Looking at the online videos that advertising agencies are creating for their brands, it is clear the main metric and causes for these online video is the viewers “attention”.

That would explain some of the entertaining, sorts stupid, commercials I saw yesterday at a late afternoon session on Video 2.0 at Web 2.0 Expo (like Obama Girl fighting girl McCain Hulk).

Here’s the marketing notes for this session:

PANEL: Marketers’ Dilemma: Finding and Managing Digital Resources Westside Ballroom - North

What does the disintermediation of Big Advertising mean, specifically, for Brand Marketers? Creatives these days seem to be everywhere and anywhere— some might say Madison Avenue is dissolving amid the rise of branded content providers, specialty marketing shops, even user-generated brand messaging. Others would include everyone—even a technology powerhouse like Google—as part of the New Madison Avenue. How does a brand manager look for quality, cost-efficient new media gurus in a splintering creative and media environment? What are the challenges of managing such a varied roster of talent, and how does the glut of options affect brand positioning?

MODERATOR:
Shane Steele, Digital Media & Marketing Consultant

SPEAKERS:
Lars Bastholm, Executive Creative Director, AKQA
Chris Curtin, Vice President, Digital Strategy, Hewlett-Packard Company
Pam Kaufman, Chief Marketing Officer, Nickelodeon
Bob Stohrer, Chief Marketing Officer, Virgin Mobile USA

Even though the purposes of a high end Brand video commercial is created for a much different purpose than a political satire and tension release, they share the goal of gaining attention, getting you undivided attention.

Connection Strategy? Consistent Touch point Multi dimensional strategy?

Well, doesn’t seem like digital agencies do that, today.

Here’s the paradoxical issue, but it was not voiced, that all brands want “undivided” attention, while people are now “multi-tasking” and doing a few things at once.

Even our desire to create a metric for “engagement”, or should I now call it “attention”, assumes that our attention, as measured via page click depth, time spent on site, visit volicity (all this stuff that Eric Peterson’s new paper on “Measuring The Measurable” tried to put forth as a formula to measure “engagement”) is the sole thing we’re doing, when it’s often, not.

On my way to OMMA this morning, several people on the subway had their IPod or IPhone and earphones on; they were also being exposed to display ads on the walls and ceiling of the subway car and some were also reading a book or newspaper.

In the past, we might have simply described this multi-tasking capability as “clutter” that brands seek to get your attention from.

But, from another perspective, it’s precisely the “brands” messaging which we’re are often multi-tasking!

A question came up about Social Media and no one could figure out where it sits in a modern digital agencies.

Perhaps, there needs to be a certain amount put aside for “innovation”, but that is often the first thing that is cut.

Btw, I am writing all of this, as I was also doing yesterday, on my IPhone, and posting online directly, so please forgive my spelling and grammer errors.

At the Disintermedia panel this morning with Joe Mandese, Nigel Morris, Edward Montes.  Here’s the session marketing notes:

PANEL: Disintermedia Westside Ballroom - North

In an era of 2.0 this and 2.0 that, the original zen masters of positioning are in the throes of repositioning themselves. Digital media units are usurping their big brothers, and Madison Avenue outsiders like Google, Spot Runner and, yes, even the consumer, are disintermediating the role of traditional agencies. Truth is, Madison Avenue has always been more than the sum of six big agency holding companies, but even the notion of that cozy club is being challenged when you consider that Microsoft, a software and technology company, is now the parent of Avenue A, while WPP, an agency holding company, owns 24/7 Real Media. Is Big Advertising being replaced by an army of smaller, nimbler, more flexible marketing services shops? Will we end up with a smaller advertising industry thanks to improvements in the science of marketing?

MODERATOR:
Joe Mandese, Editor-in-Chief, MediaPost Publications

SPEAKERS:
Nigel Morris, Worldwide CEO, Isobar
Sean Finnegan, Chief Digital Officer, Starcom MediaVest
Trevor Kaufman, CEO, Schematic
Edward Montes, EVP, Managing Director North America, Media Contacts
Matt Freeman, CEO, Go Fish

The main thing I got out of this panel is the perception Google (is / is not) a threat to Madison Avenue.

To be honest, and I am not an expert here, that the panel is in denial about Google, beginning to disintermediate Madison Avenue with it’s nimbler marketing services.

It seems to me, under the circumstances, a representative from Google ought to have been on this panel, as well.

Freenimum, as a term, is also coming up, a lot,in this discussion. Reason? In the new rules of media disintermedia, you need to give stuff away.

And what happened to Yahoo? Is Yahoo now totally unimportant in this discussion now?

Yes, more or less, they have been paralyzed over the last 9 months with everything we have been reading about, but there are new signs of life (semantic search) and they should not be totally counted out.

It is challanging for agencies to be set up to fully meet the all needs of their clients, and can’t even afford to take on very small clients.

Also, agencies are beginning to be asked to take an advisory role of harvesting clients data and provide insight.

In other words, agencies are beginning to take over some of the roles of an in house site analytics / marketing analytics group.

Ha! I knew I’d get something out of this otherwise, boring panel.

I had seen this study earlier that Heavy Clickers Distort Reality of Display Advertising Click-Through Metrics suggesting ".. “the click is dead” as go-to measurement of effectiveness for brand-building display advertising campaign".

In fact, 6% of the online advertising market is clicking on 50% of all the ads should indicate something:

"….The study illustrates that heavy clickers represent just 6% of the online population yet account for 50% of all display ad clicks. While many online media companies use click-through rate as an ad negotiation currency, the study shows that heavy clickers are not representative of the general public. In fact, heavy clickers skew towards Internet users between the ages of 25-44 and households with an income under $40,000. Heavy clickers behave very differently online than the typical Internet user, and while they spend four times more time online than non-clickers, their spending does not proportionately reflect this very heavy Internet usage.  Heavy clickers are also relatively more likely to visit auctions, gambling, and career services sites – a markedly different surfing pattern than non-clickers."

 Let's see - are heavy clickers …. gamblers?

Heard about The Online Advertising Playbook: Proven Strategies and Tested Tactics from the Advertising Research Foundation earlier this year at Search Engine Strategies and Ad-Tech NY.  I saw a copy in Barnes and Noble last night and decided to pick it up.

As a Web Analyst, I'm often asked on coming up with things to measure - and it looks like The Online Advertising Playbook has all the things, from an advertising standpoint, from a marketing standpoint, that you'd want to know about and measure - at least, the online advertising part.

Honestly, it looks like the Playbook is a condensation of what most of Ad-Tech and Search Engine Strategies has sessions on - I guess that's a good thing as I've gotten tired of both.  

I may be going to this conference  in NYC next month (see above), though my work with the Board of Directors of the Web Analytics Association, but I'm not sure yet. 

I'm wondering how much of what's actually talked about here - is going to be similar to what's in the Playbook?   I also have to find out if I can go, as I'm starting a new job at Monster.com on the 7th of January.

If I do go, this is what I'd be most interested in - Most of it actually!:

tr>

Looks like a pretty good conference, overall - and there's several people speaking who I'd like to meet and tell them about the work the WAA does with Social Media Metrics on my Committee.

Aaron Wall at SeoBook.com is saying what I've come to believe with is that contextual Advertising via AdSense is killing the Web.  Essentially, people are seeing that many sites care more about advertising than content.

While Google can get away with it because Google is a search engine and there's still a high degree of textual relevancy while sites can't often to the same thing.

And, more and more, sites that use AdSense can't compete with Social Networks and communities that have real content.

Wrote about RadioHead recently when they offered their “In Rainbows" album for any price (including free) you wanted to contribute, for online download.  According to Comscore, roughly 3 out of 5 people who came to the RadioHead site and downloaded "In Rainbows" did so for free.  Those who paid for the "In Rainbows" album paid, on average, $8.05 in the US and $4.64 outside the US.

"…Approximately 2 out of 5 Downloaders Willing to Pay

During the first 29 days of October, 1.2 million people worldwide visited the “In Rainbows” site, with a significant percentage of visitors ultimately downloading the album.  The study showed that 38 percent of global downloaders of the album willingly paid to do so, with the remaining 62 percent choosing to pay nothing. The percent downloading for free in the U.S. (60 percent) is only marginally lower than in the rest of the world (64 percent).

Radiohead “In Rainbows” Online Album Downloads October 1-29, 2007 Total Worldwide – Home/Work Locations Source: comScore, Inc.
	Worldwide	U.S.	Non-U.S.
Percent Who Paid for Download	38%	40%	36%
Percent Who Downloaded for Free	62%	60%	64%
Total Downloaders	100%	100%	100%

“I am surprised by the number of freeloaders,” said Fred Wilson, managing partner of Union Square Ventures and well-known music aficionado. “The stories to date about the In Rainbows ‘pick your price’ download offer have been much more optimistic. I paid $5 U.S. and had no reluctance whatsoever to take out my card and pay. It’s a fantastic record, the best thing they've done in years. But, this shows pretty conclusively that the majority of music consumers feel that digital recorded music should be free and is not worth paying for. That's a large group that can't be ignored and its time to come up with new business models to serve the freeloader market.”

What I found interesting - in the future album sales will depend on a fan base - and most musicians are not developed by the record label to have much of real fan base - therefore, if this new distribution method for music becomes mainstream someday soon, many artists would not do so well:

"…“While the band, its fans and artists alike are celebrating what looks like a success for Radiohead's bold move in releasing their new album using the ‘pay what you'd like’ model, I think everybody has overlooked one very important aspect of this, and it doesn't bode well for the future of the music industry,” says Michael Laskow, CEO of TAXI, the world's leading independent A&R (Artist and Repertoire) company. “Radiohead has been bankrolled by their former label for the last 15 years. They've built a fan base in the millions with their label, and now they're able to cash in on that fan base with none of the income or profit going to the label this time around. That's great for the band and for fans who paid less than they would under the old school model.  But at some point in the not too distant future, the music industry will run out of artists who have had major label support in helping them build a huge fan base. The question is: how will new artists be able to use this model in the future if they haven't built a fan base in the millions in the years leading up to the release of their album under the pay what you'd like model?”

Seth Godin is right when he wrote about The truth about Radiohead  to continue to evolve the new music revenue model to include membership in clubs and invite only social networks.

I also wrote about RadioHead recently.  In other words, now that Radiohead has proven the concept - don't stop - go further - push it as far as it can go. 

Can't really say how I feel about AOL these days though laying off 20% of it's workforce seems extreme. 

"..In the e-mail sent to U.S. employees on Monday, AOL Chief Executive Randy Falco says that the layoffs are needed to keep the operations efficient as the company continues its realignment from a subscription-based ISP to an ad-supported Web company. And he promises "generous severance packages."

I was swamped at Emetrics Summit this week and really could not post much - in fact, much of what was going on at Emetrics, especially the announcements of new features of Google Analytics were very blogable, yet I didn't cover them…there's so much I can do and I choose to spend my time talking with individuals and groups, having meaningful conversations.

On the other hand, the news about the AOL layoff does suggest a comment - AOL is a big employer in New York City - with a large AOL Center located at Columbus Circle - I wonder how many of the employees being let go are in New York?

My take, and this is just me, is AOL is not becoming more relevant, as Randy Falco suggests, when he announced the layoff, but less….and that's why the layoff is actually happening (as far as I can see) because a 20% layoff is way more than any corporation usually lets go unless they are in trouble - usually 3% - 5% is considered a major layoff - 20% of a large corporation is more like a mass slaughter.

Will Wall Street like it - sure - Wall Street is all about money - as long at the stock goes up - they don't give a damn if half the company is let go.   But the question is …. how relevant is AOL anyway?  Not very.

Here's why - AOL was more important as a gateway to the internet - and as a news service - but those roles have been greatly diminished - as Falco clearly sees - not matter what they do - they can't really get back to the place they were at 10 years ago.

And the Silicon Alley Insider has 22 comments going back from last Monday,  when the announcement was made, showing how people feel about the layoff.

It's always tough - the have's feel they are impelled to layoff the have not's - even though, in large part, the reason why AOL failed has to do with management - in other words - it's basically Management's fault that AOL is losing marketshare and shrinking - but it's the workers who get shafted while the Executives, who created the failing strategy jump off with their golden parachutes - the perversity of our age.

Facinating post by Analytical Engine that links web analytics to online marketing using GeoDemographic Segmentation from Acxiom Corporation, according to the Wall Street Journal:

"…for years Acxiom sold that information to marketers eager to use it to send mailings and make telephone pitches to consumers most likely to buy. Now, the Little Rock, Ark., company is putting those hundreds of millions of bits of data in the service of customizing which display ads to show people browsing the Web".

I'm going to summarize the information on Linking Marketing and Web Analytics

1. Acxiom managed to create a data warehouse of the behavioral and spending habits of the majority of American households and segment it by PRIZM's latest set of GeoDemographic Segments.
2. Whenever anyone who goes to any of Acxiom's partner sites fills out a survey (where they are asked for their name, email address and zip code) they're automatically assigned to a PRIZM GeoDemographic Segment of cluster and a cookie is placed on their computer.
3. Next time you visit a Acxiom partner site, the cookie placed on your computer identifying which GeoDemographic Segment you belong to is references and advertising targeted to your GeoDemographic Segment is served to you.
4. When you go to the Acxiom partner site with the first cookie - others are placed on your computer to trace what you actually did on those sites - and this information is added to the profile Acxiom has on you and their overall information about behavioral and spending habits of the majority of American households.

Seems to me the information Acxiom collects is self reinforcing - it keeps on getting updated, pruned, compressed and more comprehensive - which means that they've got a pretty good idea of what you or I will like - as long as they can read the first cookie they place on your computer (and you don't erase it).

But Analytical Engine went further by showing how the PRIZM GeoDemographic Segments actually chose what interested them:

The top GeoDemographic Segments were "Accumulated Wealth" and "Young Accumulators" followed by "Mainstream Families" … all the titles of these segments suggest they have money to spend (weather they do or not) which shows that people/households who have accumulated a lot of money (Accumulated Wealth) are looking for News and Entertainment while those who are younger (Young Accumulators) are not interested in News, just Entertainment…but both like Movies.

Overall, you can see that just about every top segment wants News and Entertainment … and I guess, that's what the advertising is going to be delivered as - but there are important distinctions on what is actually delivered because it has to be tuned (written, scripted) for the GeoDemographic Segment Acxiom thinks you are in.

Online Ad Supremacy is an area where Microsoft is doing battle with Google and might win according to an article in the New York Times titled:Microsoft Takes Aim at Google’s Ad Supremacy:

"…Using technology from aQuantive’s Atlas division, Microsoft will be able to provide advertisers with a log of all the places on the Internet where people see ads before going to the advertisers’ Web sites. The data is based on individual computers’ electronic signatures, not individual people."

"…the system will be expensive to deploy without Microsoft, because it requires vast server capacity to analyze billions of ad impressions each day, said Young-Bean Song, a vice president of Atlas. He said that Microsoft would be able to use the new tracking capability to prove the value of its ad space, much of which is unrelated to search."

That's the key… "unrelated to search".  As long as something is related to Search….Google wins … because Google owns Search, even the idea of Search. 

It's true that many searches are really for navigation (IE: typing in the name of a company, name of a person, name of something just so you can find a URL).  In that case, all someone wants is to find the person, thing, URL, etc …. they don't really care about Search.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.