20 Bln reasons to get advertisement right

I do not dislike advertisement. If you are a regular reader of my posts, then you might get that impression. For example, I have started a countdown for the downfall of Facebook when they first mentioned their stealth ad system.

It is not advertisement I dislike, it is the effect advertisement money has on current web 2.0 business models I don’t like. It is the easy way out for investors and service owners. Provide something for free, and as a user deal with the consequences (you get ads). The current ad word auction model and underlying pay per click is fraud sensitive, and enforces walled gardens. The revenue generation machine of a “free” web 2.0 service is based upon locking users in the platform. Getting them in, and not letting them out. Of course, you need really massive amounts of traffic in order to get enough clicks to make an advertisement revenue living. But with size, operational costs increase, and with increase costs you need more traffic and lock in users harder. It is a deadlock situation where the user, the advertiser and service owner are trapped into. And a deadlock situation where everyone is held hostage rarely provides real winners. I have discussed other possible business models earlier, and will elaborate on that in the future. Some suggest that there lies an opportunity to offer customers premium ad free services, replacing the ad model. I have written about that as well, but from a different perspective. Don’t let people pay for not getting ads, let them pay for value they get.

We should try to rethink this advertisement model by taking the user perspective. It is his valuable attention the advertiser is looking for in this attention economy. If attention is a scarce commodity and economics is needed to control this, then the economic laws better start making some sense out of this user.

So what do Internet users do most? I’d say they spent most of their time on activities like: search, discover, interact with others, share things, publish, and buying and selling stuff. During some of these activities ads are good, and in some they are bad.

Lets start with the obvious one, search. Google gets that right. Search can be monetized with ad revenues. If a user is searching for something then a sponsored link addresses the need of the user. And as John Battelle points out, all search entries (often not controlled by the advertiser) are important brand building aspects. Let’s make no mistake about the value of this type of advertising. The IAB just reported a new all time high Internet advertisement revenue this quarter, passing the $5.2 Bln and up 25% with respect to last years 3rd quarter.

But lets also not forget that the majority of these advertisement revenues go to Google, as they have reported a $4.3Bln revenue the 3rd quarter, an increase of 57% with respect to last years 3rd quarter. So Google takes perhaps 75-80% of all on-line advertisement revenues and they do it with search!

Discovery is another activity. Whereas the goal of search is to find, with discovery the process is the goal. Earlier reports show that Facebook users do a lot of discovery. They look at other people’s profiles, pictures and interact with applications. Profiles feel as private space to a user. Combining those with ads is probably not a good idea. Building up social graphs will provide valuable information about relations, bu it cannot be exploited easily within the same network as the user is likely to distrust the motives of the advertiser. It becomes what Nicolas Carr has called the Social Graft. Discovery in relation to Facebook applications is different. Here is a chance to provide the user with value (through the application) and combine it with branding or advertisement activities.

People love to interact. A profile in a social network is filled with information about the way I would like to be viewed, it doesn’t necessarily depict reality. But interaction is more pure. It reflects much about me and my relation to the one I interact with. As interaction is mostly personal it is difficult to combine it with advertisement. The “this message was sponsored by” advertisement is invading my private space and won’t do. The same thing goes with more subtle forms of SocialAd advertisement. If I mention in my activity feed that I went to the movies, this might have value to my friends. But having this news being accompanied by a complementary SocialAd doesn’t provide my friends with value.

What SocialAds try to do is help advertisers influence word of mouth advertisement. Amazon makes a fortune out of it. If I get a recommendation for a product from a friend it will be worth much more than an advertisement from the product owner. We all know this phenomenon. Tara Hunt describes very well how advertisers should be connecting to communities.

It starts with trust and the buildup of social capital. It is about listening to your customers, not talking. But an advertiser who buys a Facebook page does not have trust in the community just by being there and adding fans as a friend. It needs to listen first, it needs to build up social capital within the community. But here is exactly where I feel Facebook might take a false turn with its SocialAds and Beacon scheme.

These fans are not fansumers and displaying their like of a brand or product in their newsfeed is hardly a “word of mouth” advertisement. In essence it is more like a personalised billboard which loses value very quickly as friends will see it for what it is, not what it was meant to be (an advise from a friend).

So let’s try to get rid of the illusion that the advertiser has active influence on word of mouth via SocialAds. Direct interaction with your customers is far more influencing. Word of mouth in the physical world is based upon a different process. By exchanging thoughts, emotions, speech, touch, look, feel we have meaningful interaction. In this interaction a recommendation from a friend builds up and creates value for me. By agreeing or even disagreeing the advise of our friends gains importance. This interactive process leads to word of mouth advertisement. It is futile to think that an advertiser can influence this process directly, unless they are in direct contact with their customer. People are thinking for themselves, better deal with it. The whole power of word of mouth advertisement lies in the indirect influencing.

There is one exception to the interaction activity. If a user is publishing, or self-expressing himself to a bigger audience, then advertisement may have value. It can create a podium for the user to self express and find an audience. Like an artist being sponsored by a brand.

That leaves buying and selling. Here advertisement can play an important role. People looking to buy or sell something won’t mind if advertisement is added to the orientation or transaction phase. Advertisement adds value to the user action, especially in the orientation phase where it acts as a specialised for of search.

So what do you think about this? I’m interested in hearing if you know examples where advertisement creates value for the user (not including search). Do you think that SocialAds will add value (besides making services “free” to its user?

There are $20 Bln reasons to get advertisement right. Google probably takes up 75%, leaving the rest of us with $4Bln to figure out how to apply advertisement in such a way that it draws the attention of the user and actually provides him with value. We better start working on it.

About these ads

About vanelsas

See my about page, http://vanelsas.wordpress.com/about/ ;-)
This entry was posted in Facebook, Google, John Battelle, on-line advertisement, social capital, Social Graph, Social Networks Invitations Fatigue, SocialAds, Tara Hunt, Uncategorized, web 2.0 and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to 20 Bln reasons to get advertisement right

  1. Doug says:

    StumbleUpon has an AdFree revenue model – I wonder how that’s been working for them.

  2. Alexander van Elsas says:

    Doug, actually I don’t think that is true. Just take a look at the link:
    http://www.stumbleupon.com/ads/

    and you will see the advertisement possibilities StumbleUpon provides you with ;-)

  3. I think the future of advertising lies in (a) deep deep targeting, (b) information, and (c) entertainment.

    The more targeted and helpful the ad is, the more the ad begins to be a *feature* instead of an advert. Targeting “intention data” instead of attention data will provide value to users, assuming privacy concerns are addressed.

    The other opportunity here is the ad format. Text ads, banners, etc. are well past the creative life cycle, resulting in user “blindness”. This is where interactive widgets come in. Widgets can provide entertainment and/or informational value without requiring a click.

    I also think there is huge potential in the person-to-person advertising market. I tag myself “foobar” and it’s *me* that shows to anyone across the Web who demonstrates a related interest. They are free to contact me in that context and I earn views to my site as a result. This is what Others Online is working on, because there are actually more individuals across the Web looking for attention than advertisers.

  4. omfut says:

    Great article! well summarized. I guess nothing comes free on internet. Somebody needs to pay for the service that is provided free on the internet. Not sure i understand the facebook model. It reminds me about quixtar model, where your friends suggest new products and service, if you become a member and buy something, your friend is rewarded for the same. As long as it’s a genuine suggestion, I would probably live with that. My concern is if friends become greedy and misuse the feature.
    Also, friends’ suggesting a service or product has lot of creditability than the advertiser themselves talking to the consumer directly. I guess this is a different advertisement model, and the vendors are finding a new way to communicate about their product to the consumer.

  5. Doug says:

    I really dislike their model – ads being served without one knowing it!

    You can turn off ‘sponsored stumbles’ by becoming what they call a Sponsor.

    http://www.clipclip.org/clips/detail/15462/stumbleupon-sponsors

  6. Alexander van Elsas says:

    Thanks guys for the comments!

    @Jordan. Good points. I think that deep targeting might be pretty tricky though. Especially since people tend to take different roles and appearances on the Internet. Entertainment: YES, that is a powerful form. Lots of examples thinkable there. And interactive widgets might work for a while. But if you mean things like Google Gadgets, I wonder if that too wears of after a while. But, interactive ads will get more attention than flashing banners I’m sure. In the end, no matter what form advertisement takes, it will only do when I’m open for it as a user. So depending on the context and my actions it will or will not fit. Person to person advertisement is an excellent addition. It does make a lot of sense from a user perspective.
    @omfut I feel that SocialAds and Beacons on Facebook were designed to be a “friend to friend advise” type of thing. But, in my humble opinion it isn’t even getting close to that as it bypasses interactions friends need to have first (hence the personal billboard metaphore). It is much more powerful if I tell you that I went for a test drive in a Ferrari and show you my emotions while we have a drink at my house, than you finding out I did such a thing from a Facebook newsfeed.
    @doug. Are you referring to the StumbleUpon model or the Facebook model. Let me point out another StumbelUpon possibility. They have just launched StumbeUpon integration with web search. Now they can do 2 things. Let advertisers pay them to allow users to StumpleUpon the advertisers page, or let users find the StumbleUpon page when performing a search. In a sense the advertiser rides the “social” referral system wave StumbleUpon works on. When advertisers are involved there isn’t a user referral anymore, it is just the basic “match profile to advertiser and hope they click” scheme ;-)

  7. Lee Henshaw says:

    Hiya Alexander,

    This is gold, thank you.

    I’m chairing a panel at Britain’s Mediatech Conference on Tuesday all about advertising and technology.

    I’m hoping they’ll film it so there may be some nuggets to share.

    Kind Regards,

    Lee Henshaw.

  8. Alexander van Elsas says:

    @Lee, thank you. Well, let us know if new ideas are formed. The discussion will never stop ;-)

  9. Pingback: Mobile Advertising: What’s Being Said About It « The CellSerf Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s