Interactive Media Design

The IAB released an announcement on April 30th that it was bringing together a task force of “TopTalent To Re-Imagine Interactive Advertising” – and as a member firm of the IAB, Media Two Interactive was quick to jump on board.

For years, interactive media has been reliant on great creative execution to become successful. Publishers and sales reps alike are the first one to blame creative when a campaign is unsuccessful, which is why about 8 years ago, Media Two started up a media design division (award winning division I might add!). After so many years of doing great media strategy (which includes a combination of media & design), this is a great opportunity for Media Two to help out in the relevance of interactive advertising for years to come.

Although the consensus with our designers is they’d love to eliminate small ad formats, increase file size restrictions (especially now that broadband is widely accepted), and even do away with the original leader board formats that are typically not as responsive as the larger, 4:3 ratio ads – there is more thought going into it than just that… Look at TV for example… DVR’s and Tivo’s of the world are fast-forwarding commercials. Unless the 30-second spots become a Super Bowl caliber entertainment value, people are tuning out most of them. So what you are seeing are more and more product placements within the content themselves... With the advent of Social Media online and consumer interaction at its highest – let’s figure out how to create a non-intrusive placement that consumers want to interact with, can create that coveted brand awareness, and oh yeah, publishers can make their money so the online experience continues to be a free one. I don’t believe TV made a mistake – I believe the consumer experience evolved past that – so let’s not model an online ad experience after one that consumers have already passed by. I’m looking forward to our interaction and involvement with the IAB – as this will be changing the way we work for years to come! If you want to keep updated on things progress, I encourage you to follow our Creative Director Rachel Rumsey on Twitter – she is @rachrum !

Interactive Media Education: Value of the View-Through

In the last couple of weeks, I have talked to agencies and clients alike about the value of how Microsoft's Atlas utilizes Engagement Mapping and MediaPlex' MOJO utilizes Path to Conversion. Both products are fantastic, and they help you establish the number of online touch points it takes from start to finish of a conversion cycle (among many other things of course). But when I try and talk to people about it in "plain English", I find myself referencing View-Through Data - which seems to instantly draw a red flag.

For those of you relatively new to the industry, it might not conjure up negative connotations, but for those of you that have been in interactive media for a few years, it probably takes you back to the early days of publishers claiming credit for everything. A great example is when you are running ads on an ad network like Advertising.com that has approx. 90% internet market penetration, and at the same time you are running ads on a search engine. When an ad is displayed by advertising.com, a cookie is instantly set and when the conversion happens, that cookie pings the ad server letting it know a conversion has happened. If the ad was only served, and not clicked on - it is considered a view-through conversion. The problem is, the last click may have occurred on the search engine you were running on, and now your publisher (advertising.com) is taking claim for a conversion and your search engine is taking claim for a conversion - but you only have one conversion. So naturally, the view through got discounted in the past and was instantly labeled a black sheep.

Jumping at least 14 years ahead (FYI - Internet years are the equivalent of dog years), the view through still has a negative connotation, and when I speak to people about it now - they immediate stop me and say "oh no - I'm not paying for view through conversions again!" The reality is - a view through is just another metric that helps me do my job better. If we know that 12 people viewed your ad on Yahoo and eventually converted on a google search term - then we know our ads were targeting the correct people - but the offer just didn't immediately resonate to the "buy" mode. That being said, we have started to compile frequency data through the help of our ad servers that let us know exactly how many view-through's or touch points it takes our clients to convert an offer.

Imagine if you knew that it took your ad being displayed 12 times before someone actually purchased your product or service. You could tweak your messaging and work to get that down to 6 times, and essentially cut your advertising costs in half. Then imagine if you were able to insert an offline ad right after your first touchpoint... Imagine what your media mix could do if it all worked together seamlessly!

So before you cringe when I talk about view-through's... Just know that like everything, the view-through has evolved as well, and its making our job of defining the media mix all that much more enjoyable.

{Insert Agency Value Here} (again)

With the interactive marketing news release this week that MySpace has started their own “do-it-yourself-interactive-media” platform, and Google’s subsequent Beta of the Display Ad Builder Tool, it’s right about now that agencies are doing one of two things: Saying it won’t change them, or reassuring their clients of their value and that these tools are not needed.

Chances are though – most of them aren’t getting into the applications and trying to figure out if it’s an actual tool they can use and master in order to save their clients some time and money. If you’re one of those people who IS interested – take a look at the product tutorial below.

But why is it that agencies are constantly shunning the new tools that make it easier for advertisers? Have you not learned anything by Google Ad Words (apparently not as most of them don’t even use it themselves). If we’ve learned anything at all, it’s to embrace Google and it’s technology, and then apply marketing principles to it to make it better and meet client objectives. Yes there are 100’s of tools that help you to optimize your campaigns and manage your bids, but in the long run, the success of the campaign still comes down the agency’s ability to apply sound marketing principles and execute strategic plan objectives flawlessly – regardless of whether you use a new tool by Google or your charge your client 10 times that amount by doing it the old-fashioned way. In this economy, don’t you at least owe it to your client to know all of the tools available to you?

Agen"see"

I read an interesting commentary today from a colleague of mine explaining why most agencies still don’t succeed at interactive advertising. The gist of the argument was that poor media buying led to ineffective campaigns. Very true, but I also think this points us to look at the evolution of the “big agency” take on interactive and why this is only half the equation. Truth be told, at first the failure of big branding agencies to succeed online was because none understood the level of trackability and functionality. It was thought that you just needed to get online because your competitors were there… or weren’t there yet.

A few years later and a few campaigns wiser, most are realizing the errors of their initial efforts. But to that point, are they really “getting” interactive now? In my humble opinion, the answer is no. So what if they’re producing multi-level Flash campaigns with interactive rollover banners and integrated video? That’s aesthetically pleasing and gives the business suits the warm and fuzzies, but does it really product results?

We constantly preach good design here at Media Two, but for most agencies I think that there’s a disconnect between what’s good design and what’s functional. Good design placed in the right places still doesn’t necessarily product results, and the converse is certainly true. But when good and functional design is coupled with innovative strategy, the result is a living and breathing media plan that grows and evolves.

So where I’m going with this is that success is two-fold in nature. It begins with the design team understanding the strategy side. Whether it’s copy, images, or functionality you’re talking about, the design team must understand the context in which their work will be viewed. For example, slap the Mona Lisa on the side of a building in East Harlem and it goes unnoticed, but speak to the locals through a blended mural and suddenly an artistic genius emerges.

The second part of this equation is ensuring that the strategy team fully understands the end result the designers are striving to achieve and then using that knowledge to find innovative ways to display it. After all, pictures always look better with a nice frame, right?

In the long run, I think the ultimate demise of most interactive campaigns comes from the inability of both groups in the equation to fully understand each other. It’s the old left brain/right brain conflict at its best. Those agencies that are capable of collective thinking with both brains will be the ones that excel in this industry by driving all parties involved towards a common goal.

What's The Next Silo?

For the first 8 years of Media Two’s existence, I spent 95% of my time educating clients that interactive was truly a piece of the marketing mix. So as of about 2 years ago, I came to the conclusion that everyone now “got” that – as interactive ad dollars continued to spike while traditional budgets dwindled. The only problem was – apparently we (Media Two and the IAB and the rest of the interactive community) did too good of a job selling interactive’s benefits as everyone started throwing their money into the interactive “silo” and abandoning everything else…

When this happens, it’s great for agencies like ours in the near term, but the long-term prospect for this client is a nightmare… By putting all of your money in one silo, and ignoring the fact that people interact with multiple channels is a death sentence to your marketing mix. I think people just tend to forget that old adage that there’s always going to be a worst performer. If you remove one, the 2nd worst now becomes your worst… So how about not replacing any, but maybe just reducing until you can find the magical combination that they’re all successful? Nah – probably too much work. But seriously, by putting all of your money into one silo now means your best silo is also your worst… So what happens then?

Exactly what we’re seeing… Interactive now gets divided into it’s own silo with Search being labeled the best, and traditional banner ads getting labeled the worst. So the first thing clients start doing is looking to cancel traditional ads and only run search… Now we’re sitting on millions of dollars that have been allocated to interactive, but we can only spend it on search – and best yet, search seems to be “drying” up and we can’t spend millions anymore – we can only spend thousands… Hmm… Should we silo search now and maybe hire an agency that only specializes in 3-word key phrases?

The point is – we’ve silo’d everything, and by doing that we’ve accomplished nothing. Search is driven by other interactive exposure, and interactive exposure can also be driven by offline events such as a newspaper ad, radio spot, tv, etc… Don’t drop your marketing mix – add to it and expand on it – but do it with firms that understand marketing, not just firms that are jumping on the hottest trend and soaking up the most coin.

Buy the Cow

Business is good I have to admit. Recession be darned, Media Two is continuing to forge ahead on the notion that one day soon the sleepy little town of Clayton will be the interactive capital of the world. With corporate marketing budgets becoming more and more focused on the DR that interactive media provides, the comment I’m hearing more from new clients is “We’ve tested online, but it wasn’t great. How do we make sure another test is successful?”

Hmm... good question! Unfortunately there’s rarely enough time for me to complete a response. Two things will generally happen. They lose interest and start snoring on the other end of the line, or I lose my voice. Either way, it’s a struggle to try and package all of that into a nice neat box. That said, if you want an analogy I say you should buy the cow rather than the steak.

It seems to me that over the last few years the buzzwords have been piling up. Quite often we’ll get referrals that want very specific campaigns… email only, behavioral, or affiliate for example. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s good to have a client with vision, but the thing that always comes up under those circumstances is that the “need” for a (insert buzzword) campaign is unfounded. I’m not trying to advocate that every campaign should incorporate every single element of interactive media. That would admittedly be a huge strategic mistake. What is important, however, is that the research and due diligence be done to warrant a campaign’s strategic parameters. Buy into the notion that success comes from a well rounded approach rather than trying to throw darts while blindfolded. So in keeping with our theme to define best practices, here’s a quick hit list of what should be done between both client and agency to ensure that another test is successful.

1) Set the bar – Is it a certain CPA, a target ROI, number of leads, or brand reach. Define goals from day one so the strategists and designers have a focal point. This helps not only as a negotiation point with publishers, but it ultimately leads to clearer communication between agency and client.

2) Study hard – The test we’re talking about here is not multiple-choice. As an agency, we need the opportunity to define all possible scenarios, identify all target touch points, complete competitive research, and bring that into a comprehensive media plan that aims squarely at numero uno above. If this is done and done right, the parameters will become abundantly clear before the first dollar is spent.

3) Let the play develop – My coach drilled this one into my brain. “Son, you can’t throw a fade route if you don’t let the receiver fade first.” Same thing goes for optimization. It generally doesn’t happen overnight. You have to let trends develop before you can accurately assess the situation and react accordingly. There’s rarely been a campaign that has achieved its objective in the first few weeks. Much less the first few days. Let all aspects of optimization take place before judging success.

Sure there’s a ton of other intricacies that play into meeting end objectives, but as a general rule, following these three will put both the client and agency ten steps ahead of the competition. Now what did that funny ad say about keeping your business plan a secret? Oops!!!