Friday, February 22, 2008

Back from EC-TEL07

September 28th, 2007

Another week, another conference :)

picture-3_480×360shkl.png

This time, it was the EC-TEL07 (European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning) in Crete. Elisa Dalla Vecchia and I presented the MACE project (slides, video 1, video 2) and besides, met a lot of nice people.

The conference itself was really well organized. The keynotes (Hermann Maurer and Bruce Sterling) were excellent and big picture, covering a wide range of digital lifestyle topics and wild ideas. Digital quacks & charlatans, why Google is not so non-evil after all, telepathy is trivial, flying cars. No kidding. Many of the session talks, on the other hand, were not that exciting at all. I have the feeling many people in this area first build a “framework for…” before actually trying out some ideas on real learners.

More info on the conference blog, wiki and the flickr stream.

Greetings to Martin Memmel from DFKI, who I met to talk about the ALOE project and Christian Glahn, who presented nice work on Smart Indicators for learner feedback, and Joris Klerkx, who is quite into information visualization. I am looking forward to future developments, guys!

And just for the record, here are my favorite insider nerd joke conference memes:

  • Magic doesn’t scale.
  • Minigolf? Ouzome!
  • “Everything is a platform” - freaky!
  • Telepathy is trivial.
  • “Anyways - back to me”
  • Thursday, February 21, 2008

    Techdirt: Another Business Model That Leverages 'Free'

    Another Business Model That Leverages 'Free'

    from the having-someone-else-pay-for-it dept

    When I first heard about TrialPay, I thought it was a bit gimmicky. However, in reading through a NY Times article about the company, I'm realizing it's actually yet another example of how to use "free" in a business model. The service is mainly used by software providers (who, remember, are offering an infinite good, which will face pricing pressures towards a zero price). The software developers officially offer their software for a price, but then also offer it for free if you agree to buy someone else's product. For example, you can get free anti-virus software if you also agree to get a subscription to Netflix. Note what's happening here (and how it sounds familiar). Software providers are giving away their (infinite) product, but they're attaching it to the sale of a totally unrelated (scarce) good, and are then profiting from the referral fees associated with those other goods. In other words, even if not explicitly, they've realized that their software products act as a promotional good for those other products. What's most interesting here is that those scarce goods are totally unrelated to the software that's for sale, other than through TrialPay's service. Effectively, TrialPay has helped makers of infinite goods tie up their products with other scarce goods that people would have thought were unrelated. So, the next time someone insists that there can't be a scarce good attached to certain infinite goods, remember this example.

    Google's view of autos for 2008

    By Jodi Harris

    The search giant's automotive director shares strategies for localized marketing and precision targeting and predicts some key industry trends on the verge of their tipping points.

    Jodi Harris: It's been over a year since you joined Google as the automotive vertical market director. From your perspective, have there been any big changes to the category or to Google's automotive strategy, since then?

    Bonita Stewart: We've seen major changes within the industry, such as soaring fuel prices, sales declines, market share fluctuations and reduced production; however, our automotive strategy remains the same. We work with our clients to demonstrate how technology, especially during turbulent times, aids ROI-driven media solutions.

    Harris: Green marketing and reducing oil consumption seem to be major focal points for the coming year, and the rise in mobile technology and niche social marketing indicate that that localization will become a key marketing touchpoint for conveying brands' positions. What thoughts or best practice recommendations can you share to help automotive marketers strategize for these big issues in 2008?

    Stewart: First, automotive marketers should implement localization on two levels -- brand and dealer. Brand marketers have the unique opportunity today to deliver relevant messages to their precise target, whether it's a potential hybrid customer or someone interested in fuel economy, through contextual targeting. Meanwhile, dealers have the opportunity to geographically target their products and services, and mobile technology offers the ability to connect with a dealer during the shopping process.

    Harris: Focusing in on the idea of precision targeting, what strategies do you feel work best for brands to identify and target the right niches associated with their nameplates?
    Stewart: Most brand marketers have defined targets, but it's critical to identify and then optimize their niche targets throughout the campaign, since some may have a higher ROI than others. We suggest placement targeting and taking advantage of niche sites to complement your brand strategy. If auto sales are expected to slow, it's critical to mine for potential consumers by targeting relevant content on niche sites. More than 76 percent of page views are in niche sites. (Source: AdRelevance)

    Harris: Are there other key marketing trends do you anticipate will play a big role for automotive in 2008?

    Stewart: Right now we are particularly keen on the benefits of online video. It's the new portable TV and offers the sight, sound and motion automotive marketers crave to differentiate their product and to evoke consumer emotion. In November 2007, U.S. consumers viewed more than 225 million auto/vehicle videos on YouTube. And several auto marketers have used online video to successfully launch new vehicles during the LA and Detroit auto shows, achieving views between 400,000 and 950,000 in a single day.

    Harris: Video strategy also seems to be a top priority for the automotive market because so much of the purchase process involves getting a deeper feel for the car than just looking at pictures. Are there upcoming trends you see for video search and its ability to meet more tech-savvy consumers' needs?

    Stewart: Assuming they have the appropriate digital rights we encourage all of our clients to upload their video content. Google's resources and expertise make YouTube's search experience the best it can possibly be. Recommendations, related videos, active sharing and subscriptions are very popular ways for people to find meaningful automotive-related videos. We will continue to make search and discovery of videos a priority in 2008.

    Harris: Recently, you mentioned the concept of "atomization" in campaign distribution. What suggestions do you have for dealers who want to take advantage of multiplatform communications but may be limited in their budget or staff capabilities?

    Stewart: Both brand marketers and retail dealer associations should consider atomizing their content and tools. Don't build it and wait for consumers to come to your site. Venture out, find them and communicate with them online through gadgets that provide dealer locators, photo/video galleries, build and price features directly to the consumers in a microsite format. Consumers control the dialog now, so make it easier for them to connect with your brand on their terms.

    For dealers, I would recommend a stair-step approach to multiplatform marketing. Start with search, add contextual targeting, add geographically targeted display advertising and intermingle with video.

    Harris: Obviously, at Google, search is a critical component of your marketing purview. So, what would your No. 1 piece of advice be for an automotive marketer looking to optimize its search presence?

    Stewart: With U.S. vehicle sales expected to be 16 million or less in 2008, we recommend going back to basics with search marketing. All auto marketers should ask themselves if they are always on, 24/7, as consumers gather product information in today's virtual showroom. In a study we published with Compete last year on the automotive buying process, we found 65 percent of auto buyers research their products in one month or less. We also found the search engine is the No. 3 most important source for auto buyers, behind the OEM site and third-party auto sites, during the buying process. So if you are not attempting to engage your consumers on their terms, when they are ready to receive your message, you should expect diminished OEM site visits and fewer leads than your more aggressive competitors. And always remember offline plans (TV, major events) drive online activity. Be ready online for what's happening offline. Combine relevant search marketing with targeted display campaigns.

    Harris: When we last talked, you spoke about the three-tiered approach for automotive marketing. But many say the funnel is eroding, and manufacturers no longer have the luxury of campaigns that simply build awareness. Are you finding this to be true? And if so, what can marketers do to streamline the purchase process for consumers who are embracing non-traditional purchasing and are more resistant to marketing tactics.

    Stewart: True, the purchase cycle is condensing and the funnel is no longer linear. Nonetheless, marketers must strive to create connections at relevant moments and make it easy for the consumer to get to know the brand. When we address the three tiers, we encourage building a cohesive strategy from the brand, from the retail dealer association and from the individual dealer. All campaigns should align with a complementary message both national and local.

    Lastly, don't ignore the data. Today it's more compelling than ever to follow the consumer and lead from behind. Consumer engagement is increasing and driving their behavior as witnessed by the growth in social networking, video, mobile and search. On the horizon I see integrated marketing moving to integrated accountability and ROI. Marketers will develop more cause and effect levers.

    A great example is the Super Bowl. It's the all time favorite for mass reach, but how many are prepared for the aftermath? Can I search for the commercial, find it on YouTube, send it to my friends, rate the commercial, watch it on my phone, etc.?

    Harris: GM made headlines recently when it announced that it would no longer be supporting the ad efforts of regional dealers. Is this a trend that you see other OEMs moving toward, as regionalization and more flexibility become key to automotive marketing?

    Stewart: We see dealers realizing the reach of online marketing and its effectiveness. We see OEMs across the board stepping in to help the dealers with education, business guidance and best practices. This year will be a tipping point for retail dealer associations and we see more requests for assistance to understand the efficacy of search marketing among dealers. We see it as our role to aid their understanding of online media and de-mystify Google.

    Wednesday, February 20, 2008

    Horton hears a Microhoo

    If the acquisition goes through, it will alter the primal core of online advertising and elevate the value of CPA. Here's one VP's predictions.

    It's the biggest business story in months: the Birth of Microhoo (or Newshoo). Online advertisers and those who serve them have been spellbound by every one of the 63,387 (and counting) Google News entries about Microsoft's (so far unsuccessful) attempts to get a little Yahoo in its system. Why? Simple. Microhoo will alter the primal core of online advertising. In fact, it has already.

    Let's say it together. Online advertising is about results. Before we all merged onto the Information Superhighway we tried to grab as much SOV/SOM as possible and hoped the message would motivate audiences to do…something. Now, with the net's instant metrics, advertisers track the success and failure of campaigns as they happen. This gives us enormous quantities of user data, and with it, advertisers deliver relevant ads that convert to sales. Which leads us to the importance of Microsoft's attempt to buy Yahoo.

    Yahoo knows (almost) everything about each one of us, and so Microsoft's play is to grab that information and use Yahoo's platform to cripple Google's stranglehold on online advertising. Without Yahoo, Microsoft doesn't have all the pieces to chip away at Google; Yahoo's platform technology and user data feeds Microsoft's business goals.
    Microsoft used to be the one big fish in a pretty small pond. Unfortunately for it, gigamouth (Jasconius pelaganax) Google jumped in and Gates' behemoth no longer rules the seas. Yahoo, on the other hand, was surely the first internet darling, but is now coping with a dam (bubble) bursting and big G's search and online advertising dominance. This is the meat and potatoes of the proposed merger, as Microsoft needs to acquire a Yahoo (or, gasp, AOL) to out-swim Google.

    The strangest of all is Google's offer to help Yahoo. As AdWeek succinctly states, it's "putting Yahoo in the unenviable position of having to embrace the help of one contentious rival in order to fend off the advances of another."

    With AOL on its way out, consolidation is sensible for Yahoo -- especially with Microsoft's ever-deep pockets and drive to remain relevant. We've seen a ton of big pairings in the past 18 to 24 months (Google/Doubleclick, AOL/Tacoda, Yahoo/BlueLithium) and with these happening, those companies providing distinct ad models are trying to demonstrate that theirs is the future.

    So which online advertising will Microhoo use? It's a particularly fascinating question in the context of its mammoth share and reach. According to comScore, a Yahoo and Microsoft combo would have 32 percent of the U.S. search market, while Google holds 59 percent.

    Yahoo has about 75 percent reach (pretty astounding); however, when it comes to user engagement, the company's numbers hover around 15 percent. Microsoft can take Yahoo's reach and employ a guaranteed means for advertisers to convert leads into customers: cost-per-acquisition (CPA).

    CPA is not new, but all these consolidations mean CPA will be the darling of online advertising. Microhoo and Google's advertising customers will demand guaranteed results and they will be compelled to provide them because there will only be two fish swimming around -- and the choices of the smaller ad models will diminish. Since CPA advertisers only pay when based on predefined customer actions, Microhoo -- using CPA -- immediately has a leg up on Google's soon-to-be-archaic model, which is susceptible to click fraud and suffers from lack of transparency.

    Speaking of click fraud, this shotgun marriage will affect pay-per-click (PPC) rates as well. Advertisers who use PPC are charged every time a user clicks on an ad; Microhoo will try to leverage that business. If these rates rise, advertisers are going to move swiftly to a model -- like CPA -- that has lower rates and higher returns.

    CPA will in fact deliver high conversion rates for Microhoo's advertisers, and CPA's scalability across a large network means Microhoo can focus on integrating different ad exchanges and search ad systems into a more robust and powerful network. Remember that Microsoft is still integrating aQuantive -- which brought Atlas ad-serving technology, Avenue A/Razorfish agency and DrivePM ad network -- into its system. Incorporating a large CPA network will dominate rather than buttress ad models like behavioral targeting, contextual and search that are falling by the wayside.

    When all else fails, simply follow the money. Microsoft employing Yahoo's platform with a CPA model will bring in the major bucks for shareholders, for the behemoth, for advertisers. Google has tried to deploy CPA, but because it makes money in search, CPA has not gained traction with Google's clients. So the question is: Will Microhoo's eventual use of CPA mark the beginning of the end for Google? And who will end up in the deep end?

    Tuesday, February 19, 2008

    The dating game: can marketers play?


    Members may sign up for a chance at love, but marketers shouldn't dismiss dating sites for their campaigns. Dating gurus from two of the space's top sites share their advice.

    With millions of registered members returning with regularity to access mountains of in-depth data, dating sites can look like a promising platform for marketers eager to connect with users. But a cookie-cutter marketing plan won't fly with online daters. Here are some things to keep in mind as you adjust your campaign to meet some of the unique characteristics of the dating space.

    Reach isn't everything
    Sparks Networks has about 38 million registered members and 5 million monthly visitors. Similarly, eHarmony reports 17 million registered users, with nearly 3 million monthly visitors.

    While those numbers may look similar to a lot of other sites and ad networks, it's important to look beyond raw reach, according to Jon Ward, VP, eHarmony Ad Solutions.

    "These are audiences that have a high propensity to pay, often a premium, for great services like eHarmony where the lowest-cost plan is $59.95 per month," Ward says.

    At Sparks Networks, which operates an array of sites that include JDate and AmericanSingles, each with its own fee structure, there's a similar play that goes beyond reach.

    "Users rely upon us to connect them to the people and products that best fulfill their wants and needs," says Gail Laguna, VP Communications, Sparks Networks. "To do this, our members tell us a lot about themselves, including birth date, gender, ethnicity, religion, hobbies, profession and income, plus dozens of other self-identified interests. Our robust user profiles amount to an incredible volume of consumer data, which enables us to match businesses with the right consumers."

    Community matters -- a lot
    As with any community, the community sets the rules. While the dating space is no different, marketers need to be able to size up each of the diverse group of communities that make up the space.

    "For marketers, we think a more conservative, large brand, general message is effective on our site," Ward explains, adding that no two sites are created equally in terms of community.

    But dating sites, with their rich streams of member data, give marketers vital clues when it comes to crafting a campaign that will connect.

    Next page >>

    70% of UK Shoppers Want Online Reviews, Ratings


    This will make a most
    savory Yelp review.

    A study released by Jupiter Research and Bazaarvoice found 70 percent of UK consumers consider ratings and reviews the most helpful web feature when researching an online or offline purchase.

    The research reflects last week's Forrester report, which found 64 percent of US consumers want ratings and reviews available on the websites they visit.

    The UK report compared ratings and reviews to other resources. 53 percent of the 1,000 online users surveyed said customer reviews were the most helpful source of information.

    Recommendations from friends came second, with 47 percent. Only 11 percent cited TV ads as the most helpful source, and four percent called magazine and radio ads a major influence when deciding what to buy.

    Report: $6.6B in Online Video Ads by 2012

    Ad revenue from streaming video, the very category writers just struck for three months over, will be worth $6.6 billion in 2012, according to new research by Parks Associates. The firm estimates the same category was worth $1.4 billion in 2007. The reason these numbers are higher than others we’ve seen is partially because they include display advertising shown around videos, not just ads inserted into video streams.

    “The bottom line is this market is growing fast and will be a significant source of revenue for the network operators,” said Parks Associates analyst Harry Wang.

    parksassociates.jpg

    Parks Associates said ad spending on all multimedia platforms, including mobile and IPTV VOD, will be worth $12.6 billion in 2012, up from $1.8 billion in 2007.

    Just FYI, if you want to include paid online video and exclude mobile and IPTV, Parks Associates has a different estimate for you (from a different analyst at the firm): $11.3 billion in total revenue for online video in 2012, up from $2.8 billion in 2008.

    I’m not sure if writers should feel good or bad about finally striking a deal to get 2 percent of this multi-billion-dollar space in 2010-2011. On the one hand, a small portion of a large amount is still a lot. On the other — clearly the AMPTP generates revenue in online video — even if this estimate’s 50 percent off we’re still talking multiple billions of dollars. Multiple billions the writers won’t see.