Well, eMarketer (OK, maybe it was just the Annenberg Public Policy Center and UC Berkeley School of Law) threw behavioral targeting under the bus today to make a tangential, if not completely unrelated point.  In the article, they write that some survey or the other found that people don’t want tailored, personlised adverts.  Hmm, I’m sure I could get a survey completed that says 18-49 unmarried males don’t want to see cosmetic or diaper adverts either.

But rather than worry about the statistics, I wonder what that has to do with behavioral targeting.  If, by behavioral, they mean “try to figure out the persons interests and then target an advert based on those interests,” I think we need to redefine behavioral.

Most of the behavioral targeted campaigns we run in the video space are intent based, i.e., we see someone shopping for cars and throw up a car advertisement.  Or, we know that people have looked for Hawaii travel holidays and then throw up a travel ad.  Dunno how that can be bad.  I think I’ll pay for a survey to find out.

- Jayant Kadambi

It seems that every day now, someone is conducting a study (remind me to get into the research/study/consulting business next time) to state the obvious. And I assume they are getting paid. So, today, we find that that SoDA (Society of Digital Agencies) says, and hold on to your hats here, “Marketers Moving to Digital Media”. You can read it here http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1007064.

So, according to this data, digital marketing agencies are increasing spending over 74%. If I’m reading this correctly, that’s just in Q1. Metrics and Video seem to be chic at the moment. I have a feeling, it’s not just a fad.

- Jayant Kadambi

Looks like the tide is turning in the content wars. Even the talking heads, or in this case, the talking marketers are saying premium or professionally produced content is on the rise. Take a gander at http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?id=1006935.

We’ve always maintained that if there is enough of the good stuff, or at the very least, recognisable or vaguely recognisable stuff, advertisers would prefer that. And the market is responding, at least according to eMarketer.

- Jayant Kadambi

As I’ve stated before, when times get a bit tougher, not only do the Las Vegas team-building boondoggles suffer, but real corporate spending is also scrutinised. (Yes, I showed my hand. I don’t believe in team-building boondoggles to Las Vegas). And usually, one of the first things to get questioned is marketing spending. I can just hear the comments, …. , “So, how many leads did that booth in Vegas get us, … , no I mean qualified leads that turned into a sale, not just booth inquiries!” I’m regularly worried about a system that only asks that after times get tough.

But back to the question at hand, which is accountability in marketing. Century 21 has been quite vocal in announcing the cessation of advertising and marketing offline and moving their whole budget online. eMarketer’s article “Shifting Media Dollars from TV to Digital” actually provides snippets of an interview with their SVP or Marketing, Beverly Thorne.

She basically states that their measure of success for marketing is the number of qualified leads generated, and further, the cost per qualified lead. And by that metric, based on the experiments and tools and data collection, online wins. Good for us, I guess.

What would be interesting to find out is why her leads online were doing better, is it because they are more measurable, is it because the publishers or agencies who helped her with the online campaigns target better than TV, is it because the online audience is more receptive to a real-estate broker than the offline audience, or is it something else. We in the online industry shouldn’t kick a gift-horse in the mouth, (it’s rude, or so I’m told) but it is something to think about, since her comments seem to be echoed by many, many people.

Jayant Kadambi

Dynamic Logic, bless their heart, conducted a study recently on the reaction to people of ads that interrupt content. I can’t quite figure out what that means, but it seems they included pop-ups or “over-the-content” ads. Yeah, I’d be annoyed too, if I’m watching Quantum of Solace and something started to float over the critical chase scene when Bond and the Bond girl are strapped into an Aston Martin chasing the baddies.

What I found interesting in the article titled “What’s the right amount of advertising?” is that the subtitle is “It can depend on the type of ad” state that not only does it depend on the type of ad, but it depends on the viewer, the viewer’s tastes, the relevancy of the advert to the viewer and the content. Maybe Dynamic Logic can run a study that includes some more variables.

According to the data, another interesting trend is that from 2005 to 2007, the number of people that found it simply unacceptable or borderline unacceptable to have “over-the-content” ads dropped from 48% to 36%. That’s significant. It either means that the ads are getting more relevant, or people are getting more tolerant. I’d suspect the former, given that from 2005 to 2007, the number of ads has increase per piece of content. Maybe in 2 more years, the number of naysayers will drop from 36% to 24%. But hopefully this time, because ads are much more relevant and contextual and tailored. Again, let’s see.

- Jayant Kadambi