Do The Laws Of Branding Not Apply Online?
By Joe Marchese
Don't get me wrong, I love what Microsoft is doing. The concept of proper "click attribution," or giving credit to all of the impression prior to a click that may have contributed to the end result, is an important step in the evolution of online advertising ("Microsoft Regarding Google: If you Can't Beat'Em..." <http://blogs.mediapost.com/spin/?p=1138> ). And Microsoft, as well as many others, is well motivated to solve this important equation to get its share of current online marketing budgets since the odds of breaking into search, where Google currently reaps all the benefit, are long at best.
The problem with looking to click attribution as the solution to branding online is that the practice still only values impressions that happen to precede or alter online behavior. That means an impression must be part of an online "click value chain" to have any value. What should be worrisome about this to the Web community (web publisher and would-be Google challengers alike) is that by taking this approach, we are saying that the sum value of all impressions on the Internet can only be equal in value to the sum total of all ROI on fully optimized direct response campaigns. In short, if the click or acquisition is all that matters, then there is still no accounting for branding.
What is missing from click attribution methodology is any accounting of online marketing changing offline behavior and people's brand perceptions (which may not alter their online behavior). This is the key to unlocking brand dollars online. And much of the squeeze in online branding is being inflicted by the brands themselves. I have actually had agencies tell me that clients only want online campaigns that have measurable ROI, because they spend plenty of money in "other media" for branding purposes that they can't track.
The problem here is that marketers want to play both sides of the coin. They want their ROI and their branding too; they just don't admit it. Here's a perfect example for the definitive ROI based marketing services, a search engine marketing firm (source and industry to remain anonymous, also paraphrased for effect):
Client: I will hold you accountable to ROI metrics.
SEM: OK, here are the key words and text ads we are going to run.
Client: You can't use the work 'cheap' in our ads!
SEM: But the click rate will go up, and therefore you will pay less and get a better ROI.
Client: We can't have the word 'cheap' in ads for our product/services.
SEM: OK, we will use something else.
Client: Great. And we will continue to hold you accountable for ROI.
The difference in branding online vs. acquisition online is this: Is your marketing aimed at acquiring a transaction or a customer? I think the example above proves that even the most ROI-driven exercises are still looking to build particular perceptions so as to acquire customers, because acquiring transactions would have been easier with the word "cheap" in the ad.
Finally, we have our infamous funnel. Sitting at the top (wide mouth of the funnel) is all the people who have awareness of your brand; as you proceed down the funnel, you then have all those people with favorable brand perception; then action, then purchase. If online can be proven out as a medium that can significantly increase the top of the funnel (awareness and perception) for a brand and actually create a brand, then we can begin to see the tipping point we discussed last week in "A Tipping Point For Social Media Advertising." <http://blogs.mediapost.com/spin/?p=1161> The problem with click attribution is that while it looks to back out the value of impressions at the top of the funnel (display) based on actions that occur at the bottom of the funnel (transactions), because online transactions only make up a percentage of overall transactions (where offline still dominates), then online impressions can only receive credit for a percentage of their potential value.
No comments:
Post a Comment