LB's Rambles

Target Me - Please

There's another new study which reinforces my own firmly-held (and frequently expressed) belief that most consumers would rather receive RELEVANT advertising info than the hit-or-miss ads that bedevil us on most web sites.

Brand Week reports that a study by Prospectiv, a Massachusetts-based marketing firm, finds 56% of respondents said their social networking experience would be improved by seeing targeted ads. 62% said they would be interested in seeing offers from favorite brands.

That's the good news. Here's the down side: 87% say NONE of the ads they see match their own preferences or interests.

I wonder if some of that is because of the cries of "invasion of privacy" that we hear every day. Seems possible to me. I would hope that the various legislators who feel they have to pass new laws to make sure that nobody can receive ads that conceivably might interest them - at least not without going through some formal opt-in system - would pay attention. I certainly don't object to opt-in. What I fear is that too many sites will decide it's more trouble than it's worth and will simply keep pumping out irrelevant ads.

Hat tip: IAB SmartBrief

Look! Up in the Sky!...

So you think that some Internet advertising in intrusive? You can't get away from those ads that are popping up all over your screen?

The Daily Dog reports, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

I wonder how you pronounce "flogos" anyway - is it flow-goes? Or, perhaps more appropriately in this case, flog-ohs...

Service Counts

I've written before about the information age dangers of providing bad service. At the risk of boring you, however, let me back my opinions up with some new statistics, courtesy of eMarketer. They say that more than 70% of US Internet users use social media at least sometimes BEFORE making a purchase, to find out what kind of customer service a company provides. According to eMarketer, "More than nine out of 10 respondents agreed with the statement, 'I have chosen companies/brands based on my customer care experiences.'"

Bottom line to would-be marketers, once again: if you're relying on advertising and PR to build your brand, and you're ignoring your customer service, you are in for serious disappointment.

Jump On the Privacy Bandwagon

I've posted before about the attempts to force websites to get permission from site visitors before tracking and recording their actions, so that advertisers can target advertising that might or might not be of interest to them. I think the attempts are a bad idea, particularly the idea of legislating such requirements on a state-by-state basis.

George Simpson apparently agrees, and, on the Online Media Daily blog, he has a very funny post suggesting that we not stop with the Internet. If we're going to have these privacy concerns, let's add on other marketers. He has some modest proposals for form letters for use by magazines, mail-order catalogues, telemarketers, government agencies, etc. They're funny and, I think, quite to the point. Take a look.

More Than 10 Billion Sold...er...Viewed

This is starting to sound like those BILLIONS AND BILLIONS SOLD signs outside McDonald's: MultiChannel News quotes a new comScore report showing U. S. Internet users viewed more than 10 billion online videos in February. That's 10 billion. In one month. In the U. S. alone. Up 66% from the previous year. 34% went to YouTube.

With numbers like that, sooner or later, somebody's gonna figure out how to make serious money at it...

Hat tip: IAB SmartBrief.

Podcasting Standards

As promised, the Association for Downloadable Media has developed two sets of guidelines for podcasting. One document deals with advertising standards, defining and outlining the kinds of ads that may be available on any particular podcast. The other tries to define standards for the kinds of audience and performance measurement that may be available.

The guidelines were rolled out today at AdTech, in San Francisco, and the idea is to gather comments from as many people as possible inside and outside of advertising and podcasting. The documents are open for comment for 30 days, after which they will be refined, based on the comments and suggestions received. Take a look and please do comment.

Defining Privacy

Josh Chasin has some interesting thoughts today over at MediaPost's Online Metrics Insider blog about the fight over web privacy and targeted advertising. He points to the New York State legislator who wants to make it a crime for advertisers to use information about consumers in order to send them more relevant ads. Chasin's pretty sure that such a blanket ban is a bad idea, and, as I have said before, I agree.

Here's Chasin's argument in a nutshell:

Let's say you are a tall, dashing, smartly dressed Chief Research Officer at a major Internet audience measurement company, and you walk into Nordstrom's. A sales clerk you recognize comes up to you and says, "Hey, your wife's birthday is coming up in a few weeks, and we just got in those sweaters she likes.  Should I put a couple of them away for you in her size and color?"  Now let me ask you.  Does this hypothetical Chief Research Officer perceive this to be: (a) an egregious violation of his privacy, causing him to immediately rush home and write his state assemblyman; or (b) another example of Nordstrom's world-class customer service?

I suspect that most of us would choose "b." I object to advertising when it is irrelevant and/or intrusive. I do not object to advertising about things which - based on my online visits and preferences - might actually interest me.

Take a look at Chasin's post - the comments are pretty interesting as well.

You Take the Fame, I'll Take the Cash

Let's face it: blogging and podcasting can be fun - they can also be a lot of work - but at least some bloggers and podcasters are building up an audience and a reputation, at least in the online world. What very few of them are building up, however, is cash.

Tim Bourquin, the principal mover behind the annual New Media Expo, doesn't think much of the tradeoff. In a blog post called "Internet Famous, Dirt Poor," he argues that we really do need to find a way to monetize both blogging and podcasting.

There's a pretty lively discussion going on in reaction to that posting. But may I point out the work in this area of an organization I've mentioned before, the Association for Downloadable Media. They will be releasing some proposed advertising standards and measurement guidelines within the next two weeks at the big ad:tech conference in San Francisco. All of this is by way of participating in a debate and conversation that needs to happen if blogging and podcasting are to move beyond being an enjoyable and interesting hobby - as I think they will.

Apple, You Have to be Kidding, Right?

If this article in Wired had appeared on April 1, rather than April 3, I'd dismiss it out of hand as an April Fool's joke. But it appears to be serious: Apple Computer is suing New York City over the city's new logo for its GreeNYC campaign. Apparently, Apple fears that New York City might be confused for an Apple iPod, although the former is significantly larger and much harder to connect to an earpiece. Or something like that, anyway.

I mean, take a look at the logo (at the link). Yeah, it uses an apple. Doesn't look much to me like the Apple Computer logo, but apparently the apple-ness of it is enough to have Apple's lawyers in a swivet. Now corporate lawyers are generally well-paid to go into swivets over things that most of us would consider nonsense, and I'm sure Apple's lawyers have what, to them, seem like very good reasons. But they'll have to forgive the rest of us for snickering behind our hands. Although, to be safe, I'm going downstairs and dump the apples out of my refrigerator. I don't want a lawsuit for eating those corporate logos. Not worth it.

Hat tip: MediaPost

Slimeballs Getting Smarter

It is with considerable regret that I note that the slimeball companies that phone do-not-call numbers with unwanted, pre-recorded messages seem to be getting smarter: at least the one that called today, with a pre-recorded message from "Heather" offering lower credit card rates, had enough sense to block its calling number, making them much more difficult to report to the Federal Trade Commission.

In past the same recording has come from 1-407-207-0820, but there's no indication it's the same number; I assume these slimes move quickly from one base to another to stay one step ahead of the law. If you get a call with a number identified, be sure to go to 800notes.com - chances are good they're already compiling information about the caller.

I did have the very small satisfaction of summoning a live telemarketer (by pressing "1" of course), who told me that this was the "resolution center," but who hung up immediately when it became clear that I was simply asking who was calling wth the offer. Can't have that information out there or we might get shut down, right?

So at least I have the satisfaction of (a) having wasted the time of the aforementioned telemarketer, and (b) knowing that the live connection probably cost the company at least a few cents. It's a poor substitute, I suppose, for putting the slimeballs out of business, but we take what we can get. I find it hard to believe they really can make money this way, but perhaps anyone stupid enough to respond to them would be considered their legitimate prey.