AdOn Blog

Evolutionary Or Revolutionary?

Originally published on the MediaPost Online Publishing Insider
By: Kory Kredit, VP Marketing, PV Media Group

Technically speaking, the difference between evolutionary and revolutionary is just one single letter. When speaking of technology, however, the implications of each word are worlds apart. While an evolutionary product is a step forward from where you currently stand, a revolutionary product forges an entirely new path. It is different, bold, and risky -- and also has the potential to be highly rewarding.

There are, of course, inherent risks involved in taking the evolutionary approach as well. An evolutionary product can often be duplicated by a competitor or even surpassed by the next step in the evolutionary time line. When you produce the 7-minute abs workout, for example, the 6-minute abs workout is just around the corner, as Ben Stiller pointed out in "There's Something About Mary."

When Microsoft recently launched Bing, its new search -- I mean, decision -- engine, it was a step forward, but far from revolutionary. In a recent MediaPost Search Insider article, Gord Hotchkiss took a deeper look into Bing's evolutionary advances, but also lamented that there was nothing truly revolutionary about it. Alternatively, Google took a revolutionary leap with the announcement of its new Wave technology. While Microsoft was hard at work plotting the next step in the evolution of search, Google chose to throw away the drawing board instead of simply going back to it. Rather than reinvent search, the company took a bold new path to revolutionizing the way we communicate online.

As I pondered these product launches from Google and Microsoft and their respective approaches, I applied the same filter to the online advertising arena. While the evolution in online advertising continues, we seem to be falling short when it comes to revolutionary ideas.

The display ad unit has evolved in size options, creative content and targeting capabilities. We've continued to see the emergence of unique variations on the display ad unit, like the advertising embedded photos from Pixazza, the social media ad unit that Digg recently announced, and a new entry from Premium Access Media (full disclsoure: this is a PV Media Group company) called the Anchor Ad, among others. While the evolution of online advertising is significant, has there been anything truly revolutionary in our industry over the past year? Two years? Three years? Looking back, the last really revolutionary advertising vehicle online was the launch of paid search, and that hasn't changed dramatically since its inception.

For online advertising to continue to grow and potentially overtake traditional media as the medium of choice for both brand and direct response advertisers, do we need another revolutionary idea -- or can we continue to move forward along the evolutionary time line? Is there a new social media advertising model out there just waiting to burst on the scene? Will video sites like Hulu and YouTube be able to create a new standard to successfully monetize both professional and user-generated video content? Is there another team of geniuses like Google's Lars and Jens Rasmussen hidden away in a back office somewhere, developing the next "wave" of online advertising solutions that will lead our industry into the Web 3.0 world?

If I had the answers to these questions I most likely wouldn't be spending my time writing a column that referenced the cinematic genius of Ben Stiller in "There's Something About Mary," which is why I prefer to turn the tables and solicit your expert opinions. Where do you think we are headed? What's the next big idea that is waiting to be discovered online advertising?

Technically speaking, the difference between evolutionary and revolutionary is just one single letter. When speaking of technology, however, the implications of each word are worlds apart. While an evolutionary product is a step forward from where you currently stand, a revolutionary product forges an entirely new path. It is different, bold, and risky -- and also has the potential to be highly rewarding.

There are, of course, inherent risks involved in taking the evolutionary approach as well. An evolutionary product can often be duplicated by a competitor or even surpassed by the next step in the evolutionary time line. When you produce the 7-minute abs workout, for example, the 6-minute abs workout is just around the corner, as Ben Stiller pointed out in "There's Something About Mary."

When Microsoft recently launched Bing, its new search -- I mean, decision -- engine, it was a step forward, but far from revolutionary. In a recent MediaPost Search Insider article, Gord Hotchkiss took a deeper look into Bing's evolutionary advances, but also lamented that there was nothing truly revolutionary about it. Alternatively, Google took a revolutionary leap with the announcement of its new Wave technology. While Microsoft was hard at work plotting the next step in the evolution of search, Google chose to throw away the drawing board instead of simply going back to it. Rather than reinvent search, the company took a bold new path to revolutionizing the way we communicate online.

As I pondered these product launches from Google and Microsoft and their respective approaches, I applied the same filter to the online advertising arena. While the evolution in online advertising continues, we seem to be falling short when it comes to revolutionary ideas.

The display ad unit has evolved in size options, creative content and targeting capabilities. We've continued to see the emergence of unique variations on the display ad unit, like the advertising embedded photos from Pixazza, the social media ad unit that Digg recently announced, and a new entry from Premium Access Media (full disclsoure: this is a PV Media Group company) called the Anchor Ad, among others. While the evolution of online advertising is significant, has there been anything truly revolutionary in our industry over the past year? Two years? Three years? Looking back, the last really revolutionary advertising vehicle online was the launch of paid search, and that hasn't changed dramatically since its inception.

For online advertising to continue to grow and potentially overtake traditional media as the medium of choice for both brand and direct response advertisers, do we need another revolutionary idea -- or can we continue to move forward along the evolutionary time line? Is there a new social media advertising model out there just waiting to burst on the scene? Will video sites like Hulu and YouTube be able to create a new standard to successfully monetize both professional and user-generated video content? Is there another team of geniuses like Google's Lars and Jens Rasmussen hidden away in a back office somewhere, developing the next "wave" of online advertising solutions that will lead our industry into the Web 3.0 world?

If I had the answers to these questions I most likely wouldn't be spending my time writing a column that referenced the cinematic genius of Ben Stiller in "There's Something About Mary," which is why I prefer to turn the tables and solicit your expert opinions. Where do you think we are headed? What's the next big idea that is waiting to be discovered online advertising?

The Kiss Hello

Originally published on the MediaPost Online Publishing Insider
By: Kory Kredit

How social do we really want to get? It's a question I've been wrestling with as it relates to our company Web site and one that Jerry Seinfeld wrestled with as well. In a "Seinfeld" episode titled "The Kiss Hello," Kramer decides to post the photos and names of every tenant in the building to foster a friendlier living environment. Rather than passing anonymous neighbors in the hallway and giving the obligatory head nod, tenants would be able to greet each other by name and even offer a warm embrace. The social experiment goes too far for Jerry's liking when he is greeted by a kiss on the cheek from every female in the building, and a solid lip lock from Kramer himself.

Whether you're Cosmo Kramer in an apartment complex, or a consumer brand launching a Web site like  Skittles.com, sometimes you can be too social. I'm all for engaging customers in the social media space, but I'd just as soon kiss Kramer myself as use Twitter or Facebook as a company home page. That said, when assessing one of our company Web sites recently, it was evident that it needed an overhaul that includes some social elements. The site's shelf life as an effective communication tool was expiring and it needed more than just a fresh coat of JavaScript.

As I've begun working with our team to layo ut the new structure of the site, I've had to wrestle with the question: how social should it be? Gone are the days of a company site that's simply a static media kit filled with overhyped marketing copy written by marketing people like me. The five-page online brochure has given way to the Skittles Web site that turns over the marketing message to anyone with a Twitter account and the ability to fit "Skittles" into a semi-coherent 140 character tweet. For example, @mattfurukawa just tweeted that he is "at dinner with two awesome people, my pastor and skittles." While the "skittles" Matt is referring to could be a spiritual mentor -- which is great for Matt -- it doesn't really do much for the brand message of the sugar candy version of Skittles.

So, should our new site become a full-blown social media hub, or a more traditional corporate Web site with social media elements? As I look to invite our customers into an online conversation, is it really beneficial to make that the central theme of the Web site?

For inspiration, I took at look at a recent blog post on Webdesigner Depot titled "50 Excellent Corporate Website Designs". Of the 50 Web sites featured on the blog, here is the breakdown of the integration of social media into the design (includes Twitter, company blog, Facebook, etc.):

    Social media content integrated into the home page: 15

    Includes a link to social media content on home page: 25

    No social media content whatsoever: 10    

The most common social media integration was a blog feed on the home page with a small number of sites adding a twitter feed. Ironically, the site named "PimpMyTwitter" has no Twitter content and doesn't even list the Twitter address (although I am giving them extra credit for their company name). While company blogs, Twitter feeds and links to Facebook and LinkedIn pages were common, it was somewhat surprising that 10 of these newly designed Web sites (20%) had no social media content at all. The selection of these sites obviously isn't a scientifically accurate cross-section, but does provide a good selection of well-designed corporate Web sites.  

For our Web site, I am choosing to start out with a middle-of-the-road approach to adding social media. The site will include links to our social media connection points (blog, Twitter, Flickr, Facebook, YouTube, social media press releases) and possibly pull in our blog feed into the home page. I'm not willing to go as far as opening up the unfiltered social media fire hose like Skittles, but it is a step in the right direction to move our Web site forward with more a Web 2.0-like approach. For our company, this is a good middle ground between the anonymous head nod of the static marketing brochure site and the kiss hello approach that is too social. Think of it as the bro hug of social media integration.

What Is 'Better'?

Originally published in MediaPost's Online Publishing Insider

By Kory Kredit

As marketers, we are continually working to position our product or service as something "better": better than it was before, better than our competitor, something that will provide a better quality of life. How each of us defines better, however, depends on the context and the audience.

If you are a part of Twitter nation, you may subscribe to the "less is more" theory. Better means 140 characters as opposed to a lengthy email. Alternately, to an email marketer, bigger might be better (at least that is what I'm led to believe if I scan the subject lines in my junk mail folder).

If you're an AIG executive, bigger bonuses are definitely better. As a taxpayer, my definition of better would involve less money out of my pocket that gets funneled to failing financial institutions.

According to Steve Austin, the cost of building a better, stronger, faster man has a six-million-dollar price tag. Alex Rodriguez tried to achieve the same results with a little cash under the table and the helpful assistance of his cousin at the other end of a needle.

Who's right? Is better defined as bigger or smaller? Larger government stimulus payouts or a smaller tax bill? It all depends on whom you ask. The same is true in online advertising. We all want it to be better, but there are apparently many different paths to Internet advertising nirvana. How do we find the greener grass in this digital pasture?  Let's look at a handful of ideas that have generated recent headlines.

Size Matters

According to the Online Publishers Association (OPA), the key is bigger ads. In a recent announcement, OPA proposed three new larger ad units. The theory is that one big ad will replace several smaller ads, increasing revenue potential through higher CPMs, and improving the user experience with a less cluttered page.

While there are valid reasons for these larger formats, we'll have to give this idea some time to see how it works in reality. However, I have a difficult time believing that publishers will not give in to the temptation to simply add the larger formats to their pages in addition to their existing ads, in an effort to generate incremental revenue. I'm also not aware of any uproar from consumers pleading with us, "Please give us bigger ads!"

Create Better Creative

Randall Rothenberg, President & CEO of the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB), is on a crusade to improve the creative element in our industry. Rothenberg blogged his "Manifesto on Interactive Advertising Creativity" prior to the 2009 IAB Annual Leadership Meeting, trying to ignite a conversation about the need for agencies, advertisers and publishers to increase their focus on creativity in the online advertising space.

 This culture of creativity seems to have been lost in translation, somewhere between the teams of creative geniuses who collaborate on a 30-second TV spot and the single graphic designer churning out a 768x90 banner ad. Rothenberg's closing statement from his manifesto challenges our industry to get back to its roots: "Let's return to a time when advertising and media conversation was owned by the creatives, the editors, and the impresarios -- when it was dominated by debates about the craft of persuasion, about what moves people. After all, isn't that the reason we're in this business?"

Premium Pricing

Much has been written and discussed about the falling value of display ad pricing and how to build a foundation for premium pricing models. From the commoditization of ad inventory to the failing economy, there is no shortage of theories for the decline. Some would say that online publishers need to regain control of their ad inventory so they have more control over pricing. Others would point to the overemphasis on direct-response metrics that devalues the significance of brand advertising. There is also the simple law of supply and demand coming into play. The overabundance of inventory, combined with shrinking advertising budgets, are major factors in this conversation.

User Experience

Let's not forget about the other side of this equation: the consumer. We all have our opinions and theories on how to improve online advertising to increase revenues for our industry, but who is speaking up for the consumer? As we look for new ways to monetize digital real estate, is there sufficient focus on the user experience?

So, how do we make Internet advertising better? Do we need bigger ads? Better creative? Different pricing models? What is your definition of better -- and how do we get there?

If a Tree Falls in the Forest...

by Kory Kredit, VP of Marketing, AdOn Network -- Published on MediaPost's Online Publishing Insider

If you’ve ever had the inclination to reflect on deep philosophical questions, or possibly just suffered through intense boredom or insomnia – all very similar pursuits – you may have pondered the age-old question, “If a tree fall in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Or perhaps you prefer the more modern version of the question once posed by the late George Carlin, “If a man speaks in the forest and there is no woman there to hear it, is he still wrong?” (I assume his question was rhetorical)

During a recent marketing luncheon I attended, I began considering the implications of this question when applied to social media. One of the panelists speaking at the luncheon was the communications manager from a large consumer brand. He talked about the increasing importance of keeping a pulse on his brand across the social media landscape, yet admitted that he had absolutely no idea how to actually track anything relating to social media.

Using this example, you could revise the ‘tree in the forest’ question to go something like this, “If someone makes a reference to your website through a social media platform, and you don’t know that it exists, does it still make an impact?” OK, so I’m no George Carlin, but work with me here.

If you are interested in keeping a pulse on your company’s online reputation, the answer to that question is probably yes. The impact of social media content, whether it is a blog post, a bookmark on digg, a Twitter comment or an online consumer review, is clearly growing in significance for both the consumer and for those of us whose job it is to “own” our company’s brand.

That still leaves the question that perplexed the communications manager on the marketing panel. Is there a method to accurately measure social media buzz?

There are some simple semi-automated solutions like setting up a Google alert or an application from Yahoo that I recently discovered called “Pipes”. A Yahoo member took the time to create a “Social Media Firehose” pipe that tracks content across social media sites. I did a search on my company, AdOn Network and came across blog posts, press releases and even a video on YouTube that I didn’t know existed where I was interviewed at ad:tech earlier this year (after watching it I decided I really need to stick to the written word).

While solutions like these help provide a social media snapshot, there are also companies that offer ongoing social media tracking and analysis services that can delve much deeper into actually understanding and managing your company’s online reputation across sites featuring user-generated content.

A few of the companies that I have come across that offer this type of in-depth analysis include:

• Networked Insights: Features a solution called “Insight Platform” that delivers real-time customer intelligence from social media sites.

• Prime Visibility: Their “Prime Buzz” service calculates your social media “buzz metric” that provides a quantifiable number to gauge the positive or negative buzz about your company across social media sites (Full disclosure: Prime Visibility is owned by the same parent company as AdOn Network)

• Techrigy: Offers a solution called “SM2”, a software solution designed specifically for PR and Marketing Agencies to monitor and measure social media.
  

With the resources available to track and analyze your brand across social media sites, the real answer to the impact question posed earlier is that you don’t have an excuse for not knowing what is being written about your website or brand anymore.

Late To The Party

by Kory Kredit, VP of Marketing, AdOn Network -- Published on MediaPost's Online Publishing Insider

I am admittedly late to the party with regard to the social media explosion. The MySpace and Facebook revolution hit about 20 years too late for me to become immersed in profile pages and virtual friends during my high school and college years. Nevertheless, working in this industry continuously pushes us to stay current, so I took the plunge and created my own Facebook page several months ago.

Feeling emboldened by my newfound hipness, I began to explore the site to find out for myself what makes a publisher like Facebook such a desirable destination for marketers, aside from the obvious reason that their target demographic might be there. After clicking around aimlessly, adding a handful of applications to my page and ignoring countless friend invitations and pokes, I decided to talk to someone who actually had some expertise in this area: Chris Johnson, CEO of Terralever.

Terralever is an interactive agency based in Tempe, Ariz., and was one of the first companies invited to participate in Facebook's F8 launch in 2007. Over the past year, it has developed Facebook applications for clients including Nike, BMW and Red Bull.

I asked Chris about the criteria for marketers wanting to develop a Facebook application. He broke it down to three simple questions:

1. Why would someone want to install your application?


2. Why would someone want to share your application with a friend?


3. Why would someone want to use your application one week from now and one month from now?

He pointed out that while the initial focus for success focused on the number of application installs, the true key to gauging success lies in engagement metrics. Those metrics go beyond the number of installs to how many people are actively using a marketer's application over an extended period. The value proposition for marketers centers on engagement.

While this concept is clearly not startling news, it only answers half of the equation about the long-term sustainability of social network sites as viable brand marketing vehicles. The ability to create an application and place it on Facebook, gaining free access to a target audience that can be engaged in a meaningful way, provides clear benefits for a brand. It creates loyalty, awareness and, ultimately, revenue opportunities. However, the monetary value for Facebook appears questionable.

Behind the impressive database of registered members and their vaunted social graph, millions of yet-to-be-monetized page views and a ginormous valuation, sites like Facebook and mySpace still lack one key element: profitability.

While the free form, unedited nature of social content is not a deterrent for some advertisers, mainstream brands are still somewhat hesitant to jump on board. That, in turn, has created a substantial hurdle to attracting significant advertising dollars to the site.

Still, there is no shortage of companies trying to develop strategies to monetize social media platforms; a number of niche ad networks are developing new social media strategies to draw advertisers into the space. One of the most prominent, Visa, made its recent announcement of a new marketing initiative to provide small businesses a total of $2 million for advertising on Facebook.

Will such efforts ultimately be enough to turn the red ink black for Facebook and other social networks? If the answer is no, the free ride for brands looking to connect with their consumers on Facebook through fan pages and engaging applications may turn out to be a short ride.

What are your thoughts? Will advertisers overcome their fear of UGC? Can Facebook turn the corner and monetize its wildly successful platform? How long will the free rides last for brands launching third-party apps? Will Facebook still be the destination of choice for this Internet-immersed generation by the time I allow my 9-year-old daughter to access social networks sites (when she is 20)?

Not Dead Yet

by Kory Kredit, VP of Marketing, AdOn Network -- Published on MediaPost's Online Publishing Insider

If you are familiar at all with “Monty Python” movies, or know someone who is–and that person incessantly repeats their favorite quotes in their worst British accent–you’ve heard the line, “I’m not dead yet.”

Attending OMMA Video and OMMA Publish earlier this week, there was a great deal of discussion focused on which old or existing technologies, methods and media platforms aren’t quite dead yet–to borrow from “Monty Python.”

Brian Wieser, SVP of MAGNA Global, began his keynote presentation at OMMA Publish by pointing out that traditional media never died, as had been predicted with the onset of the digital revolution. Brand advertisers are still focused on reach and frequency, and traditional media is still an effective channel for that.

To expand on that theme, we heard other panelists suggest that brand advertising on the Web isn’t dead, either. When Internet advertising came onto the scene, it offered the holy grail (in keeping with the “Monty Python” theme) of one-to-one, measurable targeted advertising. It could redefine advertising and marketing as we know it, and be the death of the old media-based brand advertising model focused on reach and frequency.

While the technological advantages offered through online advertising are a marketer’s dream, the focus for most big brand advertisers is still branding, not direct response. As Jarvis Coffin, CEO of Burst Media, points out, the biggest irony is that Internet advertising will restore brand advertising–not destroy it. (Why? Need a clearer explanation?) Coffin asserts that brand advertising should still be viewed as performance advertising, and is the “most efficient form of large advertisers’ budgets.”

Jonathan Miller, founding partner of investment firm Velocity Interactive Group, and AOL’s chairman-CEO from 2002-06, took a decidedly different stance in regard to video advertising. It would have been interesting to put Miller and Coffin on the same panel and have them defend their contrasting viewpoints–or battle it out in a medieval swordfight.

Also among the “not dead”: ad networks. As large publishers like ESPN and others have decided to sever ties with ad networks, some have wondered whether that was an ominous sign of their demise as publishers gain the upper hand and control their own inventory.

In two separate panels devoted to different aspects of the ad network/publisher relationship, there was plenty of healthy debate surrounding the validity of ad networks.

Ed Montes, EVP and managing director of Havas Digital, argues that ad networks are not commoditizing online advertising as panel moderator Wenda Harris Millard, Co-CEO of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, asserted at a recent conference. Although it is bought and sold in large quantities, Montes says its true value can be found in targeting at the granular level, which creates premium pricing opportunities and is not a bulk commodity like pork bellies.

Following the debate, Millard was willing to concede that ad networks had value in the marketplace and were somewhere between a swine (pork bellies) and a pearl, although she had not coined a term for that yet. A swirl, perhaps?

Pre-roll Video Advertising is also still among the land of the living, despite the desire by some in the industry to find a suitable, less invasive replacement to monetize video. As the industry continues to innovate, finding new and better ways to generate advertising revenue around the fast-growing inventory of online video content, pre-roll is still king despite its negative reputation. The bottom line is that it generates the majority of the ad revenue in this space and is relatively easy to sell because marketers can repurpose existing content they created for television.

As it turns out, being un-dead isn’t such a bad thing, especially when you work for an ad network like I do. Just remember: “Always look on the bright side of life.“