http://media.guardian.co.uk/advertising/story/0,,1933434,00.html
This article was interesting and unpredictable only in its revelation that the UK (and not the US, as I'd certainly expected) has a "significantly higher proportion of advertising online [14% this year ahead of radio, outdoor and national newspapers] than in many other countries" and, surprise surprise, it's cannibalising other media.
The sceptic in me wants to see the ROI data which have driven media planners and corporate marketers to rush towards the Web headlong in this way.
What exactly IS the ROI for Web ads, classified and display?
Is it truly better for response-per-pound than other media or is it just that it's so much more easily measurable than them?
And how much of this is just based on its perception as being better? Until I see direct comparison data, I remain to be convinced.
Which is maybe a good line for the Newspaper Marketing Agency to use. Maybe.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
When will we get Advertising 2.0?
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,,1928964,00.html
Jeff Jarvis’s piece about the key point The Cluetrain Manifesto makes about conversations between humans being open, natural and uncontrived is, of course, one of the main pillars of what Web 2.0 should be.
But what about advertising? Why should it keep megaphoning messages to existing and potential customers in a one-way, top-down way rather than spending more time having a real conversation with them?
Yes, some campaigns have websites associated with them, but how much of that is interactive, providing human interaction between the brand and the customer?
Thankfully there are some brands already doing this, and well. Like (sorry, my favourite example for almost anything) Innocent Drinks, whose blog actively encourages it, as does their website.
While Ronseal isn’t, to my knowledge, interactive, the communication style is absolutely human natural and uncontrived, which is why it’s been so successful and copied by others. Ditto Tesco’s campaigns – simple message told simply, as a friend might.
So why don’t all brands talk to you like your friends? What’s wrong with Advertising 2.0? Nothing, as far as I can see.
Jeff Jarvis’s piece about the key point The Cluetrain Manifesto makes about conversations between humans being open, natural and uncontrived is, of course, one of the main pillars of what Web 2.0 should be.
But what about advertising? Why should it keep megaphoning messages to existing and potential customers in a one-way, top-down way rather than spending more time having a real conversation with them?
Yes, some campaigns have websites associated with them, but how much of that is interactive, providing human interaction between the brand and the customer?
Thankfully there are some brands already doing this, and well. Like (sorry, my favourite example for almost anything) Innocent Drinks, whose blog actively encourages it, as does their website.
While Ronseal isn’t, to my knowledge, interactive, the communication style is absolutely human natural and uncontrived, which is why it’s been so successful and copied by others. Ditto Tesco’s campaigns – simple message told simply, as a friend might.
So why don’t all brands talk to you like your friends? What’s wrong with Advertising 2.0? Nothing, as far as I can see.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Why Sony is repeating strategic mistakes with the PS3
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/sony.html
This is a very interesting Wired article which raises real concerns that with the PS3 Sony is not only betting the whole company’s future on it, but also making the same strategic mistakes it made in the past.
The thing that triggered the notion of Sony repeating strategic mistakes in my mind was the section about the PS3’s revolutionary Core processor. Although its performance is a step change ahead of the one in Microsoft’s X-Box 360, until games developers can work out a way to make best use of it the PS3 gaming experience won’t be noticeably better than that of its rivals, despite the console being sold at a premium price. Which brings us back to the adage that pricing is transparent, but value is opaque.
Sony’s problem is they’ve been here before — with Betamax. It was sold at a premium price (compared to VHS machines) as it was technically better, but its value was opaque to domestic consumers (only professional users could perceive the higher quality and continued to use the format for broadcast-quality news cameras for many years).
Sony also failed to build the network effects the VHS alliance managed by ensuring there was content support for it through availability of Hollywood movies to rent in VHS. Sony later tried to make up for this by buying Columbia Studios (interestingly, recently criticised as a mistake by recently retired Sony boss Nobuyuki Idei).
Now with PS3 Sony’s trying not to make the same mistakes by ensuring content from Columbia and other studios for the Blu-ray high-definition discs the PS3 will launch, getting games made by major independent firms and building a wider network of firms supporting Blu-ray.
But the Wired article importantly points out that Sony is dangerously ignoring the “fun quotient” in the control mechanism, unlike Ninentdo’s Wii console — which uses a gyroscopic wand to let you control by waving your arms around.
So why is Sony making the same mistake again? The answer can easily be seen in its organisational culture, which is an engineer-ruled product-centred one because (as the article says) it was founded by engineers who wanted to make technically great things rather than marketing men who wanted to meet known human needs.
This culture (typically introvert and not very socially-oriented) has also, I believe, led to the tendency not to see networking for shared gaming over the Web as important (a senior figure admits they see it as an extra, rather than a core feature for the PS3 — unlike Microsoft with the X-Box).
Unless and until Sony can change its culture to get its engineers to ask people what they need and want before they go off to develop products, it will be condemned to make the same mistakes again and again.
This is a very interesting Wired article which raises real concerns that with the PS3 Sony is not only betting the whole company’s future on it, but also making the same strategic mistakes it made in the past.
The thing that triggered the notion of Sony repeating strategic mistakes in my mind was the section about the PS3’s revolutionary Core processor. Although its performance is a step change ahead of the one in Microsoft’s X-Box 360, until games developers can work out a way to make best use of it the PS3 gaming experience won’t be noticeably better than that of its rivals, despite the console being sold at a premium price. Which brings us back to the adage that pricing is transparent, but value is opaque.
Sony’s problem is they’ve been here before — with Betamax. It was sold at a premium price (compared to VHS machines) as it was technically better, but its value was opaque to domestic consumers (only professional users could perceive the higher quality and continued to use the format for broadcast-quality news cameras for many years).
Sony also failed to build the network effects the VHS alliance managed by ensuring there was content support for it through availability of Hollywood movies to rent in VHS. Sony later tried to make up for this by buying Columbia Studios (interestingly, recently criticised as a mistake by recently retired Sony boss Nobuyuki Idei).
Now with PS3 Sony’s trying not to make the same mistakes by ensuring content from Columbia and other studios for the Blu-ray high-definition discs the PS3 will launch, getting games made by major independent firms and building a wider network of firms supporting Blu-ray.
But the Wired article importantly points out that Sony is dangerously ignoring the “fun quotient” in the control mechanism, unlike Ninentdo’s Wii console — which uses a gyroscopic wand to let you control by waving your arms around.
So why is Sony making the same mistake again? The answer can easily be seen in its organisational culture, which is an engineer-ruled product-centred one because (as the article says) it was founded by engineers who wanted to make technically great things rather than marketing men who wanted to meet known human needs.
This culture (typically introvert and not very socially-oriented) has also, I believe, led to the tendency not to see networking for shared gaming over the Web as important (a senior figure admits they see it as an extra, rather than a core feature for the PS3 — unlike Microsoft with the X-Box).
Unless and until Sony can change its culture to get its engineers to ask people what they need and want before they go off to develop products, it will be condemned to make the same mistakes again and again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)