New Ad Formats Subtly Break Through Ad Clutter

During my college days a common topic in my advertising class was ad clutter and the need to break through the clutter. Lets face it, ads are everywhere. Some are more subtle, like product placement and sponsored sports elements such as the Lifewise Most Dependable Player of the Game or the Oreo Dunk of the Game. Others are more blatant and noticeable, such as billboards, commercials and ads during online streaming of TV shows. In order to get people to notice you, your company, and your message you have to think of what has not yet been done in order to come across loud and clear. Recent examples of breaking through the clutter are the new ad formats that Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn are rolling out. Twitter is seeing an increase in product promotion by actors, athletes, TV stars and celebrities in general, as Adam Hochberg notes that “News Organizations Sign Deals for Sponsored Tweets, Then Do Not Participate In Them” http://bit.ly/hPjs7A. Sponsored tweets are becoming more commonplace as celebrities are paid several hundreds and thousands of dollars to endorse products. For instance, last year’s new AOL site changes were retweeted by people like comedian Michael Ian Black and reality TV star Kim Kardashian. Coincidently, a new hashtag has arisen to meet with FTC requirements and that is the #ad hashtag added to the end of all sponsored tweets. However, this model of breaking through ad clutter has some problems. Since #ad is a new hashtag it is not as easily identifiable and the sponsored tweets mimic the way the user talks making them more imperceptible. For these reasons and the type of community that exists on Twitter, this model will have a hard time taking hold and integrating itself into the mainstream of Twitter’s framework.  

Then there is Facebook’s approach, probably one of the easiest to facilitate and turn into a workable model, largely because the companies themselves are in the driver’s seat. Ben Parr discusses how “Facebook Turns Friend Activity Into New Ad Format” http://on.mash.to/gzdYys by having companies sponsor a portion of likes, actions within applications, page posts and checkins. For example, a story appears off to the side with your friend’s status update “At Starbucks again with (insert friend’s name here).” Below that status is the Starbucks icon and an ad is made. Facebook earns money and companies earn more brand followers and customers. A win-win, unless Facebook ever allows users to opt out of their stories becoming public domain for these purposes (which I doubt they will do even with their increased privacy settings because they would lose money instead of gain it). Finally there’s LinkedIn’s approach which is more a series of targeted platforms for advertisers. Ian Sherr notes that “LinkedIn Pushes Ad Tools” http://linkd.in/htMKGE in two parts. The first is an application programming interface allowing large advertising agencies to connect to the site, and the second is a self-serve platform to give self-serve advertisers additional targeting options. This model too has flaws, as he cites one ad trial involving the start-up art dealership Artsicle.com. $400 later and two weeks in she had 17 LinkedIn users visit her site and none of them purchased art. Also LinkedIn, like Twitter, has a very distinct identity: one that is more ad-resistant. The reason why this model works better for Facebook is because its audience is composed of a wide range of ages and economic status. Facebook is also a more casual community whose purpose is simply to connect users. Twitter is more focused on spreading news and LinkedIn is for professional networking. All in all, an interesting way to break through the clutter but for Twitter and LinkedIn it needs more work.

Digital Corrections and Implications

There has been a lot of discussion lately as to what the standard should be for corrections in the digital realm of journalism. As a writer I feel that this is a very important topic because it symbolizes a turning point in digital communications. Writers are humans and humans make errors. That is a fact of life and whether it is in print or digital the consensus is that there needs to be a consistent set of guidelines for the proper way to correct errors. Alicia Shepard’s “Corrections: Basic Journalistic Hygiene”http://n.pr/fXGChh is the only one, out of several articles I came across, that focuses on guidelines for blog corrections. She references Craig Silverman of Report the Error and Scott Rosenberg of MediaBugs who started the Report an Error Alliance. Their initiative is to get news organizations to post MediaBugs’ free Report an Error widget at the top of all of their articles, allowing readers to send in corrections. An author-generated corrections mechanism she suggests is to place a corrections box at the top of the page for errors that require an explanation. Other authors are more concerned about Twitter, especially considering its fast spread of information and especially in the case of its misreporting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ death. Basically Twitter is like a big game of Telephone. The message starts out one way and, by the time it gets passed down the line of people, becomes something completely different. Twitter messages can start out with ambiguous and incorrect reports generated from the source as news breaks or can also emerge through a compilation of user reports that spread through retweets. Either way, incorrect information is spread. Craig Silverman’s “What Would a Twitter Correction Function Look Like?” http://bit.ly/hiQb7N suggests that a Twitter corrections function be user controlled (only to be policed by Twitter in cases of abuse) and provide a way to retweet a correction to all users who retweet the incorrect tweet.

His method involves automatic @replies to everyone who retweeted the initial retweet to let them know of the correction and urge them to retweet it. In order to make it stand out, a special distinguished correction icon would accompany it. He also suggests that when Twitter establishes its annotations function it could enable a correction attribute to be put into practice. Others seem to agree, Mathew Ingram’s “Twitter is a Great Tool. What Happens When It’s Wrong” http://bit.ly/gq27ep and Scott Rosenberg’s “Correct, Don’t Delete, That Erroneous Tweet” agree that a corrections function that notifies retweeters of the incorrect information and simultaneously provides them with a correction to retweet is perhaps the best way to rectify the situation. The latter’s article also voices the opinion that the incorrect tweet not be deleted, but simply amended. A lot of the other authors seem to be in agreement, although there are concerns about the subjective nature of some corrections, who should handle them, and the implications of deleting an incorrect tweet. My thoughts lean towards the tweet of a correction to all who retweeted the incorrect information while not deleting the original tweet. That sums up blogs and Twitter. However, what about Facebook? It may not be as much of a news transmitter as the other two but I think it warrants the same consideration for a corrections feature. People share things on Facebook and a lot of Twitter users tie in their accounts to Facebook. Incorrect status updates should have a corrections standard too. In the case of Facebook it would have to involve a button similar to the “like” button that immediately lets others know about the change in their news feeds. The key to the importance of this is transparency. If newspapers are expected to report corrections then that same consideration must extend to digital communications on any platform. Transparency is essential, it leads to good credibility and good credibility leads to more trust, which is exactly what the news industry needs to preserve to survive the changes occurring within its midst. A digital presence is a reflection of one’s visible and personal presence, and that makes this an issue of utmost importance going forward.

Brand Loyalty: Defining Values and Ethics

Brand loyalty is typically thought of in a one-dimensional sense, meaning that brand loyalty is an allegiance to a brand and subsequently the values behind it. However, there are other ways of looking at brand loyalty. First of all, brand loyalty is tied in with branding. Companies and agencies are constantly evaluating brands as they update them and build new campaigns for them. How much can a brand change while still staying true to its roots? Can too much change cause a company to stray too far from a brand’s origins, resulting in a loss of relevance and connectivity throughout? These are the questions on the table. Two companies whose brands recently saw changes are Planters and Starbucks. Stuart Elliot, in “Mr. Peanut’s New Look? Old School” http://nyti.ms/doeuMX reports that Mr. Peanut’s new look updated him through animation and a speaking voice. However, it also discusses how his clothes evolved while maintaining a look based on earlier depictions of him. Hence they improved Mr. Peanut by making him more interactive and relatable, but showed respect for his origins by making subtle wardrobe changes reflective of his long-standing history. On the flipside of this is the example of Starbucks’ recent logo change as discussed in Tonya Garcia’s “The Latest Logo Redesign Is…” http://bit.ly/gm2JR6. Starbucks recently dropped the green and beige Starbucks outer circle and left the siren’s inner circle to stand alone in a slightly larger size with a green color change.  I think that divorcing the Starbucks name from the logo still reflects its roots but simultaneously does a great disservice to the brand. It gives it license to move away from coffee and branch out into other merchandise. While that can be a positive I think that Starbucks should continue to focus more on being the best coffee company, key word: coffee. If it loses this focus then it loses its identity. For a brand, that is never a good thing.

Another type of brand loyalty is shown in TV lifestyle programs where guest ‘experts’ demonstrate brand loyalty through sponsored product pitches. In “On the Media: A plea for honesty in paid TV pitches” http://lat.ms/heMesD, James Rainey relates that while federal agencies mandate clear identification of commercial pitches it is not enforced in these instances. He specifically cites a “San Diego Living” holiday episode with Sean McEwen pitching specific holiday gift ideas for guys. The mention of items like the SodaStream soda maker went unaccompanied by any disclaimer save a vague one at the end for the sponsorship of Miller/Weiner. The featured companies paid Miller/Weiner to have Sean McEwen promote their products on “San Diego Living.” That brings up a question of ethics. Even though it may be an overt advertisement, clearly Sean McEwen is portraying a false brand loyalty because no disclaimer of company sponsorship appeared with any product. Another avenue of brand loyalty is found in the fact that companies expect a lot more from their employees today. Not only must they promote the brand but live the brand. Michael Schrage in “When Brand Loyalty Goes Too Far” http://bit.ly/dHzvFT talks about a future where company employees could be required to adhere strictly to the brand even in their off hours. An example would be that Wal-Mart promotes sustainability and employees could be required to ‘go green’ at home and stick to CFL lightbulbs. This standpoint of ‘living the brand’ is understandable in that the company wants to present a united stance and set an example. At the same time it is very restrictive and goes to an unnecessary extreme simply to prove a point. I am all in favor of brand loyalty and what it represents, but when it is misused and detracts from a brand’s core state then it is a negative. These examples showcase not just the positive and negative examples, but also the different aspects of brand loyalty. Brand loyalty goes beyond allegiance to a brand, it encompasses how it is reinterpreted, how it is related through the media and how it is presented by company employees. The right moves lead to success, while the rest are damaged and dragged through the mud.

Search Engine Expansion, Personalization and Tracking

A lot of discussion has focused on how celebrities, businesses and industries expand. Perhaps one of the least discussed, at least from my point of view, is search engines. I have come across two articles lately that suggest that search engine companies being solely dedicated to developing search technology is a thing of the past. Search engine companies are expanding the definition of a search engine company by delving into new categories and endeavors. One example is Google. Back in November, Google launched a website called boutiques.com, which you can read more about in Edward Helmore’s “Google Targets Fashion Market” http://bit.ly/d6TfS7. The site directs viewers to existing fashion retailer websites such as Net-A-Porter and hosts virtual shops of designers and celebrities. Google’s attempt to become not only a destination for all searches but a resource for each category of search. Boutiques.com may just be the beginning of categorized search pages that are owned by search engine giants like Google. Another interesting development is that search engines are developing personalized touches for their news pages, as Barry Schwartz notes in “Google News Adds ‘Follow News’ Button, Easy Way to Customize Home Page” http://selnd.com/dOwGJu. Using the example of Google again, one has only to look at its Google News page. Users can now click the ‘Follow News’ button after doing a search on Google News and the content is added to their Google News home page along with a link to that search in the left side column (which with further clicks keeps you abreast of recent developments on your favorite topics).

In addition to search engines, other publishers are using a feature called ‘AddThis’ to track how their content is shared, who it is shared by and their interests. Marshall Kirkpatrick, author of ”1 Billion Peoples’ Interests Now Tracked by AddThis” http://rww.to/gyCrTv discusses how data gained from this feature leads to more personalization of content. The flip side of this is that some people are simply not interested in being tracked. In fact, as Edmund Lee’s article “American’s Say ‘No Thanks’ to Online Tracking, New Poll Finds” http://bit.ly/hswtvM reports, implementation of a  ’Do Not Track’ list has been suggested by the FTC. If established, this may make it harder for marketers to gather audience data. In that case it would be interesting to see whether they would revert to traditional methods of obtaining that data or whether a loophole could be found that would allow this trend to continue. Both the expansion of search engines and the development of personalization and tracking features are trends to watch. They are similar to other models that have gone before them. For example stores that used to only go by one name now are linked to several stores with different names that are all under the same company. This is essentially what search engine companies are exploring. Video game systems like X-Box found that gamers were searching for more personalization, now their video game systems are a storage system for a whole virtual world where the user is represented by an avatar of themselves and their favorite games and scores are archived and bookmarked. Real life examples replicated in the virtual world via the Internet. A new field of competition is born.