Engaging Engagement

I was stunned to read last week that mobile users are actually willing to "engage" with ads in order to get free content (/sarc).  And to get them to do this, advertisers/content providers offer Virtual Currencies (sort of like gold sovereigns in the Kingdom of Azeroth only not so geeky) in exchange for personal information.  The currencies measured include airline miles, loyalty points, coupons, online rewards and credit card points. A mix of old and new loyalty incentives.

All this news was contained in a Yankee Group survey report titled Redefining Virtual Currency sponsored by Tapjoy, a SF-based mobile ad/publishing platform company.  Now, I'm not critical of the report, as it shows the extent of the give and take between consumers and marketers and how they value "content," but some of the results are not a surprise:

"Mobile device owners have demonstrated that they're willing to interact with a brand by exchanging their time (ad-views) and personal data for free digital content," said Jordan McKee, an analyst with Yankee Group and author of the report.

"Since users choose to take part in this exchange, the engagement can be far more meaningful and powerful than pop-up, banner or television advertisements," he added.

Specifically, 54% of smartphone users and 41% of tablet users had paid for in-app premium content. But given the option of receiving the same content for free in exchange for advertising, both sets overwhelmingly preferred engaging with advertising.

Respondents also demonstrated a willingness to engage with advertising to receive digital content. For example, 77% were prepared to engage with ads to earn a tablet app, 73% to get tablet in-app premium content, 73% to receive music and 67% to get smartphone in-app premium content. 

Enduring an ad in exchange for programming has been the quid pro quo of television and radio since their inception—though these days digital viewers must surrender some privacy to get it—my worry is the quid is likely not worth the quo and that the practice of collecting and retaining personal information will get trumped by privacy rights in the next few years.

What I wanted to see from Yankee Group was a breakdown of the 2,000 mobile users surveyed.  I wanted to see basic demographics (age, sex, location, profession, income etc.) and the kind of personal information requested for each denomination of currency. I also wanted to see what the demographics reveal as to the currency each age group values and how users' choices vary with age and service provided.  I emailed Jordan McKee asking him for more information and if the usage of the word "engagement" can be quantifiably measured.  Anyway, I haven't heard back. (Jordan, these aren't trick questions—I really would like to know this stuff.) If I do, I'll update.

New Dogs Learn Old Tricks

According to eMarketer, smartphone and tablet usage in Canada have increased 47% and 21% respectively since 2012, which is no surprise.  What is of concern, though, is that despite the usage growth, Canadian companies are being stingy when it comes to mobile advertising budgets because the big, bad finance departments want proof of results before forking over the cash: Canada's mobile ad spend is 40% less than the US and UK ($20/mobile phone Internet user vs. $49). 

Many of the issues are due to growing pains, such as ads not loading properly or adapting to the device.  Another is effectiveness metrics, like the recent news that 30% of display ads are never seen by the target audiences (gasp!) yet the client is still charged for the impression (Oh Noes!).  To solve this, marketers want to use client-side counting, where an ad is counted only when it has been successfully delivered to the device, instead of server-side counting, which counts an impression as soon as it's delivered. 

Then there is the biggie: Banner ads.  With results that look more like rounding errors than response rates, some marketers are now looking to old school TV for solutions.   No conversations, engagement,  or other immeasurable bullshit.   It is simply knowing that if you're going to interrupt people with an ad the least you should do make it interesting and entertaining.

There is no doubt that Mobile are an important platform, but it will only succeed if marketers learn from past mistakes, ignore the hype from the digital experts, and stick with proven methods.  The technologies may change but how people view and respond to advertising has not.

What I find most delightful in all this is that the Digiratti will use methods from a form of advertising they declared dead and buried years ago. 

The Creative Brief: The Starting Point

-->

Of all the hot button issues within an agency, the Creative Brief is right up there for creatives.  It is supposed to be high-octane inspiration—a document filled with so much insight and illumination Moses could have brought it down from the Mount.

Alas, too often a brief is anything but.  It is a dumping ground for superfluous junk, meandering thought, multiple message requirements, and meaningless brand babble.

I'd like to think that the cause for the multi-page brief is, to paraphrase Blaise Pascal, the writer did not have the time to make it shorter.   But I don't.  It is laziness or the writer just doesn't know what a brief must do. Part of the blame rests with clients, brand managers, AEs—creative are not excluded here—who either like to think they are the customer or that the customer isn't very bright and will believe anything put in a persuasive tone.  Customers are not and do not.  What's more, they quite likely know a lot more about the brand and its competition than the client.

Creatives are problem solvers and when it is open ended—meaning there are no constraints on solving the creative problem—the more creative the solution can be.   Here are my suggestions that the ONE PAGE (yes, one page) brief should say:

Can the creative problem be posed as a question?  E.g. "How can we get X to consider purchase?'  If it can't make it become one.  

What is the point of distinction with the brand? (Note:  this is NOT a USP—it is time to dump those relics because they are, for the most part, meaningless and only hamstring creatives.)

Who is our target audience and why?

 

What is the brand's market share and its penetration? (Two separate things) 

Is there any meaningful offer?

What is the budget?

To my long-suffering ADs, I can hear (and see) your pain

Stock photography.  The bane of an art director's life.  Cheap, cheezy, OTT stock photography is the ass-saving refuge of clients with no idea what to do ("just slap in a picture of someone looking happy... who's ethnic... and tech savvy... lying on a dock... ") and who needs something, anything as long as it's not risky.  Or original.  Or interesting.  Or expensive.  To ease the frustration of those art directors who struggle with having to use this loathsome library of lameness, there's this:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/cliched-stock-photography-is-the-funniest-music-video-ever-m