How the Math Men Overthrew the Mad Men
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
The best steps you can do for your business are have a very firm commercial idea of what success looks like (i.e. measure LTV, churn etc by channel) and have a robust framework for market research. I personally like the idea of splitting spending marketing spend between branding (where your aim is to promote unprompted brand awareness) and acquisition (where you want CPA < LTV.) Also remember there are A LOT of businesses which spend money in things that an expert can identify as not commercially sound - so audits by external agencys can be useful (i.e. not using negative keywords in AdWords and spending many thousands on direct response campaigns that don't work.)
I'll add the cavaet that rhe worst thing about "attribution" I've found is it puts an unfair amount of pressure in the bottom of the funnel. Brand focused marketers aren't really held to scrutiny at all (lots of marketing teams in businesses I know don't even do total spend / total sales) - I think this can cause some resentment between teams.
Good articles on this are few and far between but this one I don't mind https://www.cmo.com.au/article/641243/iag-marketers-must-end... as well as Willem's talk on what they did to bring programmatic in-house at Foxtel.
Happy to connect with anyone interested in this space.
One of the biggest problems I think of with making brand lift studies more cheaper is you encourage the supplier to recruit people who answer surveys as side-income to answer questions. Places like usertesting.com are now full of "professional website testers" rather than your average customer who may be adverse to tech.
The thing about view through conversions and cross device tracking is maybe only a handful of marketing analytics professionals I know can actually measure the uplift they get from installing the required tracking from these. The first question I think people NEED to ask when investing in analytics is "will I get ROI on this or am I just making more work for myself"?
Or more often I see a brand spend money on a brand lift study when that $50k would've been better spends on more advertising.
I work in a trading desk and use a dmp daily. I definitely don't trust it 100% but there isn't really a need to. As long as I set up ~7 strategies (some of which use data from the dmp) I only care which strategy is the best, regardless of how accurate the data is. Of course more accurate is better, but that isn't something I have control over.
Sounds like we've had some similar jobs over the years!
Never had a trading job - i'm a publisher at the moment!
Another two: https://www.cmo.com.au/article/630808/exclusive-iag-columbus...
https://www.cmo.com.au/article/575203/how-foxtel-regained-co...
Another talk synopsis here which might provide some insight https://www.meetup.com/Web-Analytics-Wednesday-Sydney/events...
Willem is the person I know in Australia who has put the most effort into this stuff and has been able to talk about it.
IMO anyone paying attention in the industry knows the answer is probably less ad spend, aka most inventory is overpriced...but then the incentives take over and the firehose stays on full blast. Publishers, agencies adtech/martech, are not incentivized to right-size ad spend at all, and even for advertisers orgs, the slightest bit of silo/politics incentivizes CMOs to spend & protect their budgets.
It is a select handful of orgs with serious CEO level buy in that are willing to honestly tackle this and spend less, more efficiently. That tends to be a competitive advantage in a sea of waste.
Why, from the mass market perspective (mp3, not vinyl), does traditional media need to go on at all? In the absolute limit of global ultra-draconian GDPR-style laws the capabilities of internet advertisements will at best be reduced to those of TV spots. If TV advertisements haven't already merged with TV over IP and the data market (and thereby become indistinguishable from online video advertisements), they'll just be replaced as ATT, Comcast, Amazon, Netflix, and the rest shift more and more to online platforms.
As far as I can see, unless advertisement gets regulated back in to the stone ages (not that I'd be personally opposed to that...), it's going to be down to Google, Google competitors, and highway billboards before long.
Apple is looking to maximise its revenue and will put up prices as far as they can in accordance with that. ie discounts are to get more revenue now and/or in the future. Why is traditional tv able to charg 10x more?
I still remember brands and jingles from my childhood on radio and TV, but today, I can’t think of anything digital advertising that stands out as other than clumsy and dumb or useless retargeting. I’ve been a Gmail user for 12-13 years, and the best they can do is some phoney “Win an Aldi Gift Card (very enticing) for taking surveys” and “Milfs are looking for you”, seemingly triggered by some spam I receive.
I’m also getting bombarded with air conditioner ads from Amazon because I bought an air conditioner, from Amazon, a few weeks ago. For all of this big data and machine learning investments, they are trying to sell a man sitting in a 60 degree room another AC — which given the price and free shipping they probably lost money on.
With the AC.. that is due to a lack of data. They can't always match all of your devices to you, maybe you cleared your cookies etc. They missed that you bought it, and so as they see it you're still a very valuable prospect. IF there was more/better data that annoyance would be solved.
That's very different from my experience as a consumer. Nearly all of the ads I see are digital - I mean I look at the stuff in my physical mailbox long enough to sort (I'd happily pay the post office $100/yr to just block the 'bulk rate' and 'resident' email. Maybe more.) but I don't open up and look in them, even though they are local and usually contain discounts, just 'cause they are rarely what I'm looking for. (where I am, it's mostly fast food and off-brand tools, as far as I can tell. I mean, I do spend a fair amount on tools, but I usually either want a fancy tool, or just the exact right tool. I'm not really willing to wait for the pozi-drive #3 screwdriver I need to go on sale.)
What sorts of things to you seek out in the circular? and why do you check your physical mailbox rather than using a search engine?
I'm asking out of interest; I used to run a business and I used to buy advertising. Once, I even bought space on the conveyor belt dividers at the grocery store, that realtors use. (I looked for pictures, and all the pictures I have of it are terrible. ) To sell Virtual Private Servers. It was good for a laugh, and there was a little bit of attention, I mean, it was a grocery store in silicon valley. There is something really gratifying to the ego, from the perspective of a small business owner, about buying local physical advertising. But I'm not really convinced of it's effectiveness.
It didn't really occur to me to use mail... just 'cause I personally hate physical spam so much.
>I’m also getting bombarded with air conditioner ads from Amazon because I bought an air conditioner, from Amazon, a few weeks ago. For all of this big data and machine learning investments, they are trying to sell a man sitting in a 60 degree room another AC — which given the price and free shipping they probably lost money on.
I get this a lot, too. I mean, amazon knows I just bought that thing, right? I bought it from them. why do they keep serving me the ad? I'm wondering if a lot of it might be third parties trying to arbitrage google ads vs amazon affiliate rates, and those people might be able to see I'm looking for a thing, but not that I bought the thing.
So for instance for your AC unit, perhaps you see a Samsung and GE. Your decision between which to buy is the purpose of marketing and advertising. For instance this is also why companies don't really like running discounts. Discounts can produce immediate increases in sales, but they simultaneously can also subconsciously diminish the perceived quality of a product in the consumer mind. Places where discounts, across all brands, are ubiquitous and independent of the manufacturer are presumably a game changer here since it's not the product being discounted per se but the site itself running a discount.
Apple's 1984 ad is still probably one of the most famous ads. Check it out [1]. It doesn't really make you think, "Yes I must go immediately buy a Macintosh." Literally no details are given about the product at all, and 90% of the commercial is a cinematic that has nothing to do with the product. Nonetheless it instills a image, and one of perceived higher quality, in your head of the company and the product. So the goal of advertising is not necessarily to immediately make you buy a product, but to change your perception of a product.
---
This is about marketing in general and not digital market exclusively, but it's relevant since for instance the vast majority of people also don't think commercials are effective on them - yet companies spend billions of dollars running them. Somebody's wrong, and it's not the side that can directly quantify the cost:returns of the marketing.
And one other final point here. Even in 'naive' marketing, it's a numbers game. For instance did you ever buy viagra back in the day when viagra spam was everywhere? Probably not. In fact, almost nobody did. But if each of those impressions cost a company $0.001 and their profit margin on a single sell (let alone return purchases) was $15 then they only need to get 1 out of 15,000 people to buy the product for it to be a profitable endeavor.
Advertising platforms sell that ad with the maximum bid at auction, given what targeting categories they can place you in. Value of serving an ad is roughly customer lifetime value (LTV) times conversion rate (maybe divide by about three, but that doesn't change the winning ad). You don't have to be in a key target demographic to get oddly specific ads, you just need to get lumped into a similar cohort that has enough targets that are valuable enough.
Remember those random television ads from law offices about mesothelioma? Same concept. Pursuing a civil suit was lucrative enough that the trickle of leads you'd get from blasting everyone with that message was good enough. Doesn't matter if it's relevant to <1% of the target audience - high LTV can make up for it.
But...
There's still way more money being invested in the traditional world of advertising than what's being invested in the analytics and data side. Creative agencies haven't gone away. Agencies of Record are still the traditional shops (DDB, Ogilvy, etc.)
Most large companies I have worked with still use an agency to manage ad spend for a cut. And though the pitching has an analytics bent I cant imagine its that far off how they used to pitch TV & Billboards. And they are still run by sales people not machine learning grads.
Not always necessary to follow the formal rules of story telling, to tell a story. Reading the same patterns over and over, sounds kind of boring...
I've seen the consequences of discrimination from everything from skin color (I'm white, many of my siblings are black or mixed), to gender, to socio-economic status, etc.
I've also spoken on the internet for a long time, and I know what it feels like to feel silenced with the push of a button. A downvote. It's annoying. It's annoying to know people studying machine learning are only doing it to control how people think, to control behavior, to control wealth, or whatever the fuck else they want.
So, how many times does this have to wrap around itself for people to understand, downvoting people on the internet for complaining about how the world of math and logic seems largely presented as a male world, is part of the problem?
Even more ironically, MLK gets quoted.
All men are created equal. Are you focusing on the word men in that rhetoric, or are you understanding the message?
No. But, it seems you are.
I worked in worse places and I've come from worse places. You aren't going to win the oppression Olympics with me.