Quote from Things Seen and Unseen: Toothpaste and the paradox of choice

Coleman’s mustard made their money from the mustard that stayed on the plate, not the mustard you put on your meat

Things Seen and Unseen: Toothpaste and the paradox of choice

This is an astute metaphor for a lot of other things. The selling party needs to either sell more "stuff" or increase the margin on the existing stuff they sell. Sometimes the first option is easier because the buyer gets a sense of getting value for their money, even if the stuff bought ends up being wasted.

There must be some economic theory that explains and rationalizes this. 

Best display ad dimensions - study by Dynamic Logic

New York, August 20, 2009 – Research released today by Dynamic Logic, the leaders in measuring digital advertising effectiveness, reveals ads that are integrated into the content of the page, such as half banners and rectangles, are the most effective in driving online ad awareness and purchase intent. The research, based on 2,390 online display campaigns that took place over the past three years, is from Dynamic Logic’s MarketNorms® database, the largest in the industry. It found that half banners (234 x 60) and rectangles (180 x 150) were more effective than ads that frame the page such as leaderboards and skyscrapers.

Dynamic Logic Press Room

I can’t help but frown when I see reseach of this sort.

There does not seem to be a definitive conclusion to the study, but basically smaller dimensions around content as well as rich media and video are better.

Here are some of the potential problems here. 

• The data for the study spans over 3 years.  That is a long time in the internet ad world. It’s an even longer time for video.
• The small units mentioned, 234×60 and 180×150, immediately make me think Yahoo Finance with its online brokerage ads. Where else are units like this used? Chances are the data for these guys comes straight from there where there is a definitive skew since that specific context for online brokerage ads is probably the best there is
• Everytime I’ve done quantitative research like this, it always came up that the smaller volume sample has better performance. For example, take a normal bigbox, 300×250.  Comparing the same creative’s CTR for a high volume placement versus a low volume placement will always show that the low volume placement performs better. This is why it is not surprising that this study’s conclusion on small units, rich media and video have "won" — they have the smallest volume compared to, say, bigboxes. 

Quote from FT.com / Media - Hachette chief hits out at e-books

“That cannot last . . . Amazon is not in the business of losing money. So, one day, they are going to come to the publishers and say: ‘we are cutting the price we pay’. If that happens, after paying the authors, there will be nothing left for the publishers.”

FT.com / Media - Hachette chief hits out at e-books

The CEO of Hachette’s book publishing group is worried about the growth of ebooks, Amazon and his own business. 

Reading the quote above I’m trying to understand why there would be any money for the publishers. If Amazon effectively markets and distributes the content, what exactly should publishers be rewarded for? There is no more managing shelf space, logistics, etc.

Personally I’m strongly considering going the ebook route in the next few weeks/months.

Quote by MediaPost Publications Bigger Isn’t Necessarily Better When It Comes To Online Ad Formats 08/20/2009

The study, which was based on 2,390 online display campaigns running over the past three years, found that so-called "half banners" (those measuring 234 x 60) and rectangles (180 x 150) were more effective than ads that frame the page such as high profile leaderboards and skyscrapers.

MediaPost Publications Bigger Isn’t Necessarily Better When It Comes To Online Ad Formats 08/20/2009

So the actual study shows that formats integrated in the content perform better than those that frame the page, top, bottom or left/right of the content. This makes sense.

It doesn’t seem to be a bigger/smaller/OPA format thing as the title of the story in MediaPost implies. 

Quote by I’m Writing a Book. | Inbox Zero

The internet is becoming this thing where it’s just people trying to become successful on the internet by showing other people how to become successful on the internet

I’m Writing a Book. | Inbox Zero

What an amazingly astute description of the phenomenon!

High-profile publishers calling for the demise of ad networks?

Premium online publishers are spreading a gospel throughout the online advertising space that is both misguided and could be destructive to the future of online advertising. In calling for the elimination of Ad Networks, they are disregarding the well being of both advertisers and mid-size publishers. In defending their position, they make arguments that serve their own short term interests, but harm the long-term interests of the industry as a whole.

MediaPost - news and directories for media, marketing and online advertising professionals

That’s just silly.  Publishers serve their own short term interests but harm the long-term interests of the industry as a whole? Really? 

Ad networks who can only show volume to justify their value add do  — and should — struggle. Ad networks who serve all these punch-the-monkey and free-credit-report crap, and do it on a large scale, deserve to struggle. That is ultimately what harms the industry as a whole.

Since volume can’t be used as competitive advantage, what can?

Here are some ideas:

- Ad networks could help advertisers and agencies to pick the right impressions, which would lead them into ad exchange and optimization territory. 

-  They can help agencies deal with data by selling technology

- They also have to work with other ad networks towards a scalable cascading infrastructure that would allow advertisers to hyper-target. 

And let premium publishers do whatever they want. They have enough problems to deal with, don’t they?

Misunderstanding Online Advertising’s $65 Billion Problem

A huge — $65 billion huge — part of the online advertising problem is that Web marketers know exactly how the Web works and how to engage its users — on their own.

Online Advertising’s $65 Billion Problem

This is true but only to a certain extent.

Mind you, I’ve been known to quote (when it suits me) Trevor Edwards, Nike’s corporate VP, where he says that "Nike is not in the business of keeping media companies alive, we‘re in the business of connecting with consumers."

But let’s keep things in perspective. At the simplest level, an average consumer will not wake up in the morning and visit a variety of brand-developed web properties. It’s just not going to happen, no matter how much they would all want that. 

The now infamous brand utility concept, like Nike Plus, has its limitations and no matter how cool and awesome it is, you still need to draw an audience to it. Which is what Nike has ultimately done, running TV and web ads.

This is somewhat similar to the display vs. search conundrum — of course what you want is clicks on ads generated by actual intenders. But you will never have a huge reach there. The more you put up in display, the more clicks from seach you will generate. Display is for reach, search is for conversions (let’s ignore the last click syndrome).

In this case it’s the same. If you want reach — and you always want reach as a marketer — you will have to piggyback on top of platforms that have it. Once you have reach, good things happen if you have value to add. 

The article also seems to mix up two concurrent trends. The first is that brands develop their own platforms. The other is brands doing their own marketing, including media planning and buying. 

The dotcom analogy in the article is also ridiculous. Eh.

Quote by Advertising will change forever

[…] digital, which will be about 12% of overall advertising spend in 2009, is likely to grow to about 21% in five years. Along the way overall advertising budgets will decline.

Advertising will change forever

Strong statement but ad dollars don’t have a choice but to follow people wherever they go. 

Online Media Growing Pains

Digital folks snicker when they hear advertisers make statements like “TV works”. Turns out, TV does work and there is plenty of quantitative proof that TV advertising drives sales. As much as digital marketers love to carry the ROI torch, what they don’t realize is that traditional marketers live and die by the same sword.

Getting Back to Basics – Why Web Advertising Needs Traditional Media Metrics - Microsoft Advertising Blog - Microsoft Advertising Community

Always great to read Young-Bean Song. And it’s really hard to believe that there are remnants of the awesome AtlasDMT crew at Microsoft now, following their acquisition of aQuantive.

That said, he makes very good arguments essentially in support of integrated media planning. Best positioned to bridge that GRP gap are likely people seriously working on online video, such as the fine folks of Blip.tv. The similarity in formats and basic interaction metrics are at least remotely similar to TV. If we can’t get online and offline video planning jive, there is no chance of getting anything done with an even broader scope, encompassing diverse formats with their range of interaction possibilities, and so on. 

What’s also interesting is that now really is the time for this gap to be bridged if digital is to grow. As media spend continues to pour online, the science and its simplest expression, ad serving technology, simply have not kept up pace.

Quote by MediaPost Publications EyeWonder Takes Takeovers To Another Level 07/09/2009

Taking attention-seeking to a whole new level, rich media company EyeWonder on Wednesday debuted a new home page-takeover ad that appears to manipulate a surrounding Web page by shrinking, stretching, crumpling or otherwise animating a real-time screenshot of the page.

MediaPost Publications EyeWonder Takes Takeovers To Another Level 07/09/2009

Whatever it takes to get noticed…