digital axle

Macking out on Mobile

Ran across "Five Mobile Trends for 2010" in AdAge, and two caught my eye:

• Advertising's outdoor real estate is fast becoming another connected channel capable of delivering high-fidelity digital experiences as unique, varied and measurable as more well-established mediums.  An example: Toyota's iPhone app that let users draw on the Thompson-Reuters screen in Times Square.

• Consumers have new power to express their opinions through social technologies from anywhere, anytime. Smart marketers will do all they can to encourage and act on this real-time feedback.  Example: AT&T's iPhone app, Mark the Spot, which crowdsources areas of weak reception.

The "connective tissue" between these -- and all the others on the list, actually -- is interaction. That is, drawing consumers back in to the advertising itself, a medium that they've been trying desperately to tune out for years. Yes, you do occasionally see some appreciation for the form, like during the Super Bowl or annual retrospectives. But for the most part, people see ads as either too irrelevant (white noise) or too relevant, with frightening levels of intrusiveness.

So is it in fact time for the big reversal, enabled by mobile? Consumers taking back control, either by choosing which ads to receive (think mobile coupons) or actually contributing to the message by using their phones to instantly share thoughts about products, services, brands?

If that's the case, it'll be an interesting couple of years. The one warning I would issue is to make sure brands, publishers, and technology developers are not ignoring an important demographic: the slow adapters. Sure, it's great to enable all of this for the tech-savvy youth, for the gung-ho fans, for the Foursquare mayors. But if you don't make these new mediums accessible to the middle ground -- those that will never be heavy users, will never be "obsessed," who don't read Mashable daily -- you're going to miss out on the opportunity for widespread adoption. Easy come, easy go.

Forecast: Traditional Ad Growth Flat, Online Quite Curvy

Interpublic's Magna unit has revised its December doomsayer forecast that US ad revenues would decline by 1.3% in 2010 to saying that they'll just be kinda flat. down just 0.1% from last year. View report (pdf).

Online ad revenues, on the other hand, will curve upward: direct online ad spend is projected to jump 12.2%. Local online spending will grow 3.7%, Magna said.

Excluding the effects of the Olympics and local elections, advertising revenue will be $161 billion in 2010, and the entire ad economy will rise 1.4%. And apparently, the worst is over: Q1 will be the last period of decline, the unit said.

Don't bust out the champagne quite yet, but you can start thinking positively now.

Is Real-Time Search the "Holy Grail" of 2010?

Last year we saw a enormous amount of deals struck between search giants and real-time data providers, aka social networks and microblogging sites.

• In October, Microsoft signed search deals with Facebook and Twitter to integrate real-time status updates and tweets into Bing's search results.
• Google followed suit in early December with the announcement that public updates from social media sites Twitter, Facebook and MySpace will start showing up in Google's general search results, a particularly nifty feature for smartphones.
• Even more proof in the pudding, this time from M&A (via TheDeal.com): Real-time search engine developer OneRiot Inc. closed its $7 million Series C, bringing the total venture capital raised to $27 million.

But real-time search is "not there yet," as proven by the magnitude 4.1 earthquake that took place in our ever-shifting city this week. At 10am on Thursday, a small earthquake shook the Bay Area, and within 6 minutes Google search was reflecting the event in the form of Twitter updates, according to Stephen Shankland at CNET. (Google claims it was just 2 minutes, and Shankland attributes the lag to the fact that he was in Detroit at the time. And clearly, people in Detroit don't give a hoot about California.)

But while we can quibble over minutes, the takeaway here is that real-time search is certainly where it's at for the coming year, but it's going to be up to marketers to figure out how that can work for their brand. To be honest, it's a little scary that a real-time tweet about your company from some Joe in Minnesota can trump your hard-earned spot for your company website, blog, newsletter, video, or special deal -- though it does introduce some exciting possibilities, like having access to top sellers and current sentiment data, and eventually, pairing real-time news with real-time ads.

What's in (Your) Store for 2010

It's that time of year again - the time for lists. No, not the kind you check twice. And not even the ones that look back over the past year, picking out all of the best highlights. As much as I enjoyed watching the top global TV spots of 2009, particularly the ones from Finland and India that Americans just will never really "get," it's not the time to look backwards. Let's look forward, to 2010, and the What's-To-Come.

Yes, Turns out, it's SEO (surprise!) , social media marketing (surprise!) and keyword research -- wait, really? Yes, keyword research. Apparently, even more people will be getting their kicks on Google Trends, and working with AdWords tools & insights all day in 2010. (That is, according to SEO.com, who released this particular compilation.)

So although other trends were mentioned, like video, conversion web design, paid search, and email marketing, the list is very much dominated by efforts that boost both web traffic AND credibility. Online PR, link building, social media marketing (done right, of course), and blogging were among the predicted continuing trends for next year.

Twitter + LinkedIn, Just Like PB & Choco?

Twitter and Linked In announced yesterday that they are integrating their platforms so that LinkedIn users can "amplify" their status updates to the Twittersphere, and Twitter users could feed their updates (hashtagged #in) into the professional networking site. Twitter co-founder Biz Stone apparently referred to the match as a "perfect combination," like "peanut butter and chocolate." Image courtesy of PC World.

Putting aside the clear confusion Mr. Stone has over what makes a perfect combination — he is clearly not familiar with the stunning combination of pretzels and ice cream, or Speculoos and bananas — let's stop for a moment to really talk about integration. It seems every social web service these days is working on some big-deal partnership with another social web service. Why? Theoretically, integration is for users, so that they don't have to visit more than one site, or post to multiple platforms, in order to spread their message with the largest number of people.

But despite what you may read in the companies' quirky blog posts, integration is not just for users, just like Kix is not just for kids. Integration is first and foremost for the company's benefit; joining forces makes them bigger, stronger, and broadens their reach, which ultimately means more revenue from business or premium memberships, and often from ad revenues. No one really knows the true benefits of this new deal, however, since the financial details (just like those of Microsoft and Google last month) are undisclosed, reports the NY Times.

Call me crazy, but this is starting to make me think of Wal-Mart, the ultimate one-stop shop. Because isn't that what web services are trying to do? Combine forces to offer consumers everything they want in one place, and make themselves more money while doing it? And we all know what that has done to us. Bye bye neighborhood butcher, hello pre-packaged salami — with a side of crayons.

But that may be a little too far ahead to think about on a Tuesday. In the short term, heed this warning from PC World: Twitter and LinkedIn are two different animals. If you integrate the two accounts, be sure to make smart choices about what you share across the services — what's perfectly acceptable on one network may not work on the other.

Google Pays $750 Mil for Mobile Ad (Wet) Dream

You've probably already heard the news... after all, it IS No. 4 on Google Trends today, just under "katt williams arrested for burglary" and right above "brady smith."

Google is betting big on mobile advertising, having just acquired mobile ad firm AdMob for a cool $750 mil. It's one of their largest acquisitions to date, and fueled largely by the fact that mobile advertising is one of the fastest growing mediums, growing 30% annually, Google explains.

As I overheard in a panel at ad:tech NYC last week, "Mobile phones used to be phones that occasionally took crappy pictures, and now they're basically small computers that sometimes make phone calls."

With the new proliferation of these small, sophisticated devices, the reach of equally sophisticated ad units (both text-based and graphical) is going to increase. With more online searching, gaming, and messaging, ad inventory is skyrocketing.

AdMob apparently has served 1.5 billion mobile ads this year, up 540% from Sept 2007.

Overheard in a nearby office, chock full of startups, from a vociferous ad buyer: "Who the hell is AdMob? Why would Google want to buy them?" Deal with your jealousy, hon.

What's Next in Search... Part II

More from "The State of Search" panel at ad:tech NYC...

1. Google spent a ton of time on the function of presenting multiple types of content (i.e., Video, Images, News, Blogs) from one search query... and now it's pulling that principle over to paid search. See the blog for recent announcements about rich media options.
   
2. How did the recession and plunge in ad spend affect the search space? Certain sectors that were hit hard, like financial services and the auto industry, were big SEM spenders, so when they dropped out of the race (having no money left to spend!) it left the door open for new players. A recession is the best time for marketers — or rather, the smart ones — to step in and capture market share, panelists said.
   
3. More about PPC...learn a lesson from startups, they said. They have virtually no budget for marketing, yet they all have PPC campaigns. There's a reason for this! However, everyone, including the guy from Conde Nast Digital, agreed that it was best to stick with Google and to stay away from Facebook Ads because the keyword and targeting options are so limited.

What's Next in Search (Part I)

With search advertising predicted to hit $21 billion by 2012, everyone is jumping at the bit to find out exactly how the industry is going to take form: new products, innovations, strategy, etc.

At "The State of Search" panel here at ad:tech NYC, panelists from Google, Conde Nast Digital, Newsforce, and SEMPO shared their thoughts on SEM.

Highlights!

Sara Holoubek from SEMPO, a nonprofit that serves the SEM industry shot us some stats from their research report.

• Senior marketing executives consider SEM a high business priority - over half of respondents said that they were "very involved" in SEM programs.
• The shift in marketing dollars to SEM is coming from (surprise surprise) print and direct mail.
• Recognizing the integrated nature of search, or intent, 79% of advertisers are coordinating SEM iwth other marketing tactics - only 7% are not doing so at all.
• 3 out of 5 marketers are willing to pay a premium for local targeting.
• Video and mobile are poised to take off, but respondents were split on their real interest in pushing a lot of dollars into these mediums.

Video and mobile were certainly hot topics. Jim Lecinski from Google explained that smartphones are increasing the volume of mobile search queries -- up to 50 times more. Holoubek noted that it goes even beyond search, because smartphones are allowing marketers to not just "retrofit ads to fit a mobile screen" and instead use customer data (e.g., location) to offer useful information -- partnered, of course, with a brand message.

Live From ad:tech NYC

Floating bits of wisdom from today's Media & Entertainment panels:

On creating customized content for online channels: "Is it expensive? Yes. Not huge, but way more in proportion to the revenues. It's get better though, as soon as it scales." - John Stinchcomb, Publisher at Conde Nast Digital

"How do you decide where to distribute...widgets, TV, websites, iPhone apps. That's easy: Just fill in the data where the consumer is." - Matthew de Ganon, Senior VP, weather.com, The Weather Channel (NBC Universal)

"How do you compete with free?" - Patrick Moorhead, Director of Emerging Media, Razorfish

"Don't just dive into mobile. Figure out your business goals first, then map your emerging media products and measure your investment based on that. Don't try to do everything." - Paul Jelinek, Senior VP, A&E

Bloggers Beware: FTC Can Fine You $11k For Undisclosed Product Reviews

In the blogging world, it has been considered good taste to dislose relationships you have with a brand or advertiser when you mention them in a post, whether you are reviewing their product, campaign, or just giving an old fashioned shout-out.

Now it's the law.

The FTC, in its updated Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, has made it clear that any blogger who makes an endorsement for a product must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. If they don't? They could be slapped with fines of up to $11,000. Per post.

This is not just for bloggers who use services like Izea. The rule defines "material connection" as "cash or in-kind payment," so really any situation where something of value changes hands between advertiser and blogger would be considered payment.

It's a fine line, though. Are samples, giveaways —or even exclusive news, or fame— considered something of value? If so, General Mills and their blogging mommies, as well as Ford and their Fiesta bloggers better be careful to own up exactly what is changing hands, Mashable notes.

Most well-run social media programs do use appropriate disclosure, Mashable concludes, but deception still exists, and "unscrupulous" marketers are still a dime a dozen. (Sorry, guys. No offense.) Enter the threat of money lost from heavy fines, however, and the game changes.

I'll take that ad to go, please.

Advertising is going mobile, right along with everything else that takes place on a screen. As more and more people carry smart phones (don't you?), advertisers have to adapt.

We have written before about "app-vertising." Now we are studying this new report from Research And Markets, to begin to imagine our future. This a future in which every marketing plan includes mobile. Seriously.

At a recent Mobile Ad Summit panel, a trio of advertising CEOs agreed that smart phones are the game-changer. The platform has suddenly become desirable, and brands are just beginning to explore the possibilities.

The global spend on mobile could reach nearly $29 billion just this year, and up to $50 billion five years from now.

You in? Grab your phone, let's hit the road.

Brits May Go Where Americans Dare Not — DRM TV

They did it to music - now what about TV? ReadWriteWeb reports that the BBC wants to prevent piracy, ad removal, and illegal copying by encoding all listing metadata and using a compression algorithm to limit playing abilities. In other words - DRM for TV content.

Danny O'Brien gets into the details of the "crazy" plan over on the Electronic Frontier Foundation blog, but the gist is this: the rightsholders want copy-protection technology built into every TV receiver device, and make manufacturers sign an agreement that would ultimately limit their ability to innovate, for fear of violating the "metadata compression parameter" license.

Rewind 5 years and change continents: here in the US of A the same measure was suggested by the FCC and the Motion Picture Association of America, trying to force HD encryption on digital television, before we transitioned from analog. The court wasn't convinced, and the idea was thrown out.

Even if they had succeeded, the rise of open source TV services like Boxee means that people could watch protected programs at home, just not via their HC receiver. A Boxee spokesperson remarks, "The way for content owners to make money is to cater to their audience, not to stifle innovation by creating a DRM racket like what's proposed here." Square off, guys.

TV? Why bother when you can connect on Facebook.

Just about a month ago, we wondered here if the end of traditional media had finally arrived. Today, we see that Gap is putting another nail in the coffin. This autumn's "Born to Fit" campaign has just about everything in it -- everything, that is, except the mix of traditional media we are used to seeing. Instead of the big television campaign, we see an engaging Facebook page, as well as an iPhone app called StyleMixer, an online fashion show, and hundreds of in-store concerts.

Mobile? Check.
Social? Check.
In-store? Check.
TV? Not so much.

Is this the model for the future?

Google is...

Observant blogger Louis Mason points out a biting little detail that Google has included in their Auto Complete feature: trash talk. Apparently, when you type in "Facebook is" or "Twitter is," the dropdown options are, well, funny/insulting, with choices like, "Facebook is for old people" or "Twitter is retarded." And so on and so on - for Microsoft, MySpace, etc. Okay, okay, we get it. You don't like the other playa's.

Of course, when you put in "Google is" you get phrases like, "Google is your friend" and "Google is always right." More aptly, "Google is taking over the world." I'd like to meet the cunning engineer that came up with that one.

 But there's one little problem - I think they forgot about YouTube. Type in "YouTube is" and the dropdown choices are "YouTube is so slow," "YouTube is broken," and "YouTube is upside down." (What?) Either Google forgot about that money acquisition a few years back, or it stopped at MySpace. Of course, there's that other option - that Auto Complete accurately reflects what people are typing in.

Try your name - it's fun. Apparently, I (Ana) am beautiful, positive, love, and perfection. I am also someone's life, and "in their DNA." How lovely.

And the common "I"? Well, I can't even write this, so I'll just have to share it via screenshot. That way you'll know, too, that I'm not making it up. But believe me, you can't make this stuff up. It's just too good.

Which is your fave?

New Movie: Lemonade

Layoffs in the ad industry have inspired a documentary called "Lemonade," a project of former Arnold copywriter Erik Proulx, who last year started the blog Please Feed the Animals for unemployed advertising professionals.

The trailer launched this week on the movie's website, lemonademovie.com and will air there once completed.

Prouix interviewed 15 former creative and account directors from major US ad agencies, all of whom had been laid off - but then used it as an opportunity to do something different, such as starting their own businesses or making some other kind of life change. (Hence, lemons --> lemonade.)

This comment on Ad Age pretty much sums it up:

At the risk of sounding heartless, I think one of the (only) good things about a recession is how it weeds out people who aren't passionate about their careers and jobs. Based on this trailer, it seems that many of these people found their passion in other areas -- leaving room in their previous careers for people who want to be there. I work in the digital media, and the same thing happened when the market collapsed in 2001 -- the only people who remained in digital were those who truly belonged there, and it was a blessing.

When Your Old Web Analytics Just Isn't Good Enough

I love it when people use laymen's terms in industry quotes to show people that they're just regular guys/gals. Here's a classic example, from DM News:

"People are using tools to keep track of every time the company or product is mentioned," said Jim Sterne, founding chairman of the Web Analytics Association. "The secret sauce is, integrating all of these data and getting insight from them."

I mean, who (besides me, of course) doesn't love secret sauce? It's the new mystery meat.

Let's put this quote in context. Jim is saying just plain web analytics just ain't enough anymore - and it's true. There are so many other data sources to pull from: social media, company websites, customer call centers, and even bricks-and-mortar stores.

Particularly for retail brands, it's important to be able to pull that data together and make sense of it in order to offer customers the best kind of personalization - the kind where you give them what they want without ever having to ask what that actually is.

So yes, get over your Google Analytics, because it's just not good enough anymore. However - I think Google, or at least from what we garner from the text ad below the DMNews article, disagrees. Chiggity check it -->

Amazon Tries Zappos on For Size

Big news: Amazon is buying online shoe retailer Zappos.com for $847 million in cash and stock - the largest acquisition in its 14-year history.

For details on the deal, see the Wall Street Journal story. But to find out why the online behemoth decided to fold little Zappos under its wing, see Mashable's version.

Seth Godin, however, did the deal right by summing it up with this:

What you buy when you spend that kind of money is what matters now. And what matters is:

• A corporate culture that's not the same (and where great people choose to work)
• A tight relationship with customers that give you permission to talk with them
• A business model that's remarkable and worth talking about
• A story that spreads
• Leadership

Have questions about what's next? So does ZDNet: Read their take.

Mirror Mirror... What's the Most Annoying Ad of All?

I have a pair of purple leggings. To the untrained eye, they are heinous: a gratuitous splash of color in a city full of dark jeans, ballet flats, and black crew jackets. But I wear them because I love them, and because I think they're effective - to complete the outfit, that is.

Now turn on the part of the your brain you haven't used since the SATs, or in strenous post-indie-movie conversation, and see the analogy here. Advertisers love their web ads. They love them so much that they're decreasing traditional ad spend and upping their online budgets. But what about consumers? Sure, we've seen studies that talk about the effectiveness of online ads - and that's really what we care about in the end - but what about sentiment?

A new Harris Interactive study (pdf) showed that the majority of consumers get frustrated and annoyed at certain types of online ads, with pop-ups, ads that are “moused over,” difficult-to-close ads, and musical ads as the worst offenders, MarketingCharts reports.

Harris concluded that "the growing trend toward internet advertising in the face of large numbers of frustrated consumers may eventually cause a backlash."

What are they going to do? March in the streets? No, worse: they're going to start ignoring web ads altogether - if they've not already done so.

I don't wear the purple wonders to piss people off - and (I would hope) marketers don't run campaigns with annoying ad types to do the same. They, just like everyone else, just want someone to notice them. But what would happen if we all started sporting purple suits? And hats? All day, every day? It's going to get old, and you're going to long for the nice, clean ad inventory of years past.

Is the end of traditional media truly nigh?

"If you're in advertising, you'd better learn to speak digital, because that's the way the world is going."

Those words come from Josh Bernoff's Groundswell blog today, summing up Forrester Research's just completed five-year interactive marketing forecast. Over 70% of the marketers they surveyed expected the effectiveness of channels like created social media, online video, and mobile marketing to increase, while the effectiveness of direct mail, television, magazines, outdoor, newspapers, and radio would stay the same or decrease.

They expect digital marketing to grow to about 21%  of advertising spend in five years, while overall budgets are declining. And of all aspects of digital marketing, social media is the area expected to show the greatest growth, growing from $716 million this year to $3 billion in five years, between social networking campaigns and agency fees. (And this doesn't include ads on social networks, because those are considered display ads.)

What does all this mean for you, dear friends? Time to get your digital on. Old school just won't cut it for much longer.

We leave you with this eulogy from, well, a social media site:

It Only Takes One...

Ads on the iPhone - For consumers, one of the little annoyances they are willing to deal with, for the sake of holding such a powerful, pretty gadget in their hands. For marketers, a potential boon, considering the growing reach of the iPhone and the "stickiness" of mobile ads. Ad recall on iPhones vs. other mobile users is higher (41% vs. 33%), and much more information is consumed, according to a 2009 study - no surprise there.

But it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch, as they say. This morning I'm checking out some tweets on the iPod touch, and what do I see across the bottom of the screen but an overlay ad that says (paraphrased) "See who is searching for you on Twitter." It looked like some sort of new Twitter app where you can monitor who is searching for your name or username. Being self-centered and vain, like most people are (admit it) of course I click on it. 

Unlike other iPhone app ads for services like Babelgum or Superpages, this innocent little click did not take me to the App Store where I could then proceed with my download. It didn't even take me to some sort of mobile-optimized landing page. Rather, it asked for access to my Twitter account, which I stupidly gave, being conditioned to allow other Twitter apps to integrate. It then guided me through a series of inane questions and statements that I could then choose to "Tweet This!" or skip. I skipped through about 10, then realized it was not going to stop, and gave up.

And that's the end of the story. I will never again click on a mobile ad. Done and done. In my case, because I'm the type to hold grudges (sort of), I really do mean it. But I wonder how many other naive ad-clickers - you know, the ones that we, as marketers, hold dear to our hearts - could hold the same resolve after this kind of experience. I guess that's just something we'll find out as mobile ads proliferate.

Maybe we tweet, but Facebook has what we need.

Yes, we hear about Twitter every single day. The latest? Twitter may have ruined opening weekend grosses for Bruno. OK, we'll give Twitter some props when it comes to real-time influence.

But when it comes to long-term value? Facebook has become the one with the sticking power, at least according to these recent numbers from Anderson Analytics: New Social Media Study: Facebook Trumps Other Social Media as Most Valuable; Majority of Users Can’t Do Without Popular Site.

The bit that especially caught our eye was this: 43% of respondents said they could do without Twitter, as compared to only 29% for Facebook. Even MySpace did better than Twitter, with just 35% saying they could do without it. In other words, people see real value in Facebook, even if they are twittering all day.

Respondents also see value in LinkedIn (only about 29% said they could do with out the business-oriented site), however they don't visit it as frequently.

Keep your eye on Facebook. Your audience is there, and they aren't leaving. OK, they aren't necessarily clicking on ads, yet, but we have faith.

Fun facts about Facebook:

• More than 5 billion minutes are spent on Facebook each day (worldwide)
• More than 30 million users update their statuses at least once each day
• More than 8 million users become fans of Pages each day

Money for nothing and...

Gearing up to spend those big bucks on television advertising? Sure, TV's doing just fine. Just look at the nearly one hundred million votes they got on American Idol. Obviously people are watching.

Except when they aren't. Within 2 years, nearly one out of five television ads will be skipped due to DVR usage. And American Idol? 3.3 million people watched this season on a DVR. That sounds to us like 3.3 million people skipping ads.

Diminishing returns, for sure. The good news? TV advertising is about to get cheaper. The prediction is that CPMs will start to come down after this year. But of course, you get what you pay for. And those eyeballs are fewer every day. Time to turn on the ol' ROI calculator and figure out what's next.

Here's one idea: Ad Age has some tips for effective viral videos. Get your 10,000,000 views online instead, like this T-mobile video has done since January. And just think of all the fun metrics you get when your advertising is online.

Bing Bang Boom: MSFT Goes All Out in New Ad Campaigns

What's up with the weirdo-nasty TV spots, Microsoft? First you confused me with Jerry and Bill, now you're telling me that "artists" can be PC users, too? I'm talking about the ads where the "picky" consumer is in the market for a new laptop and tries to find a Mac in their price range - and can't. So they then proceed to find a PC that meets all of their criteria, for half the price - and Microsoft is so excited by their comparison shopping that they pay for it. (Read Apple's response, via Roughly Drafted.)

Okay, fine. Try to convince me that a professional video editor is going to do just fine running software on Windows, I might believe you, because I don't know better. But now try to convince me that the way I'm searching on the internet is totally wrong? What a bone to pick, guys. Too bad most people (65%) are pretty much satisfied with their search experience, or rather, with their Google experience. How do you tell someone that they're going about it all wrong? How about with a costly ad campaign?

That's right, I'm talking about Bing, MFST's new search engine that is actually performing fairly well, according to early comScore data. And I'll hand it to them, the ad where people are babbling search terms is pretty good - at some point we all find ourselves thinking down a completely different line than we'd planned, thanks to search. But isn't that kind of fun, in a Tim Leary kind of way?

Here's the latest ad, this one for Internet Explorer 8. But oh, isn't that Dean Cain? My favorite alum, and of the Glenn Nelson volleyball era to boot. (Watch for the guy in the back with the tree. I like him best.)

This Virtual Social Life

Cartoon via this blog, but created by Oliver Widder, a rather dapper Hamburg-ian.

Here's some filler text to enjoy while you ponder the meaning of "follow."

April marked the fourth consecutive month that Facebook ranked first for its number of unique visitors and time spent - InformationWeek, citing Nielsen data.

Time spent? How much time, exactly?

Um, 13.9 billion minutes. Up from 1.7 billion minutes. Now, I don't have the wherewithal to locate my nearest digital calculator, so I'll just believe the article when it tells me that's an increase of 700%.

SEVEN HUNDRED PERCENT, kids.

It looks cool when you write it in all caps, and it also is more frightening. It means that we are spending exponential more time in these little virtual bubbles, sending cryptic updates, fake-spying on high school acquaintances. (It's not stalking if there's no restraining order.)

What I find interesting is that Facebook is overtaking MySpace and yet it caters to a slightly older demographic. Translation: older people are learning how to "hang out" online, too. Now watch: the teenagers take advantage of our Twitter-Facebook obsession to get offline and do something surprising and perhaps wonderful, while our eyes remain glued to our virtual networks.

Facebook vs. Twitter? For Gen Y, No Contest.

Brands and marketers who got all excited about using Twitter as a tool for reaching that 18-24 demographic may be sorely disappointed by a recent study that shows just 29% of young'uns on Twitter follow companies; most are interested in following their friends, and celebrities. (In that order, thank god.)

That is, if they're even on Twitter. Just 2 in 10 in that age group use it, compared to 9.9 out of 10 that have profiles on social networks, according to the Participatory Media Network study. Wait, 0.1 of a person? Does that mean there's three-quarters of a femur out there, floating around, without a requisite 'casual sexy' profile picture, eclectic-yet-mainstream musical tastes, and 'smart' literary quote with which to identify itself to its 700 friends? God forbid.

Michael Della Penna of PMN called it a "glass half full" scenario. "Clearly we're only touching the surface of its potential as a marketing vehicle," he says.  "It's clear that Gen Y has an appetite for social networking, but still hasn't fully embraced micro-blogging. There is a tremendous opportunity now for marketers to develop strategies to get this important group active on Twitter too."

Yes, clearly. Let's keep telling ourselves that. And let's also keep them as two separate entities, shall we? Because that doesn't make sense - integrating the less popular medium into the one that the group is already gaga over. Ga. ga.

By the way - funny that a search for "facebook twitter," or vice versa, brings up Twitter's Facebook page well before Facebook's Twitter account. Did that just make you dizzy?

Hey Starbucks, what's up? Wanna chat? JKLOL!

The New York Times tells us today that Starbucks is launching a major social media blitz to tie in with their latest advertising campaign. Among other things, a contest to be the first to post a photo of new ad posters on Twitter.

They already have large followings on Facebook (1.5 million fans) and Twitter (183,000 followers) and this campaign is sure to get them more. So will social media get people to drink more coffee? Or buy more cars?

No one knows yet how to measure the ROI on social media, yet we all secretly believe it makes a difference. These grand experiments are laying the foundation for the future if nothing else.

Relationships are supposed to be the cornerstones to success on the social web. So what does this mean for brands? We find ourselves wondering how Starbucks (or any other brand) plans to have a personal relationship with millions of people. What's the point of social media if not to be social? Don't get us wrong, we are all for expanding into the social web. In fact, we think it is necessary and only a matter of time until all aspects of the web are social.

And yet, we find ourselves wondering where it's headed. Will social media continue to be part of advertising? Residing within the marketing department? Or is it something else, like, say, how a company does business everyday, up there with answering the phone. Because carrying on a conversation is what customer service representatives do. Not necessarily marketers.

As for Starbucks? We don't make friends with our coffee. We drink coffee with our friends. So we're going to grab a latte, sit down at the keyboard, and check in on Facebook. Maybe we'll tell our friends how great this coffee is.

App-ver-what? Mobile Advertising Comes of Age

Ad Age tells us that mobile advertising may finally be coming into its own. People can't seem to get enough applications for their smart phones, and even welcome branded apps. Assuming the apps don't suck, that is.

Sounds easy! Of course, when you realize that the average user installs 20-40 apps on his phone, and there are tens of thousands of applications out there, you realize that the real challenge is getting those eyeballs in the first place.

OK, so it's not quite so simple. Nonetheless, the opportunities are there -- and only getting better. Branded apps are brilliant when executed well. They take some serious development savvy and a good push to get them found by users. There is also a second option: in-application advertising. Piggy-back on someone else's awesome app and show off your product inside.

Want inspiration? Check out the Ad Age article for some examples.
Don't believe this is the next great thing? Analysts do. Maybe time for a little more research.

Look Mom, No Hands: Interactive Marketing Flies High

Isn't this a pretty chart? Thanks, Forrester (via Mediapost).

For the sake of brevity, I'll give you the good news first: Interactive marketing spending will hit $25.6 billion this year, a 11% increase from the $23.1 billion of 2008. 

The figure includes search, email, social media, and mobile marketing fund-age. Yes, that is a real word - at least according to legendary linguist Pauly Shore.

And now, the better news: spending is expected to more than double to nearly $55 billion by 2014.

B2B Marketing Pubs Cater to Panicky Industry

Browsing the feeds from publications like Ad Age, PR Week, ClickZ, and DM News, I can't help but wonder: where are the glorious stories of yesteryear? Articles about incredible (and expensive) ad campaigns, eager PR folk writing the new, can't-fail rules of the industry, and stories of VCs showering young, blushing startups with pretty piles of cash.

Now what do we get? Facebook's credit lines can't keep up with its incredible user growth, unspectacular campaigns abound, newspapers are dying, and even those we thought were untouchable are laying off workers left and right. (Though apparently, there's some hope, as courageous VCs sniff out opportunity in a crumbled market.)

But one of the most noticeable changes is that B2B pubs are starting to get seriously pragmatic on us. "7 Tips for Marketing During a Recession." "Email Marketing on a Budget." And of course the infamous "How-Tos" for social media marketing, where they tell you that you can get 1,000 new customers via Twitter: just equip a few baby-interns (cost: $0) with TwitterFon apps (cost: $0) and some targeted adspeak (cost: $0).

What they don't tell you is you're going to need someone to QA all that jazz. The cost of the wrong message going out to those potential customers? Infinite. Who is going to make sure they stay consistent with the strategy and message? And who is going to literally sit down and fix the mistakes that are inevitably going to be made? Finally, how do you make up for the time lost with "experimentation" that you had to scrap not one month in, but several, because it takes time to find out what works?

Don't get us wrong: We heart social media. We just don't think it's the solution to slashed budgets during a recession.

Get your priorities crooked

YSMV: Your skepticism may vary.

Traditional advertising and social media are getting cozier by the day. So cozy that you might want to call them “friends with benefits.” That guy you overheard talking about his favorite yogurt? That woman blogging and twittering about her awesome new car? Maybe not quite so unbiased – since they got that yogurt and that car for free. Say what you will, getting something for nothing makes a difference. Hence, the benefits.

Solicited word-of-mouth is nothing new; BzzAgent has been around a while, sending people out in the world to comment, share and, well, generate buzz. Now, Ford Fiesta is giving away cars to agents. Hey, if I had a new car for 6 months, I would probably like it too. Ah, that new car smell. Nothing quite like it.

Our response? It's time to embrace your inner skeptic. The message is only as valuable as you allow it to be. These days, everyone has something to share, and it’s not all as innocent as it might seem.  As Pete Cashmore wrote in his post "Can Social Media Make Us Buy More Cars?": “In the era of user-generated content, being an informed and skeptical consumer of media is as important as being a skilled creator.” And for every blogger, vlogger, or twitterer commenting on a product, there are ten consumers who need to raise that eyebrow just a little higher.

Of course the real question is: will it work? How skeptical are people these days? Keep watching Ford Fiesta and maybe we'll find out.

Will the Axle Take Home the Grease?

Digital Axle could take home the prize in the optimization competition at the Ad-Tech Awards tonight for its work on NorcalHonda.com.  Just in case we don't win, we're telling you now that we are a finalist.  More later.

Convergence! It's here. No not that kind. The other kind

For the longest time, digital agencies have done everything they can to convince the world that no, no, no ...they only do digital. Why?  Two words: Wall Street.

Remember when Digitas went public?  They (brilliantly) positioned themselves to the dot com rabblery  as "Digital Gone Wild" when, in fact, at the time, more than 60% of their revenue came from offline sources like, say, junk mail.  Did you ever hear Tom Bedecarre of AKQA bragging on his print campaigns for Visa?  Not likely.  For just about ever, Wall Street has given digital agencies a much higher multiple on income than it has given the IPG's and Omnicom's of the world.  So even if the business was there, Digital CEOs underplayed their offline revenue because nothing good could come from it.

But now the advent of online video as a content and ad form may be the catalyst changing all that.  Here in Adweek the formerly high minded digerati of Razorfish (incidentally owned by MSFT of all companies) is taking credit for a campaign in ...gasp... broadcast video.

We've thought this would happen forever.  The digital agencies are in the best position to win these clients over the long haul.  Why? EZ. They understand and appreciate data -- something the traditonal agency world has yet to fully wrap its head around.  So, in some respects the high multiples are justified as the Razorfish's of the world may start to gobble up broadcast budgets and position themelves as the center of the marketing infrastructure.  Their future growth curve looks way brighter.

Search 3.0: The Hive Mind is Providing the Answers.

Facebook and Twitter are now driving a significant amount of traffic to web sites. Enough to make Google and Yahoo just a teeny bit nervous. Heck some sites are seeing more traffic from Facebook than from Google. Google and Facebook are still complementary, but that may be shifting. We call this shift "Search 3.0."

Peter Hershberg broke down Search 3.0 in AdAge recently, defining three levels of social connections: personal/real-life, shared interest (such as those you follow on Twitter), and shared experience (an Amazon or eBags reviewer). People are using these connections to assess the value of their search results. A straight Google search just doesn't cut it when you can ask your friends, their friends, a few professionals you respect and maybe someone who has tried the product. All in one easy inquiry into the hive mind.(Ok, maybe not all queries are best suited for this kind of search.)

On top of that, people can't seem to stay away from social networks (time spent is up 93%). Which means that their social connectivity is growing and strengthening. There is a new kind of relevance: personal -- defined by your personal network. So you, dear marketer, are going to have to approach things just a little differently.

We also learned that people filter content in a way that Google just can't. A recent study showed that 25% of posts through the social bookmarking site Delicious have yet to be indexed by search engines. And the tags are 93% relevant. That is high value: relevant AND timely. No waiting for spiders to catch up.

What does this mean for you? Social media is critical, like it or not. Twitter or something like it won't go away (as much as you might want it to). And Search as we know it has changed. Nervous yet? It's time to start experimenting. And make a few mistakes while you're at it -- the risk-taking window is wide-open.

John Freese's Campaign: Lame PR Stunt? or Brilliant Marketing Move?

This is just too juicy to pass up.

Journeyman session drummer Josh Freese:

“Six months ago, my pal says to me -- he's sitting at his desk and he goes, we were laughing about how many records I sold last week or the week before ... ‘last week you sold one, and the week before you sold two, and the week before you sold none, and the week before one.’ And I was like, ‘OK, I get it.... Maybe I should call those people and personally thank them.’ And we started laughing. It was like, ‘Yeah, maybe you should offer a free drum lesson.’ I was like, ‘Well, maybe I should just take them to lunch.’ And we started laughing about that -- it really came up that easily. And I was like, ‘Wow, this could be a great idea.’"

So he did it. He sold the album on iTunes for $7, and the double DVD set and download for $15. But then it got interesting.

• For $50, 25 fans could get the album and a five-minute “thank-you” call from Freese, during which they can talk about whatever they want.
• $250 would buy 15 people the music, a signed drumhead, a T-shirt and lunch with Freese at P.F. Chang’s or The Cheesecake Factory.
• And $1,000? The music, a T-shirt and a signed cymbal, drum head and Drumsticks. But also this (via the website): “Josh washes your car OR does your laundry....or you can wash his car. Have dinner with Josh aboard the ‘Queen Mary’ in Long Beach, CA. Get drunk and cut each other's hair in the parking lot of the Long Beach courthouse (filmed and posted on youtube of course)”
• I'm not even going to tell you what $10,000 would get you.

Freese has since taken down the promotion from the website, but says PR stunt aside, he'll totally make good on any of the high-end offers, should he actually get them.

So what's the moral of the story? Be ridiculous. Don't worry about the lawyers, don't worry about pissing people off. When ideas come out of conversations with your friends that leave you both laughing your ass off on the floor, not knowing what hit you, go ahead and do them. (Unless it's a stupid April's Fools joke, of course, and then do it, but not on April 1. That's for amateurs.)

The result will certainly surprise -- you and everyone else.

Got your degree? Congrats, everything you learned is obsolete.

Given how quickly social media tools change, we are marveling at the fact that a UK school is now offering a degree program in social media. For a mere $5700, you can learn how to use Facebook,Twitter and more. You will even learn how to write a blog or create a podcast. We do have to give credit where credit is due: at least the university is making money off of social media. The social media companies certainly aren't.

Now if this were a degree in Social Media Marketing, or crowd-sourced product development, we would be all for it. After all, real jobs exist that require those skills. Unfortunately, this course seems more like something designed to give you basic competence in the world. Sort of like learning how to use e-mail.

So what do we have? Coursework that teaches you how to use tools that are easily self-taught, based on technologies that will evolve and may be obsolete by the time you graduate. OK. Good luck with that!

You can only entertain all of the people some of the time.

These days, you can’t read anything without coming across a mention of Twitter. If only Twitter could monetize word-of-mouth they’d be IPO-worthy today. And yet, there you are, a marketer, shaking in your boots because you have no idea how to start with all of this.

Oh, you know there is plenty of advice out there. You’re no fool. You’ve been reading blogs. You have googled expert tips. You even signed up for a Twitter account (@cluelessnewbie) a month or two ago. But every time you see that “What are you doing?” you are paralyzed. Why would anyone care what you had for lunch today? And are you actually interesting enough for people to follow you? How self-obsessed do you have to be to constantly want to say what you are doing? Is Twitter populated with narcissists?

And then, you read an article like this one about the different types of Twitter personalities and you get even more anxious. There are styles? Some of them undesirable? I don’t want to annoy people!

Don’t worry. Reframe the question. Instead of answering “What are you doing,” answer this: “What do you find interesting today?” If you found it interesting, someone else probably will too.

Still worried about narcissism? Think about this gem we heard at an excellent panel (Is Aristotle on Twitter?) at the SXSW conference: if someone complains about something you tweet, THAT person is the narcissist for having assumed it was intended for him.

To misquote President Lincoln: You can entertain some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not entertain all of the people all of the time.

See? No worries. Go ahead: Step into the Twitter stream. It’ll be OK.

And if it brings you any comfort – everyone else goes through the same process. (See the 5 stages of Twitter acceptance.)

#overload

The SXSW Interactive conference brought together thousands of people who love technology so much that they were willing to spend a weekend and then some in Texas to talk about it. (OK, they also love the parties and the social scene that go along with it, but still, these are serious technophiles.)

And how do all of those people want to communicate with each other? Twitter, of course. So, great idea, we use the hashtag #sxsw so anyone can search for related tweets. Only one small problem. In the time it took to write this paragraph, during the interactive conference there would have been hundreds of tweets.

Since interactive is over, and it’s now the music & film conferences, many of the hard-core twitterers are gone. (Just 40 results since typing the #sxsw hashtag above.) Nonetheless, the Twitter fire hose is spewing at a pace faster than most can manage. (44 results now)

Who can keep up with this? Absolutely no one. And now we have the challenge: scalability of social media. (50 results) How do we avoid #overload FAIL? (57 results) The magic word? “Filtering.” Not that the perfect filtering solutions exist yet. But they will.

For example, check out the new Facebook redesign. (79 results) You might not like it right now (like so many vocal others), but did you know that you can create a group of just the people you want to hear about it? And, you can make that group the default for your own news feed. (82 results)

Now that’s useful. (92 results. Have you caught up yet? Need to filter those tweets?)

Let's Hear From the Other Side, Shall We?

Here at Digital Axle, we like to keep things fair. This means a lot of things: no pushing or shoving in the kitchen, lots of leg space in our conference room for the extra tall people, the right to use or not-use-and-openly-despise Twitter, and early exit for all on Friday afternoons. Provided you are not a lowly minion, of course.

For you, dear blog reader, it means we want to make sure you hear the other side of the internet advertising story. We mostly bombard you with uplifting news about how online ad revenues are growing faster than a Jersey tomato in summer, surpassing other mediums because of its broad (yet targeted!) reach and superior ability to measure ROI. We post eMarketer charts every month whose long red rectangles show the bright future of the industry and its projected revenues.

But not everyone thinks like us. Read this post by Eric Clemons of the Wharton School, "Why Advertising is Failing on the Internet." If nothing else, it will get you thinking about the future -- in which we may or may not be wearing shades.

What Agencies Will Pay for a Shot at Ad Fame

Whoops, didn't mean to do THAT, said the dude from One Show --one of the premier awards shows for advertisements-- when he slipped and accidentally emailed the spreadsheet that listed all of the entries (and how much they paid) for the 2009 awards to a handful of agency execs.

Too late, it's out, and Ad Age reports that apparently, even in tough times, agencies are willing to shell out quite a bit for a chance at recognition and industry fame. Total # of entries, excluding interactive & design? 9,795 -- with an average cost of $358 each, pulling in $3,507,860 for One Show.

Ad Age estimated also that considering how many entries they received the year before (26,000), the organization got about $10 million in entry fees. One Show's response: We are a nonprofit, and agencies realize that this money goes towards supporting the industry.

BBDO was the hungriest hippo, accounting for more than 750 of the entries - spending a total of more than $250,000, according to the spreadsheet.