Archive for the ‘Internet Marketing’ Category

Don’t Go Away Mad… Just Go Away: A Marketer’s Perspective to the Thorny Issue of Technology & Privacy and What to Do About It Now.

November 6, 2010

Last week there was an interesting article in the October 25, 2010 Wall Street Journal, A Web Pioneer Profiles Users By Name, about a web company called RapLeaf that takes data collection and web profiling to a new level.

Privacy in the 21st Century: A Brave New World

This is one of a whole onslaught of articles in the Journal and media overall regarding the apparent erosion of privacy, information and how it is and will be used in our 21st Century world. The information that is collected about us and our behaviors and now embedded on our computers and mobile devices for “harvesting” by companies intent on delivering ever more relevant marketing to us based on our actual search, purchasing and other trackable behaviors on and offline is astounding.

As a marketer, this is a nirvana like condition… a “brave new world “ of actionable, personally relevant information. Information that can be applied to customers one-to-one, with the idea of improving response rates for our online marketing programs. Better clickthroughs on PPC (pay per click) ads and banners, more targeted and specific messages to our prospects and customers. Eureka! The proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is at hand.

…Or 1984

And the “best” part that this is done automatically. We don’t have to do anything differently, it is done for us. I don’t know about you but this almost sounds more like Big Brother and “1984” when you put it like that.

So let’s circle back to what started this off… RapLeaf. Up until now, we have been told by Google, by Facebook, by ISPs, by Telecoms and all the rest that they collect anonymous data about us.

Fair enough, perhaps. At least we are used to it and may have a cookie (sounds so innocent doesn’t it) or a beacon implanted on our computers that may identify our habits, but not our names and e-mail addresses, we are number. That is until RapLeaf. They have collected it ALL… names and e-mail addresses and other contact info along with the rest.

Although RapLeaf claims otherwise, companies or other entities such as political parties and candidates use this information for highly targeted, pinpoint marketing programs, as the example in the Journal so clearly noted. This opens up an array of questions and issues that I am sure will be a part of our national (and international) conversation for quite some time, as these capabilities grow in every increasing frequency and at a faster rate beyond the traditional checks and balances, regulations, etc., that are now woefully out of date.

However our real fear, and possible solution, a marketing one at that, is a bit different.

A Marketing Point of View

Offering users the choice of how they wish to interact with technology increases ad relevance and value. Loyalty and other incentives for user determined levels of engagement further improves performance and reduces privacy concerns.

For an example of what I mean… if today you are a member of CVS’s ExtraCare® or similar loyalty program, and you swipe your tag at point of purchase, you may receive a seasonal discount offer for say, suntan lotion in the summer after every two or three purchases you make. Basic and static, these swipes are more about information gathering and over time CVS has acquired massive amounts of information this way.

Moving forward from now, it can and will be quite different. There is the new reality, currently in the process of being built.

Every time you interact with a CVS or any other retail environment, it will be tracked. And not only can the swipes be accessed in real time, so can your overall purchase behavior and credit card info as well. Tie this in to your personal info like mobile phone number, e-mail, web and actual addresses, now a whole new level of direct interaction is possible.

Let’s say you have allergies and every Spring you buy Claritin®, for example. That e-mail offer you may get, or ppc link on your Google or Bing search, or text message in March at the beginning of allergy season may feature, you guessed it Claritin… buy two, get one free. Or if the GPS on your cell is activated, you are in a CVS store around that time and isn’t that ironic, there is that bar code on our smartphone for you guessed it, that very same offer delivered to you in real time, right at the point of sale. At some point you may be walking by a Walgreen’s and…

Fantastic! So what is the difference between the realities of Brave New World or 1984?

The Customer-Oriented Solution: Transparency, Control and Choice…

In the CVS example, you freely give your information in exchange for discounts, relevancy and other benefits in exchange. There is a clear incentive. In the other, it is done to or for you without your consent or control, as we saw in the Journal article.

What about relevance?

Clearly having relevancy defined for you, sometimes doesn’t always work as intended:

  • Remember that baby present you purchased for your niece or nephew a while back? Isn’t it weird to have sponsored links for baby carriages and disposable diapers follow you around, even if your kids are off to college, or you never had any?
  • Or if you do have kids. One way or another they have figured out how to work around the parental controls and now you are getting all kinds of e-mails, and links to crazy sites you would never visit in a million years. Ooops.

We know that one of the hallmarks of Web X.0 and the Inbound Marketing trend is control, customer control. Transparency in being up front and offering choice supports this reality. Permission as we now know it, giving your permission to engage or accept a newsletter or such, is only step one.

We argue that we need to go further. As you can see in one of our earlier blog postings Hulu Pulls a Lulu, there is a strong bottom line marketing rationale to offer customers more control, more often.

And if choice and choice were adopted side by side with the latest information processing capabilities of say a RapLeaf, we can see that even more value could be created, not less as it may appear, and in a manner that does not conflict with the issue of privacy, in fact a manner that respects it.

How is that?

Choice = Value

Remember the old axiom from Direct Marketing 101? The one that says the greatest cost and lowest return is in the initial “getting the hands raised” action. Say you spend $1 million to reach an audience of 1 million people. The cost is $1 per person, and you get a 1% response or 10,000 people act. The cost per response is $100. It’s expensive.

Now you a pool of 10,000 folks that have already acted and declared an interest in you and your product. Working that audience not only costs less, but since they are aware of you and have already expressed an interest the product or service, response rates can go up, often significantly, as the relationship develops, if you engage this very valuable audience of folks that have “raised their hands”.

One argument I have heard is that if you offer choices, you in fact limit the impact of your message to only those that act, and slash your response rates. This is valid I suppose, especially if say you trying to go viral with a compelling white paper and force readers to register first. Response rates can drop to almost zero.

The question is does it have to be either/or?

First. Using the direct response model and our technological quest for more marketing relevance, it may be true that overall response rates go down if active choice is offered, but at the same time shouldn’t the value of the response go up? If I choose to view automobile ads, or better yet, brand-specific auto ads, aren’t I self-selecting and indicating my possible interest?, and doesn’t that have higher value than just a general click through on a banner, a sponsored link on Google, or other such online device?

The next step of course is to learn if I am a potential buyer, and if so, when? But isn’t that easier to assess once our interest is established?

And if a short-term buyer I am not, could there still be longer-term value as a quote unquote lead. I may know someone, or have a child looking for a vehicle, or I may be in the market later. In other words, underneath the choice to receive information, is my customer initiated response, opening the door to develop a long-term relationship.

To continue with the car example, information and technology could add value, as an added layer on top of my choice levels. It could offer me a variety of car options using what it “knows” about me… to validate brand, type, features, and my needs, and then facilitate the most appropriate, highest value interaction with the product. This way the technology is my information partner so that I get the most relevant information, because I choose it to do so.

Re-Positioning Latest Technologies as Enablers to More Relevant Information

In this case the technology is an enabler helping me get information I want and need.

What if we don’t want and choose not to actively interact, and therefore want the technology to do it for us, to serve us messages and links that the system identifies as relevant, much in the way Google does based on our search query today?

Create a mechanism to let us choose this option.

If we want to be creative, we can even use a CVS ExtraPoints/loyalty program as a model. Imagine if incentives are in play in return for the freely given exchange of information? This recognizes and provides value in exchange for levels of privacy that in essence are “surrendered” and offers the opportunity to deepen the relationship over time, at the same time.

And of course, there will be those that won’t, don’t or can’t respond. That may be the subject of another posting.

Let’s take this approach to another hot spot that has received a lot of attention relative to its privacy policies lately, Facebook, the 800-lb super gorilla of social networks.

Under Mark Zuckerberg’s leadership, Facebook has consistently attempted to stretch the privacy envelope in order, it appears, to monetize as marketing intelligence, the deep, deep profiles, Likes, Friends and other information it has on it’s users. Again and again we have seen sudden changes to privacy controls and policies, and more feature introductions like the ill-fated “Beacon” program that would have been used to create high value information that could be sold at a premium to third parties.

What has astounded me over time is:

  • how people haven’t fled the network as these initiatives were imposed, often without warning
  • how Facebook’s users have pushed back when they felt privacy envelope had stretched too far, and
  • how Facebook has responded, pulling back as it attempts to monetize the information on hand.

I would have thought users would leave… but we didn’t and apparently don’t. And the question remains, knowing that this robust info about us exists, how can Facebook marry in a cool, mutually beneficial way the information it has with marketers that still gives us as consumers control and allows us to determine the levels of relevance we want?

One simple way could be to add a profile section specifically for marketing purposes. Invite us to participate. The promise: relevant communications between companies looking to match their products to people with expressed interests with products or services of that type. The value of the interaction to all parties jumps here.

Facebook could get slicker and stickier create a platform where we get points when we click, when we share, and when we buy or act. This way the user could be recognized as an influencer driving word of mouth and/or a customer.

More Choice = More Relevance = More Value

In return there could be an interaction where we are actually offered a dynamic menu of advertising choices based on our profiles and technology where we then get to choose (raise hands) for relevant products with a higher likelihood of interest.

By the way, couldn’t this type of thing work with Google too?

With such a mechanism, Google could engage with us when certain potential buying patterns emerge with our queries. Kind of a super Pay Per Click.  “Are you looking to buy… a car “ type of dialog could help Google serve up even more relevant links based on an actual declared interest. This could even have an impact on organic search as well, where a simple added interaction would help Google fine tune their search results to truly match our needs immediately and over time.

Couple this with the semantic web capabilities coming up and this enhanced search capability could add even more value to search, which could help offset inevitable maturity of the product.

And yes, choice does apply to YouTube, Hulu and so many others. Give us choice and the value of our information and interactions increase and privacy recedes to the background, as long as it is treated with respect, which includes transparency and security. Under these circumstances, a RapLeaf offering may not be so intrusive after all.

One last thing… please talk to us in plain language. Have you seen the electronic terms and conditions for say Apple’s App Store? The basic agreement is 55 screens long. Who reads this? Not us mere lay folk.

Maybe we need to agree in the form in legalese, but give us a one-pager in every day language please. And if you make an update to the terms, give us the bullet’ized version summarizing changes in plain language again. Then when we agree, especially if it is in relation to control, transparency and such, we know what we are doing, and as such have added the value of conscious choice to the action, which adds true marketing value to the relationship overall.

Advertisements

Marketing Misfire. Nexus One… Looks Like a Great Phone to Me! The Real Battle Was Positioning and Google Missed It.

May 13, 2010

Summary:

1. The Situation

  • What’s at Stake
  • Product Features
  • Current Positioning

2. Analysis

  • What’s Right?
  • What’s Wrong

3. Recommendations

  • Connecting the Marketing Dots
  • A 5-Step Plan: What can Google do about it.

Introduction

Recently, before the (in)famous lost iPhone debacle, Apple indirectly made another announcement of perhaps greater import relative to this already proven game changing device, the iPhone. It appears that at long last, Apple is making the big move to create a version capable of running on other carriers, in this case industry-leading Verizon.

As earlier postings on marketing to win attest, Apple needed to make this move or else risk having the product marginalized to niche status if they stayed on ATT exclusively. The risk is magnified especially since Google’s robust mobile, open source  operating system Android in tandem with other devices, notably manufactured by NHT, opens up the market above and beyond any one carrier.

And to make matters worse, it appeared that Google along with manufacturer NHT would be the tools of this destruction with the much heralded launch of it’s Google-branded Nexus One smartphone. Nexus One was designed to be platform-agnostic and besides featuring Android, it exploded the existing sales channel model traditionally controlled by the carriers, and sold direct to customers online through Google itself.

And if that wasn’t enough, customers were also offered both locked and unlocked versions of the device. If you wanted to purchase a subsidized version with a two-year contract, there was a T-Mobile version ready to rock for under $200, and a Verizon-ready model was going to roll this spring as well. Radical indeed.

Before we dive into what was wrong marketing-wise, remember there is much at stake for Google and perhaps NHT as well.

The smartphone is in fact a mobile computing platform and apps that run on these devices are, if I read the tea leaves correctly, potentially disruptive to Google’s online search-based ad model, especially as these platforms take off. I mean who needs search if in fact the app chosen already defines a clear area of interest as defined by the user?

This means that it is well worth Google’s time, talent, management attention and dollars to get in the game and win a real piece of the action, no matter what it takes. Otherwise others (re: Apple) will be in the driver’s seat. Android is one piece. An “iPhone killer” device, a Nexus One… another.

The Good: Feature by Feature… Nexus One Looked Like a Winner!

And what Google/NHT have done on the product level looks real good to me. The more you look at the features of Nexus One next to an iPhone, the better it looks.

It boasts a variety of powerful features including:

  • megapixel camera with a flash, versus the megapixel without flash on the iPhone 3GS,
  • the battery is removable and replaceable, iPhone’s is not,
  • there is a micro SD slot to add up to 32-gigabytes of memory, where with the iPhone, what you buy is what you get
  • apps run simultaneously on Nexus One which the iPhone is famously unable to do at this time
  • and we all know about iPhone’s inability to run applications developed on Adobe’s ubiquitous Flash platform, Nexus One of course runs Flash apps.

Plus Nexus One is the only smartphone to boast the Google nameplate, which is one of the world’s most recognized brands known for leadership in innovation. Add it all up on the product front, this is the good stuff!

The Bad: Positioning Is Where Google Falls Down

Alas, where this all is falling short is in the marketing and positioning arena, which is so essential for success in products of this class.

If there is one lesson we all need to remember and it seems we always forget, it is that product features do not a mainstream marketing strategy make!!!! We were taught this by Geoffrey Moore in his landmark book Crossing the Chasm.

Product features are great for early adopters but are not and don’t work as selling points to mainstream audiences who buy based on herd-like behavior criteria of peer adoption and market leadership.

When going mainstream, it is essential that customers get to feel that others just like them have and love the product, and then that they get to see and feel it for themselves, in order to win them over.

As far as I can tell, this is the whole deal right here on the Nexus One e-commerce and info page, the one that comes up when doing a Google or other search. Based on comments above, the positioning is off base, way off base.

From an e-commerce perspective alone, the presentation itself is simple and clean, just what we’d expect from Google.

From a positioning point of view however, what we see is a product message that by definition is focused on early adopters, not mainstream buyers. OOPS.

You can see it right away by Google tagging the device Web Meets Phone. Product features anyone? This tells us what it is, and if there was no iPhone, this may be necessary… but in an already established, hot product category, no way! Our response is so what?, isn’t that what a smartphone does? Nothing compelling there.

When we look at the rest of the Nexus One page we see the following sections, which also supports the product-focused positioning:

  • Demo
  • News
  • Already a Customer (Customer Service?)
  • Closer Look (including You Tube Channel)
  • And of course, a Buy Now button.

The question is why put the impediment of a Chasm crossing, first winning over early adopters and then mainstream buyers, in front of you when you don’t have to?

Getting the Right Message to the Right Audience

Google is a household name making a play to exploit Apple’s weaknesses and grab a piece of the mobile market. Since this is a competitive land grab type, early adopters are irrelevant here. This is a mainstream marketing move.

The criteria these consumers really care about here are leadership and referenceability. It has always been so. In other words, is the product a leader?, and do my peers have it, and love it?

Google as a brand is a leader, so customers can make the leap of faith to leadership on this level. The question is then, what do our peers think about it? Does it deliver? Is it (the product) “baked”?

Here is where the marketing for this product breaks down.

It is most likely that many potential customers don’t know anyone who has one, and what’s more, if they are interested, they can’t see it for themselves, let alone play with it and internalize the benefits of its many features. This appears to be a result of the Google-facing distribution channel. Because of this radical departure away from carriers, T-Mobile stores, the current existing carrier, don’t have them.

Re-Positioning: Connect the Dots and Take it to the Streets!

Assuming that this won’t or can’t be changed, what then? How can we get this product to the people?

How about testing then deploying some temporary pop-up stores and displays in key markets, key malls, key events, even key warehouse stores like Costco? Consumers can drop by and see, and ask the questions as well as buy… Plus such a temporary approach creates time sensitivity and urgency and also lends itself to deadline driven promotions to induce immediate buy decisions.

Segmentation

Also, so many students today use G-Mail and Google docs. What about more targeted programs, in this case engaging campus reps and offering sales incentives and scholarship-based promotions for sales results? Here is where you could play early adopter card… the rebel, be different card to build traction and gain market share.

Testimonials

One other avenue is to retool the YouTube Channel. Currently the Nexus One channel is all about product info and demos. Keep this content if you must, but also focus on customer testimonials instead. And this can be done strategically, and by that I mean seed it with some key persona or consumer types. Create some promotional incentives to drive submissions, then let it go.

There are plenty of consumer videos out there on the phone, but they are all over the place and you have to dive in to find them. They need to be connected back to the Nexus One page. And content kept on point as much as possible. This is where the incentives and promotions come in. These are necessary to create that peer support that is so essential.

Service?

Lastly, part of the fear factor that holds mainstream buyers back is service. They want and expect a tested service function. They don’t want or accept beta testing done on them. They want a fully baked whole product in place, operational and working. If not, they hold back and do what comes naturally.

They wait.

On the product/marketing side one big issue that can’t be , what happens if I am having issues? Who do I call? Where do I go? Since what is radical here is the “untethered” sales model, we have to know there is a clearly marked place we can go if we need help. Right now I have to figure it out and I don’t have a person to talk to or place to go.

Positioning is all about connecting ALL the dots and at no time is this more important than when mounting an incursion into mainstream markets with an entrenched and powerful leader.

Summary: A 5-Step Plan

To boil things down then, here is a 5-step plan to reposition the Nexus One into a viable competitor to the iPhone (note: there is still time!!!):

1. Re-position the product: Web Meets Phone positioning tag has to go. How about something like Nexus One by Google: The Smarter Phone or something like that.

  • Google. We need Google mentioned for leadership, making the phone not THE but A leading product,
  • “Smarter.” This way you create a qualitative showcase for the features to shine, but talk in the leader/market talk needed in mainstream communications

2. Narrow down to some tighter target segments,
3. Create incentives to drive and organize testimonials,
4. Take the product to the streets so customers can see, touch and buy the product from a person,
5. Re-communicate that Google is there for you relative service

Add it all up, now you have the marketing foundation to communicate a very competitive offering that can grab some market share. Now Google can add a link on the main search page for starters and they can realistically capture a portion of a % of that number to take Nexus One from failed iPhone Killer to a monster hit, with all the benefits of same!

Apple is safe. Or is it? NHT had fantastic earnings for its smartphone offerings through carriers on a global scale. NHT also has the ability to draw upon Google’s Android mobile operating system and Windows too, which will be releasing its new OS momentarily. So as Sherlock Holmes said, “Watson the game’s still afoot” but the battle for mobile superiority may be played out on another field.

Note: As I post this (May 13, 2010) Google/Android/Verizon announced sales in excess of iPhone for the first time. Stay tuned!

HULU Contemplates a Lulu

December 6, 2009

OK. This harkens back to those internet “go-go” days of the late 90s – get first-mover advantage and scale and the money will follow. Sounds like the script for the movie Field of Dreams… “build a better product and the customers will come,” which as a marketer often working in the tech sector, is a line I hear all too often.

If what I just read in Business Week (“HULU’s Tough Choices”, Dec. 7, 2009) is any indication, HULU, the very popular free video streaming site with 40 million downloads per month (second only to You Tube) has run up a $35 million annual loss and is suffering just such a fate as the web bubble did.

HULU is not just an ordinary site. Funded in part by NBC, Fox and ABC, HULU was the film/video industry’s response to the technological disruption of FREE that had obliterated the music industry and with the prevalence of cheap bandwidth and storage, was heading it’s way. They saw how the music industry not only lost control of the new now dominant digital distribution channels but also found itself rendered obsolete, and did not wish to suffer the same fate.

One of the experiments put forward was HULU and lo and behold, I can get yesterday’s episode of 30 Rock and all sorts of video and film content on demand (1,700 titles) playable on my computer any time I want. And with WiFi-enabled LCD flat screens upon us, let alone the ever easier ability to integrate TVs into our home networks, this free content on your HiDef TV is nearly a reality. Or is it?

If the Business Week article is to be believed, the era of premium content at HULU is upon us. In other words, content we will have to pay for. And what is to be the price for this content? Your premium cable service!

Wow! Let me see if I have this right. Here comes this disruptive force of free streaming video content sponsored by the broadcast and film industry. It’s ad supported model is not really sustainable, at least right now. So yes, those happy days of free content appear to be coming to an end. And now the industry in its wisdom is telling us we may have to pay, and the way we will pay is in support of the what were soon to be disintermediated cable TV interests!

I mean after all, do we need cable anymore if a thriving online channel is delivering this content through our medium of choice through our server, versus the cable box? I guess the cable industry saw the handwriting on the wall too and isn’t about to go quietly into the night.

We could spend all day trying to figure this out. Is the Comcast acquisition of Universal (and NBC) from GE a factor in this equation? I will leave this to others to decipher.

My beat is marketing, and the question on the marketing side is, is this the best you can do, HULU? You have built a brand, you have scale, you have content and now you want to punt, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory while the experiment is in process? What a waste for you and the viewers who love you, and if my students are any indication, many do.

We all know that it is one thing to point out problems, another to pose solutions. Marketing is all about solutions, so let’s see what we can come up to get HULU out of this mess, knowing their ad model as currently in play isn’t sustainable.

Recommendation #1.
Up the value of the advertising.

How so?

As I see it from the outside, HULU has been a pioneer of offering choice to visitors? Watch the long ad and see the show uninterrupted… or choose the shorter ads sprinkled throughout. This is a great start.

How about going further and offer viewers even more choice? Offer a menu of ads by type and even product. Let the viewer self-select their ads of interest.

You can be high or low tech about it too. Low tech… base the ad offerings by the show, or if you want to be more slick, apply behavioral information to narrow down the choices based on each visitor’s clicking habits.

How does this improve value?

  1. You are empowering your viewers with more, not less control
  2. Ads are more relevant as a result
  3. And in doing so, viewers actually act and “raise their hands,” which direct marketers know is the most costly and difficult part of the customer acquisition process

What this means is that response and conversion rates should be higher and I will argue in the absence of evidence either way, at least worthy of testing. And should indeed response/conversion rates improve, the value of the advertising will go up and command a higher premium.

And one other point. Advertisers could be charged based on actual visitor selection and or performance. If viewers don’t click, they don’t pay. And when visitors do engage, they pay more. Integrate some interactive promotions and calls to action for those that do select and powerful interactions can take place.

Recommendation #2:
HULU Ju Jitsu

I see HULU as more than a platform for streaming video… free streaming video on demand. I call it a Network of One. It is our own personal Video network, programmed by us just the way we want it, with the content we love, when we want it and hopefully soon, where we want it too.

The motor that has driven it’s success to date as the second most visited source of streaming video content is the fact that it is free. Don’t kill it! Use it! Since Fox, NBC and ABC are principals, create premium content that bring fans closer to the shows, films and actors they love with interviews, webcasts, blogs, tweets, contests, and even closer interactions and behind the scenes access. Create opportunities and other reasons to join fan clubs and other communities and pay for the privilege based on the degree of proximity and interaction.

Peel off some percentage of 40 million for tiered service and subscription packages that supplement the free streaming content, and some interesting numbers come into play. 1% of 40 million is 400,000 prospective customers. Find reasons to get them to pay up to say $100 per year for something special above the free content… well you get the idea.

For one thing, HULU is no longer operating at a deficit. Up the percentages… every .1% is 40,000 customers afterall, and the return can be even more radical. Personally, I would love the opportunity to win a lunch with Tina Fey, a comedic genius if there ever was one.

Are Ad Words Dead?

April 8, 2008

We have seen the headlines over the past few months… “signs of click recession!” or “decelerating clicks!” Obviously these are referencing Google and are referring to ComScore’s recent monthly data reports showing decline in the number of times consumers clicked pay per click ads that accompany Google search results.

We can infer from the headlines that journalists and the powers that be may attribute this to environmental factors as a result of a slowing economy. Others say this is the result of a conscious effort by the company to trim clicks so that they can limit the supply and charge more.

We can go back and forth about the cause, but it clearly appears that advertisers, after years of consistent and meteoric growth, may be getting fewer sales per click, which is bad news indeed for all concerned.

Marketing 2.0 Win has its own theory, borne out of let me say up front non-scientific research in my work as an adjunct professor of marketing at Emerson College in Boston. I see it in the classroom all the time, the search-based PPC ad platform is becoming mature and students (vis a vis consumers) aren’t noticing or responding to them as they have before.

Remember Banner Ads? Or Flash-based web site intro’s? How cool they seemed… then, and how they don’t now?

Thus is it may be with search-based adwords. When we first encountered them, they raised the bar for relevant ads, based on what we were searching for at the current moment. Google not only delivered us better search results than the others, the search based ads as often as naught mirrored our interest at that instant and offered us the potential to find best price for products we may be seeking. We were interested, we noticed, we clicked through and we bought, finally making the long sought after promise of the web to deliver relevance to individuals a reality.

No, don’t me wrong, Google is not resting on any laurels. They are a great innovating company and their acquisitions of YouTube and DoubleClick prove this. However, YouTube even with huge numbers of visitors is still hard to monetize, and the DoubleClick approach to knowing where you have been, as well as where you are in order to make better inferences leading to more relevant ads, well this opens up a whole Pandora’s Box of issues from privacy to trust that will only get more intense and slow things down.

In our world view, if relevance is king then as the Law of Surrender = Victory dictates, control is key… customer control. To make it simple, ask the customer what they want. Offer them a way to choose from a menu of ads or create a profile that can be changed at any time, which can then help serve up ads on search, on You tube, Hulu or wherever, that will be more relevant. For example, when is a car ad most relevant? Probably when you are in the market. Give customers the ability to declare their interest.

By doing this two things happen. 1. With the customers help and control, ads will be more relevant and targeted, and 2. The more opportunities the customer has to raise their hands, the more likely a prospect they will be, which will translate into higher conversions and sales.

So, has search-based advertising had its day? You be the judge. However from where we sit there is no doubt that the novelty may be wearing off and that the quest for relevance is ongoing. In Marketing 2.0 Win, it is certain that if companies do more to bring customers into the mix, relevance will follow, which in the end creates even more opportunities for growth.

Radiohead Surrenders Control and Makes a Bold Move

October 3, 2007

The big news on the music marketing front this week has to be the upcoming release of Radiohead’s 7th album “In Rainbows.” The reason is simple… the extremely popular band is no longer affiliated with a major label and releasing the music direct to the public themselves… no label, no itunes. This alone is fairly radical. Some great artists have been unaffiliated with a label and releasing product for years quite successfully.

 

One example that comes to mind is one of the most successful jazz artists today, composer Maria Schneider and her constantly touring “big band”. She is a part of a cooperative record label called Artists Share and is able to offer her fans a variety of levels of participation with her recording projects… from simple album purchase to tiered access to the project’s creative process all the way to Executive Producer level for higher financial contributions… audience choice. She has been so successful with this that not only has she been able to take on and fund ever more ambitious projects, she even received the first ever Grammy for a pure digital album.

 

And others such as Prince who take the long view of their business have distributed their latest recordings for free, in his case as in insert in a newspaper or at concert events.

 

Radiohead is taking this thing to new level because customers are invited to pay what they wish for a download version of upcoming album…directly from them!

 

If you follow Marketing 2.0 Win you know that one of our 5 laws of marketing for the 21st century is “Surrender = Victory.” In essence what this law indicates is that in our topsy turvey world, like it or not customers have control and the more we as marketers are willing to surrender control to them, the more successful we will be.

 

Radiohead is doing just this…surrendering maximum control. We can argue that they can afford to, especially when you consider that they are one of the world’s most popular bands with a huge fan base and they have in effect disintermediated most of the middle men in the process. But the inverse is also true, one could also argue they have the most to lose.

 

One outstanding question what will fans do?

  • My sense is that some will choose to pay nothing… which is totally acceptable.
  • Many will base their choice based on the digital retail price which, depending on how you look at it is 9.99 on iTunes and 8.99 on the new Amazon MP3 service.
  • And assuming people like the new album, many will probably pay more based on its emotional value.

This “feeling” will also be driven by the fact that fans will be dealing with the band directly and my guess is this will be perceived as a righteous act, worthy of support.

 

This is all good, but there is one more factor in the mix of this bold act that excites me the most. We know that iTunes has been the most successful legal distribution channel with 3+ billion tunes downloaded. This represents a tiny fraction of music that is downloaded… for free every day however.

 

This what some would call “underground audience” is in the hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide. They have contempt for licensed content and labels and believe it is their right to get the music they want for free. Like it or not, they feel entitled to it.

 

By surrendering control, I figure Radiohead is making the first real and legitimate move to capture some of this audience. If they can pay whatever price they wish, I will guess many will. The only question then is how much? No matter what, Radiohead wins… consumers win… and a whole new way to engage the largest possible audience may emerge… an audience that is empowered to dictate their own terms in the transaction. Welcome 2.0 a new day!