Disqus - Latest Comments for Jeff Molander

Re: If We Agree Advertising is Broken

Jeff Molander — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:09:54 -0000

Measurement is next. Something that scares the crap out of "brand advertising" people. The mass-media-heads have been busy applying "branding" to the Web with the goal of creating "mind states" that cannot be measured in tangible behaviors. They recoil at the thought of advertising accountability or direct response fundamentals.

Chris, "content marketing" quickly becomes "branded entertainment" if you leave it un-attended. In other words, most of what we see out there is designed to produce a relatively weak output. "Engagement." It's comfy for brand marketers as it's so wonderfully difficult to measure. In fact, measurement stops at the word "engagement." My problem with this is that there are no behavioral prompts "built in" to the content stream that create BEHAVIOR-based outputs -- customers DOING things, not just thinking/feeling differently about the brand. Am I making sense?

As we move forward in 2009, I simply see us pulling paychecks LESS for spreading corporate karma and more for creating measurable customer behaviors -- stuff companies like Zappos, eBay, Amazon do completely WITHOUT traditional (uh, outdated? uh, un-accountable?) advertising.

Re: If We Agree Advertising is Broken

Jeff Molander — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:02:33 -0000

@Tony - I'd agree with your argument but point out that the EXPERIENCE of being an Amazon customer (not what shoppers think or feel about them based on commercial spots or visuals or promises) is what creates that successful brand you reference.

I'd say we're relatively happy with that 1-3% yes. As compared to the bogus "brand equity" calculations that I've read over the years we're thrilled. CMO's are on the hot seat. CEO's don't buy nebulous "brand equity" math -- never have. CMO Council: 10% of CMO's are regarded as "highly influential" or "strategic" by their CEOs. I'd call that a crisis of confidence driven by mass communications practices being ported over to an interactive realm (the Web).

I'll stir more: You've pointed at a metric that can be measured in tangible actions, behaviors. "Brand advertising" is largely hockus pokus math, IMHO :), that typically results in eye rolling by CEO's.

Re: If We Agree Advertising is Broken

Jeff Molander — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:21:27 -0000

@ Tony - Well, since you baited me like that :-)

I simply don't see how "branding" can be measured by search. Here's the root of what I'm driving at here: Google gave us the ability to pair up ads with searchers' intent (a la Battelle)... and the best thing "brand advertisers" can do is get all excited about pairing up impressions of ads? Perhaps you'll agree -- it's much more exciting to take a users' intent, call them to action, provide the opportunity for them to act (download something, fill out a form, buy something, etc.) and then, worst case, place them in a behavior-based sales funnel -- a marketing regimen.

Just "being there" and hoping for the best or inventing crazy science/math around how these ads result in actions is just a waste of the BIGGER opportunity. We're already seeing the results. The display slow-down isn't about lack of budget so much as it's about, IMHO, the realization that "buying eyeballs" is pointless and relatively worthless as compared to direct response -- which is what a 2 way medium is built for.

Re: If We Agree Advertising is Broken

Jeff Molander — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:56:39 -0000

@ Tony. Precisely. This is why we have divergent opinions. My definition cannot conform to yours. In my world, banding itself is (starting in 2008-9) being re-defined as the real-time aggregation of everything marketers and their customers do together. That’s different than the old school definition focusing on awareness and influencing how customers feel about a marketer.

“a corporate image that leaves a positive impression and spurs conversation that ultimately leads to sales”

I don't want to measure part of branding -- I want to measure all of it. Right? Branding, by my definition, is 100% measurable and fully accountable. Respectfully the definition you offer -- at its core -- "hopes." It's been at the core of mass communications for decades and is what I believe is threatened.

Further, I care less about conversation now... in this recession. I (Mr. advertiser) care about creating customer/prospect behaviors. These behaviors are part of a "chronology of purchase intent." I recognize that nothing is instant -- as you wisely point out. I simply reject the notion that there is strong value in:

"measuring the level of chatter about our brand as a whole, measure positive and negative mentions and follow the network of conversations happening in blogs and on services like twitter, etc."

... as compared to the value in measuring what people DO. Not how they feel or their tone. I can measure that *directly* in monitoring their behavior. Here, there is no guesswork.

This means companies would have to actually interact with their customers on some level to find out if any of this buzz lead to a sale, something I think a lot of them still aren’t doing. I would argue that we just don’t care about these numbers for the most part right now, which is why we don’t have a more efficient way to tie them to sales.

We DON'T care about tracking to the point of SALES??!! You are really baiting me here, Tony. What's up your sleeve? :) I am forced to agree -- we don't care. "We" are "brand advertisers" who believe this is more art and less science. "We" aren't going to get paid as much moving forward for creating intentions, desires or perceived need. We're going to get paid for actions -- that ultimately lead to sales, yes.

You didn't mention it but it relates: I respectfully don't buy this "we're not in control" bunk nor the inherent value of conversation monitoring -- when there is not follow through on engaging AND (here is the big one) ADAPTING to build systems around that engagement -- systems that monitor, facilitate targeted engagement and drive ultimate behavior.

Sure that's a really, really advanced "want" on my part but ultimately I'm breaking with you over the fundamental definition of brand (you: creating consideration and hoping for sales -- me: brand as "pure" experience-based, trackable behavior).