword, then it should be taken under consideration for your SEO program as well. It is possible that the same keywords could work for both programs.
Lastly, don’t look at who is ranking number 1 or 2. Look where websites are ranking that are similar to your site. You could be comparing your website, which is operated by 3 people, to a website that is run by a large corporation. Mike recommends first looking at the website’s age, size, and other factors before taking action. You may need to address other issues on your website to compete effectively.
SEO is a long process and the investment into keywords should not be taken lightly. After looking at the above factors, let’s again ask the question: Do your keywords support your website?
There must be a web page to support every keyword. Similar words do not count; they must be exact. Make sure your keywords are a good investment. If you choose the wrong keywords, you’re going to lose money and waste time.
Mike refers to people who do this as “people with their heads in the clouds.” He says people who dream up keywords are not going to have success in their efforts and need to come back to earth and be practical.
Mike suggests looking at the following factors when selecting a keyword list:
- Keywords in domain name
- Website analytics
- Competitors’ rankings
- Inbound links
- Where you ranked today, which page ranked, and on what search engine
Also, look for value in your PPC campaign. If someone is paying for a keyword, then it should be taken under consideration for your SEO program as well. It is possible that the same keywords could work for both programs.
Lastly, don’t look at who is ranking number 1 or 2. Look where websites are ranking that are similar to your site. You could be comparing your website, which is operated by 3 people, to a website that is run by a large corporation. Mike recommends first looking at the website’s age, size, and other factors before taking action. You may need to address other issues on your website to compete effectively.
SEO is a long process and the investment into keywords should not be taken lightly. After looking at the above factors, let’s again ask the question: Do your keywords support your website?
Thursday, 2 April 2009
Gasta Marketing: Big Players take online maketing 'In House'
At a high level, many in those in the performance marketing space fall under the general umbrella that is affiliate marketing, i.e. acting as commissioned agents promoting a third-party product. But, are those in our space really affiliates? If we look at a vast majority of dollars flowing into the cpa networks, we would argue that their affiliates aren't affiliates. They are different. They are risk takers - seekers of media opportunity who look for an offer not because they run a site which needs it but because they have access to traffic where that offer could turn a profit. (It was that distinction which motivated our piece, "Affiliates are from Mars. Arbitrages are from Venus.") Affiliates and arbitragers occasionally overlap, one that comes to mind is a site like PlentyofFish, but the risk tolerance and risk seeking behavior profiles differ so greatly that each has a different type of company to service it. We could just as easily say, Affiliate networks are from Mars and CPA Networks are from Venus. An account manager from Commission Junction or Linkshare would find their head spinning if dropped into a similar position at one of the leading CPA Networks. There is a downside though of this distinction and the risk taking that drives it, and it shows itself in the number and types of advertisers that work with each company.
As we mentioned in our article two weeks ago, take a look at the top advertisers at an affiliate network, compare that to a cpa network, and don't be surprised when no overlap exists. Risk is not for everyone. In the arbitrage world, publishers aren't the only ones who take risks, advertisers do too. The risk publishers take can at times come at the expense of the advertiser. Making money arbitraging traffic often requires a maniacal focus on data and the profits, when successful, can lead to those running them to put blinders on. So, while the high performance marketer is at one level aligned with the advertiser - being paid on performance - that doesn't imply actual alignment. Take our favorite example of a diet continuity program, one that understands the nuances of the high performance marketing space. The balance they must face is having a high price point to pay the "affiliates" as well as how to make money off customers who enter with low intent and a below average lifespan. A less sophisticated marketer would work on paying a competitive rate but not have the insight to prepare operationally for the different type of customer they will receive. They would assume that those marketing the product would have their best interest at heart (customers who signed up with a definitive interest in the product with an intent to stay subscribed) as opposed to marketers taking a purely transactional view that has them trying to get as many signups as possible, regardless.
The feedback loop isn't quite perfect, and part of the challenge in the system is the value that cpa networks provide and the position of strength that the elite high performance marketers command within those organizations. Speaking to the first point, the cpa networks offer more than access to advertisers. They act as cash flow float machines for their biggest partners - paying on a weekly basis and ensuring their biggest spenders can keep sending the traffic. Two plus years ago before this became common place a large arbitrager might have to shut down the traffic because they hit their limit on the credit cards. Once funds would clear at the end of the month, they could pay off their credit cards and start traffic again. By receiving money before they reach their limit, they can manage the balance (literally and figuratively). Doing that means that the majority of networks with affiliates like this aren't in the dark about their activities. They maintain plausible deniability but not complete ignorance, and they face tough headwinds when trying to promote change. A liquid marketplace for that marketer's traffic exists, so if the network wants to restrict the publisher's activities, several other networks wait in the wings to take the traffic. And, it's not just flogs of which we speak; that's just a more extreme scenario.
An interesting thing has started to transpire as a result of this risk - a new breed of consolidation. The skills needed to navigate between arbitrager and advertiser mean that only the strong can play in this higher risk environment. Others can't make the balance work, losing either the advertiser or the marketer. The rules of the game have changed. Only a smaller number of people can find scale, but that same level of sophistication hasn't reached all networks. More and more find themselves not prepared for the challenges of managing the network. They either aren't prepared or find the balance not well suited to their own risk thresholds. So, what have they done? More and more have decided to try and do it themselves. Affiliate Fuel is just the latest. Here is what they sent out to affiliates March 26, 2009:
Dear Affiliates:
Experian Interactive Media, who owns Affiliate Fuel, has decided to take a different direction with our affiliate network. We are changing our focus from an affiliate network to an internal marketing channel.
Therefore, effective 4/1/09, we will unfortunately need to suspend our business relationship with you. If there are fees owed to you, you will receive your final check on or around 4/15/09. Please note: As of 4/1/09, your Affiliate Fuel login will no longer work and your account will not be credited for any activity as of this date.
We would like to say thank you for your business and good luck in your future endeavors.
There has long been the notion of a private offer, but now we are finding the creation of a private network. To the outside world, the offers they source they also place. It's not that dissimilar from a display ad network. The display ad network buys traffic from third-parties, but the third parties have only limited control over how the ads get placed. There is also a financial reason for taking things in-house, especially if your network struggles to compete on the big stage - profit. A network that can buy its own media can operate at a higher margin than one who must operate on generally razor thin margins to maintain competitive. This isn't to say that all smaller networks will change or that opportunity doesn't exist for them. But we are entering a different landscape, one more polarized than before where risk is becoming an ever increasing factor. Some choose to take on risk with publishers. Others are now trying to take the risk in-house.
As we mentioned in our article two weeks ago, take a look at the top advertisers at an affiliate network, compare that to a cpa network, and don't be surprised when no overlap exists. Risk is not for everyone. In the arbitrage world, publishers aren't the only ones who take risks, advertisers do too. The risk publishers take can at times come at the expense of the advertiser. Making money arbitraging traffic often requires a maniacal focus on data and the profits, when successful, can lead to those running them to put blinders on. So, while the high performance marketer is at one level aligned with the advertiser - being paid on performance - that doesn't imply actual alignment. Take our favorite example of a diet continuity program, one that understands the nuances of the high performance marketing space. The balance they must face is having a high price point to pay the "affiliates" as well as how to make money off customers who enter with low intent and a below average lifespan. A less sophisticated marketer would work on paying a competitive rate but not have the insight to prepare operationally for the different type of customer they will receive. They would assume that those marketing the product would have their best interest at heart (customers who signed up with a definitive interest in the product with an intent to stay subscribed) as opposed to marketers taking a purely transactional view that has them trying to get as many signups as possible, regardless.
The feedback loop isn't quite perfect, and part of the challenge in the system is the value that cpa networks provide and the position of strength that the elite high performance marketers command within those organizations. Speaking to the first point, the cpa networks offer more than access to advertisers. They act as cash flow float machines for their biggest partners - paying on a weekly basis and ensuring their biggest spenders can keep sending the traffic. Two plus years ago before this became common place a large arbitrager might have to shut down the traffic because they hit their limit on the credit cards. Once funds would clear at the end of the month, they could pay off their credit cards and start traffic again. By receiving money before they reach their limit, they can manage the balance (literally and figuratively). Doing that means that the majority of networks with affiliates like this aren't in the dark about their activities. They maintain plausible deniability but not complete ignorance, and they face tough headwinds when trying to promote change. A liquid marketplace for that marketer's traffic exists, so if the network wants to restrict the publisher's activities, several other networks wait in the wings to take the traffic. And, it's not just flogs of which we speak; that's just a more extreme scenario.
An interesting thing has started to transpire as a result of this risk - a new breed of consolidation. The skills needed to navigate between arbitrager and advertiser mean that only the strong can play in this higher risk environment. Others can't make the balance work, losing either the advertiser or the marketer. The rules of the game have changed. Only a smaller number of people can find scale, but that same level of sophistication hasn't reached all networks. More and more find themselves not prepared for the challenges of managing the network. They either aren't prepared or find the balance not well suited to their own risk thresholds. So, what have they done? More and more have decided to try and do it themselves. Affiliate Fuel is just the latest. Here is what they sent out to affiliates March 26, 2009:
Dear Affiliates:
Experian Interactive Media, who owns Affiliate Fuel, has decided to take a different direction with our affiliate network. We are changing our focus from an affiliate network to an internal marketing channel.
Therefore, effective 4/1/09, we will unfortunately need to suspend our business relationship with you. If there are fees owed to you, you will receive your final check on or around 4/15/09. Please note: As of 4/1/09, your Affiliate Fuel login will no longer work and your account will not be credited for any activity as of this date.
We would like to say thank you for your business and good luck in your future endeavors.
There has long been the notion of a private offer, but now we are finding the creation of a private network. To the outside world, the offers they source they also place. It's not that dissimilar from a display ad network. The display ad network buys traffic from third-parties, but the third parties have only limited control over how the ads get placed. There is also a financial reason for taking things in-house, especially if your network struggles to compete on the big stage - profit. A network that can buy its own media can operate at a higher margin than one who must operate on generally razor thin margins to maintain competitive. This isn't to say that all smaller networks will change or that opportunity doesn't exist for them. But we are entering a different landscape, one more polarized than before where risk is becoming an ever increasing factor. Some choose to take on risk with publishers. Others are now trying to take the risk in-house.
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Gasta Advertising:The new fundamentals of digital engagement
Long, long ago, way back in 2005, engagement was the cause du jour of mediaologists and media metricians.
Enthusiasm for the concept was so great that, for a brief period, agency and marketing personnel had "engagement" added to their titles: Chief Engagement Officer became the new meaning of "CEO."
By April 2006, the Advertising Research Foundation issued its official definition of engagement -- "Engagement is turning on a prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context."
Find that definition unsatisfying? You are called legion, for you are many.
Since then, agencies, advertisers, and research companies have taken stabs at just how to measure engagement.
A new book published this year attempts to lay out not just a definition of engagement as it pertains to the digital space, but how to accomplish it. Written by Leland Harden and Bob Heyman, two of the earliest pioneers in the online advertising space, "Digital Engagement" could be seen as a follow-up and update to their book "Net Results.2," which itself was an update of "Net Results: Web Marketing that Works" -- a book I look to as being the first real textbook on web marketing.
To call "Digital Engagement" a follow-up, however, would be unfair. Instead, it's a whole new "how-to" playbook for planning and measuring online advertising. It also expands its scope, looking beyond banners, keywords, and websites to include examples of virality, mobile marketing, PR, blogging, widgets, social media, affiliate marketing, and more.
In this book, Harden and Heyman are not articulating the principles of what motivates behavior (like Martin Lindstrom's "Buyology") or exploring the philosophy of media and culture (Theodor Adorno's "Culture Industry"). These guys want you to know what others have done, what the outcome was, and how you might go about doing it yourself.
The book is replete with case studies for each tactic they cover. For example, what are the things to consider when optimizing your website?
First, you get a rule: If your site launched more than a year ago, it's time to dust it off and give it a work-over. It might need a lot, it might only need a little. But to find out, read on.
Harden and Heyman give us a list of some analytics tools that make your site optimization job easier. Then there is a list of best practices. Then questions to ask yourself at the outset -- answers that will determine which of those practices are best for you. After that, they provide tactics for communicating with your marketplace about your changes.
Throughout the book are brief descriptions of what some companies are doing with their sites -- good or bad -- and finally, a brief case study (the chapter about making over your site is a case study for Tommy Hilfiger).
The best thing about the book is that there are so many examples of what companies are doing with the full range of digital tools and tactics available to them.
Some of the play-by-play can seem rudimentary at times. The brief review on why online video is important, or the examples of what online video might cost, seem more relevant to an audience reading two or three years ago. But a list of video-sharing sites is a welcome quick review resource. Or a proposed formula for measuring success from TubeMogul, the online video analytics and distribution company, will appeal to quants who are looking for a way to prove the effectiveness of a video campaign.
As a media nerd, something that stood out most was the formula for calculating a total engagement index (TEI), contributed by Eric Peterson of WebAnalyticsDemystified.com. There may be other variables for defining and determining engagement, but this is the first time I've seen anyone use something beyond just, say, time spent, as a method for articulating engagement.
Click depth x Loyalty x Recency x Duration x Interactivity x Subscription / 6 = TEI.
All of these variables have to be assigned by whomever is doing the measuring, which means that the formula can mean whatever you want it to mean. And that means that engagement remains an amorphous designation. But at least it is an attempt at definition and determination that no one else is offering.
Harden and Heyman are offering this and other things they've found in their examination of today's practice of the online advertising discipline.
At the outset, the book participates in some of the usual "traditional-media-is-doomed" predictions common among the digerati's more zealous advocates ("newspapers, magazines, and television went down in flames in 2007").
The biggest problem with books like this, however, is the same thing that afflicts all bound volumes dealing with digital media, marketing, trends, culture, and the rest as their subjects: By the time the information is recorded, edited, re-edited, printed, and bound, the world the text reflects has changed. Certain companies called out as either examples or resources will no longer exist; forecasts for spending or usage are outdated almost as soon as they are released.
But the fundamentals of "how-to" and "what-to-do" put forth in "Digital Engagement" should hold steady long enough to make the book a good guide for the digital marketer starting out today or wishing to make the change from just buying banners and keywords (though there are good suggestions for doing both).
You don't have to read it straight through. The chapters are clearly listed by tactic ("Search Engine Marketing," "Public Relations 2.0"). Go straight to the chapter relevant to what you are considering and review it.
At the beginning of "Ogilvy on Advertising" (still the greatest advertising book ever written), David Ogilvy quotes: "When Aeschines spoke, they said, 'How well he speaks.' But when Demosthenes spoke, they said, 'Let us march against Philip.'"
What this means is that it doesn't matter how much you like the advertising, what matters is that you buy the product. "Digital Engagement" is an excellent lesson plan for getting that done using digital and emerging media.
By Jim Meskauskas
March 31, 2009
Enthusiasm for the concept was so great that, for a brief period, agency and marketing personnel had "engagement" added to their titles: Chief Engagement Officer became the new meaning of "CEO."
By April 2006, the Advertising Research Foundation issued its official definition of engagement -- "Engagement is turning on a prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context."
Find that definition unsatisfying? You are called legion, for you are many.
Since then, agencies, advertisers, and research companies have taken stabs at just how to measure engagement.
A new book published this year attempts to lay out not just a definition of engagement as it pertains to the digital space, but how to accomplish it. Written by Leland Harden and Bob Heyman, two of the earliest pioneers in the online advertising space, "Digital Engagement" could be seen as a follow-up and update to their book "Net Results.2," which itself was an update of "Net Results: Web Marketing that Works" -- a book I look to as being the first real textbook on web marketing.
To call "Digital Engagement" a follow-up, however, would be unfair. Instead, it's a whole new "how-to" playbook for planning and measuring online advertising. It also expands its scope, looking beyond banners, keywords, and websites to include examples of virality, mobile marketing, PR, blogging, widgets, social media, affiliate marketing, and more.
In this book, Harden and Heyman are not articulating the principles of what motivates behavior (like Martin Lindstrom's "Buyology") or exploring the philosophy of media and culture (Theodor Adorno's "Culture Industry"). These guys want you to know what others have done, what the outcome was, and how you might go about doing it yourself.
The book is replete with case studies for each tactic they cover. For example, what are the things to consider when optimizing your website?
First, you get a rule: If your site launched more than a year ago, it's time to dust it off and give it a work-over. It might need a lot, it might only need a little. But to find out, read on.
Harden and Heyman give us a list of some analytics tools that make your site optimization job easier. Then there is a list of best practices. Then questions to ask yourself at the outset -- answers that will determine which of those practices are best for you. After that, they provide tactics for communicating with your marketplace about your changes.
Throughout the book are brief descriptions of what some companies are doing with their sites -- good or bad -- and finally, a brief case study (the chapter about making over your site is a case study for Tommy Hilfiger).
The best thing about the book is that there are so many examples of what companies are doing with the full range of digital tools and tactics available to them.
Some of the play-by-play can seem rudimentary at times. The brief review on why online video is important, or the examples of what online video might cost, seem more relevant to an audience reading two or three years ago. But a list of video-sharing sites is a welcome quick review resource. Or a proposed formula for measuring success from TubeMogul, the online video analytics and distribution company, will appeal to quants who are looking for a way to prove the effectiveness of a video campaign.
As a media nerd, something that stood out most was the formula for calculating a total engagement index (TEI), contributed by Eric Peterson of WebAnalyticsDemystified.com. There may be other variables for defining and determining engagement, but this is the first time I've seen anyone use something beyond just, say, time spent, as a method for articulating engagement.
Click depth x Loyalty x Recency x Duration x Interactivity x Subscription / 6 = TEI.
All of these variables have to be assigned by whomever is doing the measuring, which means that the formula can mean whatever you want it to mean. And that means that engagement remains an amorphous designation. But at least it is an attempt at definition and determination that no one else is offering.
Harden and Heyman are offering this and other things they've found in their examination of today's practice of the online advertising discipline.
At the outset, the book participates in some of the usual "traditional-media-is-doomed" predictions common among the digerati's more zealous advocates ("newspapers, magazines, and television went down in flames in 2007").
The biggest problem with books like this, however, is the same thing that afflicts all bound volumes dealing with digital media, marketing, trends, culture, and the rest as their subjects: By the time the information is recorded, edited, re-edited, printed, and bound, the world the text reflects has changed. Certain companies called out as either examples or resources will no longer exist; forecasts for spending or usage are outdated almost as soon as they are released.
But the fundamentals of "how-to" and "what-to-do" put forth in "Digital Engagement" should hold steady long enough to make the book a good guide for the digital marketer starting out today or wishing to make the change from just buying banners and keywords (though there are good suggestions for doing both).
You don't have to read it straight through. The chapters are clearly listed by tactic ("Search Engine Marketing," "Public Relations 2.0"). Go straight to the chapter relevant to what you are considering and review it.
At the beginning of "Ogilvy on Advertising" (still the greatest advertising book ever written), David Ogilvy quotes: "When Aeschines spoke, they said, 'How well he speaks.' But when Demosthenes spoke, they said, 'Let us march against Philip.'"
What this means is that it doesn't matter how much you like the advertising, what matters is that you buy the product. "Digital Engagement" is an excellent lesson plan for getting that done using digital and emerging media.
By Jim Meskauskas
March 31, 2009
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Gasta Tech News: Digital Platform Advertising,Robert Moskowitz part 2.
By Robert Moskowitz part 2.
Another factor may simply be structural. Karna Crawford, EVP, chief media and connections officer at Engauge, a total marketing solutions agency, thinks that: "When you can buy huge scale one time with a quick hit, that's worth a premium. 'American Idol.' 'The Super Bowl.' That's a huge audience available for a finite period of time. Because people are so engaged with the content, the advertising is more likely to be paid attention to. And a lot of products want to advertise there, which also drives up the price. The digital space doesn't command such a premium because your audience has exponentially more opportunity to take control and move away."
Historically, advertisers have been hesitant to push dollars into something new and unproven. "Think of the internet now versus 1995," Crawford says. "Wireless isn't proven in many instances, a lot of advertisers still don't know how to use it, don't feel confident about the expected ROI. So the prices are significantly lower than a video ad on ESPN, which is tried and true. It's the same adoption cycle you'd see for any other product."
The practical value of online advertising is also determined by the needs and strategies of the advertisers. Todd Riley, senior vice president, digital media & integrated strategies at Doner, headquartered in Southfield, Mich., the largest independently-owned advertising agency in the world, points out that, "The real benefit of the online space is the ability to engage, now. For example, a car purchase requires a lot of research. Digital media has the ability to make many relevant connections to content to help the process along. A can of Coke, on the other hand, can be purchased by anyone at anytime, so engagement is nice, but much less important."
Given all this, the inability of online advertising to fully replace the income lost from offline advertising probably reflects that advertisers simply don't perceive it to have an equivalent value.
For one thing, in today's more complex advertising environment, it's more difficult to accurately define and pinpoint ROI. "Is the goal a direct sale," asks Spiegel, "or the overall increase in sales during and after the campaign? I continue to support the idea that different media channels can support different goals/metrics and that a 'one vs. the other' comparison isn't all that useful."
"You're hoping to get different outcomes from the various media," Ellet points out. "It's why you're thinking about one medium versus another. They all relate to an overall objective, but the way you're going to use the media is very different. Online advertising might be about requests for information, driving sales, traffic, and so forth. Offline advertising might be about raising awareness or changing beliefs or attitudes about your product. Every advertise has different priorities; some are all about raising awareness and so are willing to pay more for that outcome."
"CPM is one useful benchmark," says Ben Kunz, director of strategic planning with MediAssociates, a media planning and buying agency, "the other is probably cost per inquiry -- how much do I spend to make my phone ring? The relative value of offline tends to be less in both areas. It's more easily measured, and it's putting a lot of downward pressure on CPMs."
CPMs in a high-end financial magazine might be $60, but advertisers recognize that people don't read every page of the magazine.
On the other hand, says Kunz: "you have to be careful not to take that logic too far. People spend four hours a day watching TV. That's two months per year. Internet gets a lot of buzz, but TV washes over you and you may be exposed to a commercial that you would not click on, on the internet. There is a lot of value in offline media."
"It's not news," Maitra says, "that print is in trouble and readers are migrating online. As a result, we're seeing innovation in terms of what kinds of ads we use, we're looking at better metrics, and we're learning how one medium can amplify another."
Central to success in today's complex advertising environment is an understanding that we live in a very fluid world. People now watch TV while sending emails and tweeting. They read magazines and then go online to check details about what they've read. As a result, there are now very complex relationships across the media types and channels. Advertisers are learning to look for the relative contributions of different media in different campaigns, different situations. For example, a successful TV campaign can lead to a huge jump in the number of online searches for a product or a company name.
"The idea that 'digital's not getting its fair share of the advertising dollars' is bit of a fallacy," Crawford argues. "Advertisers may want digital to be 50 percent of their media mix, but that doesn't mean it has to be 50 percent of their dollar spend. There's too much dialog about the dollars and not enough about the share of the media mix that's going toward digital."
"Obviously, budgets have been cut and cut and cut," Crawford acknowledges, "but media vendors are really hurting for advertiser dollars. So advertisers should start asking for improvements in pricing, interesting pricing models, and set some precedents to build on when the economy gets healthier."
"Marketers need to advertise where their consumers spend their time," says Spiegel. "In time, most, if not all, media channels will become digitized and this comparison will be moot."
Another factor may simply be structural. Karna Crawford, EVP, chief media and connections officer at Engauge, a total marketing solutions agency, thinks that: "When you can buy huge scale one time with a quick hit, that's worth a premium. 'American Idol.' 'The Super Bowl.' That's a huge audience available for a finite period of time. Because people are so engaged with the content, the advertising is more likely to be paid attention to. And a lot of products want to advertise there, which also drives up the price. The digital space doesn't command such a premium because your audience has exponentially more opportunity to take control and move away."
Historically, advertisers have been hesitant to push dollars into something new and unproven. "Think of the internet now versus 1995," Crawford says. "Wireless isn't proven in many instances, a lot of advertisers still don't know how to use it, don't feel confident about the expected ROI. So the prices are significantly lower than a video ad on ESPN, which is tried and true. It's the same adoption cycle you'd see for any other product."
The practical value of online advertising is also determined by the needs and strategies of the advertisers. Todd Riley, senior vice president, digital media & integrated strategies at Doner, headquartered in Southfield, Mich., the largest independently-owned advertising agency in the world, points out that, "The real benefit of the online space is the ability to engage, now. For example, a car purchase requires a lot of research. Digital media has the ability to make many relevant connections to content to help the process along. A can of Coke, on the other hand, can be purchased by anyone at anytime, so engagement is nice, but much less important."
Given all this, the inability of online advertising to fully replace the income lost from offline advertising probably reflects that advertisers simply don't perceive it to have an equivalent value.
For one thing, in today's more complex advertising environment, it's more difficult to accurately define and pinpoint ROI. "Is the goal a direct sale," asks Spiegel, "or the overall increase in sales during and after the campaign? I continue to support the idea that different media channels can support different goals/metrics and that a 'one vs. the other' comparison isn't all that useful."
"You're hoping to get different outcomes from the various media," Ellet points out. "It's why you're thinking about one medium versus another. They all relate to an overall objective, but the way you're going to use the media is very different. Online advertising might be about requests for information, driving sales, traffic, and so forth. Offline advertising might be about raising awareness or changing beliefs or attitudes about your product. Every advertise has different priorities; some are all about raising awareness and so are willing to pay more for that outcome."
"CPM is one useful benchmark," says Ben Kunz, director of strategic planning with MediAssociates, a media planning and buying agency, "the other is probably cost per inquiry -- how much do I spend to make my phone ring? The relative value of offline tends to be less in both areas. It's more easily measured, and it's putting a lot of downward pressure on CPMs."
CPMs in a high-end financial magazine might be $60, but advertisers recognize that people don't read every page of the magazine.
On the other hand, says Kunz: "you have to be careful not to take that logic too far. People spend four hours a day watching TV. That's two months per year. Internet gets a lot of buzz, but TV washes over you and you may be exposed to a commercial that you would not click on, on the internet. There is a lot of value in offline media."
"It's not news," Maitra says, "that print is in trouble and readers are migrating online. As a result, we're seeing innovation in terms of what kinds of ads we use, we're looking at better metrics, and we're learning how one medium can amplify another."
Central to success in today's complex advertising environment is an understanding that we live in a very fluid world. People now watch TV while sending emails and tweeting. They read magazines and then go online to check details about what they've read. As a result, there are now very complex relationships across the media types and channels. Advertisers are learning to look for the relative contributions of different media in different campaigns, different situations. For example, a successful TV campaign can lead to a huge jump in the number of online searches for a product or a company name.
"The idea that 'digital's not getting its fair share of the advertising dollars' is bit of a fallacy," Crawford argues. "Advertisers may want digital to be 50 percent of their media mix, but that doesn't mean it has to be 50 percent of their dollar spend. There's too much dialog about the dollars and not enough about the share of the media mix that's going toward digital."
"Obviously, budgets have been cut and cut and cut," Crawford acknowledges, "but media vendors are really hurting for advertiser dollars. So advertisers should start asking for improvements in pricing, interesting pricing models, and set some precedents to build on when the economy gets healthier."
"Marketers need to advertise where their consumers spend their time," says Spiegel. "In time, most, if not all, media channels will become digitized and this comparison will be moot."
Gasta Tech News: Online Media Shift gears up.
By Robert Moskowitz part 1.
March 24, 2009
Consumers of offline media are shifting to online media by the millions. And while advertisers' dollars are following them, publishers have not yet figured out how to generate the same levels of revenue from online advertising as they traditionally have from offline.
According to Michael Hirschorn, for example, writing in the January/February issue of The Atlantic magazine, "Already, most readers of The [New York] Times are consuming it online. The Web site… boasted an impressive 20 million unique users for the month of October… The print product, meanwhile, is sold to a mere million readers a day and dropping….
"The conundrum, of course, is that those 1 million print readers … are worth about five figures a page to advertisers, [and] are far more profitable than the 20 million unique Web users, who… could support only 20 percent of the [newspaper's] current staff…"
A canary in a coal mine, the nation's "paper of record" is thus struggling financially, another victim of an economic atmosphere that grows increasingly unable to keep today's print publications alive.
Since they depend very heavily on such publishers to reach their prospects, it's important for advertisers to understand why access to 20 million online readers yields only 20 percent of the revenue commanded by access to one million print readers.
The commonly held view is that online avails are heavily underpriced, providing extraordinary ROI that is totally unreflected in the rate card.
"While I understand where you are going with this argument," says Matt Spiegel, CEO, Omnicom Media Group Digital, "it isn't that straightforward. First, most of the time, the online and offline versions of the ads are not truly that similar. Second, calculating ROI isn't as simple for traditional channels like print."
Ted Ellet, SVP, group media director, at DraftFCB in New York, an agency offering creative, accountable marketing programs, suggests that, "The reasons why you might be doing something online vs. offline are so different that it's not necessarily fair to compare the ad prices. There are many different possible explanations for why prices might not be equivalent."
"It's not a black and white situation," confirms Seb Maitra, SVP of media, analytics, search, in the Boston office of Hill Holliday, a national communications agency. "If you just compare CPMs for online display ads to TV or radio ads, you can make the argument [about price imbalances] from a CPM standpoint. But look at the content and real estate you get: A 30-second TV spot allows you to tell your story in a much richer way.
"Sure, offline is probably priced on the high side," Maitra acknowledges, "but I wouldn't necessarily say that's true, carte blanche. Think about outdoor ads. Depending on the location, your noticeability, particularly on a highway, is about 2 seconds, which is about the same time span as a display ad on a web page. And the CPMs are also very comparable."
Online ad salespeople talk about engagement, but there's also distraction. A full-page ad or a page-dominant ad grabs a huge amount of mind share. In contrast, a web page contains many distractions: embedded links, active graphics, scrolling text, video, and more. Your online ad fights for attention in ways your offline ad simply does not.
And there are other differences that can justify discrepancies in relative pricing…
A branding ad, for example, doesn't require measuring the number of people who see it. The mere fact that you have a quarter-page ad on the Op/Ed page of Friday's New York Times is huge. It's enough to attract many of the people who are important to you. When advertisers think beyond reach/frequency/eyeballs to focus on their desired outcomes with specific target audiences, the argument that online is so trackable begins to lose force, particularly in light of current cable TV experiments with similarly specific ad targeting. Savvy advertisers know it's more important to figure out the relative contribution of each ad in a series that nudges prospects toward a purchase. Just knowing an ad has been delivered to a computer is a sub-par argument these days.
In addition, there is relatively little competition for specific audiences in the print world. How many other offline availabilities deliver the same audience as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, or TV's "The Oprah Winfrey Show"? In the online world, however, there may be literally thousands of websites all delivering the very demographic you seek.
March 24, 2009
Consumers of offline media are shifting to online media by the millions. And while advertisers' dollars are following them, publishers have not yet figured out how to generate the same levels of revenue from online advertising as they traditionally have from offline.
According to Michael Hirschorn, for example, writing in the January/February issue of The Atlantic magazine, "Already, most readers of The [New York] Times are consuming it online. The Web site… boasted an impressive 20 million unique users for the month of October… The print product, meanwhile, is sold to a mere million readers a day and dropping….
"The conundrum, of course, is that those 1 million print readers … are worth about five figures a page to advertisers, [and] are far more profitable than the 20 million unique Web users, who… could support only 20 percent of the [newspaper's] current staff…"
A canary in a coal mine, the nation's "paper of record" is thus struggling financially, another victim of an economic atmosphere that grows increasingly unable to keep today's print publications alive.
Since they depend very heavily on such publishers to reach their prospects, it's important for advertisers to understand why access to 20 million online readers yields only 20 percent of the revenue commanded by access to one million print readers.
The commonly held view is that online avails are heavily underpriced, providing extraordinary ROI that is totally unreflected in the rate card.
"While I understand where you are going with this argument," says Matt Spiegel, CEO, Omnicom Media Group Digital, "it isn't that straightforward. First, most of the time, the online and offline versions of the ads are not truly that similar. Second, calculating ROI isn't as simple for traditional channels like print."
Ted Ellet, SVP, group media director, at DraftFCB in New York, an agency offering creative, accountable marketing programs, suggests that, "The reasons why you might be doing something online vs. offline are so different that it's not necessarily fair to compare the ad prices. There are many different possible explanations for why prices might not be equivalent."
"It's not a black and white situation," confirms Seb Maitra, SVP of media, analytics, search, in the Boston office of Hill Holliday, a national communications agency. "If you just compare CPMs for online display ads to TV or radio ads, you can make the argument [about price imbalances] from a CPM standpoint. But look at the content and real estate you get: A 30-second TV spot allows you to tell your story in a much richer way.
"Sure, offline is probably priced on the high side," Maitra acknowledges, "but I wouldn't necessarily say that's true, carte blanche. Think about outdoor ads. Depending on the location, your noticeability, particularly on a highway, is about 2 seconds, which is about the same time span as a display ad on a web page. And the CPMs are also very comparable."
Online ad salespeople talk about engagement, but there's also distraction. A full-page ad or a page-dominant ad grabs a huge amount of mind share. In contrast, a web page contains many distractions: embedded links, active graphics, scrolling text, video, and more. Your online ad fights for attention in ways your offline ad simply does not.
And there are other differences that can justify discrepancies in relative pricing…
A branding ad, for example, doesn't require measuring the number of people who see it. The mere fact that you have a quarter-page ad on the Op/Ed page of Friday's New York Times is huge. It's enough to attract many of the people who are important to you. When advertisers think beyond reach/frequency/eyeballs to focus on their desired outcomes with specific target audiences, the argument that online is so trackable begins to lose force, particularly in light of current cable TV experiments with similarly specific ad targeting. Savvy advertisers know it's more important to figure out the relative contribution of each ad in a series that nudges prospects toward a purchase. Just knowing an ad has been delivered to a computer is a sub-par argument these days.
In addition, there is relatively little competition for specific audiences in the print world. How many other offline availabilities deliver the same audience as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, or TV's "The Oprah Winfrey Show"? In the online world, however, there may be literally thousands of websites all delivering the very demographic you seek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
