Google disrupting advertising business?

Google is also preparing to disrupt the advertising business itself, by replacing creative salesmanship with cold number-crunching. Its premise so far is that advertising is most effective when seen only by people who are interested in what’s for sale, based on what they are searching for or reading about on the Web. Because Google’s ad-buying clients pay for ads only when users click on them, they can precisely measure their effectiveness – and are willing to pay more for ads that really sell their products.

— From an article in the NY Times by Saul Hansell

Buyers shifting to new media

Story on the Broadcasting & Cable website about ad buyers shifting to new media:

“Advertisers are shifting as much as 20% of their media dollars away from traditional media—TV, magazines and newspapers—and moving them to emerging categories, such as the Internet or movie theater ads.”

Hello? Did you forget radio? Are we not part of traditional media? Or are we not affected by this? (I’m looking for the pony.) And please tell me advertisers are not really taking money out of radio to buy movie theater ads. I refuse to believe that.

Professional Sign-holders Wanted

Former Radio Guy Matt Zeni recalls a radio interview on his station some years back:

“I saw a want ad in the Branson daily newspaper for full-time opening(s) for people to hold advertising signs on Highway 76 and the job included full benefits! The job paid $8.50 – $9.00 per hour plus medical and insurance. You could only keep the job, according to the owner of the advertising business, if you constantly waved to all the cars driving or stuck in traffic.”

Is the advertising pie big enough?

I’ve wondered about this but not as thoughtfully as Ben Compaine, who posts on the Rebuilding Media blog:

Can the media survive on advertising? Lots of folks are counting on it. Broadcasters have always had this single revenue stream. Daily newspapers get about 80% of revenue from advertising and the hot print properties, such as the give-away Metro dailies, depend about 100% on advertising. Now much of the Web is counting on advertising: Google, Yahoo! and increasingly AOL to name just a few of the biggies.

Either the pie gets bigger or somebody gets a smaller slice.

Does your web site suck?

“Agency websites suck, launch a weblog” is the subject of a post at AdRants.com. Replace “agency” with “your company” and see if it still makes sense.

“Right now, agencies might be saying, “What do we need a weblog for? We already have a web site.” Great. Take an honest look at it. Is it much more than a creative showcases (if that) and management bios? Aside from a few short paragraphs on your so-called “proprietary process” is there any value there for the reader? Are you offering anything that gives insight into the way your agency thinks and what your opinion is on the current state of advertising? If so, great. Most likely. though it is not.”

A good example of the difference between a “typical” web site and a blog? AgriMarketing.com and AgWired.com. I think the company I work for could be using blogs more effectively. But “brochure” web sites are safe and blogs are risky. And if they’re not risky, they’re useless and ineffective.

One second commercial

Catering to the ever dwindling attention span and capitalizing on its name, One Second breath freshener has placed a one second commercial during every commercial break on every TV station in Belgium yesterday. I think the blipverts on Network 23 were 5 seconds.

“High-speed commercials condensed into a few seconds that prevent channel changing and embed themselves in viewer’s minds. Sometimes they cause the heads of viewers to explode.”

Ad dollars moving online

“This year the combined advertising revenues of Google and Yahoo! will rival the combined prime-time ad revenues of Americas three big television networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, predicts Advertising Age. It will, says the trade magazine, represent a watershed moment in the evolution of the internet as an advertising medium. A 30-second prime-time TV ad was once considered the most effectiveand the most expensiveform of advertising. But that was before the internet got going.”

— Economist.com on an article in this week’s Advertising Age. More of the same at Yahoo!

Bob Garfield’s Chaos Scenario

“In the April 4 print edition of Advertising Age, columnist Bob Garfield laid out a sweeping vision of an advertising industry caroming toward chaos and disruption wrought by the digital media revolution. Boiled down, his theory goes something like this:

The marketing industry is currently whistling past the graveyard and largely ignoring signs of massive, fundamental changes in how the business of mass marketing will be conducted in the near future. The broadcast TV model is working less well each year and will eventually cave in on itself as it reaches ever-fewer viewers with a fare of low-quality programming and mind-numbing clutter. Marketers will increasingly abandon it. But despite their glitzy promise, the aggregate of new digital technologies — from Web sites and e-mail to cell phone content and video on demand — lack the infrastructure or scale to support the minimum amount of mainstream marketing required to smoothly sustain the U.S. economy. The result, as the old systems are abandoned and the insufficient new systems struggle to carry an impossible advertising load, is what Garfield calls “The Chaos Scenario” — a period of serious disruption moving like a tsunami through the marketing business as well as the economy and the broader society itself.”

I’ve been unable to find the full article but did find a report about the article (audio – transcript) at OntheMedia.org.

I might have mentioned this before but it bears repeating. My dad was a radio guy for 30+ years and I’ve been at it –in one form or another– for 33 years. Radio has been “berry, berry good to me.” And during the dozen years I worked in local radio, I estimate I wrote and/or produced 60,000 commercials. And I believed they “worked” for the advertisers who paid for them. And they believed they worked. And many of them did work. But I now wonder if wasn’t a little like believing the wine turned into blood. A matter of faith, based on… faith. Commercial transubstantiation.

Word of mouth was probably always more effective than radio or TV or newspaper ads. But how many people can one person talk to in a day? Not so many in 1955. In 2005… with a website… you can reach a lot of folks. And when Doc Searls says he likes this IBM Thinkpad, I believe him. Or Halley Suitt recommends an author. Or Chris Pirillo tells me he likes his iRiver mp3 player… I believe them. Because I “know” and trust them.

When I’m shopping for a (fill in the blank), I go online and read the reviews of real people. And yes, some shrewd marketing type could spoof me with a bogus review, but a hundred (a thousand!) others would have a different opinion. It’s getting hard to lie/exagerate/bullshit your way to a sale. Bob Garfield said it much better:

“The total democratization of media, combined with ultra-targeted ads consumers actually opt to see. We, the people, cease to be demographics. We become individuals again.”