Advertising : I’m at Ad:Tech


: I’m at Ad:Tech and will blog as possible. This won’t be of interest to most but for those who care….

: First is a session run by Jarvis Coffin (no relation) of BurstMedia.

: Doubleclick says 38 percent of Internet users account for 73 percent of pages viewed. That’s what makes it hard to target across large audiences; you end up reaching the same people.

: The Doubleclick rep says that there needs to be a merger of data from servers (page views, unique users, etc.) and panels (demograpics). “We’ve got to understand the ‘who’ of online advertising.” Doubleclick is running tests with Nielsen, IMS, and ComScore and will come out with a paper in January. That will be valuable to show overall audience.

: A research guy shows the obvious: start with a message; test your message; you will increase your efficiency. I wonder whether citizens’ media becomes a good medium for testing message and creative (you’re not blowing the budget just to test).

His next point: Frequency is not good; frequency reaches a point of diminishing returns at 4-5 impressions (which says that we shouldn’t be selling month-long ads to advertisers for sites that are addictive). If it’s too damned frequent it reaches a point of “actual brand desruction.” Annoyance hurts brands.

Finally, he shows how the type of ad unit make a difference. Banners are at the bottom of that chart. Video is at the top. Say hello to the ecnomic justification for exploding TV on the internet. Advertisers like and it works.

: Bad ad creative is a big issue (for which publishers get blamed when they are not paid for click-through). An IAB study found only 1 in 4 brands had effective creative. The Doubleclick person says, though, that advertisers ask about the units that perform, not the creative. It’s not the size that’s matters, it’s what’s in it.

: Now I’m at a word-of-mouth marketing session.

The moderator is giving Dan Gillmor and his book lots of plugs.

: It’s a new world with its own jargon already: connectors, mavens, influencers, sneezers, talkability, spreadability…

There are a few companies using word-of-mouth agents. I’m not at all clear how this works. Bzzagent doesn’t pay its agents so I wonder why they do it. Tremor, started by P&G, says they want people to become advocates for brands but not necessarily users. I’m hearing very few specifics about how they work with blogs, Meetups, friend networks, and such. I’m confused.

Justin Kirby from DMC in England says that measuring what people are talking about is just more clutter. “It’s not just about people talking on blogs, it’s about people having influence.” Another smart line from him: “Not every product is an iPod.” Not everything is worth talking about.

I’m not hearing smart ways to interact with — not use, interact with — citizens’ media. An opportunity for us; we’re the experts in us.

: Transparency is an issue with this new industry and, well, it’s even more important than it is in news: Lie and be found out and you will do damage. There’s much fretting about what could “kill this industry.” It feels as if using us is an “industry.”

The word I’m not hearing from these folks — that I should be hearing — is “conversation.”

Then, at the end, somebody asked, “what’s a conversation worth?” One panelist says, “10 times a :30 spot.” Others scratch their head. Kirby says that’s like trying to value a cocktail party (where the real currency is whether you get laid, he says… the audience member asks what that’s worth…). They’re starting to value each conversation with us.

We will want our cut, folks.

: Kirby mentions the word “push” and the audience hisses. Bad memories, eh?