ADOI Blog

Comments (21)

1. Jeff Zweig says:

   June 12, 2008 at 1:23 pm

   MA, Are you really sure these so-called “web gurus” are so naive? I certainly don’t think so!

   Like any good marketer, don’t you think these web gurus would agree with you that the key is to be where the bulk of the target audience is, whether online or offline (budget allowing)?

   If our audience listen to the radio be there. If they are on the web be there. If they play video games be there. If they are watching TV be there.

   Of course the web is not suitable for every campaign, every product, every target audience but then again neither is TV, OOH, print, etc.

   I also find it ironic that MA started the post by saying that it’s not good to be too web-centric but finishes the post by touting how great viral marketing can be.

   Yet the only way that viral marketing works is through interactive media like the web!

   There is no way that the numa numa dance could have had its stunning reach without the web and email and without its wild syndication through blogs and other websites.

   As someone who has conceived and managed viral campaigns that have generated millions of page views and acquired hundreds of thousands of customer prospects globally in a matter of weeks, I can tell you that there is no strict formula to success in viral marketing.

   It’s a combination of good target audience insight, the right integrated media mix (online plus offline), the right creative, the right participant experience, the right strategy for leveraging web-based syndication and quite often a big dollop of luck.

   MA wrote “It’s an indisputable fact that amateurs rule the web”.

   Of course it is. That’s the whole point behind user generated content!

   THIS IS THE FUTURE OF ADVERTISING! It’s no longer only about professionally crafted ad spots and old-fashioned, mass communications.

   Every study shows that consumer generated content is more highly trusted than old-time, one-way, brand-to-consumer messaging.

   Now I’m not saying that there is no place for professionally crafted ad spots in an overall media plan but its influence has already declined and will continue to decline. And in my view, any brand that relies on this old-time mindset will lose out in the end.

   Change is good.

   Jeff Zweig
   Chief Guru, Web Guru Asia
   http://www.webguruasia.com
2. ad-critic says:

   August 13, 2008 at 7:58 am

   Just an observation.

   There are a lot of so-called digital strategic planners in media companies who are hired from digital media owners or entities. You can tell who they are who measure the success of the campaign simply by the number of page impressions the banner received on the media owner portal.

   To them, as long as that portal has 1 million registered visitors, these “planners” see effectiveness of the banner on the portal’s landing page in terms of exposure to that number of visitors. That’s wrong, Click through is still the main thing and many users opt for e-newsletters that link them straight to the article page they are interested, rather than stop by the landing page first. If that’s the case, why even bother advertising on the landing page of that portal?

   Fact remains that most of the online projects in Southeast Asia either has money for a through in-depth website but not for online media buys or vice versa. This renders any so-called online strategy stillborn. For example, focusing the budget on online media buys as alternative medium for showing offline TVCs forces tje website to become a shallow shell with little or no niche content won’t attract repeat visits or user-generated content. Building up a stupendously in-depth website with no money for media buys in relevant portals may lead to a site that falls under the radar of Net citizens.

   Therefore for people passionate about the online movement, the challenge remains that you can’t plan digital strategy if you have no real experience in building a cohesive online branding experience for the target audience.

   Doing websites that bank on art direction or craft may help you win awards in the local sphere but interactive judges these days are far more demanding on the content, level of user engagement as well as the creative use of diverse interactive channels in their consideration.
3. ad-critic says:

   August 13, 2008 at 8:03 am

   For those who are wondering about the effectiveness of page impressions as a way to measure the success of a campaign, please read the recent research by Comscore and A C Nielson. There are some disturbing trends.
4. Jeff Zweig says:

   August 18, 2008 at 1:07 am

   i agree with much of what ad-critic has said although i think click-through rates are not the core metric to focus on. in my view, the key metric is the number of conversion actions.

   this is why i love pay-per-performance media buying online–it solves the problems that ad-critic raises.

   Jeff Zweig
   Chief Guru, Web Guru Asia
   http://www.webguruasia.com
5. ad-critic says:

   August 18, 2008 at 7:32 am

   Jeff, I agree that CTR is passe in some ways but it remains easiest to explain or qualify to clients.

   However, I prefer the measurement of duration, but not the number, of page impressions. It is the best indicator of the level of user interaction with your users. The industry in Southeast Asia still uses the volume/quantity/number of page impressions as an indicator, although people do know that it is among the weakest metric.
6. blogfrog says:

   August 18, 2008 at 3:29 pm

   Jeff & ad-critic,
   I come from a different school of thoughts, even though both you have raised relevant issues and points. Unfortunately the world of metrics has not made the kind of breakthrough it should have. Eventhough the Internet does deliver an advantage in tracking and measurement – however there are still too many gaps and loop holes in technology.

   Measuring effectiveness, in my view – should be made by the client and its media agency. They should set benchmarks for measurement and every campaign will have different results and differing goals.

   At this juncture (in time), it may necessitate the utilization a variety of measurement benchmarks to meet client objectives. Its not just about CTR or duration or pay-per-performance – I belief it is more dependent on the objecitves of the campaign.

   Old school marketers are still looking at ROI models when ROMO (Return on Marketing Objectives) provide clearer and more realistic, time sensitive goals.

   The reality is that not all sites provide you the same level of measurement standards i.e. metrix – not unless you only buy media on Yahoo and MSN. You will then encounter differing standards offered by local portal which may just give you better returns on CTRs, and even better end results.

   Not all client can afford buying those media, and have not even consider neutral ad serving tech like Eyeblaster.

   More importantly, we should ask ourselves – did the campaign work? Was it effective? Did it meet our expectations? And begin building benchmarks for our goal oriented campaigns.
7. ad-critic says:

   August 19, 2008 at 4:36 am

   Blogfrong, thanks for your feedback. Allow me to elaborate my position for some clarifications.

   The trend overseas is that interactive agencies and clients set performance metrics for online campaign, after discussions on business objectives, before the campaign is rolled out. I’ve been through this process before and I think that’s a good thing in that this preaches accountability on the part of the agency as a practice.

   The types of metrics they use are highly qualified i.e. they split user responses to qualified and unqualified leads etc. That is the essence of online advertising.

   You are not trying to hit millions of which 90% may not be your target audience. Your creative strategy and client’s product will determine your segmentation of the target audience and it is the agency and client who takes the lead in doing so, to the extent of planning the information architecture of their sites to reflect the actual brand experience.

   Media agencies have no role to play in this process. They have failed to get their acts together in terms of systemizing digital buys and measuring online response. They also lacked the digital talents within their networks to serve clients in interactive space. This wouldn’t have happen otherwise:
   http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=77821

   Thanks for bringing in the point about site traffic, which currently paralyzes the media industry when it comes to online buys.

   comScore and Ac Nielson has done research that shows portals overstate their traffic by up to 300% and there is a uproar in US since last year over the vast discrepancies of the traffic figures provided by portals and the ones provided by independent audit companies.

   Simply put, the media industry lacks the tools, the figures, the metrics and a system to service clients in the digital space.

   It is now up to the agency and the client to set their own benchmarks and find ways to work together to make online campaigns work. They should not wait for the Media brontosauruses to change their ways because they do not operate like lean agile technology-driven agencies.

   The old media world is gone and the time is ripe for agencies to take charge of clients while media agencies take a subordinate role. No longer should agencies and clients take their cues on creative strategy and budgets from the media budgets and plans.
8. blogfrog says:

   August 19, 2008 at 2:42 pm

   Agreed. The old media world is gone.

   I had the benefit of working on web metrics for my dissertation, and while sites today are highly measureable – the metrics world still lacks behind in finding consensus… anyway the outcome of which, the need for client to set realistic benchmarks and a proper framework to manage is the key to their success.

   cheers
9. ad-critic says:

   August 20, 2008 at 2:15 am

   Hi blogfrog, is your thesis available for viewing or the public? Drop me an email at ad-critic@hotmailDOTcom
10. Jeff Zweig says:

    August 20, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    blogfrog and ad-critic,

    i agree with much of ad-critic’s response to blogfrog but the points you both raise are precisely the reasons why i originally wrote that ultimately, conversion actions are often the key metric to focus on.

    i’ll admit there may be some instances where this is not the case but in the direct response world of internet strategy done right, this should not be common. this is because proper digital strategy should often use conversion actions to satisfy the business objectives of a campaign.

    here’s why, in my view:

    + it’s usually much easier to plan for, to calculate and to deliver optimal ROI when we look at conversion actions. this is because conversion actions are usually solid and tangible things with real business meaning that can be readily counted.

    + it’s impossible for a media owner to cheat on conversion action results because the conversion actions occur on the client’s website (or in the client’s offline outlets) and if the client has even rudimentary tracking software installed the number of conversions and therefore the success or failure of the campaign can be determined 100% accurately in many, many cases and very accurately in most others.

    depending on the type of conversion action, this measurement is often easy (although not always)—either by tracking new records acquired in a database or by validating results in google analytics, google’s free yet powerful web stats software—or in any other decent web analytics package.

    ok, blogfrog, you might claim that web analytics software is not always 100% accurate but the type of measurement results i’m talking about are still more than good enough for our purposes and they’re certainly better than the spray and pray approach of much of mass media.

    of course, the particular type of conversion action will always be different depending on the campaign/the business objectives to be satisfied/the product-service/the target audience and other factors. there is clearly no standard conversion action that is relevant for all campaigns, but once identified, these actions are often easy to measure.

    here are just a “few” examples of what i mean by conversion action:

    + register now
    + watch our demo, tutorial, etc.
    + download our evoucher, brochure, software, podcast, etc.
    + install our widget
    + become a fan of our facebook page
    + play our game
    + answer our survey
    + enter our contest
    + take our quiz, poll, etc.
    + tell your friends
    + sign up for our event (online or offline event)
    + download our whitepaper
    + watch our video
    + post on our blog/subscribe to our blog’s rss or email feed
    + social bookmark our web page
    + buy our product online/buy our product offline
    + upload your video
    + and on and on…

    virtually all of these actions are DEAD SIMPLE to measure.

    hurray!

    i would argue that a digital marketer of worth can work with a client (and even with a client’s other relevant agencies assuming everyone involved keeps an open mind) to define a set of conversion actions that are relevant and meaningful to the client’s business goals.

    sorry, ad-crtic, but i reject your premise that we should not focus on conversion actions, which are probably the most relevant business metrics there are because “it’s too hard to explain to clients”.

    WE MUST FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!

    because at the end of the day, in most cases this really is the best, most cost effective, most logical and optimal way to deliver business results to clients—and with the recession just around the corner, those clients who don’t get educated properly about it are going to lose out big time.

    ok, rant over

    jeff zweig
    chief guru, web guru asia
    http://www.webguruasia.com
11. ad-critic says:

    August 21, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Hey Jeff, I never said that we should not focus on conversion actions. In my first post, I did say that “Click through is still the main thing” i.e. CTR (click through ratio). That’s the most tangible way of measuring response and it’s the easiest to sell this metric to clients.

    However, conversion has grey areas in that people who click on the banner may not necessarily be the ideal target audience. Assuming your site has intuitive functionality and an agreeable design, a big reason why customers may click through from a search engine, but not convert, is they may not be finding what they need.

    The campaigns also must have some mechanism to filter qualified leads from the unqualified.

    This is another big problem as Starcom’s Feb 2008 research show that people who click banners the most are actually the lower income people: People Who Click On Banners Aren’t Your Best Customers

    http://www.smvgroup.com/news_popup_flash.asp?pr=1643

    I say we should not focus on the number of page impressions as a performance metrics, which is still used in the region. The duration of a page view is a far more important metric to measure depth of engagement.
12. Jeff Zweig says:

    August 22, 2008 at 11:22 am

    hi ad-critic,

    i’m not sure what you mean by “conversion has grey areas in that people who click on the banner may not necessarily be the ideal target audience”.

    indeed, people who click on a banner may not be the ones we are after.

    but that’s the whole point of focusing on conversion actions and not clicks n the first place!

    you have just made my point.

    here’s why:

    a click on a banner is not a conversion action. only a relevant follow-up action such as “register now” after clicking through to a landing page has meaning and relevance in most cases.

    this is my whole point: we shouldn’t focus on click-through rate as the main metric because it’s meaningless unless the person converts.

    in most cases, only the conversion action is meaningful to the business and therefore this is the main metric to focus on.

    sorry, but I don’t see any grey areas here at all ☺

    jeff zweig
    chief guru, web guru asia
    http://www.webguruasia.com
13. blogfrog says:

    August 22, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    I belief everything is driven by the objective of the campaign.

    In my recent trip down to Singapore for a Yahoo presentation, Ken Mandell categorised the banner or display advertising delivering 3 distinct results; Branding or Sales, or both.

    Most basic campaigns will generate exposure, and as such its about raising top of mind awareness, creating presence and the CTR is secondary.

    On the other hand, some campaigns focus on call to action, which are measured by click throughs. If that’s the end goal.

    Duration of a pageview is an interesting concept, if its tied to some form of measurement on ‘interaction’. I belief Eyeblaster run rich media ads that track interaction levels. However, duration is difficult to track considering the user may not be looking at your ad or interacting with it.

    The concept of ‘action’ or ‘activity’ is something the industry should look towards, beyond click through to registrations, downloads of video or pdfs etc.

    Ultimately per my earlier comments, I continue to insist that online media advertising today require a variety of measurement models mashed up to provide a variety of key results. Success cannot be defined by one factor in this modern age and times.
14. ad-critic says:

    August 23, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Jeff, you may have missed my point.

    Clicks will always remain part of our conversation with clients when it comes to performance metrics as conversion cannot be guaranteed.

    That’s why I have earlier made it clear that there is a need to split the metrics to qualified and unqualified leads. Mere clicks definitely fall into the second category.

    I have done country-specific and regional campaigns and are privy to the planning of campaigns in US and Canada and our starting point is always clicks. It is the most tangible sign of user interaction with the campaign when it comes to banners and registrations or submissions when it comes to websites and social media.

    But we always made it clear that these are unqualified leads and we outline the ways in which we can either sift out real conversions or promote them.

    A jump from clicks to a focus on conversion in this region is premature, given we lack the tools, reliable data and the expertise to guarantee qualified response.

    If this was not the case, why would campaigns in this region boasts of successfully reaching millions merely by putting banners in portals which boasts of millions in traffic. This thinking is so traditional media house and I have pointed out ways why such thinking is misleading.

    Real expertise and data are clearly missing here to make a case for pushing qualified leads or response i.e. conversions.

    It’s a good area to focus but until people develope the right tools here, it’s a word that we must use with care.

    =============

    blogfrog, I am not advocating the use of just one metric as I focus on CTR as well, which is a combination of 2 metrics.

    The number of metrics will also increase with the number of online media or channels utlised by the campaign. This is a given.

    That’s why I have pointed out earlier that clients are ill-served by a portal centric strategy as portal traffic can be grossly misleading and overstated as well.

    But I do see duration of a page view is a necessary component to any campaign. It allows us to track which pages of a portal or campaign website garners the most attention, as well as which products, which ads, which blogs are the ones people are spending time on.

    This allows us to better quantify our placement of advertising outreach be it banners, sponsored content, meta tagging. This metric allows us to take baby steps into making online advertising a science, rather than a craft and assumption-led guesses that currently characterise it.

    As for measuring activity, the industry is already using registrations and downloads for years but the response is increasingly tepid as time passes.

    One possible reason for this is that activities on campaign sites are normally encouraged by short term incentives or spurred by short term hype or fads. It’s more of a flash in the pan strategy.

    Case in point. The current Intenet is a cyber graveyeard for flashy campaign domain names and websites whose shelf-life does not last beyond the campaign period. This type of disposable advertising is like mainstream newspaper advertising and doesn’t really build brands in the long term.

    However, I will inject a qualifier. I do think the trend to move the publication of annual reports to online websites and pdf downloads is a trend that cannot be denied due to cost considerations and as a more effective way of reaching out to potential local and overseas investors.
15. Jeff Zweig says:

    September 11, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    Hi Ad-critic,

    On the first part of your comment where you have written to me, I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree. ☺

    We have each made our respective points of view clear in our previous posts so there’s no need to repeat anything further here. Perhaps a drink after work would be in order to exchange our differing views in person? Please email me on jeff@webguruasia.com if you’re interested in meeting up!

    Here are some thoughts on the second part of your comment as written to the Frog of Blogging:

    Actually, I don’t agree with your general rejection of tactical lead generation campaigns.

    I see nothing wrong with them as long as they are part of an overall, properly developed, long-term communications strategy designed for periodic engagement over time with the newly acquired leads that gradually leads them through to purchase or other relevant action desired by the client’s business.

    In fact, such tactical campaigns can deliver excellent results even in the immediate term by encouraging conversion actions with potentially high value to the client’s business such as special offer/promotion purchase, full price purchase (using psychological tactics such as urgency/scarcity), free trial or trial purchase, event registration and so on.

    I agree with your point about posting a company’s annual report online but I would offer the following extensions to this idea:

    + how about an audio or video commentary by the management team to make the dry
    annual report in PDF format come alive in new and interesting ways?

    + better yet, how about periodic audio or video podcasts and blog posts throughout the year that update current and potential investors about the goals laid out in the most recent annual report?

    Not only does this keep investors engaged, but done with the right interactive agency partner it can generate significant search engine ranking juice plus generate new ways of grabbing the attention of the press (local, regional and international).

    Not only that, but because so few companies are even thinking of pursuing programmes like this, the content will stand head and shoulders above competitors and will be a differentiating factor in and of itself, thereby cutting through the clutter of all the mundane information that current and prospective investors must cull through from every other company.

    + Even better, for companies listed on the KLSE who now must now by law report on their corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts, what better way to reach not only investors, but every other type of stakeholder with content and an online experience related to the company’s latest good work in CSR?

    jeff zweig
    chief guru, web guru asia
    http://www.webguruasia.com
16. ad-critic says:

    September 15, 2008 at 9:19 am

    Jeff,
    I agree with most of your points.

    As for tactical campaigns, my main gripe with them is that they last too short a time on cyberspace for real brand conversion to take place. Of course, if the promotion offer is good, you get instant conversion but that’s only for that particular offer and for that particular campaign duration.

    As for your ideas on video announcments by corporations, I agree wholeheartedly. They should be done as the people in the videos put a face on the company and information can be reduced succintly and visually via a video approach.

    As for coffee, I would love to take up your offer but I’m currently in Singapore. We can email each other instead. I’ve just emailed you : >
17. Jeff Zweig says:

    September 16, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    really, ad-critic?

    what if as a direct result of a tactical campaign, someone makes a trial purchase (or downloads an e-voucher, etc., etc.) that naturally leads them to want to make repeat purchases of the client’s product or service because they liked the product so much after the trial? or how about a tactical campaign that leads directly to an ongoing paid subscription?

    doesn’t that lead to significant business value to the client that lasts far beyond the duration of the single, tactical campaign?

    isn’t this the type of measurable, conversion activity that goes even beyond just branding?

    wouldn’t you agree that in this context, branding is not the ultimate goal? and that by directly generating sales, the campaign meets the true ultimate goal of any marketing/promotional activity, which is to increase the client’s net profit and/or increase its shareholder value?

    we don’t run branding exercises just for the sake of branding alone, right? don’t we do it for reasons like increasing market share, improving customer loyalty, etc. because these are the things that lead to increased profits and shareholder value?

    ok, enough questions for now. let’s continue one day in singapore ☺

    enjoy the F1,

    jeff zweig
    chief guru, web guru asia
    http://www.webguruasia.com
18. ad-critic says:

    September 17, 2008 at 5:49 am

    Hi Jeff, ideally they should work that way but repeat visits and purchases are surprisingly hard to achieve. Very few campaign websites or portals have the type of intuitive UI and backend prrogramming to pull this off i.e. Amazon.

    As for branding, the web scene in this part of the region was largely nurtured by website design companies, which went on to brand themselves as interactive advertising agencies.

    Such set-ups are normally poor in analytics (or have no background) and marketing. Their heritage is based on creating corporate branding sites or what we call brochureware, which are based on highly rigid corporate guidelines with a lack of stress in promoting long term user engagements.

    I’m really looking forward to catching up one day in Singapore, so we can talk more. As for FI, truth be told, I prefer catching F1 at Sempang.
19. ad-critic says:

    September 17, 2008 at 5:51 am

    Missed out 2 important words:

    “Very few campaign websites or portals have the type of intuitive UI, Compelling Content and backend programming to pull this off i.e. Amazon.”
20. Jeff Zweig says:

    September 18, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    hi ad-critic,

    well, I guess if you don’t know what you’re doing then using interactive marketing to drive repeat traffic (web traffic or foot traffic into a physical outlet) and to drive repeat purchases can be hard (online or offline—doesn’t really matter as long as we are driving sales).

    but there IS talented digital marketing expertise in malaysia that knows lots about digital branding, intuitive UI, back-end system development, analytics and so on.

    two excellent examples are weng keong and his team at arachnid and steve hsia and his people at agenda, amongst others on the scene here. (and i would hope that our clients think the same about those of us at web guru asia, too, but i leave that up to them )

    and this doesn’t count others working in related areas in the space like jordan khoo of eyeblaster and rene menezes of media 2.0. these guys are also very good and know what they’re talking about.

    i don’t think we should sell ourselves short by any means.

    jeff zweig
    chief guru, web guru asia
    http://www.webguruasia.com
21. ad-critic says:

    September 23, 2008 at 5:04 pm

    Hi Jeff,
    Whatever concerns I’ve shared here is based on my observations of the industry as a whole. It’s not a criticism directed at my own agency.

    My agency has handled regional online campaigns, which meet our targets for a year within just 9-10 months. Our campaign planning does take note of media, analytics, marketing and creative concerns.

    However, I would definitely love to know more of the way Malaysian online professionals tackle the challenges in the interactive arena. I think it’s good for interactive professionals from around the region to meet and talk. Each market has its own dynamics and we will all benefit from sharing our thoughts about them.