Healthy Blog Reviews

Don’t think that just because Facebook has managed to not completely trample people’s privacy as of late that there is not more activity around the subject. In fact, forces in Washington, this time the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), are speaking at ‘hearings’ that are looking into this issue right now with talk of a “do not track” list. This is not the first time the subject has been raised (2007 it got some attention) but in light of recent online privacy ‘dust-ups’, this idea may have a real chance to develop. MediaPost reports The Federal Trade Commission is considering proposing a do-not-track mechanism that would allow consumers to easily opt out of all behavioral targeting, chairman Jon Leibowitz told lawmakers on Tuesday. Testifying at a hearing about online privacy, Leibowitz said the FTC is exploring the feasibility of a browser plug-in that would store users’ targeting preferences. He added that either the FTC or a private group could run the system. I have to admit that “do not call” list for telemarketers has made life better for me at least, although I am seeing more and more attempts to ‘get around’ that mechanism as of late. I am not sure what would happen as a result of a “do not track” list but many consumers may find it interesting just because of their experience with its offline cousin. This is not the kind of talk that the advertising industry wants to hear though, so expect a fight especially if the oversight of any kind of list is left up to the FTC. In fact, the advertising industry is starting to show plenty of signs of the need to ‘self-police’ to keep these kinds of talks and options out of the public forum. The FTC chairman also noted that he was in favor of an opt-in mentality rather than the existing opt-out and that idea has considerable support from others in power. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) both expressed concern that privacy policies weren’t giving Web users enough useful information about online ad practices. Rockefeller proposed that some companies were burying too much information in lengthy documents that consumers don’t read. “Some would say the fine print is there and it’s not our fault you didn’t read it,” he said, adding, “I say, that’s a 19th-century mentality.” Kerry added that he didn’t know that consumers understood how companies use data. “I’m not sure that there’s knowledge in the caveat emptor component of this,” he said. Wow, Sen. Rockefeller just tossed the advertising business so far into the past regarding their practices that the 20th century was ignored. I guess he made his point. So where do you stand on the possibility of a “do not track” list? Is this something that could hurt the online advertising industry or is it just a way for politicians to say that they are doing something about online privacy?

Tags: advertising, either-the-ftc, experience, facebook, feasibility, federal-trade, hurt-the-online, online, oversight, possibility, subject, the-advertising, the-possibility, time
Posted July 28, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media

Advertising suffers from a reputation problem. Here at Marketing Pilgrim we are very interested in online reputation management but even the best social media monitoring tools can’t help some industries. Of course, when you spend years simply ignoring how poorly you are viewed by the public in general, it doesn’t help. This is how the advertising industry has put together its stellar reputation that it is now trying to control a bit with the help of the oldest journalism school in the country, The University of Missouri School of Journalism. The Huffington Report says Industry leaders are teaming up with the nation’s oldest journalism school to launch the Institute for Advertising Ethics. Among the research center’s goals is to improve the public image of a business that spent $125 billion last year but isn’t exactly known for its bedrock principles and unwavering scruples. Whether it’s the duplicitous exploits of fictional television character Don Draper or the latest penalties levied by the Federal Trade Commission, the ad industry struggles to put its best face forward. A 2007 Gallup survey ranked advertisers among the least trustworthy professionals – barely beating out lobbyists and car salesmen. It’s funny in some ways but actually quite pathetic in many others that the advertising industry has sunk to this level. I would be interested to see that survey conducted today to see if there has been any movement either up or down. I suspect it’s either about the same or even worse but that’s just a guess. So why this desire to self-police? “Because it is persuasion, advertising is viewed in a questionable way by a lot of people,” said Margaret Duffy, a former ad executive who now teaches at the University of Missouri School of Journalism and is helping to organize the ethics institute. But even though the industry’s fundamental purpose is to convince shoppers to buy a product they may not actually need, such persuasion can be done in an “ethical and tasteful” way, she added. Honestly, if this is the attitude of one of the founders of the institute I can only imagine what’s going to come out of it as it develops. Maybe there will be a guide called “How to Make People Buy Things They Don’t Want but Still Feel Good About Your Profession” or how about “Top Ten Ways to Screw Someone Without Them Feeling It”. Sorry I seem a bit negative on this one but when an industry built on spin starts to spin ethics then it’s hard to figure out what is spin and what is, well, something else. This group though is convinced that there is good to be done. The leader of the institute is visiting professor, Wally Snyder, who is a former FTC (Federal Trade Commission) lawyer and American Advertising Federation president. He realizes that he has a tough road ahead with such reputation luminaries as lawyers and members of Congress having higher trust scores than advertisers according to Gallup. That’s pretty impressive, huh?! But if the industry is thinking any way like this following agency owner then all we can say is “Best of luck, Wally!” Mark Fleisher, owner of a small advertising agency in central Pennsylvania near Harrisburg, says the industry doesn’t need to be reminded of the importance of ethical behavior. It just needs to increase the honesty quotient. “The industry has become more ethical because the clients have become smarter,” he said. “Agencies are still going to pull whatever they need to (clinch a deal). And those agencies will run roughshod over the honest ones. That’s been going on for years.” Increase the honesty quotient? Industry has become more ethical because clients have become smarter? I’m not even sure how to respond to those kinds of assessments. Let’s put it this way, if the institute is generating revenue there looks to be plenty of job security in the future. Of course, there will be the ‘big boys’ running the show with board members from Procter & Gamble, Omnicom Group, WPP and Ketchum but as Jim Edwards, a former Adweek managing editor puts it “History does not suggest that these things catch on very well,” he said. “There’s a structural problem in the advertising business. The entire industry is engaged in a race to the bottom. Whoever can do it the cheapest and the fastest wins.” I realize I have taken the cynical approach to this kind of endeavor. What are your thoughts? Is it possible to self-police the ad industry like this group and the Interactive Advertising Bureau are suggesting? Let’s hear your take.

Tags: advertising, clients, congress, country, ethics, federal-trade, institute, marketing, missouri-school, people, Research, simply-ignoring, Social Media, thoughts, university
Posted July 27, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media

There are 78 million Baby Boomers in the US today but they’re largely ignored when it comes to marketing. Why? Conventional wisdom says that these consumers, born between 1946-1964, already have brand loyalty and no interest in technology or trying new “trendy” products. According to a report by The Nielsen Company , conventional thinking is all wrong. “Boomers are an affluent group who adopt technology with enthusiasm (think about the number of parents or grandparents who regularly send e-mails or upload photos to Facebook and other sites). They have also shown a willingness to try new brands and products.” The report goes on to say that Boomers spend 38.5% of the money spent on consumer packaged goods but less than 5% of ad dollars are being spent to market to this group. Much of the problem comes from the fact that our advertising models are based on demographics that simply aren’t the norm anymore. Doug Anderson, Nielsen’s senior VP-research and thought leadership was quoted as saying : “There will be a huge number of people over the age of 65, 75, and 85 over the coming decade. We’ve never had a population this big this old before. This is not something that demographers and anthropologists have tons of models sitting around that they can talk about. We as a species have never had this many older people before. It’s new ground.” This needed shift in ad dollars isn’t just about print and TV, online marketing needs to catch up, too. The Nielsen report says that Baby Boomers watch the most video (9:34 hours per day), they make up 1/3 of all online users, social media users and Twitter users and they’re more likely to have broadband access than their younger counterparts. It’s even more interesting to note that Boomers visit the same websites as the coveted 18-34’s, with only a slight shift in ranking when it comes to Facebook and YouTube. What this all means is that you, as a marketer, need to start including Baby Boomers in your campaigns. They’ll buy a new Blu-ray player if you pitch it right. They’ll subscribe to your online photo sharing service and they’ll drop $200 on Twilight merchandise for the grandkids this holiday season. It appears that the only thing Baby Boomers won’t spend their money on is a savings account for their own retirement .

Tags: advertising, Boomers, flickr, holiday, money, nielsen, online-marketing, Research
Posted July 21, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media

Skype has partnered with Marchex to offer a new pay-per-call advertising service in the US, Canada and Western Europe. The Click & Call program works with a “Free Call” button that can be placed anywhere on the web. When a customer clicks the button, the Skype software launches and the call is connected at no cost to them. The advertiser pays a fee only for the calls they’ve received and they can set a budget so they won’t be surprised by a large bill at the end of the month. Skype’s Click & Call system might seem like a good alternative to acquiring an expensive toll free number, but there is a downside to the system and it’s a pretty big one. In order for the call to connect, the callee must have Skype software on their computer and Skype’s browser plug-in. The system is also not available for Macs and it won’t work on Skype mobile. On the other hand, since you only pay for the calls that come in, there’s really nothing to lose by setting up an account with Skype. If you’re running a service business that gets a large number of referrals on line, an instant, free phone call could be the deciding factor between you and your competition. Marchex will be handling the day-to-day operations of the program which include detailed call analytics. Skype emphasizes that only standard metrics will be included in the reports and that the personal information of the individual Skype customers will be kept private and protected but I can see that becoming a concern if the program takes off. You can click here to watch a short video that shows how the system works. Advertisers wishing to participate in Click & Call Advertising with Skype supported by Marchex, should visit www.skype.com/go/clickandcall . Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Tags: advertising, calls, competition, Display, flickr, individual, personal, program, Skype
Posted July 21, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media

Google continues to expand its efforts to get away from being a revenue one-trick pony. A recent result of these efforts is the announced partnership with Omnicom who will be using Google’s ad exchange to purchase display ads for their clients. With Apple having some reception issues ( nothing a roll of duct tape can’t fix though ) and suffering the slings and arrows of a bored press that is looking to make someone a target and then deem it news, Google is doing pretty well. Motorola’s Droid X rolls out today and Verizon reports that it is gaining in market share even without the iPhone in its stable of smartphone offerings. As the Wall Street Journal reports this new Omnicom deal is more reason to celebrate. Under the deal, Omnicom, part of New York-based Omnicom Group Inc., is expected to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy display ads for its clients through Google over the next two years, said a person familiar with the situation. In return, Google will work with Omnicom to build a global “trading desk” that allows the company to buy display ads more easily on Google’s ad exchange, an auction-like system that matches ad buyers and sellers to advertising space across large groups of websites. Omnicom says it was already buying ads on Google’s exchange using its own technology system. As part of the deal, Google, which reports second-quarter earnings Thursday, will provide analytics services to Omnicom to help it understand how its display ads are performing, the companies said. There are the typical concerns that by committing to one company like this (although there is no contractual restrictions as to who either side could work with in addition to one another) then Omnicom could ‘alienate’ other companies like Yahoo or Microsoft. Such partnerships also could create tensions among other parties with which the advertising and Internet companies do business. “If you get in deeper with Google, then someone like Microsoft [Corp.] might be less likely to work with you, or Yahoo might be less likely to work with you,” said Michael Brunick, vice president of technology at Interpublic Group of Cos.’ digital-ad unit Cadreon. “Ultimately, we want everything we buy to be in the best interest of the campaign. If you are stuck filling a commitment, that may or may not be in the client’s best interest.” OK, here’s what I have to say to that. What is this, middle school?! Does this really happen in business at this level. The “I’m not going to talk to you because you talk to them!” is usually reserved for hormonally imbalanced teens not multi-billion dollar corporations. Geesh. Just imagine how much incremental income could be made by others who pick up the business from Omnicom that can’t be run through Google for whatever the reasons. If everyone would stop acting like children there would be good business to be earned out there. Anyway, I know I am dreaming here because people are people and they make weird business decisions that are more emotional than logical (another term for this kind of person is a stockbroker). The bottom line here is that Google continues to diversify. It shouldn’t be too long though, before someone cries foul and says that Google is doing too much to grow the economy and create jobs (I do hope you picked up on the sarcasm there). Where else should Google go to diversify and become more than just a search company? We will hopefully learn more today as Google reports earnings and tells the world what else it may have up its sleeves. Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

Tags: advertising, Business, client, clients, companies, deal, internet, iphone, Omnicom, parties, street, Yahoo
Posted July 15, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media