On Jun 12, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Sakari Kyrö wrote:
Charles, the R-button has some similarities to your approach, although itThe r-button is a UI element that we can make whatever we
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.
like.<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/projectvrm/R-button> More below.
The subscribers of this list seem to be roughly split into two groups. TheI think the split instead is between those who approach VRM from an
ones that believe that advertising can be done in a better way, and the ones
that believe that it can not.
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 aI don't believe Judi was saying advertising can't be improved. Just that
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."
she's not interested in demand based advertising.
This supports the R-button idea, but is based on the assumption that ourThe r-button is not a kind of method, and doesn't presume that the individual
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.
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 inThere are two kinds of problems here, ones that are on your side, and ones on
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?
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 valuableThe noise comes mostly from chasing buyers. This is becoming an enormous
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.
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 itAnother name for demand based advertising is sales leads. Or qualified lead
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
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:
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2180 / Virus Database: 2433/5065 - Release Date: 06/12/12
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.