Why 47% of Campaigns Fail and How to Make Sure Yours Succeeds
Jon Beattie of Marker is up at the Future of Online Advertising Conference – he’s put together a great summary of a keynote on why 47% of campaigns fail – a summary of the presentation by Greg Stuart at the Future of Online Advertising conference today in New York. Greg is the former CEO, IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) and co-author of “What Sticks“.
He claims: Over US$112 billion ad spend is wasted out of a total of $295bn – Advertisers and agencies use the excuse of “publicity” to justify a failed campaign.
Here are the three highlights I liked:
- Did the campaign message get through? 31% of campaigns failed
- Out of 5 advertisers (P&G, J&J, Kraft, Nestle, McDonald’s) that did creative research of online campaigns: 1 was okay; 2 found half didn’t work; 2 all ads failed and had to start again
- McDonald’s took 20 per cent from TV put 13.4% into online kept the rest and increased awareness by 5 per cent when it had previously leveled out using traditional media.
A Blogger Isn’t A Blogger When…
They are paid to post on a blog other than their own. They then become a freelance writer, journalist, hack, whatever you want to call them.
The move by CNet and others to pay bloggers based on page views is no different than previous payment terms – such as words or stories – made to journalists, so, why call bloggers anything other than that? All that has changed is that the payment is more aligned with the reader/viewers interest level.
Further, the move is likely to continue to blur the lines between the independent publication and there so called independent bloggers. Take Information Week whose vendor blogger blogs away in a very self interested fashion only then to be named by the same publication as "one to watch" in the coming year in a full page spread. Self serving? Self interested? Biased? Yep – all of the above. And not an ounce of disclosure or transparency by either party.
As Steve suggests, this should raise an eyebrow – more than an eyebrow. But is very different than bloggers pimping products in post. It is far more subtle than that.
I initially misread a post by Mitch Ratcliffe, taking it (below) to suggest that if we don’t pay bloggers in the same way as journalists their posts don’t have to be informative or accurate? That isn’t what he meant as his comments suggest.:
"at ZD Net bloggers are compensated based on the number of page views they receive and a fraction of the pages in TalkBack, so at the end of the month the size of a check expresses something, but not necessarily our success in being informative or accurate."
I do think though that publications are attaching the mantle of blogger to paid writers and thereby opting out of any sense of integrity that applies to the masthead. Mitch is making an equally important but different point that popularity doesn’t correlate to accuracy – anywhere.
This has been going on for sometime, and pointed to by Tom Formenski and others – so Steve’s revelation isn’t so much that as a rehash. Either way, it’s worth flagging as the standards we expect of publications are increasingly compromised and new means of bloggers generating revenue come to fruition.
Nick makes a good point that businesses and workers tailor what they do in response to economic incentives – a shift in the way publishers and journalists make money means a shift in what gets published. But the message also makes the medium. And once fiercely independent online media are being transformed.
Tragic…
I pondered blogging this through the afternoon after reading it in the Sydney Morning Herald but couldn’t bring myself to write about it – It seemed inappropriate to look as such a tragic event through the lens of blogging. CNet then got me rethinking. This is truly a tragic story but if nothing else it reminds us of how powerful this medium is for telling the story and reaching out to friends and family. And, what amazing courage and strength people have in putting fingers to keyboard and laying tragedy bare for us to read.
My thoughts are with the Van Ryn family.
Chain Reactions…
I’m always fascinated by how the media moves a story. The latest seems to be the Dog Whisperer… this story has legs… First it was Malcom Gladwell in the New Yorker and this morning it was The New York Times… Where next… The story is on the move…
What is interesting is how different the stories are. Malcom’s is a critique – balanced and thoughtful. The New York Time, more of a puff piece.
Either way, Gabby is beyond training. Although I am certain she is working on training us.
Tim O’Reilly Speech
Here is his commencement speech. Three good lessons and lots of commentary on Web 2.0.
The first was to be fearless in what you attempt. The job I eventually mastered was an enormous stretch for me. The second lesson was that a difficulty is often an opportunity in disguise. I built my company by bridging the information gap that I first encountered that day. The third lesson was the importance of serendipity in your life choices. I never imagined that I’d build a career as a technical writer, publisher, and entrepreneur. My training was in Greek and Latin Classics!
And… (thanks to Nicholas for the pointer – this stood out for me as well)
If history is any guide, the democratization promised by Web 2.0 will eventually be succeeded by new monopolies, just as the democratization promised by the personal computer led to an industry dominated by only a few companies. Those companies will have enormous power over our lives – and may use it for good or ill. Already we’re seeing companies claiming that Google has the ability to make or break their business by how it adjusts its search rankings. That’s just a small taste of what is to come as new power brokers rule the information pathways that will shape our future world.
As a result, I urge you to think hard about the consequences of new technology. Don’t just take for granted that technology will bring us a better world. We must engage strenuously with the future, thinking through the dark side of each opportunity, and working to maximize the good that we create while minimizing the harm.
