LATEST ENTRY

COMMENTARY | Noah Brier

Commenting About Advertising

December 2, 2008 | RSS | EMAIL | PRINT | 6 COMMENTS

I made two comments today that I wanted to share ...

In response to Grant's post about why TV advertising has remained consistent as ratings have dropped: "At the end of the day, the problem with agencies and clients hasn't changed as much as media has: Agencies are work for hire and therefore subject to a different set of metrics than clients. Those metrics, for better or worse, are still about reach. Getting any significant reach on the web takes a lot more work. What's more, I think we're seeing the same thing in the online display advertising market. While most in the industry recognize the inadequacies, it's still the easiest way to guarantee your message gets in front of a whole bunch of people on the web (whether or not they look at it, of course, is a whole other thing)."

And in response to a post about where the revenue stream for Facebook Connect is: "I agree with you that the data thing is a funny angle, but something still isn’t sitting quite right with me. As you wrote, 'Google AdWords sit between queries and results, but Facebook sits between people and their friends. That’s where the money in Facebook Connect is.' That spot Google sits in is valuable because it allows advertisers to target based on consumer mindset/step in the purchase process. But why is sitting between people and their friends valuable? As the New York Times reported, 'just 57 percent of all users of social networks clicked on an ad in the last year, and only 11 percent of those clicks led to a purchase, IDC said. And it turns out that marketers are not so interested in advertising on pages filled with personal trivia and relationship updates.' How does this make that situation any better/different? I totally buy that it’s a power play, but I don’t necessarily think Facebook knows to what end."

Tags: advertising, marketing

PREVIOUS ENTRY | NEXT ENTRY

LEAVE A COMMENT

First name, first and last, whatever you feel like.

Required, but not displayed (so don't worry about spam).

If you've got one, flaunt it.

You can use some HTML (a's, br's, p's, oh my!) if you'd like, if you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.
REMEMBER ME?

COMMENTS

1Ryan Catbird

I think it's important to remember the very old concept that Google Adwords relies on: "tricking" (for lack of a better term) viewers (into clicking). Yes, Google's built a great ad system, yes, they've got amazing ad relevancy, but even though 'Sponsored Results' are marked as such, I think we all know that a vast majority of ad clicks likely still come from the less saavy users of the world; the ones who are confused or oblivious (grandpa, mom).

I think the general userbase of Facebook is probably just (can't believe I'm saying this) too sharp to get suckered into those trick clicks.

I think it's stupid that so many still pursue the path of such interruptive and tricky advertising. That article thinks it's great that the ads sit between people and their friends. That's such wrong old-model thinking. The position you want to be in is sitting WITH the people and their friends, not BETWEEN them.

December 3, 2008

2Jared

What's up, Noah?

The last time I looked (around a year ago), the average US household was watching more hours of TV than ever before. Sure, ratings are down as a result of fragmentation, but the tent hasn't actually decreased in size at all.

You could make several valid arguments against TV spending (e.g., ad skipping, clutter, CPM), but the reach argument doesn't really stand up.

December 3, 2008

3Jared

Yeah, I'm backing you up.

December 3, 2008

4Noah Brier

@Ryan: Thanks for the comment Ryan, while I kind of agree that people don't know that they're clicking ads, I don't think you give them enough credit for being useful. If those people were just clicking and not buying anything, then Google wouldn't make much money. Clearly some of those people are finding what they find on the other end worthwhile.

I totally agree that thinking about stuff being disruptive is the wrong way of thinking of it, but unfortunately it's still mostly the only way that people are thinking because it's pretty much the only thing that's a) scalable and b) shows a return.

@Jared: Yeah, I'm with you.

December 3, 2008

5Ryan Catbird

It's a good point, Noah. I tend to forget about ads seeking conversions and explicit sales goals since so much of my experience has been just basic brand-building and awareness. But you're right, there must be some substantial portion of viewers who are actually finding all these interruptive types of ads as something, well, useful.

December 3, 2008

6Noah Brier

@Ryan: Well, I wouldn't say they find the interruptive kind terribly useful, which is the problem. I just think that Google ads are not disruptive. As long as it's working and they're contextually relevent they can be even better than the organic results (definitely not always the case).

December 3, 2008