This subject is by no means small beans for online marketers because the reality is that Facebook is indeed one of the most powerful platforms for consumer marketing that exists today. Why do I think this?

Well, firstly a Facebook page is uniquely an environment where the content has been written specifically by, or for, the individual user who owns that page. It’s highly personal and therefore some of the most powerfully engaging content a user will experience on the web. Placing an advertising message in such highly prized content almost guarantees it gets noticed (provided it’s made relevant, which is sadly still a problem advertisers have not solved in most cases on Facebook)

Secondly, the home page, unlike many web pages, has relatively little ad clutter. Facebook needs to watch this because I see a worrying trend of more and more ads on my page, but generally speaking only a very small percentage of ad page real estate is dedicated to ad messages.

Thirdly, the user profiling for advertisers will only get better. Already users voluntarily give up a ton of personal data to Facebook that can be used to target ads. The audience segmentation is vast and so it’s really quite easy to develop ad messages that are relevant to the consumer… it’s just that most advertisers are too lazy to do it.

With all this said there are still issues. Firstly, the Facebook model is having trouble scaling. Minimum serviced media buys start at $50K. If you have less than that you must buy through a self service online model. There are lots of potential advertisers who will not want to spend that amount.

Performance data is harder to come by with Facebook campaigns and that will undoubtedly slow growth with agencies and clients that use data for modelling.

As per Martins article the mobile platform is also a challenge since growth in traffic there if not monetized will leave big dollars on the table.

Facebook really needs more advertiser tools, so it’s future may depend upon companies like Wildfire Interactive who have the ability to help craft and build Facebook campaigns and pages that ultimately grow user engagement.  Many brands are adopting such tools and as they see campaign work the growth in commitment to this Facebook audience will grow, as will revenues.

Finally the biggest question of all… will Facebook still be huge in 5 years time? Valid question if you recall MySpace and it’s fall from grace. I know a lot of Facebookers and the ones who were most active several years ago hardly post at all now. However, new users and the younger generation are still really quite active and it’s still a massive global audience on offer. Personally, I don’t see it going anywhere for a while. Even with new social competitors the reality is Facebook has captured a large slice of pie and users will need something compelling to just up and leave. I don’t see any clamor for example from my network to move wholesale to Google+.

So yes Facebook is a powerful ad platform but it will only grow with better servicing of the advertising community and a continuation of it’s ability to micro target users. Sadly this may take more time than the street now gives it time for and I expect dissapointing results to hurt Facebook before they get the ad model right.

Dick Reed, CEO. Just Media, Inc.

I have serious issues with this announcement for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Google has, in many ways, been the creator of many of today’s online metrics problems. It was the first major online media vendor to focus entirely on the “click”; introducing the search and display cost per click and performance buying model. In doing so it sold the marketing community on the concept that the only intrinsic value of online was users actually clicking on an ad, since this is all they asked you to pay for.  By default, it eliminated any value associated with having a marketing message seen by millions of users who did not decide to react to it instantly. That put us back 10 years as an industry.

Secondly since the purchasing of the DoubleClick tools like Dart for Advertisers (DFA) & Dart for Publishers (DFP) and  in 2008, the pace of development of that tool has been staggeringly slow. Key industry metrics like ‘path to conversion’ (mostly promoted by rival Microsoft, who interestingly enough failed to compete in search with CPC, but operated a much more significant display network and had alternative motivations for seeing display value developed through metrics), promotion of the use of view-through-data and developing meaningful dashboards were so stifled that in 2010, after more than ten years as a DFA house, Just Media, Inc., switched adserver platforms. Integration with Google Analytics was noticeable by its absence too.

OK, so let’s look at the news.

Active View: Good. It’s nice to think the industry might be finally asking whether an ad is actually seen by a user. It’s a metric the online industry should leverage because no other media channel can give that. However, if Google expects publishers to only get paid for ads they actually deliver, they might want to start getting ready for some interesting conversations. In a recent test with our trading desk, the tool reported 70% of the ads appeared “above the fold”. Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume the 30% of ads below the fold were not seen, publishers are going to be mighty resistant to eliminating a possible 30% of revenue without raising the price for viewed impressions. Of course networks that sell remnant inventory might be even more challenged as the low value impressions buried in sites may have even more to lose in visibility and hence value. But overall a metric we should develop further.

Active GRP:  Really? Is using a panel based audience tool the best the online industry can come up with? Or are we finally admitting that we have to dumb down our metrics to those used by an industry that was established in the 1950’s? Shouldn’t the reality be that the TV industry should be dragged kicking and screaming into the 2010’s and held to a higher level of accountability? Isn’t this just a reaction in order to pander to agency and client executives who have failed to embrace developing consumer metrics and try and apply them to other media channels? I’m sorry, but I cannot give a free pass to using metrics that take us back in time simply to try and grab a bigger slice of the media pie. If we do, can we also re-introduce smoking and drinking in the office while we are at it.

Finally, as with many things Google, there appears to be no attempt made to bring in these metrics industry wide. I’d have been more impressed had Google announced an open metric platform; open to the whole industry rather than some new “product features” for DoubleClick. It’s simply unreasonable for Google to think they can introduce new standards if they are only available to a few customers.

Come on Google is this the best you have for us? I’m underwhelmed.

DICK REED, CEO
Just Media, Inc.

Email: dick@justmedia.com
Follow: @JustMediaUS
www.justmedia.com

Just Media, Inc. CEO, Dick Reed on Trends in Digital Marketing

The video includes Dick’s thoughts on how marketers are struggling with data and how agencies such as Just Media, Inc., are responding to their needs to provide the information they require and also how we are starting to see mobile included in campaigns and the issues that exist with these new platforms. Finally, what we as an agency look for in challenger media brands like GigaOm to keep us at the cutting edge of what’s going on in technology media marketplace.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any of your thoughts or comments.

Hi, my name is Georgina and I’m a Pinterest addict. I’ve been an active ‘Pinner’ for a few months now and find the site extremely useful in sucking up my free time. While I haven’t found the site to be life changing, it’s certainly a cool and different way to spend 15 minutes of my day. I’m a big Facebook fan too, so I like the social networking aspect of Pinterest. I’m able to follow like-minded ‘Pinners’ which makes the Pinterest content more relevant. Following members definitely creates a more community-oriented atmosphere and ultimately a more rewarding site experience.

I’ve often wondered how Pinterest plans on monetizing the site. Right now, the site is completely ad-free and that’s great. No intrusive banners in the middle of my page or boards and no membership fee. That seemed a little too good to be true and of course, it was!

The ‘NYTimes Bits’ blog has just revealed that Pinterest IS making money, only it’s on the down-low. Pinterest has been adding an affiliate tracking code to ‘pins’ that link to an e-commerce site and then takes a cut of the transaction if a purchase is made. OK, so what’s the big deal with that? Well, for a start, they’re not disclosing this information on their site.

So is this the new revenue-generating model for social sites? If Pinterest is getting a cut from my purchase, then shouldn’t I get a little something as well? What about the person that originally ‘pinned’/referred the product? Will users be less likely to purchase something through Pinterest now that they know there’s a kickback involved?

So back to Pinterest keeping this on the down-low; that’s a bit more complicated. Pinterest could have disclosed this info in their T&Cs and very few would have cared. Who reads the fine print anyway? Is this a huge breach of privacy or simply an oversight? It’ll be interesting to see what the fallout is (or not) from their membership base. Personally (and professionally), I think the tracking code is a great idea and I’m betting other sites are figuring out how to do it right now.

I applaud Pinterest for doing something more inventive than just incorporating display advertising on the site. They’ve created a great user experience and decided to go the less intrusive moneymaking route. For now.