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

Posts Tagged ‘interactive media’

Whose Lunch Do Digital Omnivores Eat?

Thursday, January 3rd, 2013

Initial assumptions often get turned upside-down when someone decides to poke into the data and see what’s really happening.  Such is the case with media usage – and in a startling way.

Our initial assumption was that digital media was so alluring, pervasive and efficient that it would suck time from all legacy media channels.

As it turns out, that assumption was about as accurate as the notion that the office PC would actually reduce the amount of paper we use.

Welcome to the age of the Digital Omnivore.  It’s not a new breed. It’s a societal evolution in which the world simply contains more fast-food information outlets, and people engage in a daylong graze.

Prepping speakers for #LOAC2013 (see the agenda here), I spoke last week with the one person

Gian Fulgoni

You might think would espouse the rise of digital media and corresponding decline of newspapers, TV, radio and yellow pages.  It was Gian Fulgoni, co-founder and chairman of comScore, the 15-year-old company at the forefront of Internet measurement.  Gian still sees an important role for traditional media.

“One of the things that blew my mind was that if you give someone a smart phone, there’s no evidence it will cannibalize their use of the PC,” he told me. “In fact, consumption goes up across all devices.” Hold on.  Hand someone a smart phone and media usage goes up?  Across all devices?

It’s true, and comScore has compelling evidence that indicates that digital media consumption isn’t a zero-sum game.  That is, people don’t necessarily subtract time from one medium when they decide to use another.

Gian described comScore research for NBC tracking 720 people who were following the Olympics. The most startling revelations:

  • Of those who only watched TV coverage, the total time spent per day with TV was 4 hours, 19 minutes.
  • Of those accessing Olympics coverage on multiple devices (TV, smartphone, tablet and PC), the total time spent with all devices was 8 hours and 29 minutes – twice as much.
  • And the crazy-big aha:  Of the multi-platform users, the average time spent they spent watching TV was . . . 6 hours, 7 minutes – or 88% more than those who just watched the Olympics on TV without using digital media.

“You can’t really think of siloed media anymore,” Gian said.  “This is a multiplatform world.”

This leaves one big question.  If all these people are spending more time with media, where are they taking it from?   It’s an intriguing question, and I suspect Gian will be offering more insights when he presents at the 2013 Local Online Advertising Conference March 4-5 in New York.

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

Is Google going down?

Sunday, November 1st, 2009

So what sets our Top 3 choices — Local.com, Yodle and Yellowbook.com — apart from the pack in terms of revenue growth this year?

These companies have defied gravity by focusing on selling the fastest growing ad categories:  search advertising, online directory listings, and streaming video. They also act as marketing consultants and can help small businesses with all the online marketing tools and advice they might need. They’ll put together a Web site for your business, offer complete analytics, online upgrades through a dashboard or if the advertiser gets stuck — they can just pick up the phone and talk to someone.

Google's in the crosshairs

Setting sights on Google

These companies are poised to beat the pants off traditional media because they see the gap that very few legacy outlets have been willing to commit to — the service gap. I mean, at most newspaper sites if a small business says to the account executive, “I need a way to collect e-mail,” the AE will probably send them to Constant Contact.  The right response should be, “Let’s set up a promotion to collect e-mails then we start mailing your list with specials.”

But, how can a traditional media outlet even compete, when according to our research, barely 60% of them have an online-only AE? That other 40% are trudging into advertisers’ offices with worries about cannibalization of the traditional product.

Back to the Top 3 — these company’s models are very similar and focus on soup-to-nuts interactive marketing for the small business. They have an actual phone number posted on their Web site. (Just try and find a phone number for Google.) In fact, this service-oriented model could disrupt Google, because small businesses need a figurative hand-holding. There is no face of Google and if I were them I’d begin to worry about that. They become vulnerable as advertisers begin to find other companies willing to lend a hand to pull them out of the service gap.

When I go into a market for a local media site and make an online marketing presentation to their potential advertisers, the small businesses are packing in and they are craving to have their questions about online marketing answered. They want to know what their business peers are spending, they want to know why their display ad doesn’t get clicked through and they want to know about the ROI. It is clear that you have to show a small business the whole online marketing picture and that’s exactly what these Top 3 are doing.

Plus these three are going after the most lucrative online ad spending business categories. Our own research data has identified that in most local markets these are lawyers, healthcare providers and home improvement, to name a few. But too many traditional media outlets in local markets are still calling on their traditional advertisers, which are not usually in these categories.

The Top 3 have been doing their research and now are methodically going out to hunt and to plug the service gap in local online advertising. They may have Google in their crosshairs.

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

You Need Online Reps to Drive Online Sales (Doh!)

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

Whenever I make a presentation, one of the biggest laughs comes when I show a cartoon of a man explaining a plunging line on a flip chart. The caption reads, “The dip in sales seems to coincide with the decision to eliminate the sales staff.” We just completed a survey of 382 local ad sales managers that shows something just as dramatic. Sites with online-only sales reps make substantially more than those who rely exclusively on their seasoned print or broadcast sales staffs.

51335This revelation should come as no surprise to online managers. They’ve been telling us all along that print and broadcast reps “just don’t get it.” It’s not meant to impugn their intelligence; it’s just that those reps have their hands full trying to maintain existing customers. Online managers tell us regularly that they can drive revenues faster with a sales staff whom they can actually fire for not meeting sales goals. Our vice president of sales training, Bill Caudill, tells us that, after a training session, 30% of the reps “get it” and actually go out and sell online advertising. After three months, he says, half of them forget it.

More on the research. We asked front-line sales managers across the U.S. and Canada to take a 12-question survey about sales compensation, number of reps, online revenues, and related issues. We’ll publish the full results in mid-August. Respondents were split among those representing radio, TV, yellow pages, newspapers and Internet pure-play companies. Overall, 41% said they relied exclusively on “legacy media” reps to sell online advertising. Wow, what a mistake. I don’t think anyone can cite a single example of a sales staff selling two competing products and getting a significant share in both. It doesn’t happen, and no amount of digital pixie dust sprinkled over a print or broadcast sales staff will change that truism.

This, by the way, doesn’t mean that print or broadcast reps should NOT be selling online advertising. They should be trained to sell as much as they can. You don’t want to leave that money on the table. But relying exclusively or too heavily on legacy media reps is a quest to achieve mediocrity.

The most startling bit of information from the research is this: Of those with reps dedicated exclusively to selling online products, 46% of the sites were making $1 million or more. Of those that relied solely on their print or broadcast reps, 14% of the sites were making $1 million or more.

One more result from the survey: Of those who rely exclusively on legacy-media reps to sell online advertising, 49.7% said those reps exhibited an “average” or “poor” understanding of how interactive media could serve advertisers.

I rest my case.

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