The Digital Influentials, by Cory Treffiletti

The New Model Of R.O.I.: Return On Interest (Mediapost 2.22.12)

R.O.I. is either a flag you wave in every meeting you enter, or it’s a curse that follows you around daily, depending on your point of view and level of comfort with data.  I would like to propose a different definition of the model for R.O.I.  I would like to propose one I think is more relevant for this day and age of social media.  It’s the Return On Interest model.

The typical definition that people are used to for R.O.I. is Return On Investment, and this is the definition that has dominated Internet advertising since 1994.  The simple way of looking at that model is to see what you spent and what was returned in terms of sales or other actions, and compare the two in a flat ratio.   It’s a very simplistic, two-dimensional model that only takes into account the immediate, short-term actions of the user and this model is why the industry designation of an attribution model is so important and also so difficult.  It’s a measure of immediate gratification, and one that does not take into account the impact you have on perception and the long-term actions of your potential audience.   It also discounts the value of initial impressions because they don’t drive the click to a sale – that is a flawed model.

In the age of sharing and social media, to create interest in a brand, product or service is just as valuable as the immediate action.  You can even argue that it is more important because there are very few purchase decisions that are made in the spur of the moment.  Most purchases are not impulse-driven, and in that case the existing R.O.I. model is as flawed as the window by which you measure.  If you’re only measuring a window of 7 days, you have no idea what happens after that window expires. 

If you take into account Interest levels when evaluating your marketing spends, you can start to see a longer-term impact.  I define interest as a formula that combines measures of buzz, sharing and virality as well as increases in activity like searches and immediate actions such as inquiries and sales.   If your campaign is in market and you are seeing an increase in these kinds of metrics, either through online, call centers or even at retail through retail buyer inquiries, then your campaign is working and you are able to see the true impact beyond the 7-day window of immediate impact.  As the saying goes, Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither was a truly effective online media campaign.

The formula is of course the detail that requires your attention when creating your own measure of R.O.I.  I should start by saying there is no magic formula.  What I use to create and measure on my campaign will not be exactly right for you.  You need to have some historical data to work from, but what’s great about using the Return On Interest model is that you don’t need year’s worth of data.  To create an effective measure for R.O.I. you can actually get started with 2-4 weeks of data.   If you have a recent baseline of activity in both online and offline activity, you should have enough to get started.  It may be directional at best, but it should be enough.

Start by creating a table that shows online and offline sales over a period of 24 hour increments, and map that against a measure of buzz (you can get this from any of the various social media analytics sources), search data (see Google and other search engines), site traffic (Google Analytics or others), and any data you can extract from your buying department who is responsible for interaction with retail partners.  These folks are valuable because they can help you see the retail impact of your campaign.  Once you’ve mapped these in a day-by-day basis for the last month, then you launch your campaign and start to track these metrics in relation to your spend and assign a value to each metric.  The value is up to you and can be derived from your internal calculations of lifetime customer value and margin on the sale.  Once you have these all in one place, you can start tracking your true R.O.I. – the return on interest you generate in your campaign.

If your dollars are spent wisely, and if your digital efforts are socially enabled, you can start to see interest levels rise.  Assuming that your product is a hit experience, the interest level should result in an increase in sales volume.  If the spend does not create an increased return on interest level, then either your targeting is off or your creative messaging is not resonating with the target.  Both can easily be rectified, but at least by having these metrics you’ll know!

Return on investment is a good place to start, but a more mature marketer will start to look beyond the short-term gains and find the long-term opportunities for creating a relationship and loyalty with your consumers.

Are you calculating a return on interest level?

Welcome To The (Hype) Machine – Fragmentation Is So 2011 (Mediapost 2.15.12)

If you are the owner of a social network, a social website, a social app or any other socially enabled communication platform on the web, then you deserve to sit back, relax and have a cigar because you are part of the (hype) machine and that machine is in full swing!

The last month has been amazing in terms of telling a story of the influence of social media.  Three singular, unrelated events unfurled to tell a story of the scope of social media and the virtual hype machine that it feeds, and you are insane if you’re not paying attention.  If you’re a brand marketer, there are some interesting concepts to take away as well.

First we witnessed the Susan G Komen/Planned Parenthood social media fiasco and the Stop SOPA campaign, both of which were significant watershed moments in terms of using the web and social media to influence real world activity.  Though not globally on par with the Arab Spring from last year, both of these were examples of a viral torrent of support or condemnation for their respective movements.  In both situations, a movement began in social media that caused the reversal of political-hot-button issues and the people’s voice was heard.  Neither situation would have occurred without the popularity of social media, at the very least neither would have been reversed in such a short time.

The second event I will call out is this past week’s passing of Whitney Houston the night before the Grammy Awards.  She was a huge influence in music, and one of the biggest, most definable voices ever recorded, and social media was immediately ablaze with the discussion of the sad event.  The Grammy Awards followed up quickly, even changing some of their production to fit in the necessary tributes.  The news of Whitney Houston’s death went worldwide in seconds, and everyone was commenting on it from all sides of the globe. 

The third event is one that’s pending, and hasn’t even taken place yet.  It’s the IPO for Facebook.  Facebook’s impending celebration has the hearts of the valley all a flutter with the scent of money.  It smells like 1999 again, with secretaries and administrative assistants alike projected to be millionaires, and hundreds of people likely preparing to put down deposits on new homes in San Francisco.  Facebook is forecasted to be the largest tech IPO in history, and the ad business seems in line with this as they have selected Facebook as a preferred partner for ad dollars, surpassing Google in a recent industry survey.   If Facebook is indeed as big as it proclaims it will be, then social will have overtaken search as the premier darling of the data-driven Internet ad business.

On the surface these three events are only associated by one thing; the fact that they center around social media.  That in itself is all you need.  Social media is the modern hype machine, but unlike the days of Public Enemy, in this case you probably should believe the hype.  The learning that I see here is that social media, and specifically the advent of Facebook and Twitter, is causing a reversal in the fragmentation of media.  For years we’ve discussed the fragmentation of the media landscape, and how consumers are more difficult to reach with an effective frequency because of the way they spend their day.  What these moments are telling me is that when there’s a topic of interest to a large group of people, and when the hype machine is in full force, fragmentation can be reversed and a singular point of view can actually be established in a small number of places.  All of these situations drove people to social media, and social media became the hub for all of this activity.  The fragmentation only takes place before users flock to social media.  Social is the new hub.

Even in the case of the death of Whitney Houston, USA Today was running news stories on its iPad and iPhone apps that were nothing more than a collection of tweets from famous celebrities.  Their version of a news story was the collection of celebrity tweets?  That proves, if nothing else, that the journalists for USA Today were going to Twitter for their breaking news.

Fragmentation may be alive in terms of initial broadcast, but the machine is alive and well, and it is not going anywhere.  The machine is working, and the masses can be culled together for a single action, if you have a message that resonates with them.  The Superbowl showed that advertising could be used in this way, if you have the money to spend to reach enough of the audience at least once.  The lesson for a marketer is that if you are strategic, and you have enough money, you can indeed influence a large group of people at once.  You can put the hype machine to work for you.

Don’t you agree?  Who do you see that’s doing a good job of this?

Devilish smile!!

What??

The Past & Future Of Sports In Video (Mediapost 2.8.12)

Over the last few weeks I’ve been thinking a lot about sports marketing, and this past weekend I was reminded of why; the emotions tied to sports are palpable and real and they are the kind of emotions that brands can only dream of being associated with.

Its really simple if you think about it.  Try and find one other area of life where the emotions are as high or as passionate as they are with sports.  I’ll go out on a limb and say that sports only come second to birth and death when you consider their emotional ramifications.  If you hear a diehard sports fan, it’s not uncommon for them to be as excitable and enthusiastic when talking about their favorite baseball or football team as when you hear a parent talk about the birth of their children or the memories of their parents when they’ve passed on.  It taps into the same emotional core in our brains and it creates lifelong associations.  The kind of associations that brands want to see, at least on a microcosmic-level.

It’s not realistic to assume that household cleanser or shampoo can create that same emotional connection, but it is extremely plausible to consider that brands want their consumers to think strongly about a positive association with their brands, which is why sports sponsorship is such a tricky business.  Sports sponsorships require a brand to engage in a long-term relationship, and a very trusting relationship, because you have to have faith that the athlete will stay relevant, and on the right side of the ethical mores that society puts forth for people in a position of attention and focus.  Athletes are aspirational as well as inspirational, meaning that we can all aspire to be like them (i.e. as self-confident as Tim Tebow).  They are also fatally humanistic, meaning they are only as good as the best or worst of us (see so many examples of mistakes from athletes in recent years).  It may not be fair to place an athlete on a pedestal and hold them to a higher standard, but that is what we do and that’s why sports sponsorships exist.  There is an associative value to working with them, and to transferring the positive brand equity we have in them to a brand.   That value is high for a marketer and athletes make significant money off of them, as well.

If you think of the best sports marketing images of the last 50 years, you think of images of strength and confidence.  The kind that comes from a truly inspirational sports figure.  For me, I think of Mean Joe Green in the Coke commercial.  I think of Michael Jordan in the Nike spots flying through the air.  I even think of  humor (when its done right) like all of the Peyton Manning Mastercard commercials.  These are images of confidence, and the brands that were able to harness the power of sports were able to stand out and differentiate themselves in the eyes of consumers.  That differentiation translates to sales.

What is really interesting to me about sports marketing is that it would not have existed without television, and its future is indelibly tied to online video.   Sports is a physical and visual medium.  You have to be playing sports to understand the physicality involved, and you have to see others play sports to learn about it and understand it fully.  If TV had never been invented, the NFL would be nowhere near as popular as it is.  The NBA and Major League Baseball would be half the size they are today.  Television created a way for anyone and everyone to see sports without having to physically be there, and the images you see on those broadcasts have inspired millions of people to pick up a bat or ball and play.  Those images are inspirational, and online video is going to extend them even further. 

Social media and mobile media are the future of sports marketing.  Mobile video, and sharing video through social platforms – this is where the future of sports marketing lies because these images can take on a life of their own.  The more those images, in all of their video glory, can be shared and seen by droves of fans, the more impact they will have and the more opportunity there is for a brand to reach a passionate audience.   The television (and a close second with the actual stadium) is never going away and will always be the primary vehicle for sports marketing, but digital media has one heck of a future for sports marketing.  Just you wait and see!

Do You Have Industry Déjà Vu? (Mediapost 1.18.12)

Do you have industry déjà vu?  I do!  Doesn’t it feel as though the primary issues of the day we face today are the same issues that we faced eight or ten years ago?  Is this a sign of the cyclical nature of the business or have we literally stalled?

Ten years ago, or somewhere thereabouts, we were dealing with the business based on click-through, we were dealing with the beginning of attribution models, and we were dealing with the development of brand advertising online.   We were faced with the questions of whether it’s best to be spending on content or via behavioral targeting.  We were dealing with our position as a media vehicle and how we fit into the overall marketing mix.  Over time one would think some of these questions have been addressed and that new questions would have risen to take their place, but it doesn’t feel as though it has!

In our defense, we’ve grown really fast and we’ve certainly accomplished a lot, but the business is still in need of some standards.  The business is still too complicated to command a leadership position in the marketplace, at least when it comes to a comparison against television and other media.  Its been stated time and time again, but its easier to spend $10MM on TV than it is to spend $2MM in digital.   And the fact is I wrote that exact same sentence last year, five years ago and ten years ago as well.  At some point we have to come to terms, make some decisions, and set the stage for growth and expansion.

If I can foresee a trend, it’s that the next year or two should be focused on the simplification of the models and the further commoditization of the business.  I personally don’t see commoditization as a bad thing.  I see it as a step towards maturity.  I see commodization as a way for brands to spend more money, for agencies to become more efficient with their time and for publishers to generate higher margins.  Of course the question remains, how do we do that?

The easiest way for this to happen is for everyone in the industry to come to a positive middle ground.  I spent the first 15 years of my career building digital ad agencies, and the last 4 helping publishers and start-ups, and in almost every situation I hear that, “what you have is close to what we need, but we need a little more”.  That “little more” is what keeps us from coming to resolution, and from my perspective that “little more” is not a necessity.  It is a hindrance more than anything.  Without that “little more” we could actually standardize and get a lot of things accomplished!

I was a culprit of this while on the agency side, so I admit to taking some of the blame.  Much of the time my job was to take something that a publisher had and “make it more tailored to our needs”.   Of course, “our needs” was attempting to generate differentiated positions between our agency and the competition, but looking back I think that differentiation should have been on the creativity of our brains rather than the minor differences in technology.  Every agency has a trading desk.  Every agency has a dynamic ad server.  Every agency has similar tools, but every agency has different people and those people are the defining element, whether it be in media or creative.  The people are what you can’t commoditize and their creativity is what will propel the business.

Knowing that people are the defining factor means the rest of the business can be standardized from a media perspective.  Industry groups like the IAB and others could probably help here by setting the stage for standards in reporting and the ever-discussed “digital dashboard”.  By helping brands and publishers come to a single agreement on what they should be looking at, how often, and where they should be looking at it, we could come to a standard on the media side of the business.  With that standard would come commoditization and that could help us become more efficient with our time!

Sometimes déjà vu is a nice feeling.  It provides comfort and it provides a sense of peace, but I don’t think that we as an industry are ready for comfort and peace.  We are a business that is driven by entrepreneurs and evangelists and we love to push things forward, so maybe we can find some new things to push forward if we can wrap up the loose ends that we’ve overlooked?

What do you think?

Superbowl Vs. Online: The Answer Is Frequency (Mediapost 1.9.12)

This is the time of year is when marketing pundits launch into the inevitable debate of whether it makes sense to advertise on the Superbowl or not.  It’s easily the single largest advertising event of the year, and there’s a football game too!  Coming a close second to that debate is whether the Internet or TV will become the dominant form of advertising.  Both these debates are ridiculous and the reason why is simple.  The answer to every question is “yes”.

When i say "yes", i say it to be purposefully vague, because the fact of the matter is that all of the above avenues work, and they work well when you build frequency.  In many cases it makes sense to advertise on the Superbowl, and in other cases it doesn't.  The same goes for advertising online, or TV in general.  For some brands and marketing objectives, they both can be effective or they can both be useless.  The debate is a silly one because there’s no right or wrong answer.  The decision to advertise on the Superbowl is a strategic decision, as is every other decision a company makes when lay out their marketing efforts.

To advertise on the Superbowl is easy, and in my perspective it can be viewed as a cop out, unless you back it up with other supportive marketing.  To advertise on the Superbowl as a one-shot, or as the only element of your campaign, is wasteful.  The Superbowl is the ultimate expression of marketing.  It is an event, and it is intended to be your crowning achievement for the year or a way to kick-off your campaign.  You can reach a significantly larger audience than anywhere else, you generate endless buzz as a result, but if you don't follow that buzz up with some element of continuity through the rest of the year then you're just doing yourself a disservice.  It can easily become a waste of money.  It's a "one and done" strategy that you hope will carry you through the remainder of the year (hint: it won't).

The debate over Internet vs. Television is similar because it’s a cop-out to think that one or the other will work for you as a stand-alone vehicle for your messaging.  You have to use them both and build frequency in the eyes of your consumer.  In tandem, the Internet and TV can be a significantly effective one-two punch, and you can generate reach, frequency, engagement and impact in the eyes of your target audience.  There is no silver bullet solution anymore, in much the same way that you can't expect to spend your entire budget on a Superbowl ad and expect to drive sales that year.  

Integrated marketing is the name of the game, and you have to do it all.  In sports you hear that "defense wins championships", and that’s true, but behind every great defense is an offense that is capable of scoring.  You may be able to stop the opposing team from scoring, but if you can't score then you can't win the game.  The same strategy applies to marketing.  You can't focus all your attention against a single tactic and hope it will work, because your audience doesn't operate that way.  They’re not one-dimensional, so your marketing can't be one-dimensional either.  You need to do your homework, look at the information that’s available to you, and come up with a plan of attack that will balance your messaging against the key metrics of reach, frequency and impact, to drive results.  Integrated marketing requires you to come up with a plan that includes multiple avenues to reach your target and do so repeatedly.  It requires you to have a back-up plan, and it requires that you build an image in the eyes of your target.  You can't do that in one sitting anymore.  The days of the Apple "1984" ad are long gone.   When that ad ran, the world was a simpler place and a one-time showing could generate impact.  These days, that is simply not the case.  Your audience is fragmented and there are far more choices for them – you need frequency.

So the simple answer is this; the Superbowl is an amazing advertising opportunity for the right brand, if they’re willing to back it up and support that spot with other components of a marketing plan.  It could be Internet, point of sale, even direct mail, but there has to be something to create additional frequency in the eyes of your target audience.  The Internet and Television are both important elements of the marketing mix, but you can’t hang your hat on just one single element in the media mix.  You have to spread it out.  

Manage Your Time in 2012 (Mediapost 1.4.12)

Welcome to 2012.  It’s a whole new year, and potentially a new beginning, assuming that the Mayans are incorrect and the world won’t end this year.  As it is (most likely) a new beginning, I thought it might be time to share a new years resolution, and one that you might find useful for yourself.  My 2012 is all about time management!

As any sports fan knows, managing the clock is a crucial part of the game, and managing your time is just as important in your day-to-day work.  Successful time management skills are important for allowing you to balance the various responsibilities you have, as well as a means to find overall balance between work and your personal life!  All of us get caught up in the daily grind, and everything quickly seems like a priority, but if you can successfully manage your time, then you can better handle the stress thrown your way every day.

My new years resolution is to do just that; better manage my time.  Here are some ideas I have that you might want to try!

1. TURN IT OFF - Turn Off Email For Two Hours Per Day

Email is the single biggest distraction of the day, and everything that comes into your inbox can seem like a top priority, but the fact is it’s not.   People use email these days as if it were an instant messenger platform, but that’s only because you treat it that way.  My resolution this year is to turn off email for 2 hrs in the day, either in the morning or the afternoon, and use that time to accomplish a task that I’ve laid out for myself.  It could be drafting a presentation, working on a strategy, making calls, or anything.  It’s a chance to focus your attention on a task from your to-do list without the constant interruption of email.  This is the single biggest time management tool I’ve read about it, and I think it will help a lot.

2.  SHORT AND LONG - Make A Short Term And A Long Term To-Do List

Its important to set your goals and priorities, and one great way to do that is to lay out what you can accomplish today and tomorrow, and what you can set your sights on for the next week or two.  Your short-term list should be for no more than 48 hrs.  You check things off that list, and rewrite it every couple of days.  In that manner, you’ll find yourself accomplishing things quickly and that can make you feel as though you’re making headway.  Some people refer to this as the “baby steps” style of prioritizing, and I think it works great.  It helps me to not be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of to-do’s that I have, and allows me to sleep (a little) at night.  I started this last year, and will be continuing with it in 2012.

3. TO THE CLOUD - Set-Up A Cloud-Based Notes Tool

The cloud was my focus over the last two weeks, and I finally got everything placed up there.  My music, my emails, all my folders, and my notes!  The first few items were pretty well underway, but now that I have all my notes in the cloud, I can easily access them from anywhere.  Dropbox and Evernote are my two personal hubs, but there are many services out there that can make access to your ideas and notes easier than you could have imagined.  The reason this is useful goes far beyond access, but it allows you to jot down ideas wherever you may be, and regardless of what device you are using at that moment.  I have notes from meetings, notes sent to me in email that are worth saving, key documents and other assorted items easily accessible in the cloud.   In this manner, I don’t forget things and I have a running list of related items!

Finding balance is not an easy task, and it may even be something you have to put on your to-do list, but there are steps you can take to try and get there.  If your new years resolutions involved balance, less stress or “finding the time”, then hopefully these little tips and tricks will help.  In the meantime, best wishes to you for a successful and prosperous 2012!

And thanks for reading my articles – I appreciate it!

Ogilvy Teaches Us How To Sell

Some tips on selling from Ogilvy

View more presentations from OgilvyOne Worldwide

Say hi to the bear!