With Google Glass getting more press coverage, gaining interest, and steam, I have to assume this product will gain critical mass at some point in the next year or so. When that happens, advertisers and marketers will want to advertise on the screen and we will of course have to measure those advertisements.
So with that, will we have new metrics to measure against? Share of Eyeballs (SOE)? Share of Field of Vision (SOFOV)? Will we want to measure time looking at the ad on the GG screen? Similar to the Pay Per Gaze articles that are appearing, perhaps we could measure how much time is spent looking at an ad and combine that with how many people saw the add out of the potential people that could see the add to get a % of potential. It's another version of the GRP. Maybe a GGGRP? Or a Visual GRP? Not sure but it leads to more the more interesting question: Assuming that ads appear on this new screen, and this new screen gains critical mass, how do we optimize the ads? Presumably we would have all of the geo-targeting and geo-fencing capabilities that exist elsewhere and other basics such as connecting to previous behavior based on a login (or cookies?) but where does it stop?
Can we target an ad based on an object that a person is looking at with object recognition? It has a microphone so can we target an ad based on ambient audio? For example, could the advertiser promote the "hangover pill" if Glass senses that a person is at a party, it's late and it's recognized a lot of solo cups?
Could we incorporate location as well? If you're on vacation in NY and at a party in Chelsea, there could be an advertisement around events that start later in the day the next day for example. The possibilities are seemingly endless.
Maybe somebody has already posed this question. I admittedly didn't run a quick search to find out. But I think it's interesting enough to ask again.
Thoughts?
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Charging Customers for Browsing Doesn't Lead to Conversions
As I was looking for a new direction to guide my posts, an article popped up on reddit that gave me the orientation I needed. The article is about a clothing store in Australia that posted a notice telling their customers they were going to be charged if the walked in and didn't buy anything. It is labeled as just looking fee set at $5.
You can find discussions here, here and here.
I find these articles interesting because it often opens up numerous discussions on all kinds of topics but what I find most interesting is the question of why. The answer is often a response to the discussion of the symptom rather than the needed discussion to a larger solution.
The real question is and should be, "Does this tactic lead to the goal?" Presumably the goal of the store is to drive orders. Does this tactic lead to more orders or less? I would have to assume the latter which is terrible at best.
That said, the new purpose of this blog is to discuss the various marketing tactics that are seen in the media, news outlets and elsewhere and to discuss the good and bad points as well as other options. Discussing the why and understanding what the goals are and how these tactics align to the goals is fascinating to me. It gives you an inside view of how the company thinks and how the meetings go behind closed doors.
If they are seeing high traffic and low conversion, that tells me that pricing is a potential issue along with product assortment. One of the comments from the reddit thread says that you can find the same items in the store as you can at local supermarkets. As products become more commoditized, stores will have to be more creative with their offerings to differentiate.
If you can't differentiate on price, you may have to differentiate on customer service and satisfaction. Or create a unique shopping experience. These are no cost or low cost tactics that can often lead to larger gains. Starbucks for example relies on the experience. Their coffee is, relatively, very expensive but people come back because of the experience.
It takes a lot of effort, however, to put these in place so maybe this is an issue of motivation? I'm not sure but it's an interesting response nonetheless.
With all of that, what do you, the yet to be determined reader, think of all of this? Good tactic? Bad tactic? Are there other options to combat "showrooming"?
You can find discussions here, here and here.
I find these articles interesting because it often opens up numerous discussions on all kinds of topics but what I find most interesting is the question of why. The answer is often a response to the discussion of the symptom rather than the needed discussion to a larger solution.
The real question is and should be, "Does this tactic lead to the goal?" Presumably the goal of the store is to drive orders. Does this tactic lead to more orders or less? I would have to assume the latter which is terrible at best.
That said, the new purpose of this blog is to discuss the various marketing tactics that are seen in the media, news outlets and elsewhere and to discuss the good and bad points as well as other options. Discussing the why and understanding what the goals are and how these tactics align to the goals is fascinating to me. It gives you an inside view of how the company thinks and how the meetings go behind closed doors.
If they are seeing high traffic and low conversion, that tells me that pricing is a potential issue along with product assortment. One of the comments from the reddit thread says that you can find the same items in the store as you can at local supermarkets. As products become more commoditized, stores will have to be more creative with their offerings to differentiate.
If you can't differentiate on price, you may have to differentiate on customer service and satisfaction. Or create a unique shopping experience. These are no cost or low cost tactics that can often lead to larger gains. Starbucks for example relies on the experience. Their coffee is, relatively, very expensive but people come back because of the experience.
It takes a lot of effort, however, to put these in place so maybe this is an issue of motivation? I'm not sure but it's an interesting response nonetheless.
With all of that, what do you, the yet to be determined reader, think of all of this? Good tactic? Bad tactic? Are there other options to combat "showrooming"?
Monday, February 4, 2013
Did the Superbowl Ads Jump the Shark?
After seeing the superbowl ads, I have to wonder: did they just jump the shark? Personally, I didn't think any of the ads were particularly good, nothing that really stood out at least. I haven't heard one person mention them at the office unlike years past. With the ads being reviewed by the Wall Street Journal before they even air, some of the secrecy, excitement and newness is lost.
It seems though I might be the minority though because most people like the ads and find them favorable entertainment.
IMHO, the real advertising "win" was the Real Time Marketing done by Jello, Oreo and others. That seems to have a bigger impact, in terms of buzz, than the $3.8M spent on 30 seconds of ad spot.
Thoughts?
It seems though I might be the minority though because most people like the ads and find them favorable entertainment.
IMHO, the real advertising "win" was the Real Time Marketing done by Jello, Oreo and others. That seems to have a bigger impact, in terms of buzz, than the $3.8M spent on 30 seconds of ad spot.
Thoughts?
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Does the new iphone screen size matter?
I saw an iphone commercial that showed someone using the phone with their right hand going through menus and apps using only their thumb. The voice over talked about the bigger screen which "allows you to see more content at one time". The implication was that the new iphone was "perfect" because the screen was larger so you see more of a website but not so large that you had to use two hands to use the phone. With pinch and zoom isn't iOS two handed by default? You can't double tap to zoom in like on android so this commercial seems to be misleading.
Smartphones have become two handed devices with games, image zooming and anything that requires horizontal viewing (e.g. Netflix) all usually requiring two hands. People are used to switching from one hand to two when needed. With the new screen size on the iphone 5, they seemed to have a me-too screen size play and then come up with a marketing message to justify it. Or they "solved" a problem which didn't exist.
**This post was typed on an S3 on a crowded city bus using only one thumb and SwiftKey.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Buy.com parent buys tablet company
This should help the fledgling tablet company get off the ground.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Verizon's turbo button
Verizon To Offer "Turbo" Button To Users To Speed Up Apps, For A Price
Would you post extra for more speed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)