RickWebb
- 7 comments
- 1 likes given
- 1 likes received
Bio not provided
Brand doesn't need to be measured in likes and engagements. It never has been, and people have been happily spending the bulk of ad money on TV for decades on brand advertising without it. Even now, $50 billion a year is spent on brand advertising without a single measuring of "click" or "engagement." It's called television ads.
Brand advertising is measured by a noticeable change in perception about your brand in the public at large. it's done by surveys. It may ALWAYS be done by surveys. I think it probably will. The method of measurement need not change for the medium of brand advertising to change - from TV to digital. If you walked into any CMO's office and said "I can increase your unaided awareness by Y% and your brand sentiment by Z% - the two metrics you already use and obsess over - for 20% less money, okay?" They would all say "okay! great!" The problem is that no one can honestly say that because brand advertising options on the web suck - up till recently it's mainly been banners.
But brand doesn't need a new measurement metric. The old ones will do, even in digital. It's just that there are still limited good options for brand advertising on the web, because all of ad tech was so navel-gazing at direct.
Not commenting on the wisdom of such a move - I would be against it - but it's worth pointing out that Ingram's argument relied less on anecdotal teen use and more on this quote: "it is clearly a huge and growing force when it comes to sharing and engaging with visual content of all kinds — in other words, it’s the kind of curatorial and creative market that lots of advertisers and brands are interested in appealing to. The sharing of that content is exactly what Facebook has tried to encourage with its “frictionless sharing” apps and features, but much of that has been awkwardly handled from a user point of view and it’s not clear what effect it has had on engagement."
In their defense, foursquare beat most of these people with the sponsored badge like 3 years ago. ;)
This was a great article. I can't tell you how many times I have referred to that chart as "the chart."
The thing I think is funny is the way it's somehow not expensive to hire 1,000 developers like Twitter but it's expensive to hire 50 journalists.
It's actually pretty funny to think how it's expensive to hire 10 journalists but somehow not expensive to hire 10 developers. As if journalists are highly paid or something.
You hit the nail on it right here: "platforms are like catnip to investors"
This doesn't necessarily mean they're good investments, but that there is a super slim chance they MIGHT be. As going concerns, though, they sure are more expensive than media companies.
As a tech investor and writer, I can assure you it is not easy, at all, to be a naysayer. Great article otherwise, though.
This seems like an awesome idea and an awesome model, but it's worth nothing that it would only apply to direct advertising, not brand advertising. Brands have value and advertising agencies make them for peanuts compared to how much a good one can end up being worth. On the direct side, a model like this would make sense for a marketer, but on the brand side, where a good chunk of ad money is spent, the brands would get a raw deal compared to what they're getting now if they were to pay based on value added.