The Awesome Reaction Opportunities of Online Advertising

Jeepers, what a news day! Hows about that Obama unscheduled announcement at 3-something this afternoon? That was a ripper.

News started coming through Twitter about 2.30 this afternoon about the unscheduled announcement from Obama and then very quickly the rumour mill went into overdrive in that it was to announce that Osama Bin Laden had been killed and the US had the body.

This kind of news of course spreads like wildfire on the internet. The announcement was to be streamed live on The White House website, which of course was delayed for almost an hour. During which time, everyone was hungry for information, which meant publishers had to turn information around SUPER QUICK.

As @tweetdaniel pointed out, TV3 didn't manage to get it quite right:

I would recommend clicking on the link above so you can check it out in full, but basically, it reads:

"We are currently experiencing extremely high traffic due to the announcement that Barack Obama is dead. Please bear with us we will be back up soon."

Whoops.

Not sure that was right.

Now, if you've read my blog before, you will probably know that I don't have a lot of nice things to say about TVNZ. I still don't, because when I tried to watch a live stream on tvnz.co.nz this afternoon it wanted me to report the error in loading, which I tried to do a number of times. Le sigh.

However, they did manage to do something right today (shock horror I know).

There I was, reading Mashable.com on what was to be announced and what do I see, but a One News banner run through the Google Content Network:

I do not tell a lie, this was up within half an hour of me first reading about the rumour that Obama was going to announce the death of Bin Laden. Now, it's not the prettiest of banners, but it's bang on. All the information you need. Up to date. Relevant.

I think it is awesome and just shows how online is the best medium for this kind of immediate response. Press also gives the opportunity for quick reaction turnaround, but for that, we're talking the next day, not within the hour. This is just too good. Brilliant work.

This doesn't change anything though TVNZ. This is clever, but all is not forgiven...

Budget Online

Can someone please sort out Budget's online advertising.

Yesterday I was on Trade Me where I saw a Budget ad and thought 'spin the wheel - cool, sure, this will be interesting. Wonder if they are going to do this within the ad or take me to a landing page?'

Now, I understand that there is a button on this ad which says 'Spin Now' but I wasn't paying that much attention so I just clicked on the actual wheel in the ad. Took me straight to a new tab which told me that it was "bad request - invalid verb". At this point, I took a screen shot of the landing page and emailed my Trade Me rep and suggested they work out what is going on.

No idea what they did with this information, but they thanked me for it.

So, today on TV3 page, I see the Budget ad again:

And again I click on the wheel instead of the spin now button and yet again, I get this:
Now, this could be a Chrome issue (I can't be bothered finding the ad again in Firefox and playing with it) but I do wonder, who is building this creative for them? I am pretty sure it is possible to make sure that the rest of the ad doesn't click through at all, if that was what they were going for, or more to the point, make it so that everything but the button clicks through to their site.

What is going on?

What did Trade Me do with this information? Did they pass it onto the agency/client? Let them know what was happening? And if so, how come new creative which doesn't go to an error landing page hasn't been supplied to all publishers running this ad?

This is one of the reasons why it is so hard to get clients into online. They start with a sample of 1 (themselves) and decide that no one clicks on online advertising, so what's the point? Then, once you convince them to consider online, they start playing a little more and clicking on ads and this sort of thing happens.

Someone is letting the side down here. I'm not sure who, but you're not helping the rest of us by not caring about your advertising.

Negative Keywords People

OK, come on. This Internet thing, it's not new. Advertising online, it's not new. So why (oh why) are people not taking advantage of negative keywords when purchasing display space on news sites? It's really not a difficult thing. Honest.

Just tonight (I am talking in the last hour) 2 different people have tweeted unfortunately placed display, both of which were banks.

There is this one which was posted by Clarke Gayford. Awesome, 2 banks advertising across a story about a guard being attacked while filing an ATM. What I like about this the most is the 'easy money' statement on the BNZ ad. Classic. At least neither ad was ANZ (the bank which ATM was being filled...)

As a bit of an aside, Stuff - what on earth are you doing allowing 2 banks to run display next to each other. I would not be a happy camper if I was running either one of those campaigns...

Then there is this little gem which was on the Herald site, but was brought to my attention via mikiszikszai. I'm going to admit, I can understand how this one happened a little easier than the above, but oh my goodness, what an unfortunate coincidence!It's one of those times, where you kinda have to think about worst case scenario, you know? Just like airlines and travel centres have to put negative keywords up for plane crashes, people should be thinking about the content of their ad and all possible ramifications.

I mean, come on people, they same way that you target with keywords - you can make sure these sorts of things don't happen with NEGATIVE keywords. Do it!

Other than that though, how freaking awesome is it that there are no pigs in the BNZ ads anymore? YAY! You have no idea how happy I am to see this shift. Freaking awesome.

The last agency isn't gone yet

OK, so this little piece of creative has cropped up ALL OVER THE SHOW.

Not sure what you all think about it, but I think it's a bit shit. Not the production, or the cleverness of it, just the overall message. Even though it talks about obsessive blogging, something that I might know a couple of things about, it just really isn't doing it for me.

The Last Advertising Agency On Earth from FITC on Vimeo.

What you have with FITC (and let's be fair - this is from 5 mins of reading) is, as they say, a 'Design and Technology Events' company and this video was produced with S&S Canada to promote one of their events. As they say on their site:

"What will the future of advertising look like? The answer depends on whether or not traditional advertising agencies truly embrace the power of digital to reach consumers and build brands in new, exciting ways. 'The Last Advertising Agency on Earth' is a film is about what might happen if they don't."

So basically what they are trying to do is scare marketers into digital/online because apparently their agencies don't know what they are doing.

Now, this might just be the case in some agencies - what they are talking about, hanging onto the TV script and re-purposing print ads for web banners - however not all agencies are like that and certainly not in NZ.

From what I have heard and witnessed, a lot of the time it is the agencies that are trying to push their clients into online, but just can't quite get there because the clients are not sure. They know television and print and therefore feel safe. You have to remember that like we agencies have to answer to our clients, our clients have to answer to their bosses and boards and stakeholders. Sometimes taking a gamble (especially in the recent climate) isn't worth it in their eyes, even when the research is telling them that is where they should be.

Yes, it is totally our job to make the clients feel comfortable with their decisions and make sure that their advertising works as hard for them as possible, but sometimes, there just aren't enough words to convince them. (Perhaps they need a TVC or newspaper ad to convince them?)

So, I have seen this video reposted on a number of different blogs around the traps in the last week, but there hasn't been a lot of comment that goes along with it. If they are posting it because it is a very nicely shot, interesting piece of work, then I agree. But are they posting it because they agree with what is being said in it?

We agency kids need to stand together through these kinds of scare tactics. What you're talking about are agencies who want to handle digital in a silo. Now, in some instances, I can see how a separate digital agency could be a good thing, but please people, if you don't stand up for your agencies in house abilities to produce great ideas and grand online campaigns, you are handing money to people who are one stop shops of limited online ideas, which go something along the lines of:

This is what I've done in the past.
These were the results.
Look at this small CPC/CPA.
You should do the EXACT same thing.

No recognition of brand awareness (which even Google is now reporting on differently acknowledging view through on the content network), it is all about the click.

What I think we need to be doing is getting the creative teams excited about the possibilities of online, it is a whole new world out there for them to mold and manipulate.

I just really firmly believe that a media strategy should include all media which is being utilised. Whether it be TV, print, cinema, outdoor, ambient or online, a campaign needs to flow together, picking pieces off isn't going to create a cohesive and seamless campaign, and isn't that what we all want for our clients?

On the other side - Westpac

Following a Tweet from @kenfreer this morning, I checked out Westpac's takeover of tvnz.co.nz today. After the BNZ post earlier this week, now lets talk about doing online well.

Today, Thursday 28th May, the National Government are announcing their first Budget. It is kinda a big deal because 

1. It is National's first Budget where they get to tell us specifically that all the nice promises they made, like tax cuts, to get the country's vote, are not going to happen
2. We all recognise that the world is not in the best financial state at the moment, so we're looking to the Government to ensure we are heading down a safe and (hopefully) right path
3. In one way or another (even if not everyone realises it) this Budget will effect us all

So Westpac have made the most of this opportunity. Coverage of the Budget - specifically online since it is pretty much live - is going to be high and people are going to want to know what is going down as it happens. 

What (I think) they have done very well:

• Selected a site which will have great access and coverage to information - and not just written, I would anticipate video as well.
  
• Have worked their brand as strongly as possible - including wallpaper on the homepage and complete display buyout on Budget coverage. They are owning this space on TVNZ, there would be no confusion as to who is advertising
• They have made their advertising relevant. As per the visual below, the banner advertising refers to the Budget (and the showcase later on talks about 'budgeting for all New Zealanders') this was planned and creatively executed together, it wasn't a matter of 'lets just put something there' which seems to happen a little bit in NZ.

So, well done Westpac, nice to see some serious thought being put into online campaigns (I am well aware that other organisations also plan,time and execute campaigns very well, but this is the nicest one which works the branding well) and I hope it works really hard for you - and I hope tvnz did you guys a seriously good deal. 

Is online ready to be taken seriously?

The online advertising worlds opinion of itself might be a little further along than it really is, and at the moment, I wonder whether it is ready to be taken seriously.

Thanks to the dirty 'R' word that is being bandied around, we are seeing every rep that there ever was coming in and talking to us in the agency. Its amazing. These poor sales people (a term for some I lose loosely - one online rep who has recently jumped publishers is on a tidy sum I hear) have had to start working for their budgets, not just order taking. To be fair, some reps are coming in and telling us about great new products/ideas/initiatives, it is nice to see some companies changing and adapting in the face of recession. Others, however, are most certainly peddling the same wares.

The one thing all reps typically have in common, is respect for the agencies. Be it television (although they have pushed it recently), radio, outdoor, cinema, press or print, they all understand that those of us in the agencies actually want to work with them, to create fantastic schedules for our clients and ensure that we both win. And in that respect, they all offer agency commission bearing rates.

Don't get me wrong, online also offer commission, however, they offer it to all and sundry. Agencies spend a lot of time and money to become accredited; other media channels respect this and offer commission to agencies only.

When a direct client comes in, guess what, you don't have to give them commission, which means more money to the publisher... This is standard practice for media suppliers, all around New Zealand. The reason that agencies get commission is because, in general, we can bring in more overall budget. It turns into a win win situation. When publishers will give commission to every man and his dog, it is the agencies and further down the track, the publishers, that will lose out.

The message that we get from the publishers is that they should be taken seriously, given a bigger slice of the pie; online use is increasing, across a number of demographics, therefore, media spend should reflect this. I don't understand how agencies are meant to take publishers seriously when they don't take us seriously. In order to ensure that our clients have a full and comprehensive media mix (yes, including online) we need to be placing our clients online advertising. There are a number of independents out there who are now placing online only for a number of clients separately from the rest of the media schedule. The reason that these people can do so is because the publishers are allowing them to have commission. Commission = no fees to client (hence why agencies typically don't charge media on an hourly rate).

I understand that there is some client education required, but it is the publishers who are allowing commission that are enabling this to happen. When agencies have a full media budget, we can disperse it completely to where the audiences are. This can mean online getting a bigger slice of the pie than they already have, depending on what our research tells us - yes, it is telling us the same thing the publishers are, usage and time spent on the Internet is up across a number of demographics, if we had the budgets, our spends would reflect this more accurately.

If publishers want some more budget out of agencies, and to be taken seriously, then they need to work out where they stand. Are you working with agencies, or against them?