Rich Clark Marketing

Opinions from Rich Clark one of the UK's leading Marketing Professionals


1 Comment

Facebook Sponsored Stories How are they doing?

Back in the depths of winter Facebook announced that it was going to launch Facebook Sponsored Stories.  This sparked a lot of noise around intrusion of privacy, turning users/friends in to spammers and a number of other hysterical responses.  After the dust settled, the marketeers took to the web and initial views were quite positive, with many saying it was the natural evolution of Facebook Ads.  A recent review by industry mag NMA claim that Sponsored Stries are 46% more effctive than standard Facebook ads

Just in case you aren’t sure quite what Facebook Sponsored Stories are then here is my brief summary.  Sponsored stories are linked to friends timelines and they show a brand when that brand is mentioned by your friend on your news feed.  For example, if Starbucks were utilising sponsored stories and your friend mentioned Starbucks in their activity the ad (sponsored story) would appear.  The rule states that brands cannot control the story they can only associate with actions.  Here is an example unashamedly stolen from Mashable.  This news feed example is just that, advertisers can choose what actiosn they want to associate, e.g. specific actions in an app

Starbucks News Feed Story

How a story would look, followed by an example of a sponsored story

Starbucks Sponsored Story

As this demonstrates the sponsor (in this case) Starbucks doesn’t really interfere with the original message, which has meant user feedback to Facebook hasn’t been as negative as first feared.  The other positive behind Facebook Stories compared to Twitter‘s sponsored Tweets is that Stories is user-generated providing a lower feeling of intrusion, whereas Twitter’s version is Advertiser generated and in theory could and often has no relevance to the user.

The key point behind sponsored stories if you are considering them for your brand or clients is that they cannot link out of Facebook.  Consequently this isn’t a direct traffic driver to a latest offer you may have on your site.  However it can increase fans and engagement with your brand on Facebook.

The other benefit to page owners, is that not all your fans have the same privacy settings.  Just because somebody ‘Likes’ your page it doesn’t mean they will see all of your content.  Using the Starbucks example above if the user had put on their settings they didn’t want to see your photos, sponsored stories can associate those photos with that user, which means they will see them.

Perhaps the biggest issue users may have as more advertisers jump on Sponsored Stories is the fact that they can’t opt out and prevent their image being used.   The ony option is to click the X button and remvoe the story.

To clarify there are seven types of sponsored stories, we have detailed the type of Sponsored story – Story Content – Who sees the story:

1. Page Like – Somebody Likes Your Page – Friends of Your Fans

2. Page Post – Published a post from your page to your fans – Your Fans

3.  Page Post Like – One of your fans liked your post in last 7 days – Friends of the Fan who liked your post

4. App Used and Game Played – Somebody used your app or played your game twice in last month – User friends

5. App Shared – Somebody shared a story from your app in last 7 days – The sharers friends

6. Check-in – Somebody checked in and claimed a deal in last 7 days in your Facebook Places – The claimers friends

7. Domain – Somebody liked, shared or pasted a link to content on your site in past 7 days – The sharer’s friends

Based on the current reaction and the reported increase in effectiveness I would definitely consider using this as a tool.  Potentially at present to increase the Facebook following of a brand, however I’m sure as thigns evolve more options will present themselves.  This is obviously a personal view but it seems to be one that supports Facebook’s desire of not wanting to be seen purely as a DR advertising platform.  Their goal is to get their hands on some of that lucrative brand marketing cash that is still pretty much firmly locked in to established agencies and TV advertising.  Who knows this may help to break some of that stranglehold.


6 Comments

Is Online Display Advertising Dead?

Does Online Display Advertising Work?
Online display advertising regularly commands a high degree of concentration from online advertising professionals. It attracts a high proportion of many online advertising professionals time and in certain sectors, commands a high proportion of online advertising budgets.
As I have mentioned elsewhere in this blog, online is sometimes a victim of its own success. Because you can track almost anything, almost everything has to be completely accountable with no room for doubt or vagueness. Whilst this is powerful to help prove effectiveness, it is perhaps not the most effective way to manage integrated campaigns. After all, how long have advertisers spent millions on press and/or outdoor campaigns without being able to track effectiveness with any conviction.   For clarity, I am not saying these traditional channels don’t work, these can be effective but they need to be measured.
With the recession hanging over nearly the entire global economy, advertisers are evaluating all spend. If you are concentrating on purely ROI and not reach or frequency of message, online display often loses out.  There is often the argument that display is used to drive awareness or brand consideration, however how many advertisers actually measure this?  The other argument is that a different type of audience clicks on display ads, compared to other channels such as search or price comparisons. The latter is true, however as a recent study by Starcom, Tacoda and comScore illustrates that isn’t always a good thing.
The trio identified a group of individuals that they labelled “Natural Born Clickers”. Whilst this was a study in the US, it is more than likely similar here in the UK.
The study illustrates that these “Natural Born Clickers” represent c.6% of the online population. Disproportionally they account for 50% of all display ad clicks. This statistic alone illustrates that there is a small (yet not insignificant) proportion of the audience that skew display campaign results, this generally negates CTR and CPC as metrics. These audiences skew towards Internet users between the ages of 25-44 and households with a low to medium combined income. Heavy clickers behave very differently online than the typical Internet user, and while they spend four times more time online than non-clickers, their spending does not proportionately reflect this very heavy Internet usage. Whilst this audience also spends significantly more time online than the average user they are also more likely to visit auctions, gambling, and career sites.
The study obviously highlights that CTR (Click Through Rate) and CPC are not valid measurements for display advertising.  Whilst CPM is much maligned, because the impression does not necessarily mean the ad was seen, it is potentially more valid than CPC as a buying metric. In terms of brand building through display, if you are to buy on a CPM or CPC, I would suggest that you need to measure the impact on brand, awareness, consideration or actual shortlisting of your brand (dependent on your objectives).  If your primary focus is on sales at an efficient ROI, in most cases you should aim for CPA. This isn’t black and white as on a number of  occasions CPM can be more efficient than any other metric.  However, you should test different metrics on different channels.  To minimise risk, CPA is the best option.
Above all, remember anything is possible.  Don’t just think of display as banners or skyscrapers (although don’t ignore them).  Contextual, interactive ads are possible.  Sites like Facebook allow users to select or deselect the ads they show.  A site like MyDeco make the advertiser central to its contents and champions the advertiser.  You also have to be aware of some of the more interactive (intrusive) formats.  These often have high CTR, at times these are driven up by accidental clickers, sometimes trying to click off or close.  Cookies are often stored and your results are skewed to these formats if a sale is made on that PC.  I have always steered away from Pop-unders, subsites etc for this very reason.

MyDeco Example
The best lesson you can learn from this is, think differently.  Challenge your agency or the media partners you work with.  Above all, ensure you effectively de-dupe across all channels.  CPA can be fraught with issues on both post-impression and post-click sales, if you don’t de-dupe.  You won’t be able to evaluate if incremental sales were achieved as a consequence of your campaign.
Remember, I am not saying online display is dead.  To the contrary, just be careful with your metrics.  Ensure your tracking is robust and be think imaginatively with your placements and how you utilise the online opportunities.  Don’t just be another ME TOO.