One of the greatest challenges to buying advertising online is the lack of “ratings”; the data that tells agencies and their clients how effective an ad buy might be.
Search ads—those that pop up alongside your Google search for, say, coffee shops and tell you to get your fix at Café Joe’s in your neighborhood—are more popular, because they are measured by click-throughs. Though that might not be an entirely accurate measurement—some will see the ad but not click, and others will click on it by accident—it at least offers some hard number with which to gauge. And media buyers are really awesome with numbers.
But Facebook just announced today it will be polling users about display ads and sending the data to Nielsen for analysis. Display ads are typically banner ads, across the top or middle of the page, or ads down the side of the page, in the rail. Facebook will begin testing new formats for display ads and asking users whether they noticed the content.
Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg credited the company's revenue growth, which is expected to rise more than 70 percent this year, to Facebook’s increasing number of users and the introduction of new ad products. Considering Facebook is expected to generate more than $500 million in revenue in 2009, this could be a big deal.
It will be exciting to see whether this makes Facebook ads more useful and valid in traditional media buys. And just out of curiosity, my own poll: Did you see and link to this blog from Asher’s Facebook page?
--Julianne W.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
What Media Buyers Want
I’ve recently been doing some web research for one of our clients, trying to find websites targeting women aged 18-54 who have young children and who live in Indiana. I happen to be a person who fits this demographic, so I can personally recommend a few sites I frequent; but honestly, I may not be your average bear. Ask people who know me.
Another option: to pick the strong newspaper or television websites of major metro markets in the state, which consistently get high traffic because of their local news and weather content. This option will reach a large population and may be cost effective CPM-wise. But it also will expose my message to a bunch of people who may not care, because they are not my core demo.
In a media-buying dream world, here is what I really want:
· A (free) website that ranks other websites based on basic demographic information:
o Geography
o Sex
o Age
· It could go a step further and allow us to target based on other factors such as:
o Education
o Marital status
o Income
o Children in the household
o Whether they ate at Subway in the past month
o Etc
I can see it now. You log in to awesomewebsiterankingbydemo.com, check all the targeting information you need, and up pops a comprehensive list of the top sites, ranked by total number of unique visitors who meet the demo criteria.
Is there such a thing out there? Compete.com is a good start for basic website comparisons, but you have to pay for the really good data. The stuff we really want. And need.
--Tessa G.
Another option: to pick the strong newspaper or television websites of major metro markets in the state, which consistently get high traffic because of their local news and weather content. This option will reach a large population and may be cost effective CPM-wise. But it also will expose my message to a bunch of people who may not care, because they are not my core demo.
In a media-buying dream world, here is what I really want:
· A (free) website that ranks other websites based on basic demographic information:
o Geography
o Sex
o Age
· It could go a step further and allow us to target based on other factors such as:
o Education
o Marital status
o Income
o Children in the household
o Whether they ate at Subway in the past month
o Etc
I can see it now. You log in to awesomewebsiterankingbydemo.com, check all the targeting information you need, and up pops a comprehensive list of the top sites, ranked by total number of unique visitors who meet the demo criteria.
Is there such a thing out there? Compete.com is a good start for basic website comparisons, but you have to pay for the really good data. The stuff we really want. And need.
--Tessa G.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Sing-a-long math
The power of a jingle is never more evident to me than when I’m with my 12-year-old daughter.
She hums, she taps, she whistles, she sings. She sings Fall Out Boy, Taylor Swift, Pink and Katy Perry. She also sings the Luna Flooring telephone number we heard so often in Chicago: 773-202-LUNA.
This is a child who might not come up with the result of 7x8 if her life depended on it. But she could get you new wood laminate floors in a jiffy.
Every time I hear her sing some ditty or jingle off a radio or TV spot, I am reminded that setting things to music can be a very effective tool to help consumers remember important information. Especially if it’s used consistently and frequently, as those ever-lovin’ Luna spots were.
I’m writing tunes right now for things such as her morning routine, remembering to close closet doors and turn off lights, and how to pack a nutritionally balanced lunch. I might need a full opera for the multiplication tables.
There’s sound research to support the success of jingles. Professors Graham Hitch and Alan Baddeley at Cambridge University have published extensively on music in the working memory, and language and music as cognitive systems.
There also are some fun lists of the best-worst jingles and songs, the earworms that chew incessantly at your brain, online at How Stuff Works. Do you remember “you deserve a break today” from McDonald’s? What about the baby-back ribs jingle from Chili’s? Yeah, they’re stuck now, aren’t they? Sorry about that.
What’s your favorite? Or your love-to-hate? Share the pain. And let me know if you need some new vinyl tile.
--Julianne W.
She hums, she taps, she whistles, she sings. She sings Fall Out Boy, Taylor Swift, Pink and Katy Perry. She also sings the Luna Flooring telephone number we heard so often in Chicago: 773-202-LUNA.
This is a child who might not come up with the result of 7x8 if her life depended on it. But she could get you new wood laminate floors in a jiffy.
Every time I hear her sing some ditty or jingle off a radio or TV spot, I am reminded that setting things to music can be a very effective tool to help consumers remember important information. Especially if it’s used consistently and frequently, as those ever-lovin’ Luna spots were.
I’m writing tunes right now for things such as her morning routine, remembering to close closet doors and turn off lights, and how to pack a nutritionally balanced lunch. I might need a full opera for the multiplication tables.
There’s sound research to support the success of jingles. Professors Graham Hitch and Alan Baddeley at Cambridge University have published extensively on music in the working memory, and language and music as cognitive systems.
There also are some fun lists of the best-worst jingles and songs, the earworms that chew incessantly at your brain, online at How Stuff Works. Do you remember “you deserve a break today” from McDonald’s? What about the baby-back ribs jingle from Chili’s? Yeah, they’re stuck now, aren’t they? Sorry about that.
What’s your favorite? Or your love-to-hate? Share the pain. And let me know if you need some new vinyl tile.
--Julianne W.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Fox Introduces the “Tweet-Peat”
Fox is teaming up with Twitter to give viewers a unique reason to watch repeats of “Glee” and “Fringe” this week. Cast and crew members of the shows will tweet commentary, offer behind-the-scenes information and answer fan questions via Twitter. These tweets will scroll at the bottom of the screen during the repeat episodes of “Fringe” at 9 p.m. Thursday and “Glee” at 9 p.m. Friday.
I am a fan of social media. Both Twitter and Facebook are viable venues for my egocentric need to express myself and my voyeuristic desire to steal a glimpse into other people’s lives. But if I wanted to get insight into a television show, I would do it online.
We have to deal with so much sensory overload on cable news networks with the scrolling news and split screens. We put up with the scrolling commentary on last season’s repeat episodes of “Lost” because, frankly, “Lost” became so convoluted with its constant twisting of time and space that without the commentary, most of us couldn’t remember what happened before the commercial break, much less determine whether what happened was in the future, past or present.
Will fans take the time to go online and tweet their questions? Will these “Tweet-peats” increase viewership, or will the tweets merely annoy viewers? I expect that true fans of these shows will enjoy the inside information coming directly from the cast, but will they care about what the executive producers have to tweet?
To join in on this Twitter/TV experience, follow the two events at: twitter.com/FRINGEonFOX and twitter.com/GLEEonFOX.
--Tessa G.
I am a fan of social media. Both Twitter and Facebook are viable venues for my egocentric need to express myself and my voyeuristic desire to steal a glimpse into other people’s lives. But if I wanted to get insight into a television show, I would do it online.
We have to deal with so much sensory overload on cable news networks with the scrolling news and split screens. We put up with the scrolling commentary on last season’s repeat episodes of “Lost” because, frankly, “Lost” became so convoluted with its constant twisting of time and space that without the commentary, most of us couldn’t remember what happened before the commercial break, much less determine whether what happened was in the future, past or present.
Will fans take the time to go online and tweet their questions? Will these “Tweet-peats” increase viewership, or will the tweets merely annoy viewers? I expect that true fans of these shows will enjoy the inside information coming directly from the cast, but will they care about what the executive producers have to tweet?
To join in on this Twitter/TV experience, follow the two events at: twitter.com/FRINGEonFOX and twitter.com/GLEEonFOX.
--Tessa G.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
All the news that's fit to post
Be still my heart—credible, vetted, properly sourced journalism still is valued. And not just by old-school former newspaper writers/editors such as me.
An editorial by former newspaper writer/editor (and now venture-capital firm senior adviser) Larry Kramer describes plans by Yahoo and AOL to not only aggregate content, but to publish original news.
As a former new-media freelance writer, I’m curious to know whether these mega-companies will pay a fair wage vs. the $10-per-500-word-story norm that seemed to be the going rate on many, many freelance writing clearinghouses.
I also wonder how that news will be edited. Newsroom standards are strict—we called every phone number before it was published. Looked up every address. Did the math when something was reportedly 20 percent higher this year. Editing is more than dotting I’s and crossing T’s.
Nonetheless, I have hope. That passion for truth and an open, informed society that motivated so many of my now-jobless reporter/editor colleagues seems alive and well.
“The moves to original content from the former kings of aggregation is an encouraging sign that some companies may come up with the business model that can support serious journalism,” writes Kramer.
That model may differ from site to site, he explains, depending on the type of content. Some may be supported by advertising. Some may charge for access. Regardless, there is a blessed awareness that the content must be credible to build a following.
Newspapers in major metropolitan areas might take heed. Bogged down with print infrastructure costs, many have cut reporters, writers, photographers and editors—content creators—to save money. I am eager to see what happens with those who choose the reverse, who shed physical costs to invest in product.
It might save that essence of newspapers about which I’m truly passionate: the accuracy, the credibility, the thoroughness, the accountability, the quality so essential to our society.
--Julianne W.
An editorial by former newspaper writer/editor (and now venture-capital firm senior adviser) Larry Kramer describes plans by Yahoo and AOL to not only aggregate content, but to publish original news.
As a former new-media freelance writer, I’m curious to know whether these mega-companies will pay a fair wage vs. the $10-per-500-word-story norm that seemed to be the going rate on many, many freelance writing clearinghouses.
I also wonder how that news will be edited. Newsroom standards are strict—we called every phone number before it was published. Looked up every address. Did the math when something was reportedly 20 percent higher this year. Editing is more than dotting I’s and crossing T’s.
Nonetheless, I have hope. That passion for truth and an open, informed society that motivated so many of my now-jobless reporter/editor colleagues seems alive and well.
“The moves to original content from the former kings of aggregation is an encouraging sign that some companies may come up with the business model that can support serious journalism,” writes Kramer.
That model may differ from site to site, he explains, depending on the type of content. Some may be supported by advertising. Some may charge for access. Regardless, there is a blessed awareness that the content must be credible to build a following.
Newspapers in major metropolitan areas might take heed. Bogged down with print infrastructure costs, many have cut reporters, writers, photographers and editors—content creators—to save money. I am eager to see what happens with those who choose the reverse, who shed physical costs to invest in product.
It might save that essence of newspapers about which I’m truly passionate: the accuracy, the credibility, the thoroughness, the accountability, the quality so essential to our society.
--Julianne W.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
