by Geoff Pickering

In late October of 2006, Adamson put a stake in the ground and decided our service offerings were not enough to sustain our company for long-term success. Put simply, we needed to change, or run the risk of perishing. Roughly one month later, on December 13, 2006, Time Magazine announced its Person of the Year: You. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year

Time Magazine has identified a Person of the Year for more than 100 years. The honor as based on the teachings of Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle, who wrote, “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.” He believed that it is the few, the powerful and the famous who shape our collective destiny as a species. (Over the years, the magazine’s Person of the Year criteria broadened to include those individuals who had the most profound impact on the world; examples: Adolf Hitler and Ayatollah Khomeini.)

So what caused Time to divert from their tradition of singling out one person? The World Wide Web. The Web created the most profound shift in the history of communication since the invention of the printing press, enabling the masses to increase their access to information, and hence, their knowledge.

The Internet reached a point of critical mass and, more importantly, a level of understanding by businesses that their brand could singly dictate and shape the consumer opinion alone. Previously, community and collaboration on a mass scale by consumers — loyal or otherwise — to a brand was not a reality. Today, it is.

No longer can corporations cut corners. Corporations must be transparent; they must be prepared to respond proactively; and they must understand that the level of complexity in the digital age is real and not comparable to any channel or solution previously available to marketers.

Areas necessary to succeed in the future are complex but can be addressed by focusing on two critical areas:

1. A deep understanding of consumers and how they engage with brands in a meaningful way.
2. The ability to manage engagement strategies throughout the life-cycle of the consumer.

The decision that Adamson made more than two years ago has positioned us to respond accordingly, and provide clear and measurable results for our clients.

Moving forward, our commitment to you is to use our Website and this blogging platform to provide a conversational dialogue of marketing solutions provided by us, which we are certain can be successful for you.

http://www.relevantengagement.com/

by Geoff Pickering

The pace of change and new concepts and TLA’s (Three Letter Acronyms) is absolutely maddening. I try really hard not to adopt too many of the latest concepts until the marketplace pressure vets their stability. That being said, a few weeks ago I saw a term the other day from Leisa Reicheit that I feel passes the marketplace litmus test and should to be included in our standard marketing nomenclature moving forward.

The term, Ambient Intimacy. Defined, Ambient Intimacy is about being able to keep in contact with people with a level of regularity and intimacy that you wouldn’t usually have access to, because time and space conspire to make it possible.

Basically none of us have time to be intimate with more than five or ten people. That’s just the way our society and culture is today. However, technology is creating new cultural norms that create behaviors that expand beyond what we as marketers are experiencing for the very first time, e.g, Facebook, Twitter, iPhone, etc.

At the heart of this is the customer and today, the customer is in charge. They always have been, but today, they have real teeth. Before, we as marketers had the ability to construct messages and influence perceptions and clients could control their products in addition they felt like they had control of the message around their Brand. That just isn’t the case anymore.

Yesterday: “You can have any color car you want, as long as it’s black”

Today: “You can have any color car you want.”

I realize you’ve heard, read and been exposed to the “customer rules” posit ad-nauseum and I apologize for stating it again but it is true and needs to continue to be repeated.

We live in a world of products/services that are commodities, everything is real-time, expectations of service are high and cost low.

The ability to contain the message is over. You must find solutions that engage people and build trust.

http://www.relevantengagement.com/

by Geoff Pickering

CMO Simon Clift delivered a message at the Ad Age conference a few months ago that really resonated with me and our beliefs here at Adamson.

“Brands aren’t simply brands anymore. They are the center of a maelstrom of social and political dialogue made possible by digital media,” said Unilever Chief Marketing Officer Simon Clift, who warned that marketers who do not recognize that — and adapt their marketing — are in grave peril. “No matter how big your advertising spending, small groups of consumers on a tiny budget might hijack the conversation,” he said. “So this internet thing is much bigger and more interesting than just finding successors to TV advertising.”

Reading excerpts from the conference it was clear that Mr. Clift is fully aware of the environment in the marketing world today and basically outlined a cautionary tale to those in the audience (and beyond) that are thinking and acting differently. According to Ad Age, his address did much to define an internet-driven sea change that’s put consumers in control and at times threatened to overwhelm marketers and their agencies, who — despite frequent protestations to the contrary — are still rather partial to the idea that they define their brands.

Again, reported by Ad Age, Mr. Clift added: “brands are now becoming conversation factors where academics, celebrities, experts and key opinion formers discuss functional, emotional and, more interestingly, social concerns,” and “of course, the conversation is no longer one way or 30 seconds. … You may want to talk about sport and just doing it, and the consumer raises the uncomfortable question of sweatshops.”

Our industry has had a century of doing things a certain way so I understand the pain of changing, but the issue is, it is time to change or perish.

I’m excited that the direction and intent of Adamson is to help those interested in addressing the market issues head on and succeeding. Those not interested in success need not contact me.

http://www.relevantengagement.com/

How Much Time People Really Spend with Ads – eMarketer
There’s an interesting report out via eMarketer and Eyeblaster on how much time people really spend with Internet ads. An excerpt:
The difference between clicks and general interaction was huge in 2008. For example, the average worldwide click-through rate for rich media ads studied was 0.35%. The average dwell rate for those ads was a much more impressive 8.71%.

Broken down further, in North America expandable banners had only a 0.3% click-through rate, but a 7.1% dwell rate and an average user dwell time of more than 45 seconds. Other rich media formats saw similar improvements in engagement measured by dwell or interaction rate.

As the report notes, dwell time is an important metric. Internet users in North America spent the longest time dwelling on online ads appearing in the mail category, at nearly 85 seconds. Instant messaging ads were a close second, at nearly 74 seconds, with news, technology and games rounding out the top five.

via www.emarketer.com

I never know how much to trust research like this. You don’t really get that much insight into the methodology and there’s always the concern that the researchers are getting the results that they want to get (yes, that happens in advertising).

However, at least with online advertising we get SOME idea of what really happens when someone encounters an ad message. Over time, I trust these methodologies will be refined and improve. Readership studies in print developed a specific methodology over time, though anyone analyzing those reports knows that you have to really look at them closely to get underneath the data. The one big problem with print readership studies is how intrusive the research is; and even the best of this research is often loaded with built-in biases.

Online analysis has a lot more hard metrics to support it. It will bear watching to see what we really learn about this over time.