Sive's page

Gaming is growing. Even I’m getting into it. And as a recent eMarketer article states, that’s not out of the ordinary. More and more people are getting into gaming, but not just in the traditional gaming console sense. Gaming is moving to a number of areas – including mobile. And gamers aren’t the just the traditional teenaged boys that at least I used to imagine – women now make up almost half of the gamer population.

I spent some time this summer learning a bit about gaming, and the reason why people play games. People like getting rewarded, and games reward their users, whether it be though reaching another level, collecting coins or points by hitting a certain target, or through beating an opponent. If one of the appeals of games is the reward system, and if gaming is growing in all demographics, then we can assume that people generally like getting rewarded.

This idea can potentially be applied to areas where marketers would never think to use games as a way to market to their consumers. In fact, the eMarketer article includes survey results that offer Smartphone users’ ideas for where more games can be applied.

So let’s take education. Are there ways to apply the reward system inherent in games (both online and offline) to education? Of course! Getting an A+ on an exam gives the same positive feelings of accomplishment as reaching a new level in World of Warcraft. How about financial planning? Finishing a level of a money game under budget, or getting maximum points for adding to your avatar’s nest egg could be as exciting as getting the top six answers on Family Feud (my own recent gaming find).

If it’s fun, and if users get points for doing well – those seem to be the drivers for willingness to play. Hopefully marketers in non-traditional gaming industries will see that and start getting their consumers to play.

I recently learned this term from Seth Godin’s blog posts. Permission-based marketing is marketing to an audience who has allowed you, or given you permission, to speak to them. Whether that be an explicit show of permission, through signing up to receive email or mobile app notices, or an implicit show of permission, by a query in a search engine.

That last part, the implicit show of permission, was a bit surprising to me. Essentially, the moment I google something, like Nivea face cream, I am giving Nivea permission to market to me. I would say though that implicit shows of permission would necessitate a cautious approach in terms of marketing. Although I am expressing interest in Nivea face cream, I’m still going about my search independently. If I start getting email spams, which I would consider to be a more aggressive or in-your-face marketing tactic, I would not necessarily respond well to it. But if I sign up to receive notices or newsletters with promotional information, by all means, spam away.

If I, a potential customer, express an interest in a brand or product through an independent search, and you can reach me, go easy on me, marketers. Yes, I am giving you permission to market to me, but not aggressively. Not as through I was signing up for newsletters.  Make yourself available, through Facebook ads or Google sponsored ads that appear alongside (on the side) of my own search, or my own personal page. Don’t contact me. Let me contact you.

Well it’s been a long time coming… long in the context of time in the social media world. Google+ has introduced branded pages to their network.

Immediately after introducing branded pages, Google+ gave us Google+ badges. Which are like Facebook “likes.” They allow users to connect with brands on the network. These brands will then show up on the user’s page, along with a face pile of other connected users (a bunch of photos of others who have connected with the brand.) You connect (the Google+ version of “like”) through that little +1 button that has been appearing everywhere on Google. I wonder how you actually say “+1″… is it “plus one?” Can you say “I plussed the Toyota page,” or “I plus oned the Toyota page?” Big questions. And only time will tell.

Apparently, if a business wants a Google+ branded page, they have to subscribe to Google Direct Connect, a feature that allows users to find the business’ Google+ page from a straight Google search. This will mean that a company’s Google+ page will have to be up to speed with, and completely consistent with all other websites or pages. If their Google+ page will be a high hit on a straight Google search, the Google+ page will probably receive a high number of views. I wonder if Google will go so far as to make their Google+ page appear before their home site on their search listings.

Oh the power they will have.

“US Interactive Marketing Forecast”, a report conducted by Forrester Research, reports that advertising expenditures on interactive marketing will reach the $77 billion mark, the level of ad expenditure on TV today, by 2016. The report segments interactive marketing into the following categories (in no particular order):

1. Search advertising
2. Display advertising
3. Mobile marketing
4. Email marketing
5. Social marketing

The report focuses on each of the above categories, and forecasts upcoming trends in each, which then inform the forecasted expenditures of each category and of interactive marketing expenditures as a whole.

The most major finding is the five categories combined will make up 26% of an organization’s total advertising budget by 2016 This is due to the following reasons:

• Interactive teams are increasing in size, which leads to interactive  program expansion. Provided that the consumer continues to engage with interactive marketing. If not, no matter how many people are employed, if interactive marketing does not convert its advertising to sales, budgets will be slashed.

• Excitement with emerging channels- revenues for multimedia products have grown at such as rate as to incite a general sense of excitement in the interactive marketing channel.

• Marketers will also be motivated to grow their interactive marketing program due to the belief that this type of marketing is more effective over time. (To this point, it may be a more accurate statement that interactive marketing is more measurable.  With measured data that links certain interactive ads directly to the effect on the company’s bottom line, a stronger case could be made to senior management to justify expenditures on interactive marketing.)

• The report suggests that customer obsession is the final factor which will lead organizations to increase advertising spends on interactive marketing. Ads will create customized consumer experiences, which will further engage (or obsess, as they call it) the consumer.

Within the five categories of interactive marketing, mobile and social advertising will increase in expenditures at the most rapid rate. In fact, expenditures on mobile advertising are set to surpass email and social advertising. The report indicates that this is due primarily to the targeting capabilities of mobile ads. For instance, Volkswagon is able to geo-target their advertising, and advertise to mobile users in Germany only. (There are inherent privacy implications here, which the report does not touch on. If privacy becomes a real enough concern for consumers that action against geo-locating consumers through mobile phones or tablets occurs, this growth of expenditures on mobile advertising could be adversely affected.)

Mobile ad expenditures also include advertising through tablets. Tablet advertising will become more and more customized to the individual user, and will allow the consumer to interact directly with marketers, which also increases its appeal for marketers.

The report indicates that there will be more affordable advertising management tools available by 2016, which will give small and medium-sized businesses access to these tools, and thus access to a major role in the interactive marketing space. For instance, search management tools like Clickables will enhance keyword ad programs. Online advertising management tools allow for better measurement of an ad’s contribution to the business goals.

Implications for marketers

This report indicates that interactive marketing is on the rise. This rise will create the opportunity for small and medium sized businesses to be more effective in interactive marketing, through the rise of more affordable online advertising management tools. The online advertising industry will then become more competitive, as larger businesses who may have had the advantage of investment and expertise in interactive marketing, may no longer be able to rely solely on this advantage.

The shift in the presentation of online marketing to a more interactive and customized type of advertising suggests the critical importance of marketers listening to the online consumer. Now more than ever, a business should know who their consumers are, where they are online, how they search, and what kind of online experience they expect, or want. Further, marketers must project the changing expectations and preferences of the online customer. As consumer online preferences shift, so should the online advertising practices. This means that online advertising should be dictated by consumer preference, and should always be forward- looking; it should not be dictated by past budgets or practices of online marketing.

The notion of continually following consumers’ changing online preferences implies the need for constant online marketing innovation. There are real implications for marketers here, as It becomes increasingly important to maintain a level of creativity and flexibility in the online marketing teams’ practices.

Online management tools will assist in measuring interactive advertising’s contribution to the bottom line, which should be utilized in order to gain buy-in for the importance of online marketing from senior management. These tools will assist in the marketer’s ability to listen to the consumer, and watch their online behavior and preferences in interactive experiences.

Finally, it is important to remember the context of interactive marketing – as part of the overall marketing mix. Although the focus of this report is on interactive marketing, the report also contains information about traditional marketing channels. And although the effectiveness of interactive marketing is forecasted to increase, the effectiveness of traditional marketing – television, direct mail, outdoor media, radio, etc – is forecasted as maintaining their current levels of effectiveness. These traditional channels are not to be ignored. In fact, this report contains survey results which indicate that consumers spend more hours watching TV, and about the same reading the newspaper, as they do online. Although one can argue that online advertising is more effective (it certainly has more measurable results) consumers are still engaging with traditional marketing channels.

An interesting article on eMarketer states that 93% of retail shoppers that search online at some point during the shopping process. This is not shocking, as even searching for the location of the nearest Payless Shoes or Sports Chek qualify as an online searches during the shopping process.

What is interesting is that an average of 73% of online searches were for unbranded items. This means shoppers are looking for the name of the product and not the brand.

What’s more – these shoppers searching the generic items are more likely to click on organic links. What are organic links? Well, I’ll tell you (since I just looked it up myself): organic links are hyperlinks present in a website without an explicit agreement to exchange links. So links present just to add value to the user , and not as a paid marketing tool.

What are the implications for marketers? These stats reinforce the importance of search engine optimization (SEO). Marketers need to make sure that their products are linked, and have a high search ranking, on generic search terms that pertain to their product. A sportswear store in downtown Vancouver best be sure that online shoppers looking for ski jackets find their products in their stores when searching “ski jacket downtown Vancouver”.

I recently came across a report by a company called ChompOn (a company that tries to monetize web sites, mobile apps and other internet marketing tools) that states that a Facebook like is more valuable than a Tweet or even a follow on Twitter. Here’s the breakdown of values of social network sharing tools (in revenue per action)

1) Facebook “share” – $14

2) Facebook “like” – $8

3) Twitter tweet – $5

4) Twitter follow – $2

I’m not sure I agree with the high rank of the Facebook “like.”

I know I didn’t do the research, and do not claim to be an expert here, but it doesn’t seem to make much sense. I understand that sharing information on Facebook can be the most valuable form of information sharing in online social networks, in terms of translating the information sharing into purchases. Facebook networks tend to be much more reflective of offline social networks, so sharing on Facebook is  similar to talking to your “real” friends. And hearing about a new product or service, or about a really cool deal through a Facebook friend is much more powerful than hearing the same on Twitter, by someone you may or may not actually know. My Twitter network is not really reflective of my offline social network. No matter how much I wish Stephen Colbert or the New York Times were my real life offline friends.

So that makes sense. Your Facebook network is closer to your offline network of friends, so sharing information with Facebook friends is potentially more powerful than sharing information with Twitter followers, who may not know you or trust your intentions behind sharing information.

But that only explains the power of the Facebook “share” over Twitter tweets and follows. What about the Facebook “likes”? There are a couple of issues here:

1) how likely the person “liking” a product is to purchase the product and

I worked for a web-based company over the summer, and did a lot of research into the value of social media. I didn’t try to monetize the value of Facebook and Twitter sharing tools or anything, but one thing that did come up again and again in my research is that the Facebook “like” is not super valuable. One of the reasons being that for the person “liking” something, it’s only a one-time engagement. If I “like” something on Facebook, I don’t have to hear from it again; I haven’t committed to an ongoing online relationship with it. As opposed to a Twitter follow, where the person in question follows someone new on Twitter and then in subjected to tweets on an ongoing basis.

2) how likely someone seeing the “like” is to purchase the product him or herself

I know for me, I look through my Twitter feeds like I look through my Facebook feeds, scrolling down to see what’s new and interesting. But I don’t notice what my Facebook friends “like.” I had to go to Facebook to check to see if “likes” are visible on Facebook feeds. They are, but I don’t notice them.

Maybe the Facebook “like” is beyond me, but I don’t think it’s a valuable form of sharing information, or of attaching yourself to a product or service in the online world.

Want to read more about the report? ChompOn this.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!