Powerful (…even if the people portrayed in the video are apparently actors.) Check it out. Courtesy of Brandflakes for Breakfast (a blog I highly recommend following.)
One More in the “Scare the Sh*t Out of People” Series…Back on an Elevator.
I missed this last week: Shocking Attempted Murder Turns Out to Be Just Another Marketing Stunt. I am still a little dumbfounded by the notion that this is (apparently) what it takes to connect with people these days. If nothing else, which may in fact be the case, it is highly entertaining for those that share my somewhat twisted sense of humor. I’d love to hear your thoughts. Good? Bad? Or just plain ugly?
Another in the “Scare the Sh*t Out of People” Series
An unusual approach to building engagement with consumers but that aside, brilliantly executed. Enjoy.
Nivea Pranks Unsuspecting Travelers…courtesy of @adrants.
The Centrifuge Brain Project
If you have six and half minutes to burn, I would strongly encourage you to burn them on this video. Amazing. Fun. Funny. Brilliantly produced. Classic.
Gravity is a mistake. The Centrifuge Brain Project by Till Nowak, starring Leslie Barany, cinematography: Ivan Robles Mendoza, sound: Andreas Radzuweit, Lukas Bonewitz.
Enjoy…I certainly did.
Scaring the Sh*t Out of People on Elevators Seems to be a Trend These Days
More on Online Privacy
There’s plenty of evidence that supports the premise that if we give consumers something valuable they will tell us a little (or a lot) about themselves in return. Here’s more from a recent survey from Accenture:
- Despite the fact that 86 percent of those surveyed say they are concerned about websites tracking their online shopping behavior, 85 percent are aware that such tracking goes on but they understand that tracking enables companies to present offers and content that matches their interests.
- Nearly half of all respondents – 49 percent – are receptive to their favorite stores or brands using their tracking data to inform their future preferences and make them aware of product availability.
- When asked to make a choice, 64% of total respondents say it is more important that companies present them with relevant offers against only 36 percent who say companies should stop tracking their website activity.
- At the same time, however, 88 percent strongly agree or agree that companies should give them flexibility to control how their personal information is used to tailor their shopping experience.
So why are we so afraid to give consumers the choice?
Self Regulation is a Joke
Ad Age published a piece today entitled “What Microsoft’s Default ‘Do Not Track’ Browser Setting Looks Like“.
What it looks like isn’t very interesting (no offense Microsoft). What is interesting – and quite disturbing – is the fact that “few websites or third-party ad firms are honoring Microsoft’s DNT beacon, mainly because the company chose to automate the feature rather than allow users to choose to initially enable it. The Digital Advertising Alliance, the self-regulatory coalition guiding the ad industry’s approach to DNT, told its members to feel free to disregard the IE10 signal.”
You call that self-regulation? It’s a joke…with a punchline that won’t be at all funny.
As I mentioned in a prior post, “I firmly believe that consumers benefit when the ads they are exposed to as they surf the information superhighway are (highly) relevant. And relevance increases in direct proportion to the amount of data we (the industry) are able to collect.”
But if the industry does not make significant headway soon in terms of really respecting consumer’s online privacy, there won’t be an industry left to “self-regulate.”
Am I Really Less Respectable than a Politician?
I was a bit disheartened when I saw the following headline in Advertising Age yesterday: “Marketers rate below politicians, bankers on respectably scale. Only 35% of marketing practitioners responding to Adobe study deemed their profession valuable.”
Now that’s a bit sobering. A career that I have dedicated the majority of my living years to is considered useless not only by the general public but apparently a good chunk of the people sitting down the hall from me.
In fairness, I think the headline is a bit misleading when you look at the way the survey question was asked: “Which profession provides the most value to society?” Is it any wonder that more people chose “Teacher” than “Advertising/Marketing?” Regardless, haven’t we all at one point in our career admitted that what we do doesn’t save lives?
So why do I do what I do?
As sometimes happens when you find yourself pondering life’s greatest questions a sign appears that captures your attention simply because it comes at exactly the right time. For me, that sign came in the form of a post on MediaPost today entitled: “TED: Story Key To ‘Ads Worth Spreading’” They link to a document that summarizes the TED initiative.
Take a read and then tell me you still question what you do for a living. Sure, most of us aren’t saving lives (although some of the examples contained in the article do in fact save lives.) But we do have the opportunity to create work that entertains people. Work that makes people laugh…or cry. Or get inspired to go out and do something positive for the planet.
Maybe I’m short-selling myself but that’s enough for me.
Attribution modeling: the problem with click-based attribution
Yair Halevi (Spock), Chief Ar
chitect of SundaySky, wrote a nice piece in today’s iMEDIAconnection on the topic of attribution modeling. This is a subject that really appeals to the geek in me.
Amazingly (although totally believable): “A recent study by Econsultancy and Google Analytics indicates that a majority of marketers are still using last-click attribution to measure performance-oriented campaigns.” The promising news: “…marketers are realizing that it is ineffective at gauging the true influence campaigns have on the consumer’s path to conversion.”
His solution, which makes a lot of sense to me (at least the parts that I understand): “Use control-group analysis together with attribution modeling, not instead of it. Attribution models are still important for analyzing behavioral segments, optimizing the campaign via creative selection and smart targeting, and understanding cross-campaign interactions using control-group testing. However, using control-group testing can take much of the guesswork out of attribution modeling. If you employ both tools, you can use the results of control-group analysis to tune and validate your attribution models.”
BUT, like many articles that I’ve seen on the topic of attribution modeling, it completely ignores the impact of non-digital channels, whether that be traditional media channels like TV or print, the physical retail channel, real world word-of-mouth, etc. I fully realize that this is the Holy Grail of attribution but it needs to be acknowledged at some point inthe conversation. I am not in any way saying we shouldn’t pursue excellence in digital attribution modeling – we absolutely should – but it’s not the best answer to the question most marketers are asking.
Photo: courtesy of http://www.optimine.com. Please contact me before you have me arrested for using this image illegally…many thanks in advance.
Privacy and Industry Self-Regulation
I firmly believe that consumers benefit when the ads they are exposed to as they surf the information superhighway are (highly) relevant. And relevance increases in direct proportion to the amount of data we (the industry) are able to collect.
But why are we so afraid that we won’t be able to convince people of this fact? Aren’t we supposed to be experts in changing perceptions…and ultimately behaviors?
If we don’t move to an opt-in (do not track) versus opt-out stance on data collection (a la Microsoft), we will lose any and all credibility to self-regulate. And then the slide down a very slippery slope begins.
Am I being naive?
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Northampton Consulting 