Disqus - Friends of chrisnixon

Re: Coolest thing my father did (Scripting News)

dave — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:15:47 -0000

Pretty good chance I was also doing acid and smoking reefer too. But those aren't quite as obvious as drinking wine. And as I reported -- I stole the wine from my dad, he wasn't a beer drinker, and I thought, even then (for other reasons) that hard liquor was pretty unclassy.

Re: The difference between ad:tech and Blogworld

morganb — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:33:25 -0000

Thanks Scott - great post and I agree with you wholeheartedly!

Re: The difference between ad:tech and Blogworld

morganb — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:33:05 -0000

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your comments. As you probably could guess I have a slightly different take on things; but in general my post was less about "why aren't marketers spending more money" in social media, it was more why aren't people spending more attention and effort looking for ways to make the channel work for them? In part, it may have been poor expectations on my part. I was looking to ad:tech for inspiration and innovation. Instead I found out about a lot of companies that can sell me traffic. Good to know I suppose, but not as fulling as inspiration.

Secondly, it felt more like an attitude about social media as a fad or bolt-on tactic rather than an important area to innovate and that was worrying. I think there are fundamental shifts in consumer behavior underway and to think of them as fads or as something not to worry about yet reeks of complacency. We can ask the newspaper and radio about how that tends to work out.

In terms of the channel itself as a marketing effort I agree with you that as it stands RIGHT NOW it's not proven as an effective advertising channel. But that's how most of these things start, right? I mean if we went back to 1994 and had a conversation around Web sites the argument is eerily similar. Further, there is a big difference between advertising and marketing. I think social does a good job of marketing a company - it's the advertising that isn't realized.

But just because it hasn't been figured out yet doesn't mean that it isn't worth figuring out. Because social media provides the opportunity for a new type of metric for advertisers. Lifetime value of a customer. Advertisers on the web are so focused on CPM, CPC and CPA. And those metrics haven't translated well to the social space. But I believe that LTV will become more important, and social will help tremendously in that regard.

Finally, I agree that social is just one aspect of any successful marketing campaign and would never advocate that brands and agencies stop spending on what's working to place big bets in untried areas. But the general attitude that social is a fad, that social doesn't work is a dangerous mindset. After the dotcom bust everyone said "see, ecommerce doesn't work on the web" they were right in 2000, they look foolish now. I just hope that at these types of conferences we get more of a push forward and a look to what can be, not simply what is.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this comment, but I wanted to respond and there's a lot of ground to cover in your comment. I'll try to address more of my thinking in future posts. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Re: The difference between ad:tech and Blogworld

morganb — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:15:27 -0000

Hi Rich,

Thanks for the comment. I think you've articulated the current situation very well and I would agree with all of your points right up until the end (surprise!)

I do think you're right. If you asked someone in 1994 what the ROI of building a Website would be could they tell you? How ridiculous a question is that now? I think you've echoed that sentiment. I also agree with you that social or new media is always just one piece of an overall marketing strategy. And that other mediums deliver something that online cannot, mass of reach. Online simply cannot aggregate the number of eyeballs that traditional media can reach. Social/new media even less so.

Where I do differ from your perspective is that for me ad:tech is about the innovation and future of online advertising. Looking at the way that social was discussed (more as a tactic or adjunct strategy than mission critical to learn, figure out and win at) and the lack of use of existing social tools by attendees and exhibiting companies (specifically Twitter & Foursquare) and the premise of most of the companies I met (we buy and sell traffic) led me to think that ad:tech is more about looking at the status quo than pressing into the future.

For me, I want to learn what I don't know - I don't want to rehash the current state of the world - let's push this thing forward. I thought that was missing from the show. But again, small sample size with me and the panels I chose and my personal experience on the floor.

Thanks for the feedback!

Re: The difference between ad:tech and Blogworld

morganb — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:09:03 -0000

Adrian - Thanks for the comment. It's great that ad:tech is about monetization. It has to be. Social media has some fairly well documented cases of ROI. Dell, Pizza Hut, Dairy Queen, Ford and others will be more than happy to attest to the value of the channel. Social media marketing is about monetization. It's just a different metric. It's not CPC and CPA, it's LTV. Lifetime value of a customer is critical and social media helps drive that number up and up.

I agree that people don't have it figured out, but isn't that what the future is all about? Figuring out tough problems and new ways of doing things?

What if, in 1994 I asked you what the ROI of a Web site is? How ridiculous is that question now? I believe we'll look back and say the same thing about social media marketing and shifting ways of reaching customers and how customers buy from businesses.

So my argument would be that while we have to keep doing the things that are working, we have to see, experiment and understand the shifts that are occurring in the space as well. I thought that spirit was missing from the show.

Re: The difference between ad:tech and Blogworld

morganb — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:04:09 -0000

GeekMommy -

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. You really articulate it well. I get that their customers demand audiences. They need reach. I get that social media doesn't scale the way other advertising methods (on and offline) do. I get that until they can aggregate enough networks, enough niches, enough customers through new channels they'll stick with the ones that get them paid. And it's a fine argument. Social is always one part of the puzzle for any company. I don't think anyone would argue for a marketing strategy that only uses social marketing.

But what was and is concerning is the point you articulated. That the people (agencies) advising their clients with the money don't *get* it. This was the main point I was trying to make with my points about Twitter and Foursquare being used in a very limited way at the conference. Sure, they are just two brand new tools, and may or may not last themselves, but the fact that they were not being used by many conference members, and that when used the way they were being used is not what anyone would call "best practice" points to a lack of understanding or acceptance of important shifts in the online environment that will impact them and their customers.

It is exactly the "fad" mindset that you speak of and that is what makes it really scary. If ad:tech is supposed to be the future of online marketing and advertising then I would say that many at the conference are betting on a future where social marketing is a gimmic or a fad that goes away - and to me that's a sucker's bet.

Thanks for the comment!

Re: The difference between ad:tech and Blogworld

morganb — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:57:24 -0000

Hi Mana,

I think they're aware of the benefits, but I think the bigger problem for them as an industry is that social media doesn't scale well. They need to reach mass numbers of people that the social channels don't allow for. So they need to find ways to reach customers and, yes, interrupt them, to get their message out. It's what their clients pay them for. Until they can figure out a way to scale the online audience in a way that in total reaches an aggregate in the ballpark of offline they will be forced to think of social as just one element of a plan, as opposed to a leading role.

Thanks for reading!

Re: The difference between ad:tech and Blogworld

morganb — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:55:14 -0000

Thanks Zane :)

Re: The difference between ad:tech and Blogworld

morganb — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:55:05 -0000

Hi John,

Thanks for your comment. I agree. Being among too many "we love non-US traffic" booths and not in enough sessions likely skewed my views. While I agree with you that it's not fair to peg an industry based on one conference I do think that there are several telling signs that point to the fact that social is relegated to adjunct status. And I'm not here as an apologist for social media. I don't believe it's a panacea that is going to "save" online advertising, but I do think that some of the signs that I alluded to above point to a general mindset that puts social media behind old media measures - mainly traffic and eyeballs.

I've spent about 10 years in online marketing and I know that there are many important pieces of the online puzzle, and that social is an important, growing part; but it is just one part. It also has many challenges articulated well by many smart people. But what I found a bit surprising was the fact that people in the industry, who are at ad:tech are not using the new technologies in a way that seems to suggest that either they embrace them, are trying to learn them, or leveraging their core abilities. This was the part that was concerning.

Again, small sample size - me on the trade show floor and a few panels does not give an accurate overview of where social stands in the industry as a whole. More just my observations compared to my experiences at other conferences.

Re: The AVC Reader Census: A Day Later

fredwilson — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:51:28 -0000

Hmm. Need to think about that

Re: The AVC Reader Census: A Day Later

fredwilson — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:48:08 -0000

I don't think I've ever worn any kind of scent ever

Re: The Droid fails AS A PRODUCT when compared to Palm Pre and iPhone

Scobleizer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:36:09 -0000

Awesome points. Congrats on building the best Twitter app on the Android platform, by the way. I'll keep with it.

Re: The Droid fails AS A PRODUCT when compared to Palm Pre and iPhone

Scobleizer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:15:24 -0000

When we play the YouTube videos (same video, same UI) the ones on the Palm Pre, the HTC Touch, the iPhone are much higher resolution than the ones that play on the Droid. Yes, they are NOT "true HD" but they are very sharp and very good looking. Not on the Droid. They look like ass on the Droid.

Re: I got a DROID (Scripting News)

dave — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:14:51 -0000

Buzz is a funny thing, it might have been luck or the ads or Motorola. Timing matters too and the sense that it's going to be a while before Apple ships an exciting new iPhone

Re: Introducing listbrowser.org (Scripting News)

dave — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:11:13 -0000

Click on the name of the list at thetop of the page

Re: The Droid fails AS A PRODUCT when compared to Palm Pre and iPhone

Scobleizer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:04:20 -0000

This is a major reason why I bought one. I think Apple needs competition. That's healthy for all of us. So, totally agree with you on that point.

Re: The difference between ad:tech and Blogworld

morganb — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:03:59 -0000

Scott - thanks for the comments. I think being on the expo floor had a lot to do with it. You can only see so many "we love non-US traffic" t-shirts and booths before you get discouraged about the where the industry places its priorities. On the other hand, many have rightfully pointed out that the money is here because social has not proven to be a place where brands and marketers can monetize or attract the audiences that congregate there. Therefore, the argument goes, this is the real conference for online advertising because it is the one area where commerce gets done online. To varying degrees I can both agree and disagree with that sentiment, but overall I left ad:tech unimpressed.

Re: The Droid fails AS A PRODUCT when compared to Palm Pre and iPhone

Scobleizer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:52:21 -0000

Hah, I don't like Wave so I've been ignoring that. But I think you are right on. Google is making big plays to stick its foot into enterprises. Microsoft better watch out here.

Re: The Droid fails AS A PRODUCT when compared to Palm Pre and iPhone

Scobleizer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:50:34 -0000

It's not quite that simple, though. Google has a better platform-building team and approach. This is why Android has come in late into the market and already gotten more than 10,000 apps built for it (something that Microsoft, Nokia, Palm and others have failed to do, by the way). The platform eventually wins. Or at least that's been true so far. That beautiful Mac? It was cloned "enough" by Microsoft and Microsoft's superior platform approach led it to 90% marketshare. Being beautiful and usable is NOT enough!

Re: The Droid fails AS A PRODUCT when compared to Palm Pre and iPhone

Scobleizer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:45:17 -0000

That said, my new Toyota Prius has a very good GPS system, so I don't need turn-by-turn the way other people might.

Re: The Droid fails AS A PRODUCT when compared to Palm Pre and iPhone

Scobleizer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:44:44 -0000

Ahh, yes, I just forgot about that. We talked about Google's Maps in the podcast. I'll add that as another good thing about Droid (turn-by-turn directions and street-level views rock on the Droid).

Re: The Droid fails AS A PRODUCT when compared to Palm Pre and iPhone

Scobleizer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:42:15 -0000

Mark: yes. That's why I feel Android is Windows 3.1. It's ugly. But you can see the future is going to be very bright. Developers ARE supporting Android in a big way. It's their second platform, I've been interviewing a ton of them.

Re: The Droid fails AS A PRODUCT when compared to Palm Pre and iPhone

Scobleizer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:38:12 -0000

Another good point I should have made in my article. No, the Droid can't do simultaneous voice and data (I believe this is due to the EVDO network that Verizon uses). Good points about getting service in rural areas. I don't use a phone in rural areas very often.

Re: The Droid fails AS A PRODUCT when compared to Palm Pre and iPhone

Scobleizer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:36:30 -0000

I'll switch my iPhone over to Verizon too if it goes. The network is noticeably better in Half Moon Bay. Ironic, too, because I know of a major Apple exec who lives just down the road from me.

Re: The Droid fails AS A PRODUCT when compared to Palm Pre and iPhone

Scobleizer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:35:33 -0000

As to Symbian, that OS is not up to the standards of Android. But Symbian will be the market share winner for a long time (Nokia sells a ton of single-chip phones to emerging markets that don't even know what a web browser is).