Re: [projectvrm] Peak ads, from the advertiser POV

[M a r y H o d d e r < >]

> But the available technology is moving away from
> giving advertisers a choice between direct marketing
> and signalful branding ads -- on the web, it's almost
> all targetable, and in mobile, it's highly targeted
> or nothing.

I think this notion above has been the key factor in ads driving to the 
bottom. I have a friend who is the CEO/founder of an ad company
where they resell ad space for 1/4 cent per thousand views. The last of the 
last inventory that no one wants, and they are making a killing -- even though
he and his A+ VC firm know it's crap.

Because the advertisers and content sites want that.. but the user's have 
zero interest (hence the price -- and I would agree
with your assertion that in this context, every party is trying to get 
something for nothing and it's exhausting and just barely successful
enough that it keeps going.)

But I would make the argument that good brand advertising of the sort we have 
seen in high quality glossy magazines,
where all the pieces are really well done (the mag, the paper, the ink, the 
photography, the people and items in the photos, the brands etc),
hasn't really been done much on the web, and sites that may want to run those 
ads haven't been successful
at arguing that the value is "there" in digital situations as it is in print 
mags. 

However, I have a client, where I've pitched the CEO a couple of times on 
doing high quality brand ads.. 
and because the users of the service will be looking at a single page with 
nothing on it for 10 sec or so,
that we could do a high quality brand ad, without collecting personal data or 
doing any tracking or matching.  The idea is to focus
on the qualities in a Vanity Fair or similar level of quality ad model 
without all the bad stuff.

In other words, we'll have to create what we want, because it doesn't really 
exist right now in digital forms to 
do what magazine ads do now.





On Mar 10, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Don Marti wrote:

> begin Alan Mitchell quotation of Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 06:45:22AM +0000:
> 
>> I agree with you that signalling is important, but I don't think it's the
>> whole answer. From behavioural economics we now know that familiarity is
>> important - people are more likely to buy a brand that is familiar versus
>> one that is unfamiliar. So 'brand fame' is another reason to advertise.
>> Then, in magazines like Vogue the ads are 'part of the service' - part of
>> why the buyer buys the product: looking for inspiration.
> 
> And you know that others are seeing the same ad,
> as Mary points out.  For many brands, it's not just
> what signal is the brand sending to you, it's what
> signal can you send using the brand?
> 
>> The trouble with the word advertising is that like the word 'colour' it's
>> a blanket term covering a myriad of different processes and functions that
>> work in different ways.
> 
> True back in the day when all ad media were sold
> differently and had different levels of targeting.
> Still true offline.
> 
> But the available technology is moving away from
> giving advertisers a choice between direct marketing
> and signalful branding ads -- on the web, it's almost
> all targetable, and in mobile, it's highly targeted
> or nothing.
> 
> If you want to do branding and reach an audience,
> not a set of database records, you have to do TV,
> radio, or print.  Which is why those media keep their
> value.  Meanwhile...
> 
>  "The problem with mobile media is that it's near
>  impossible to monetize via adverts that earn
>  one-tenth that of desktop ads, which earn one-tenth
>  of print ads. From dollars, to dimes, to pennies."
> 
>  
> http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2015/03/new_media_disrupted_g.php
> 
>> We need to understand this in order to understand where and how VRM can
>> make a positive impact. For example, intent casting will have marginal
>> effect on display advertising precisely because of signalling, fame, and
>> other factors. On the other hand, it could have a dramatic impact on
>> various forms of direct marketing driven by theories of 'relevance' Š
> 
> Yes, such as the retail beacons problem.
> 
>   Shoppers conflicted on data sharing 
>   
> http://www.warc.com/Content/News/Shoppers_conflicted_on_data_sharing.content?ID=8628cb5a-afdb-4dde-935b-53b7995a9c32
> 
> ("conflicted" is a little mild)
> 
> 
>> Alan Mitchell, Strategy Director
>> Ctrl-Shift Ltd
>> West Wing, Somerset House
>> Strand
>> London
>> WC2R1LA
>> 
>> Mobile: +44(0)7711 899784
>> Office: +44 (0)207 759 1056
>> www.ctrl-shift.co.uk
>> Skype: alansmitchell
>> Twitter: 321CtrlShift
>> 
>> 
>> For up to the minute market insight register for our weekly Market Watch
>> <https://www.ctrl-shift.co.uk/join>. It's free :)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/03/2015 04:48, "Don Marti" 
>> <
 >
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Doc cited this when it came out in 2013...
>>> THE THEORY OF PEAK ADVERTISING
>>> AND THE FUTURE OF THE WEB
>>> http://peakads.org/images/Peak_Ads.pdf
>>> 
>>> Now here are many of the same points, from a
>>> marketer's point of view:
>>> The Law of Shitty Clickthroughs
>>> http://andrewchen.co/the-law-of-shitty-clickthroughs/
>>> 
>>> "First it works and then it doesn't."
>>> 
>>> Why do some ad media get depleted while others don't?
>>> 
>>> Why are banner ads "slash and burn" while magazine ads
>>> are "permaculture"?
>>> 
>>> IMHO it comes down to signaling. If the medium
>>> provides for an exchange of information (attention
>>> from buyer traded for signal from seller) it stays
>>> useful.  As soon as either side figures out the other
>>> is trying to get something for nothing, the medium
>>> declines from its "peak".
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Don Marti         
>>> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
>>> 
 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Don Marti                    
> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
>