“Audiences” Mostly Aren’t

Posted on Thursday, 9 February 2017 7:28 am by markpilip

screen-shot-2017-02-08-at-3-50-59-pmUnlike theatrical audiences, who pay money and make a conscious decision to invest their time in something, the online audience is very different.

Mostly, it’s people (well, actually bots) that have kind of stumbled on your site/app/whatever and are desperately trying to get to where they intended to go, before the boss catches them.

Targeting “audiences” in the digital world is therefore not as precise as we’ve been led to believe. And it’s mostly a waste of time.

In reality you have to make sure you’re running in the media that’s used by people who are in the market for your category–or who might be in the market for your category. This sounds inefficient but the first step toward buying a product is making a small decision to decide that you’re in the category. There is no such thing as an audience of ready-to-buy people out there. Just bots that are ready to click.

That first decision to enter the category is the reason why “top of the funnel” activity (hate that term) or brand spend (also lousy) is important. Here’s a good article by Gee Ranasinha on why getting attention and, therefore ubiquity, is important.

Takeaway: Remember that your customers are just temporarily your customers. They’re really somebody else’s who just happened to buy your stuff.  “Audiences” in the online world are even more fleeting than customers and are definitely not the same as real audiences. Segment your market, find potential buyers in your category, advertise to them. And win.

Posted in Branding, Marketing, Media | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on “Audiences” Mostly Aren’t

Why Would They…

Posted on Tuesday, 7 February 2017 10:14 am by markpilip

Shift spending time on a hobby and pay attention to your messages instead?

Stop spending money on the competitive product and buy yours instead?

Reduce buying in one category and buy more from you?

We all work with fixed amounts of time, money, and attention.

If you are to be successful as a marketer, something is going to have to shift. Your target customer is going to have to move time, attention, or money from something they’re doing currently to something different.

Have you worked out yet why your prospects should make that shift, other than it would be good for you if they did so?

 

Posted in Marketing, Philosophy, Strategy | Tagged , | Comments Off on Why Would They…

The no-skin-in-the-game dilettantes will be publishing many lists of the best and worst Super Bowl ads today. Ignore them. Judge the performance of the ads the next time the monthly car sales/beer sales/etc. are published.

“The object of advertising is to sell goods. It has no other justification worth mentioning.”      Raymond Rubicam, Founder, Young & Rubicam

Posted on Monday, 6 February 2017 8:55 am by markpilip | Comments Off on Best Super Bowl Ad? Who Cares?

Digital Media Transparency. Bravo P&G!

Posted on Thursday, 2 February 2017 10:07 am by markpilip

P&G is starting out 2017 in a strong fashion, by saying “NO” to the nonsense taking place in the digital marketing ecosystem. All advertisers–that means your organization–should follow suit. Watch Mark Pritchard’s full talk below:

Posted in Branding, Marketing, Media, Security | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Digital Media Transparency. Bravo P&G!

Oracles Mark Ritson & Bob Hoffman

Posted on Tuesday, 31 January 2017 12:50 pm by markpilip

The other day at the IAB’s leadership meeting, P&G chief brand officer Marc Pritchard sounded like he was channeling Mark Ritson and Bob Hoffman. Finally, a major advertising leader is changing how they use adtech. They’re moving from delusional wishful thinking to being hard-nosed about their money. Other deep-pocketed and smart advertisers should do likewise to put the pressure on.

You can read Mr. Pritchard’s recommendations at the link above. In addition to taking his recommendations to heart, as I wrote in my post on December 6th, you also have to practice proper marketing science:

The solution is not to buy more adtech or add more to your tech stack. It’s getting back to basics. The answer is practicing proper marketing science. It’s not that hard and you’ll notice that none of it starts with “audiences”:

  • Hire trained marketers, not dilettantes
  • Segment your audience
  • Define your target segments
  • Understand the purchase funnel
  • Develop marketing strategies to address each segment
  • Develop tactical plans to move the prospect through the purchase funnel
  • Carefully measure each step of the way
  • Make improvements to each “hole in the bucket”
  • Audit each and every media buy, in detail

Takeaway: Look at what P&G is doing and ask yourself, am I doing more or less than that? If the answer is “less” do more and win.

Posted in Marketing, Media | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Oracles Mark Ritson & Bob Hoffman

Just reviewing a marketing services (adtech) company’s financials and found myself laughing over the non-GAAP section of the investor presentation. It started my day off with a smile.

Takeaway: Put your hand firmly in your pocket when the IR team directs you to non-GAAP measures of success.

Posted on Friday, 27 January 2017 8:01 am by markpilip | Comments Off on “Non GAAP” = We Just Made This Up

2017 Snapchat Buys: Cui bono?

Posted on Thursday, 26 January 2017 8:41 am by markpilip

screen-shot-2017-01-26-at-7-34-47-amThe digital tsunami continues. Word today is that Snapchat is asking for commitments from the big agency holdcos for commitments to spend as much as $200 million on buys in 2017.

That’s advertiser money, by the way.

Why is Snap Inc. trying to get the commitments? Is Snapchat inventory so effective that it wants to make sure all agencies get their fair share? Or could it be that they want to show more committed spend in advance of the IPO to increase the value of the company? Nah, couldn’t be that.

We’ve got a teachable moment here, folks. When your agency suggests running on Snapchat (or in any media for that matter), you need to ask:

  • Has your agency or the parent company committed to spending on this medium?
  • What has the medium provided to the agency in the form of metrics, analysis tools, etc?
  • What are the rates we’re paying?
  • Can I get better rates elsewhere?
  • How have other advertiser tests performed?
  • Will your customers and prospects be able to use Snapchat’s crazy UI?

I’m not kidding about the last point. If you’re not a Snapchat user, before you advertise there, try to use the product. It’s maddeningly unintuitive.

Takeaway: Deals between Snap Inc. or any medium owner and your agency need to be transparent. They are not inherently in your best interest as an advertiser.

Posted in Direct Response, Marketing, Media | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on 2017 Snapchat Buys: Cui bono?

Publish The Denominator, Google.

Posted on Wednesday, 25 January 2017 1:37 pm by markpilip

You might have seen Google patting itself on the back today for taking down 1.7 billion ads–2X last year’s total!–that violated the company’s policies.

The problem, like most digital media hype and nonsense, is that they didn’t bother to publish the denominator. Google figured people would simply by wowed by the number and think they’re great guys.

Without the denominator, the numerator is just more BS.

 

Posted in Communications, Data, Media, Rants | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Publish The Denominator, Google.

Try this: Next time you listen to a “digital” marketer, or a “social media” marketer, or hear somebody describe the amazing properties of “social” video, remove the adjectives in your mind.

If what you’re hearing sounds like B.S., you’re right.

Posted on Friday, 13 January 2017 2:32 pm by markpilip | Comments Off on Remove Adjectives To Confirm B.S.

As a proper marketer, before you begin segmentation and targeting to create your strategy, look first to the first P of marketing. Your product.

Why? If your product doesn’t work, the most brilliant targeting strategy can’t work. You’ll have no monthly recurring revenue, no cross- or up-sell and there won’t be any positive word of mouth. Your allowable will therefore be low. Worse, every incremental sale will destroy brand equity.

Many examples abound, but the multi-generational loss of customers created by GM’s X-body cars comes to mind. Lots of segmentation and targeting, but the problem was that the product was utter garbage. In today’s connected world, the X-body would have killed GM.

More on segmentation to come.

 

Posted on Thursday, 12 January 2017 8:25 am by markpilip | Comments Off on The First Step In Targeting: Product. Huh?