Brand

20 December 2010

The Space Time Continuum

As B2B brands move painfully towards a digital future, I find myself having to slow down and go back to chivvy them all along – ‘back to the future’ you might say (yeah, I’ve still got it…). However hard I try, there is still a reticence on the client side to actually part with cash to ‘do’ digital. The extent of digital ambition on the B2B client side appears to be entrenched in ‘the website’, ‘emails’ and maybe some banner ads – all admirable pursuits, but oh so very tip of the iceberg. And mostly spam.

I’ve nodded patiently and sympathetically. I’ve been empathetic and encouraging. I’ve tried teaching and being supportive. I’ve even resorted to shoutery (which didn’t take too long if I’m honest…) but all seemingly in vain. Fortunately for all of you, I have discovered the answer – ‘The Space Time Continuum’.

The barrier to trial and adoption isn’t interest in the digital opportunity – there is no doubt brands are interested in social communications, community engagement, crowdsourcing, mobile interaction, cool shit generally – but when it comes to the sign-off crunch, there isn’t a budget to develop the digital activity from concept to reality. And so the opportunity is lost (if it ever truly existed in the first place). I begin the process again and talk to someone else about cool shit that they’re never going to implement. You can see how that might get annoying after a while I’m sure.

In trying to resolve the problem and remove the obstacle then, I have discovered that the B2B client almost always has a ‘space’ budget. A brand will happily spend inordinate and inappropriate amounts of cash on media space – traditional space in papers and magazines, and even digital space in banners and skyscrapers. Even when there is no direct evidence that the traditional advertising works, or worse, when banner clickthroughs definitively prove that the banner campaign essentially isn’t working, the business spends more money on space in the hope that it will come good in the end. Well, it won’t. Those days are gone. Not entirely and not even necessarily forever, but they’re gone inasmuch as the market has moved and the relative importance of the ‘space budget’ is considerably lessened. It’s taking the market a while to accept that. Denial is a particularly warm and cuddly blanket for the B2B market. Ineffectiveness and underperformance, however, can’t last forever – not even within B2B. At some (near) future point, the space race will become untenable and clients will seek an answer to the problem. You lucky, lucky, people – I have found the answer for you already.

The answer is not ‘space’ – it’s ‘time’. Traditional client budgets and the relative importance of activity needs to be shifted from ‘space’ to ‘time’ – the Space Time Continuum.

For 2011 then, I would encourage B2B budget holders to attach value to the ‘time’ part of the equation. Conceiving, developing and delivering the digital solutions to the challenges of brand engagement takes time. It’s an evolving landscape, so the solutions are often bespoke, untested and even unique. Allocating the time and the budget to explore the possibilities is increasingly important if brands wish to remain relevant to an ever more selective audience. The audience will decide where and when to engage with the brand. They will decide who to listen to and whose advice to take before making purchasing decisions. Adding more pages to your website is not the answer. Sending more emails is not the answer. Take some time to find an answer that is applicable to your audience in the context of their digital world.

The first step is to recognise that you’ll be investing in thinking time and not design time or space time. It’s a big shift, but there is value in the ability to conceive of a channel(s) and/or a tool(s) that will pull the customer towards the brand – and there may be little (if any) requirement for design or media. This may all be a bit uncomfortable for clients and agencies – but the customers have already made up their minds. Hello? McFly?

Scot McKee
Managing Director
Birddog Ltd.
+44 (0)20 7323 6666

Follow Scot on Twitter

read more

Tags:

0 Comments

Our World

26 August 2010

Facebook Open Graph and what it means for everyone

Many people see Facebook as a closed space or ‘walled-garden’, and rightly so.  The original Facebook model was built around the content [and functionality] contained within the site only being accessible to registered users.  That’s sort of still the case now, but gradually Facebook is opening up the platform, to enable it to be integrated into website content that sits outside of facebook.com (or whichever country specific version of Facebook you access).

Facebook are constantly implementing news ways of interacting with other users of the site.  These interactions have come to be known as ‘social actions’. Sites such as Facebook offer many new ways in which to interact with content, such as commenting, ‘liking’, updating a status, tagging, opting in and out, polling, submitting content, discussing and sharing. These social actions are the new currency in the online social space, and social networks (or utilities as Facebook likes to be referred to) have quickly recognised this and have been developing their APIs to enable developers to integrate functionality from these networks into content that sits outside of the network itself.

Social actions also offer marketers a new type of metric by which to measure activity within any given campaign which involves social channels in the mix.

A while ago, Facebook launched ‘Connect’ which allowed content owners to include Facebook login areas – enabling visitors to log in to sites using their Facebook login credentials – sort of like Open ID.  Due to the success of Connect and the increasing demand from developers to do more with Connect, Facebook has now launched ‘Open Graph’.  In a nutshell, Open Graph allows website owners to integrate some of the functionality of Facebook into their own sites, such as allowing visitors to ‘like’ something, just as they would with a piece of content served within Facebook itself. For example, someone on Hewlett Packard’s website could ‘like’ a new server in a news release, just as they would ‘like’ something on Facebook but to use it, users need to be registered members of Facebook, and the content they are ‘liking’ must link to content within Facebook – the Hewlett Packard fan page for example.

Why are Facebook offering this I hear you ask?  Well let’s be clear. Just as Google created ‘Google Analytics’ and offer it for ‘free’, in return, they get statistics on millions of websites around the world, Facebook will now gain huge insight into the behaviour of its users on the sites they use when they’re not on Facebook.

It’s an advertisers dream!

Just think for a minute, detailed insight into user behaviour on a granular level never seen before, means being able to really target products and services at users on an entirely reactive level.  I’ll elaborate…

Imagine someone (let’s call them Mike) is in the market for a new TV.  Mike uses Facebook and has updated his status saying he’s off shopping, but he hasn’t said what for – it doesn’t really provide advertisers with the information to deliver a targeted and relevant advert to him.  He leaves Facebook and goes to Google and searches for ‘LCD TV’s’.  He then visits countless numbers of sites, including retailers, TV forums and shopping comparison sites to find out about the latest models. He eventually decides he likes an LG model but wants to get more information about it so he visits LG’s website to get the full specification. Whilst on LG’s site, he sees there’s an option to ‘like’ the TV, just as he would ‘like’ something in Facebook, so he clicks it.

He might just be window shopping at the moment, with the intention of buying within the next few months and so often, that is where the user journey ends – with a bookmark to the TV spec on LG’s site which he may or may not re-visit in a month’s time.  But by ‘liking’ the TV, he is then also doing a number of things in the background.   Just as any other Facebook action appears on your wall, so does an action using Open Graph.  Your friends can see what you’re doing outside of Facebook and can then interact with you.  Mike’s friend Chis is a bit of a TV geek and comments on Mike’s wall entry telling him that the TV is awesome and a really good choice, but in addition, Currys [the retailer] could serve Mike an advert tailored to that specific TV, offering Mike a discount.  Mike gets a relevant advert, Currys gets a sale. Everyone wins.

People may argue that this is yet another invasion of their privacy, but I don’t agree. It’s always optional to interact with content and actually, by ad and social networks gaining greater insight into their users, adverts will only become more targeted and more relevant to their audiences. Something’s got to pay the bills right? Bring it on!

read more

Tags:

0 Comments

Media

26 August 2010

The convergence of media – increased choice for consumers but is it a good thing for advertisers?

In terms of developments in Media technology, the past 12 months have been incredible, for consumers at least.  Actually no, for everyone – but not everyone realises it yet.

So what’s happened?  The most significant change has been the growth and adoption of IPTV, or ‘TV on demand’ as it is often referred.  The BBC’s ‘iPlayer’ is probably the most well-known example.

TV on demand is essentially the beginning of the democratisation of one of the most powerful and popular formats of traditional media – Television.  No longer are consumers fixed to watching programmes in the order dictated by the broadcaster and the programme guide, they can now choose to watch what they want, when they want, on whatever compatible device they want – Television sets, desktop and laptop computers, smart phones, games consoles, the list goes on.

But what does this mean for advertisers?  Is the killer ad-spot on a Saturday night still as relevant if the people seeing the programme are watching it on a Tuesday lunchtime?  You could argue that video recorders have been around for years so there’s always been this problem, however people were generally more select with what they recorded, plus programmes weren’t ‘on-demand’ – we couldn’t watch something we hadn’t remembered to record.

In addition to the increase in programme choice, new platforms are emerging, aggregating multiple ‘on-demand’ services, such as BBC iPlayer, Channel 4’s 4OD, ITV’s ITVPlayer and so on, and delivering the content through one site, making it easier for consumers to view and choose content without having to navigate multiple websites.  This is the first part of convergence – the channels no longer sit in isolation.

I see the second part of the convergence happening when devices that can play this content through people’s televisions in the lounge reach tipping point.  I see myself as an early adopter, I’ve got to have the latest gadgets as soon as they hit the market so I regularly make use of the excellent iPlayer application on the PS3 – linked to my TV in my lounge.  I also get Sky TV through the net, through Sky Player, however I’m in the minority.  People don’t want to watch an evening of TV on their laptop, and until such a time comes where you can view iPlayer and all of the other on-demand services through your TV using your remote control (without the need for other devices such as games consoles) things won’t change much for most people.

Phew! So advertisers still have their prime ad slots… but what new opportunities does TV on demand present?

Hey! It’s the fucking Internet right? Guess what that means? ANALYTICS. Yes. Analytics, fucking loads of stats and monitoring. What percentage of 50 plus women who watch Coronation Street also use ASOS? ‘click’.

This is REALLY exciting. Really exciting. Behavioural monitoring, contextual advertising, hey, what about personalised advertising? ‘Hi Bob, you drive a BMW, ever thought about an Audi? You nearest dealer is… Yeah, that made you sit up didn’t it?

It’s not just about the analytics though.  Once the channels and ad networks crack it, we’ll get advertising that really is relevant to us, taking into consideration the TV and radio shows we listen to, not just the websites we look at – which are often very different to the types of TV we watch. I watch Eastenders, I don’t go on the Eastenders website. Ever. Nor do I Google pictures of Barbara Windsor. (Well, maybe once or twice).

TV has sort of been trying to achieve this for some time now – watch an ad, text a short code to get more info/a free sample/book now, or hey, visit our website – but how many people sit in their lounge, laptop at the ready for the TV ad web addresses – some of us yes, but we’re in the minority. How about a contextual, personalised TV advert which takes Bob to a contextual, personalised web page – how’s that for a good user journey?

I predict big things happening in the next 12 months, check out the following sites for a glimpse of what’s to come:

http://www.seesaw.com

http://zattoo.com

http://www.teev.co.uk

http://www.hulu.com

http://www.playon.tv

Oliver Budworth

Digital Director

read more

Tags:

0 Comments