Engagement mapping: good article, and links to more information and resources

About two months ago, I blogged about Microsoft's Engagement Mapping (see post here) and how it could change the industry, since it's a more accurate representation of how online ads really work.

Here's an interesting new article about engagement mapping written in MediaPost's Online Publishing Insider. It does a nice job of breaking down a couple recent reports and white papers on the topic. The article also links to some resources on engagement mapping provided by Atlas, such as a white paper, two webcasts (one for advertisers and another for publishers), and an FAQ about engagement mapping.

Buying advertising from ad networks versus individual websites: Which is the better approach?

Online advertising networks have been around for a long time, but they've recently seen a resurgence. An increasing number of website owners are selling their inventory through ad networks now, which I think is due to several factors. Targeting on ad networks has gotten better than it used to be, social media has increased the amount of ad inventory (particularly what I'll call "non-premium inventory" because ads on social sites typically have much lower click-through rates and engagement rates), and advertisers are more likely to pursue The Long Tail of their audience.

From an advertiser's perspective, should you be running your ads on a network or should you deal with individual sites for your buy?

First of all let me say it's a complex question that depends a lot on your particular targets, the types of sites in your market, and a number of other factors. But whenever possible, I believe advertisers will get the best value for their advertising dollars by dealing directly with sites that reach their target market, rather than buying inventory from an ad network.

This is true because most site owners know their audience well, and they can make recommendations for how to reach the audience more effectively. Sure, there are lots of site owners who aren't willing to help you, might not want to give you insight into their audience, etc. But I think the majority of online publishers realize it's a win-win-win when they work closely with advertisers. Their audience is better served by seeing ads that are more relevant, the advertisers are happy because they're getting better performance, and the publisher is able to keep its advertisers happy which leads to repeat business.

For example, at IndustryWeek we see both types of advertisers: The ones who truly want to partner with us on a campaign and really care about making their campaign fit the site's audience, and also the advertisers who are buying ad inventory and applying a one-size-fits-all approach. I'm sure you'd expect to see the former group's campaign results outperforming the latter. But I'll bet you'll be shocked when I tell you how dramatic the difference can be -- it's often 10 times better! That's right...if an advertiser does a good job customizing its buy, creative approach, and watching and optimizing the campaign, they can get 1,000 click-throughs on an ad when other advertisers might only be getting 100 clicks. It's all about being relevant to the site's audience.

A lot of media buyers -- whether they're buying for their own company, or working on behalf of an agency for a client -- say that online ad networks are important because of scale. They might say, "We'd need to buy from dozens or even hundreds of individual websites, and it would be so cumbersome that it's much easier to deal with an ad network." This is certainly true, and I'm sure there are lots of advertisers who run into this situation. In many of these cases, ad networks might be the only way to effectively deploy a large-scale ad buy. But before you opt for a network buy, think about that 10x return I mentioned in the paragraph above. If you're able to get ten times the return for maybe two, three, or five times the work, often it makes financial sense to opt for the more custom, more personal relationship directly with websites -- even if it means throwing more resources (time and people) at the campaign.

Webcasts: What's more important -- leads or thought leadership?

The April 7 issue of BtoB magazine has a graph with results from an online poll they conducted about webcasts. The question was "What's your top webinar objective?" and the two choices were leads or thought leadership. Interestingly enough, 69% said their top objective was thought leadership and only 31% picked leads.

These results really surprised me. I'm sure this wasn't a scientific poll, so perhaps I should take this data with a grain of salt. But in my many years of experience conducting webcasts, I'm accustomed to most sponsors being obsessed with leads. That's how sponsors usually evaluate success -- based on number of registrants and number of attendees, plus the quality of those people. It's just the way many companies are set up right now...they're dependent upon leads.

But after thinking about this poll, I realize just how difficult of a question "thought leadership or leads" is. A webcast needs to do both to be effective, so it's silly to say that one or the other is the primary goal.

If a webcast doesn't generate leads, it's going to be difficult for the sponsor to quantify results. How will sales and marketing turn that thought leadership into action without leads? But on the other hand, if the webcast doesn't provide thought leadership, the leads are actionable but they're not nearly as valuable. After all, there are a lot of easier and less expensive ways to get leads. But the thought leadership conveyed during a well-executed webcast, combined with the fact that the person just sat through an hour-long presentation about a topic, makes for a very qualified lead.

This is exactly why I believe webcasts are so popular in B2B markets right now. It's not about the lead -- nor is it about the thought leadership. It's an inseparable combination of the two.

Microsoft's (potentially) killer app for online advertising

If Microsoft is successful with one of its latest ventures into online ad tracking, it could end up revitalizing the entire world of brand advertising.

As Scott Karp wrote about in his Publishing 2.0 blog, Microsoft's experimental Engagement Mapping could help advertisers quantify the results of online branding ads -- what he calls the "holy grail of advertising."

Explanation via CNET:

Say a consumer sees an ad for a product in a video ad one day, and then clicks on a text ad to visit the retailer’s site the next day, and then eventually sees a banner ad that leads to a purchase. All of the monetary credit tends to go to the text link that was clicked on, says John Chandler, principal analyst for Microsoft’s Atlas ad serving division.

“Under our (Engagement Mapping) model, those will share the credit,” for example, with 40 percent each going to the video ad and the text ad and 20 percent going to the banner, he says.

Finally Microsoft might have a advertising technology that -- if it pans out -- puts the Redmond-based software giant on par with Google. What Google AdWords has done for direct response/lead generation advertising, Microsoft's Engagement Mapping could do for brand advertising.

I see this as a potentially huge development in the online ad space -- one that could help move many companies' advertising budgets back toward branding ads. During the dot-com boom, brand advertising was in fashion (remember the 600-page issues of Industry Standard and Red Herring magazines?). But after the bust and subsequent advertising recession in 2001, branding fell out of favor at many companies, replaced by lead-generation advertising that enabled easy ROI calculations. Since then, marketers have been addicted to leads because leads have been much easier to quantify than the impact of branding ads. But Microsoft's technology could change that.

Will it actually work? I have no clue. But if it does, be prepared for the next revolution in online advertising.

Keys to a successful campaign

As a media provider, my team is often asked to answer marketers' questions like, "What's your average click-through rate on [X web ad placement]?" and "How many leads do you think we'll get if we run an ad in [Y newsletter]?" When I put myself in these marketers' shoes, I completely understand what they're trying to find out. These are good questions to ask.

But probably like many other media providers, we don't answer these questions with exact numbers. Sure, we're happy to provide a range so the marketer can get a feel for how well their ad might perform. But usually we'll present it in the context of "the best ads get X percent" (or X number of conversions) and "the worst ads get Y percent" (or Y number of conversions).

The reason we offer a high/low range is simple. In most situations, either the marketer or agency is controlling the creative message for the ads. During the buying process, when they're asking these types of questions, we have no idea how good (or bad) the creative will be. Well-designed, well-written, and well-thought-out campaigns will get much better results -- independent of the medium.

Even though it covers a lot of points all of us have heard before, this article by Harry Gold of ClickZ does a good job of reminding us of the keys to a successful creative execution. Start with the message and offer, then think about the landing page, and follow through to the post-action phase like confirmation pages and confirmation emails. Every step matters. Good ad creative can't overcome a bad landing page. A good landing page is useless if the creative message is wrong. And if a strong follow-up isn't in place, you're throwing away perfectly good opportunities.

One thing I'd like to add to Harry's article: Don't forget about what comes after these steps too. How will you nurture these leads? What's your sales team's approach for following up, taking the prospect through the sales cycle, and closing the sale? Often these tasks are not our job as marketers -- since this responsibility is passed along to sales in many companies. But if there's not a seamless plan in place, you know what happens. Leads and opportunities are lost, even if you did your job developing a successful advertising or marketing campaign.

Lead-obsessed marketers and the same-day wedding

I just saw this white paper entitled "Blind Date to White Wedding: Best Practices for Lead Nurturing that creates B2B relationships, builds trust and increases sales," (hat tip to Tom Pick) and it made me think about a play I saw a few weeks ago. Yes, I'm going somewhere with this...

For the first time in more than 10 years, I went back to my high school alma mater. My wife and I went to see a series of one-act plays (we knew one of the performers: great job, Brielle!). One of the plays was called "Wanted: One Groom," and the basic premise was that the main character, a young woman named Kayla, wanted to get married -- so she placed an ad for a groom in the New York Times. The ad included her address, the date and time of the wedding (later that day!), and asked prospective grooms to apply in person immediately.

When Kayla's best friend heard about the ad, she thought the idea was completely absurd, and spent the entire play trying to persuade Kayla and her parents how crazy it was to get married the same day, to a total stranger who was found through a newspaper ad. But the friend's complaints fell on deaf ears, because Kayla and her parents thought it made perfect sense.

It amazes me how many marketers spend their budgets entirely on lead-generation campaigns. I talk with more and more advertisers whose sole purpose is driving leads. If the marketing effort doesn't have some sort of lead-gen component that identifies prospects who are ready to buy, their boss or their management won't let them do it. So let's go back to the "Blind Date to White Wedding" white paper, and think about the purchase process as a courtship between marketers and their prospects...

These short-sighted marketers see lead-generation as a way to cut to the chase. They think, "Why should we bother with identifying someone who isn't ready to buy immediately, and take the time to nurture these people...when we can just go after people who are ready to buy right now?" The lead-obsessed marketer is just like Kayla in the play who wanted to find a groom without going through the process of dating, steady relationship, and engagement. They want to skip the "courtship process" and just place an ad for someone who's ready to buy their product.

Just like the best friend in the play who thought an ad for a groom was absurd, I'm saying that marketers who are solely dependent on generating ready-to-buy leads are equally absurd! (But just like in the play, I have a feeling my complaints will fall on deaf ears as well.)

That's not how marketing is supposed to work. Of course you want to identify people who are close to purchasing your product or service, but that shouldn't be the only group you're after. Marketers should be developing a pipeline of potential customers through many different sources, in all stages of the buying process. The ones who aren't ready yet should be "courted" or "wooed" until they're ready...and only then is it time for a wedding!

Banners are good for more than just clicks

"If you’re only doing banners and buttons and only tracking clicks, you’re missing a huge opportunity."
-- Shawn Riegsecker of Centro, on the integration of online and offline campaigns. During his presentation at the recent Web Association event, Riegsecker talked about advertisers who saw their ROI on pay-per-click ads drop 30-40% when they discontinued their online branding campaigns that included banner ads. His point: Generating clicks isn't the only way a banner can be successful.