Re: [projectvrm] Demand based advertising

[Doc Searls < >]

On Jun 12, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Sakari Kyrö wrote:

> Charles, the R-button has some similarities to your approach, although it 
> doesn't involve any ads(?), but a relationship on both sides terms. Some of 
> your tag lines are very close to the idea of the R-button. 

The r-button is a UI element that we can make whatever we like. 
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/projectvrm/R-button> More below.

> The subscribers of this list seem to be roughly split into two groups. The 
> ones that believe that advertising can be done in a better way, and the 
> ones that believe that it can not. 

I think the split instead is between those who approach VRM from an 
advertising angle and those who don't. Not all in the latter group believe 
that advertising can't be done in a better way. Some care, some don't.

> Glome.me has a very similar way of approaching how ads are served, but with 
> a slightly different approach regarding the method. (Disclaimer: I was 
> previously involved in the Glome project) 
> 
> When MyMindShare, Prizzm or Glome launches a fully functional public beta 
> version, the demand for demand based advertising will quickly be seen. The 
> details in the user experience will determine the success/failure, as the 
> difference between a creepy feeling spammy ad, and an ad that is served at 
> the right time (in the consumers eyes), is a thin one. 
> 
> J Clark earlier said that "Advertising isn't a very compelling end-point to 
> me. I am not likely to go anywhere to see it, and will take steps to avoid 
> it, unless I'm in the market for something specific--and even then I might 
> check the periodic sales flyers at the store I'm most likely to go to for 
> what I want." 

I don't believe Judi was saying advertising can't be improved. Just that 
she's not interested in demand based advertising.

> This supports the R-button idea, but is based on the assumption that our 
> habits roughly remain the same. Personally, I notice that while I would 
> like to have the R-button kind of method to connect with vendors, it 
> presumes that i know exactly what I want. 

The r-button is not a kind of method, and doesn't presume that the individual 
knows what he or she wants, or is even shopping. At least not as we 
originally described it. But again, it can be whatever we want.

We never settled whether the r-button should represent state, action, or 
both. If it's state, then the r-button is a door to data and choices about a 
variety of topics, for both the individual (first party) and the vendor (or 
second party). If it's action, it's something you click on to make something 
happen — beyond opening a door to data records. 

But again, it's an idea. We can make the r-button mean anything. Or skip it 
and use something better. Either way, we need UI elements.

> As recently as earlier this afternoon, when I was looking for new shoes in 
> Helsinki, I wished that there was a way I could get some inspiration from 
> somewhere. It would not have mattered whether or not it was an ad, or a 
> direct offer from a vendor. I roughly had an idea what I wanted, but 
> couldn't find it. 
> 
> The shoes that I bought ended up being the best compromise, but certainly 
> not as nice as it could have been. Would Prizzm, MyMindShare or Glome 
> helped in that moment? 

There are two kinds of problems here, ones that are on your side, and ones on 
the supply side.

On your side (as an individual), you didn't have a good way of signaling your 
interest in new shoes, or the nature of your interest (e.g. just looking, 
need recommendations, ready-to-buy exactly X, whatever), or of bringing in 
your existing relationships (if you have any) with given retailers or brands.

I'll get to the supply side after this... 

> In my opinion, vendors are more or less always available, but the valuable 
> opinions, tips and right kind of inspiration is not.
> 
> The web is overflowing with information, but the noise is too overwhelming 
> to even bother with the distraction of pointless top-10 lists or 
> pretentious fashion blogs.

The noise comes mostly from chasing buyers. This is becoming an enormous 
business. Think of the Web right now as a vast and messy mall filled with 
sellers of everything, pushing hard every way they can. That includes paying 
for big-data-driven tracking and personalization. 

The problem here is that the emerging systems on the sell side are less 
interested in hearing your exact intentions than in guessing what those 
intentions might be, and then ambushing you with the "right" message at the 
"right" time.

And, as Charles says below, Google and Bing are advantaged by the nature of 
search, which is (as Joe has often said) intentional. You are looking for 
something. It might not be buying something, but you are looking, and as 
intent trails go, that's non-trivial. Facebook is disadvantaged by the fact 
that most activity in there isn't of that nature.

Still, only small percentage of search ads are clicked on, overall.  And the 
noise is getting deafening. I did a search for "qualified lead generation" 
for the paragraphs below, and gave up on getting anything other than results 
that are out to sell me something. It was only through a search for "sales 
leads" than I found the Wikipedia article on the general topic, and that one 
is clearly written by somebody in the business as well. 

> What would the sweet spot then be for demand based advertising? I believe 
> it involves other consumers sharing and communicating in one way or 
> another. 
> How to do it while i) keeping it uncontaminated by commercial interests and 
> ii)protecting privacy,  is not an easy task.
> 
> This is not an academic point of view, but just a gut feeling. Feel free to 
> prove me wrong.
> 
> Thanks, 
> Sakari 

Another name for demand based advertising is sales leads. Or qualified lead 
generation. That's how the vendors see you: as a qualified lead. They'll pay 
for that in many cases, and that's what VRM will look like to them. 

The question for VRM developers is, "What business am I in?" (If I'm in a 
business at all. At its base VRM is a category, not a business, and includes 
many development projects that are not commercial.) If you're in the sales 
lead business, you're not working for the customer. You're working for the 
seller, because they're paying you for those leads. 

If you're in the sales lead business (which is one way of seeing demand based 
advertising), you're talking sales, not marketing, and not advertising. 
You're sending sales messages to qualified leads. That's sales promotion, not 
advertising.

Or maybe not, because now everything is all blurry.

The distinction between advertising and promotion is one that was once sharp. 
Mostly, promotion appealed directly to customers. It included sweepstakes, 
coupons, point of sale displays, direct mail, sales aids and so on. It was 
much more involved with, and driven by, sales functions, and sales 
departments, at companies. Advertising was driven by marketing functions and 
marketing departments. The distinction was that sales touched the customer 
while marketing did not. There was a political division here too. Sales and 
marketing were different functions, run by different people, even if both 
were in the same business unit. The key thing was this: sales didn't want 
marketing touching the customer. And sales was usually the more powerful 
department because it brought in the money. Marketing was overhead. This is 
why most VPs of Sales & Marketing were sales people, not marketing people. 

Now that the Net has soaked into everything, everybody can touch everybody 
else, and marketing — especially since Cluetrain — wants to be 
"conversational." There is also a lot more money and investment flowing into 
marketing than into sales promotion, because marketing has always been the 
"strategic" function, and being "strategic" is now a very big business.

CRM has worked to insinuate itself into the marketing world, especially with 
"social" CRM. But CRM has been about sales and relationship management with 
individual customers. Hence the name Salesforce. Mark Benioff did not create 
"Marketingforce," for good reasons.

The problem for Glome, Prizzm, MyMindShare and other VRM efforts that seek to 
improve advertising, and make it more personal and responsive, is the $.X 
trillion being spent right now on tracking, personalization and guesswork 
milling. All of those companies are trying to change the course of that money 
river. It'll be interesting to see how that goes.

My own preference is for better signaling from the customer, and better 
engagement tools for the customer. 

But thats me. And I don't want everybody else to do what I'd do, and in my 
way.

Doc


> On 12.6.2012, at 20.30, Charles Oppenheimer wrote:
> 
>>> By the way, I want to point out that "Demand based advertising" is a 
>>> misnomer. 
>> 
>> Maybe.. of course it isn't anything right now, more of an experiment, to 
>> see if there is a market for Prizzm (VRM?) described this way.   I was 
>> trying out tag lines, I had kicked around a number of other options:
>> 
>> "reverse advertising"
>> "ads that don't suck"
>> "fixing crappy ads"
>> "state your intentions"
>> "whatcha want?"
>> "i wanna..."
>> "you choose"
>> "your intention - not your identity"
>> "vendor relationship management"
>> "stop  adveritising suckitude"
>> "broadcast your intention"
>> "your data, your choices"
>> "track this!"
>> 
>> Or as my wife said: "maybe it should say something that's more about the 
>> end result of the ad - good ads targeted to your interests means you get 
>> introduced to the products and services you would actually be interested 
>> in, because you're in control of what you want to see, not because they 
>> steal your profile and search info to put ads that companies *think* you 
>> want to see. 
>> 
>> Now put that into a tag line. "
>> 
>> Right??   
>> 
>> I was even considering a drop down list where people can choose the tag 
>> line they like right from the page.. just for fun, and the spirit of buyer 
>> control.
>> 
>> So - here are some datapoints from this "launch" thought I'd share:
>> ~ 90 signups so far - out of 247 visits per google analytics. ...  A 36% 
>> conversion rate is extremely high - I wouldn't expect it to continue being 
>> that high, I marketed on this list, betali.st and twitter, so maybe more 
>> receptive folks there.  But there is some interest.  And in this landing 
>> page, the "privacy policy" is the main selling point.. if anybody wants to 
>> iterate or reuse a version of that for your own VRM marketing efforts,  do 
>> so/let me know, these datapoints point to there being some market for this 
>> message.
>> 
>> 
>> - The hacking/prototyping is not going as well.  Some of the questions 
>> Judi Clark brought up, summarized thusly "Advertising isn't a very 
>> compelling end-point to me. I am not likely to go anywhere to see it" is 
>> spot on, and I'm getting that with everybody  I work with to ask what type 
>> of things they might want to see based on their "intentions".   I thought 
>> I might be able to pull something together that is "fun" - but not working 
>> so far.  
>> 
>> It is pretty tough to make an compelling advertising experience based on 
>> generalized "needs" you put in.  Inventory and the look and feel of ads 
>> are a big problem.. they just aren't fun to look at or something people 
>> want to do.  Ultimately shopping is more direct - and Amazon and Google 
>> have kind of nailed that.
>> 
>> So - experimenting.  I think it is much more likely the first version of 
>> the application is extremely focused on a vertical, very specific "need 
>> broadcasting", so those needs can be met,  and a bit more likely to be 
>> mobile.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for all the response on this list so far.
>> Charles
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 11, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Jim Bursch wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>