Not quite digital marketing, but similar rules surely apply to creating well selling online web pages. The NY Times has a piece on how restaurants are trying to improving their menues. Things like highlighting the most profitable items on the menue via putting boxes around them, display prices without a dollar sign, etc. Some restaurants seem to be continously testing how to best design menues so that revenue and profitability increases.
“If admen had souls, many would probably trade them for an opportunity every restaurateur already has: the ability to place an advertisement in every customer’s hand before they part with their money.”
Very true. An inspiring read: Using menue psychology to entice diners.
Quite a few brands are probably carefully eyeing twitter trends with reference to their brand name, incase of negative remarks.
Now there is a study looking into how users are actually talking about brands on twitter. At ReadWriteWeb there is a post stating that tweets about brands are more often about information rather than sentiment.
According to the study, which looked at 150,000 tweets, 11.1% of the brand-related tweets were information-providing while 18.1% were information-seeking. The latter of these two is especially useful to companies looking to understand what questions and concerns customers have about their products. However, the large majority of the tweets – 48.5% – were simply comments made in passing which mentioned the brand but whose primary focus was something else.
In only roughly 23% users were expressing sentiment (positive or negative) about brands.
So why is that? Why don’t people express so many negative opinions on twitter as compared to the rest of the web? ReadWriteWeb assumes that it is the easy and quick handling of twitter which results in many more positive or neutral, fact based chatter.
That does make sense to me. People will go through a lot of effort, writing long and nasty blog posts, when they’re fed up. But they won’t do the same for positive or even neutral remarks, unless the brand experience was rather extraordinary.
YouTube still doesn’t seem to deliver sufficient revenue and the video ads on offer still haven’t been picked up by the ad community. In addition to the regular display ads, there are also overlay ads, which cover one third of the video. (Google says they will also be introducing pre- mid- and postroll ads, when they’re launching full length videos.)
However, the overlay ads have not yet been widely accepted, so Google has now undertaken a study:
Teaming up with the neuromarketing firm NeuroFocus and the branding consultancy MediaVest, Google conducted a study in which it measured people’s nervous-system responses – through brain-scanning skull sensors, eye tracking, pupil dilation, and galvanic skin response – as they watched YouTube ads.
There were only 40 participants, whose score for overlay ads was apparently above average:
Specifically, after fielding a study among 40 participants last May, InVideo ads scored above average on a scale of one to 10 for measures like â€œattentionâ€ (8.5), â€œemotional engagementâ€ (7.3) and â€œeffectivenessâ€ (6.6). According to officials, a 6.6 score is considered strong. (Source)
Yet they worked best when in combination with banners:
The combination of overlays with companion banners also grabbed users‘ attention more than banner ads alone, scoring a 6.6 compared to a 6.3 for just banners. (Source)
I can see that getting in-video ads right will be a huge leverage for YouTube to achieve sufficient revenue. And it’s probably one of the best ways to quickly and substantially increase revenue options on the site.
Yet I would prefer more creative and user relevant options for displaying the messages of my clients…
Another interesting fact is the news about the advanced neuroscience approach Google has taken to evaluate their overlay ads. Only 40 participants, but probably much more data available than you would get from 100 traditional focus groups.
On Cnet is news about a new study by Gartner with the catching headline of a 50% failure rate:
75 percent of Fortune 1000 companiesÂ are eager toÂ get involved inÂ social-networking initiatives for marketing or customer relations purposes, but 50Â percent of those campaigns will be classified as failures
The main problem is (oh wonder) the differing expectations about what will happen during those marketing efforts:
The quirkiest and most addictive campaigns often provide little value for the company and turn out to be fads, whereas marketing efforts on the Web often don’t go over as well with the public.
In addition, the report points out that online usage during the purchasing process of all products and services will increase:
Gartnerâ€™s research shows that by 2012 fully half of all purchases will have some online component. That could mean searching for product reviews, reading about a new product on a blog, or comparing prices even if the purchase is ultimately made in a store.
So the need to figure out win-win situations for brands and the community are ever more important.
And furthermore, a „heads up“ for online marketers for the financially difficult times ahead:
Businesses will turn to the Web to stay in touch with consumers during a difficult financial climate. â€œThis is going to be a lifeline,â€ he said. â€œYour spirit of customers is probably the only thing you have.â€
Just a quick one: here are 2 presentations about social media that I found in the last few days:
Neil Perkin about what’s next in Media:
The second one is about the future of social networks, a research report by futurethink.