Television and the Art of Panicking

Whenever we try new tools for getting our message out to the world, there will be a period of uncertainty where we're not sure if we're wasting dollars. For the past 36 hours my team has been running a test in the Fresno DMA for 30 second television ads. Our goal is to demonstrate the value of mass media in bringing sufficiently large numbers to our site so that we can sell our product.

During the next few hours is when clients, bosses, and we are most likely to panic. Maybe we should alter the run schedule? Change the website landing page? Make some other substantive alteration of the site to encourage customers to spend freely?? My advice is for you to take a deep breath and go do something else for the rest of the day.

Television is indeed a powerful medium. We can reach hundreds of thousands of people every day. The expectations that come with that, though, are dangerous. Seeing isn't deciding. Seeing once isn't learning. It takes time for potential customers to become comfortable with the purchase of new products - especially if they are unfamiliar with your brand or product category. Give your customer permission to take a few days to figure things out in their mind.

Conveying your message effectively is a game of repetition. Generally, we're not selling water to lost travelers in the desert. If your price point is more than $20 or so, you're prospect might just need to do some thinking to get comfortable with the purchase decision.

While my example is TV and it is by far the most expensive media choice in absolute terms, the idea of a little patience is applicable to all the new tools you may be trying - and even some old tools. If you've done a good job in identifying your prospects, you've generated good creative, and are deploying it wisely, then sit back, relax, and keep your eyes open. You might not make a change on day two, but by day four, it might make sense to adjust around the edges.

Advertising Creep

I've recently added Adsense to my blog page. That's it, over there to the left. It is indicative of the larger trend to plaster advertising everywhere it can be shoehorned in. The idea is to create revenue from otherwise unused pixels. As a marketer, I have to say that it's a great idea - in theory. All kinds of questions arise with these models. If you're a marketer, consider these thoughts before you put yourself on either side of the served ad equation.

First, is the inclusion of advertising congruent with the purpose of the site? Including advertising may prove to be a distraction from the page itself. Or, because these ads are so ubiquitous...

Second, will the ads get noticed? People are quite good at filtering out extraneous information. Yet another 200 pixel square ad may very well fall into people's filtration system, receding into the background like whitenoise.

Third, you may have precious little control over the type of product/service offered on your site. Do you want your identity to be linked to erectile dysfunction pharmaceuticals?

Lastly, there's quite a debate about whether or not these text ads are effective. Sure, they get lots of clicks, but do those clicks really translate into conversions? Could the budget dollars you're using for serving ads across a content network be put to more effective use? Can you develop direct contact lists where you can spend a bit more time laying out your product's case?

On the whole, serving text ads across networks is a fine idea - but one that requires that you actively manage your budgets and the creative pretty aggressively to maintain efficacy. Otherwise, you'll end up serving lots of ads to places where there's little hope of snagging a customer. And even if you're paying via cpc models, the time and energy spent managing these campaigns could likely be spent elsewhere with a better return.