Borrell Associates, Inc

About Us

We help online media companies identify and increase their share of local online advertising revenue through fact-based research, proprietary data, consulting and comprehensive sales training

Sign Up

YAM’s Bigger Bomb

November 9th, 2011 by Kip Cassino

Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL (let’s call them YAM) plan to share unsold premium display ads to “appeal directly to Madison Avenue’s desire for scalable reach – something that has been increasingly hard to come by via TV, but not yet achievable online,” according to an article in Media Post.

The story reminded me of the effort during World War II to build bigger and bigger bombs. At the start of that war, 500-pound bombs were the standard. As conflict continued, 2-ton, 5-ton, and even 10-ton bombs were developed.  But as it turned out, the secret to ending the fighting did not reside in a heavier bomb, but in a single atom.

The YAM deal will undoubtedly yield some results – just as bigger bombs made bigger holes during World War II.  But it doesn’t hold much long-term promise, in my opinion.  The big Madison Avenue agencies persist in trying to reshape the Web into another mass media choice. They talk about scalable reach and CPMs – vestiges of the days when reach was measured by audiences, large groups, markets and households.  The world of concentrated media is changing to one of fragmented, personal media.  If Moammar Gadhafi were still alive, you could ask him.

The Web doesn’t easily fit any of these parameters.  It is, and always has been, a personal medium, more like a letter than a magazine. As users move their online reception from static computers to portable tablets and smart phones, the personal nature of the Web becomes more prominent while the mass communications side of it continues to wither.

Thirty years ago, when PCs were first gaining a foothold among consumers, a debate raged over whether people who couldn’t program computer code would ever use them. That debate has long since been settled. The debate now is whether people who don’t use spreadsheets and word processors – the bulwark of the static desktop – will use computers. I submit that the immediate and growing demand for tablets has settled that argument as well.

Most of what we use computers for can easily be done with smart phone or iPad apps, which are also more fun to use. They’re cheap, they have no learning curve to speak of, and when we are done with them they can be erased without qualm. Sure, there are work-related apps we can download as well, including some that can link us to desktops for “serious” computing. Some of us will continue to want and need these. Most of us will not.

Chart Copyright 2011 Borrell Associates, Inc

The chart shows where local online ad spending is most likely to migrate as these trends persist and grow.  It’s not that advertisers will stop sending ads to stationary computers. It’s just that most ads will be received by mobile devices.

Advertising to mobile device users follows different rules than the ones set up for the mass media we have all learned to use. In fact, it won’t be advertising any more – at least not entirely. It will be a mixture of advertising and promotions that appeals to individuals, not mass audiences.

Some marketing innovators will learn the new rules and thrive in this new media world. Some, like the Madison Avenue agencies of today, will try to bend the world back to a mass audience model.  The chart offers a clue as to how well this might work.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Read All About It: Coupons!

October 31st, 2011 by Gordon Borrell

Every Sunday at the grocery store I walk past a rack containing my local daily newspaper.  As I wheel my cart by, I glance at the front-page headline – something that’s supposed to scream out and say, “pick me up!”  It never happens – that is, until this weekend.

The newspaper is The Virginian-Pilot, a 170,000-circulation daily where I spent a dozen formative years as a reporter and editor.  When I was a copy editor, a colleague once told me how to write a great headline.  “Imagine a kid selling newspapers on the street, yelling out the headline.”  That bit of advice helped me win a dozen headline-writing awards.

But on this past Sunday it wasn’t the headline that grabbed me.  The front page (which looks like it was designed by committee) had two headlines:  “Ghouls Rule!” and “Our New National Park.”  Those are about as likely to get me buy the paper as the sign on the potato rack that says, “Russet potatoes.”

The headline that captured me was bigger and more colorful than anything on the front page.  It also held greater creativity and news value than anyone on the copy desk apparently had the energy to think of the night before.  The headline:  “$240 in Coupons This $unday!”

It was both sad and heartening.  Heartening because at least someone was thinking about how to sell newspapers.   Sad because it wasn’t the people responsible for making the product compelling to the community every single day.

Like many newspapers, the once-formidable brand of The Virginian-Pilot is no longer strong enough to sell newspapers on its own.  That power was lost many years ago with the proliferation of local news and information both on TV and the Internet, as well as many years of newsroom downsizing.  At this particular paper, Page 1 reflects the diminished brand of a longstanding, two-time Pulitzer-winning product:  The front-page flag is small, pushed off to the left and crowded out by things above, below and to the right of it.

The same is not true of all newspapers. Many have held fast to what they do best in print. I was in Little Rock a few weeks ago and found The Arkansas Democrat Gazette chock full of news. (This Sunday’s top headlines: “Arkansas 31, Vanderbilt 28” and “Kabul bus bombing kills 12 Americans.”)  I read the entire paper on the flight home and got a robust slice of life about what’s important to the people of Little Rock.  A few months ago I visited Colorado and found much the same with The Durango Herald, a small newspaper that remains the voice of the community.

I guess I should be glad that marketing departments can take charge and find at least something of value to help sell the paper.  After all, the same percentage of people read the advertisements in Sunday’s paper as read the news.  The Internet can’t touch the newspaper when it comes to delivering the most comprehensive package of what’s for sale in a local community on that particular day.  Try to Google that.

Things are changing, however.  Three industry efforts are pushing out newspaper circulars and other local advertising that might just usurp the daily newspaper’s stronghold on that more valuable breaking news of the day:  Where all the big sales are.  Those efforts include Gannett Co.’s ShopLocal.com, Suburban Newspapers of America’s Zip2Save.com, McClatchy Corp.’s FindnSave.com, and The Associated Press’s iCircular.com.   I’m not certain these efforts will ever replace the daily newspaper as the No. 1 source for current sales information for local markets, but they certainly hold the promise of doing so.

In this tough economy, I suppose that shelling out $1.50 on the prospect of saving $240 is as good a way to sell a newspaper as any.   At the rate things are going at some newspapers, they’d do better to fold the paper so the advertisements could become the front page.

 

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Hey, I Found A Fact!

October 13th, 2011 by Kip Cassino

I ran across an interesting “fact” the other day in a sales-trainer’s blog that was as much humorous as it was scary.  It suggested – no, stated as fact with the flair of a “duh” at the end as if to squelch any doubt – that salespeople provide your best market research.  To wit:

“Fact: Your sales force with those direct relationships with local business should be your #1 source of market research. Reps should always be doing CNA’s (client needs analysis) to uncover clues to help point your Newspaper web sales model in the right direction. If anybody should have high levels of market intelligence and know the spending habits of local business, it should be your local feet on the street …. NOT an expensive research firm. Duh.” (Moneyball: Fixing Newspaper Web Sales, posted Sept. 30, 2011, by Mel Taylor Media)

I suppose we could write this off as a sales trainer trying to sell training and a market researcher (yours truly) defending the power of research.  But since I deal in facts, I reel when I see one mislabeled as such.  I am reminded of Homer Simpson, the puzzled cartoon naïf who makes us laugh by connecting the dots exactly the wrong way. His typical response, when things go awry, is “D’oh!,” first cousin to “Duh.”

When it comes to market intelligence, connecting the dots accurately is vitally important. Brilliant sales strategists know that a single customer’s observations are anecdotal and that formulating strategies around them is as dangerous as gauging an iceberg’s size by its visible part. If two customers say the same thing, the importance of the observation begins to build. (Throw in a Duh at this point and you can stop the research right there.)  So, how many customers does a sales person have to interview before an observation becomes reportable? The answer is a lot – and that’s presupposing that advertisers tell their reps the unvarnished truth in every instance. “Will you spend more on radio next year?” coming from the mouth of a radio rep will likely get a different response than when a newspaper rep asks the same question.

The truth is, “feet on the street” have a mediocre record when it comes to market intelligence. The proof is the accuracy of the sales forecasts they provide, when pressured by their managers to do so. These forecasts are usually very similar to current year results, or maybe just a little better. Reps live in a year-over-year world. If this year is an improvement over last, they are rewarded. If it’s worse, the opposite occurs. That’s hardly the best atmosphere for keen observation and critical thinking.

Great salespeople are as horrible at research as great research people are at sales.

On the other hand, reps are very good at proving whether or not market intelligence is valid. If they try it and it works, they’ll use it again and again – and they’ll come to depend on it as an important part of their toolkit. If it doesn’t work, they’ll drop it like a hot rock and let management know in a hurry that it failed.

Expecting your reps to tell you about market trends is like expecting young children to tell you whether the carpet’s clean. After all, they’re closer to it than anybody else in the house. Without good market share and competitive intelligence, those “feet on the street” won’t find the best places to walk. Good market intelligence and good ad share measurement are like advertising. Poor business managers see it as expensive.  Good ones view it as an investment. Valid market research saves media companies from a lot of bad assumptions and wasted time.  It also helps them figure out what’s really happening in their specific markets.

“Duh” shouldn’t be in any sales organizations’ vernacular.  But “Aha” should.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn