Here's the latest TV ad for the VW Golf, done by DDB London. It's a nice ad, but what's more interesting is the accompanying website. As you can see, it's a really well thought out campaign site, that's had a fair bit of time and money spent on it and it's not just a last minute ad-on to the TV ad that offers no real value to a visitor.
This campaign obviously started out with a generous idea, but of as much relevance is that Tribal DDB will have been working on this for as long as their above the line colleagues were working on the TV spot, and that the shoot was shared by both teams. More importantly, it shows what can happen when digital skills are properly integrated with traditional ones (see my previous post on how DDB/Tribal have restructured).
So while BBH are really struggling to get their heads around digital, and W+K still think it's all about the TV ad (what exactly is the point of the Hondamentalism website?), DDB & Tribal are starting to get it right (they even remembered search).
Disclosure: Lest I'm accused of anything underhand - I did work at Tribal. However, that has not influenced what I've written above. Honestly.
Subscribe to Advertising 2.0 by email or RSS
4 comment(s)
Here's two really nice examples of interruptive online advertising that does work - a MPU for Amnesty and an expandable banner for Renault - however, how effective will the nth viewing be, let alone the nth execution to copy the same executional trick, is questionable.
Which tallies nicely with these comments from the Fallon Planning blog:
the WSJ reports on the "rise" of digital advertising and it's importance for the future. While this piece doesn't get into much new info (to us at least), perhaps an in-depth article in a traditional, respected publication (particularly to the people who need convincing that this is the real shit) will help further spread the word on how critical a shift it is. In fact, the Journal projects that, by 2011, the digital adspace will be closing in on a $40 billion industry. Though it's good to see a traditional business paper talking on new media, honestly I would argue (and I think most of you would agree) the "brave new world" of advertising is not banner ads, paid search, etc but how companies are going to capitalize on social media to reach their target. For example, I'm a big car fan. I'm often on car sites, building and comparing models, etc etc. So let's say Nissan were to track my internet activity, and consequently splash a banner ad on Facebook because I was poking around on the Nissan website moments before, curious about a new model...wouldn't really mean shit to me. But, if they found a way to integrate themselves into the 15, 20 minutes or more I spend on the site (groups I'm in, people I'm friends with) then they may grab my attention. Hell, do a search for "Nissan" groups on FB and you get +500 results. So why not a Nissan sponsored group-- host events, membership discounts, factory tours, visits to HQ-- capitalize on the brand evangelists! Just one example, and I'm sure there are many more.
the WSJ reports on the "rise" of digital advertising and it's importance for the future. While this piece doesn't get into much new info (to us at least), perhaps an in-depth article in a traditional, respected publication (particularly to the people who need convincing that this is the real shit) will help further spread the word on how critical a shift it is. In fact, the Journal projects that, by 2011, the digital adspace will be closing in on a $40 billion industry.
Though it's good to see a traditional business paper talking on new media, honestly I would argue (and I think most of you would agree) the "brave new world" of advertising is not banner ads, paid search, etc but how companies are going to capitalize on social media to reach their target.
For example, I'm a big car fan. I'm often on car sites, building and comparing models, etc etc. So let's say Nissan were to track my internet activity, and consequently splash a banner ad on Facebook because I was poking around on the Nissan website moments before, curious about a new model...wouldn't really mean shit to me.
But, if they found a way to integrate themselves into the 15, 20 minutes or more I spend on the site (groups I'm in, people I'm friends with) then they may grab my attention. Hell, do a search for "Nissan" groups on FB and you get +500 results. So why not a Nissan sponsored group-- host events, membership discounts, factory tours, visits to HQ-- capitalize on the brand evangelists! Just one example, and I'm sure there are many more.
Hah - thought I'd get through a whole post without it mentioning Facebook? You were wrong...
1 comment(s)
Bubble II could be upon us - First Tuesday* is back. Let's hope it works out better than TechCrunch UK did...
*need a refresher?
6 comment(s)
OK, you may have noticed I've developed a bit of a Facebook obsession over the last few weeks, but after Thursday's launch of Facebook Platform, I think it's justified - this marks the beginning of another massive change in the way we think about the internet.
From a lengthy Fortune article (as usual, worth reading in full):
Imagine that when you shopped online for a digital camera, you could see whether anyone you knew already owned it and ask them what they thought. Imagine that when you searched for a concert ticket you could learn if friends were headed to the same show. Or that you knew which sites - or what news stories - people you trust found useful and which they disliked. Or maybe you could find out where all your friends and relatives are, right now (at least those who want to be found). This isn't fantasy. Facebook might make it possible, and soon. Yes, the social-networking site college kids spend so much time on - the one you thought was just about hooking up - could turn out to be more important than any of us thought. In late May, the company's 23-year-old CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, got up in front of several hundred journalists, analysts, and industry leaders ... to say that Facebook would no longer be just another social-networking site. Instead, he said, it aims to be the place where you can involve your friends in everything you do online. The company has 24 million members (less than half of whom are now in college), and it is adding about 150,000 a day. In effect, Facebook is now offering the opportunity for any company, Internet service, or software maker - anyone at all, really - to build services for its members. In advance of the announcement, which had Silicon Valley buzzing, Zuckerberg and other executives spoke to Fortune about the strategy. "We want to make Facebook into something of an operating system so you can run full applications," Zuckerberg told me. He said Facebook is becoming a "platform," meaning a software environment where others can create their own services, much the way anyone can write programs for Microsoft's Windows operating system on PCs. Zuckerberg sometimes lapses into jarringly grandiose language, for example when he told me that what Facebook is unveiling would be "the most powerful distribution mechanism that's been created in a generation." Today, social networking is fragmented. There are networks for dating, for philanthropy, for pet owners, for parents. But each has its own ways for members to register, describe themselves, communicate, and interact. Facebook aims to make much of that unnecessary. It will provide the underlying services - a platform - and offer access to its prerecruited pool of members. It will retain some online real estate and will still generate the lion's share of its revenue from advertising.
Imagine that when you shopped online for a digital camera, you could see whether anyone you knew already owned it and ask them what they thought. Imagine that when you searched for a concert ticket you could learn if friends were headed to the same show. Or that you knew which sites - or what news stories - people you trust found useful and which they disliked. Or maybe you could find out where all your friends and relatives are, right now (at least those who want to be found).
This isn't fantasy. Facebook might make it possible, and soon. Yes, the social-networking site college kids spend so much time on - the one you thought was just about hooking up - could turn out to be more important than any of us thought.
In late May, the company's 23-year-old CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, got up in front of several hundred journalists, analysts, and industry leaders ... to say that Facebook would no longer be just another social-networking site. Instead, he said, it aims to be the place where you can involve your friends in everything you do online. The company has 24 million members (less than half of whom are now in college), and it is adding about 150,000 a day. In effect, Facebook is now offering the opportunity for any company, Internet service, or software maker - anyone at all, really - to build services for its members.
In advance of the announcement, which had Silicon Valley buzzing, Zuckerberg and other executives spoke to Fortune about the strategy. "We want to make Facebook into something of an operating system so you can run full applications," Zuckerberg told me. He said Facebook is becoming a "platform," meaning a software environment where others can create their own services, much the way anyone can write programs for Microsoft's Windows operating system on PCs.
Zuckerberg sometimes lapses into jarringly grandiose language, for example when he told me that what Facebook is unveiling would be "the most powerful distribution mechanism that's been created in a generation."
Today, social networking is fragmented. There are networks for dating, for philanthropy, for pet owners, for parents. But each has its own ways for members to register, describe themselves, communicate, and interact. Facebook aims to make much of that unnecessary. It will provide the underlying services - a platform - and offer access to its prerecruited pool of members. It will retain some online real estate and will still generate the lion's share of its revenue from advertising.
Liz Gannes, who was at the Facebook launch, also clarifies something important:
Zuckerberg says you can serve ads on your app pages and keep all the revenue, sell them yourselves or use a network, and process transactions within the site, keeping all the revenue without diverting users off Facebook.
And, as Michael Arrington points out:
there is also a crucial viral component - when a friend adds an application, it is noted in their news stream on their profile. Clicking on the item brings you to the app, where you can add and/or interact with it yourself.
Advertising Age also has a good article covering off what Facebook Platform might mean for advertisers.
Anyway, that's probably enough for now. I'm off to play Red Bull Roshambull.
Update: There are a few naysayers out there - have a quick read of Facebook's new platform: No guarantees.
13 comment(s)
The D&AD Awards were announced last night - Agency Republic, AKQA and Lean Mean Fighting Machine all picked up yellow pencils in the online advertising category, but there was not a single British winner in the websites category - however New York's R/GA picked up a black pencil for Nike+. Campaign seems to think 'the digital world really made its mark'.
You can see all the winnners here - although someone needs to shoot whoever designed the D&AD awards site - screen shots or tiny quicktimes of websites or online advertising, rather than direct links to the work? As James says, things that are useful are much more interesting than things that just look nice.
Update: More from James on why all the pencils won for sites were done by non-UK agencies and all the pencils won for banners were by UK agencies.
no comments
In a week when Wildfire , another new word of mouth agency, has announced they're open for business, less than 2 months after the arrival of BzzAgent in the UK, an interesting article has surfaced, questioning the very principles on which these businesses are based.
The Wall Street Journal carries rumours that today Facebook will unveil:
a new strategy to let other companies provide their services on special pages within its popular Web site. These companies will be able to link into Facebook users' networks of online friends.
For instance, an online retailer could build a service in Facebook to let people recommend music or books to their friends, based on the relationships they've already established on the site. Or a media company could let groups of users share news articles with each other on a page inside Facebook. Previously some companies have had pages within Facebook, but they didn't interact with the Web site's user networks. This move is significant because it could turn Facebook into a central hub for Web users, akin to an Internet portal like Yahoo. Rather than using Facebook only to keep in touch with friends and going elsewhere for other content, users could now gain access to that content inside Facebook. That could keep people on Facebook for longer periods of time, which would also appeal to advertisers. It's unclear how exactly Facebook plans to make money from the platform strategy, but one person familiar with the matter says the firm currently has no plans to share revenue with the companies that develop services to run on Facebook's platform. In that case, the main draw for companies that put their services on the site would be visibility and access to users of the Facebook site.
For instance, an online retailer could build a service in Facebook to let people recommend music or books to their friends, based on the relationships they've already established on the site. Or a media company could let groups of users share news articles with each other on a page inside Facebook.
Previously some companies have had pages within Facebook, but they didn't interact with the Web site's user networks. This move is significant because it could turn Facebook into a central hub for Web users, akin to an Internet portal like Yahoo. Rather than using Facebook only to keep in touch with friends and going elsewhere for other content, users could now gain access to that content inside Facebook. That could keep people on Facebook for longer periods of time, which would also appeal to advertisers.
It's unclear how exactly Facebook plans to make money from the platform strategy, but one person familiar with the matter says the firm currently has no plans to share revenue with the companies that develop services to run on Facebook's platform. In that case, the main draw for companies that put their services on the site would be visibility and access to users of the Facebook site.
Update: Mashable has the scoop - Facebook F8 Live, Facebook Video Launches and 30+ Awesome Applications for Facebook. Also see Techcrunch on Facebook Causes.
PricewaterhouseCoopers' Andrew Sharp wrote a good essay in Campaign last week looking at the effect advertising has on the value of brands, and in turn what effect that has on a company's bottom line. There's some nice snippets in there:
Spend should be justified not just by what has been gained, but also by what would have been lost if it had not been spent. If you withdraw investment from brands, they may wither and decline, so in many cases, investing just to stay in the same place produces more profit than by not investing. In many cases, advertising is, in effect, the membership fee to the market - and the profits it yields. All investments - and that includes advertising - should always be measured against the best alternative use of the money. The alternative case for investing in brands is keeping the money in the bank and selling a product or service as a commodity. But most businesses today usually choose to sell as a brand, and, if successful, the result is more sales or a higher price or, most likely, a combination of both. Multiply the extra sales by the extra price and you have the brand incremental profits. These brand profits also have some duration. If we don't invest this year, we don't revert back to commodity position overnight. The brand achieves momentum - and that has a cash value, too. Today's brand incremental profits can be used to calculate brand value. This involves forecasting tomorrow's brand incremental profits across several years and discounting them back to a net present value (NPV). This is a complex subject in its own right, but briefly, it is this extrapolation of brand profits which produces the big prices that have to be paid to acquire one of these brand-owning companies - to acquire the cash-flow generators these brand reputations have become. So, the true measure of payback is the distance travelled from the commodity in volume and value terms - and the ability to keep that distance.
Spend should be justified not just by what has been gained, but also by what would have been lost if it had not been spent. If you withdraw investment from brands, they may wither and decline, so in many cases, investing just to stay in the same place produces more profit than by not investing. In many cases, advertising is, in effect, the membership fee to the market - and the profits it yields.
All investments - and that includes advertising - should always be measured against the best alternative use of the money. The alternative case for investing in brands is keeping the money in the bank and selling a product or service as a commodity.
But most businesses today usually choose to sell as a brand, and, if successful, the result is more sales or a higher price or, most likely, a combination of both.
Multiply the extra sales by the extra price and you have the brand incremental profits.
These brand profits also have some duration. If we don't invest this year, we don't revert back to commodity position overnight. The brand achieves momentum - and that has a cash value, too. Today's brand incremental profits can be used to calculate brand value. This involves forecasting tomorrow's brand incremental profits across several years and discounting them back to a net present value (NPV). This is a complex subject in its own right, but briefly, it is this extrapolation of brand profits which produces the big prices that have to be paid to acquire one of these brand-owning companies - to acquire the cash-flow generators these brand reputations have become.
So, the true measure of payback is the distance travelled from the commodity in volume and value terms - and the ability to keep that distance.
The IPA and ISBA have today released 10 easy steps to best practice in online campaign development - a nice print out and keep guide for clients to commissioning an online advertising campaign. I particularly like this bit:
Best results come agencies being briefed together: creative and media for digital campaigns and all offline and online agencies for multimedia campaigns. Even if digital is not at the top of the agenda at the outset, it is best practise to keep an open mind and fit the channels that give the best opportunities for success.
Good advice!
They also publish in conjunction with the MCCA and PRCA a series of best practice guides, again that are very useful:
In the last couple of weeks we've seen the winners of both the One Show and the Clio awards announced, which alongside the Cannes Lions, rate as the most prestigious international advertising awards*. Both have galleries of the interactive winners to view:
Daniele Fiandaca of Profero has some thoughts on the number of UK winners at One Show and both Iain Tait of Poke and Dave Bedwood of LMFM have some gripes about the Clios.
* this is true, although I may have a slight bias as projects of mine have won in both over the years
April's Creative Showcase awards have been announced. I particularly like this month's winner, but I've noticed over the last few months the judges seem to be shying away from awarding plain old display advertising. Surely this is what these awards are meant to be about?
Any of the judges care to comment?
Is this the future of e-retail interface design? A really nice online store from Swedish company Cicatriz Clothing, which uses video in a really clever way - over to Martina:
the site is made of a series of "video-tiles" which animated one after the other showcasing a model and the products. On click, the video becomes bigger and allows the user to note the details ... the interface not only allows buying in one click, but also updates in real time the number of items still available when you mouse-over the size you'd like to buy. Last but not least, the product video is always there, even when you review your shopping cart, making the whole site extremely simple but also stylish and usable, which is a combination kind of rare to find.
the site is made of a series of "video-tiles" which animated one after the other showcasing a model and the products. On click, the video becomes bigger and allows the user to note the details ... the interface not only allows buying in one click, but also updates in real time the number of items still available when you mouse-over the size you'd like to buy.
Last but not least, the product video is always there, even when you review your shopping cart, making the whole site extremely simple but also stylish and usable, which is a combination kind of rare to find.
Following up from Rory's post (and to a certain extent, Richard's), of real relevance to the upcoming showdown between pure play digital, above the line and integrated agencies, is this quote from Clay Shirky:
wild new things are possible if you don’t have any sense of how things used to be, then it is the people who got here five minutes ago who understand that new possibility, and they understand it precisely because, to them, it isn’t new.
Above the line and integrated agencies think they have the monopoly on understanding consumers and coming up with campaignable ideas. Pure play digital agencies know how to build websites and (some of them) do good online display advertising. However, the agency of the future probably doesn't exist yet...
The Sunday Times had a great article last week covering the battle in the UK between above-the-line and pure play agencies for digital work. You should read the whole thing, but there was a comment I wanted to highlight:
John O’Keeffe, executive creative director at BBH, is sceptical that there is anything unique about digital marketing skills. “There is a very, very simple truth to all this,” said O’Keeffe. “Nothing is more important than the idea. The people who espouse the view that [digital specialists] have some kind of technological advantage are diminishing in number. It’s just not the case.” He added: “The technology is functionally very simple. It’s not difficult to find people who can press the right buttons. [my emphasis]
John O’Keeffe, executive creative director at BBH, is sceptical that there is anything unique about digital marketing skills. “There is a very, very simple truth to all this,” said O’Keeffe. “Nothing is more important than the idea. The people who espouse the view that [digital specialists] have some kind of technological advantage are diminishing in number. It’s just not the case.”
He added: “The technology is functionally very simple. It’s not difficult to find people who can press the right buttons. [my emphasis]
As an anonymous friend said, is he on crack?
Heather Hopkins has a great post detailing the demographic breakdown of UK internet users. I'd recommend looking at her analysis and charts yourself, but the headlines are:
Nathan McDonald
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 22 Jan 2009
Total Posts: 7
Sandrine Plasseraud
Member since: 24 Jun 2008
Last login: 18 Dec 2008
Total Posts: 0
Peter Parkes
Member since: 05 Nov 2008
Last login: 08 Dec 2008
Robin Grant
Last login: 02 Jun 2009
Total Posts: 733
