WWTT? BBC Stakes a Billboard to Promote ‘Dracula’

In an out-of-home (OOH) advertising effort to promote the new series Dracula, BBC showcased a billboard covered in wooden stakes — the iconic weapon used against vampires. While the imagery was eye-catching during the day, the billboard had a surprise to share at night.

All right, so a bunch of bloody stakes in a billboard promoting BBC’s new series Dracula makes sense. Dracula is a vampire. Vampires hate wooden stakes through the chest. There’s nothing else to cover, right?

WRONG.

BBC's billboard for Dracula
Credit: BBC Creative

BBC Creative, the in-house agency for the BBC, decided that because the series is aiming to be a fresh and unusual take on Bram Stoker’s classic vampire tale, the marketing campaign should follow suit. The agency opted for an out-of-home (OOH) advertising effort, putting up two billboards: one in London and one in Birmingham. In daylight, each billboard displays the quintessential tools to use against the undead monster, along with a a glass case below containing another sharpened stake and the phrase “In case of vampires break glass.”

The billboard isn’t particularly spooky, despite the bloody stakes, though the imagery is spot on. But when the billboard truly shines is at night … literally and figuratively.

BBC's billboard for Dracula
Credit: BBC Creative

Once the sun goes down, a light attached to the side of the billboard gradually turns on, revealing that the stakes have been placed in such a way that Dracula appears in the shadow.

Olly Harnett, creative head at BBC Creative remarked upon the billboards: “Our campaign for Dracula leaves the audience in no doubt they can expect something fresh and unexpected from this extraordinary adaptation of the vampire classic. Our unique campaign is one of the most ambitious special builds we’ve ever undertaken — by day, a random assortment of stakes hammered into a billboard but by night, transformed, as the Count springs to life in the form of a looming shadow.”

Regarding the full campaign, BBC One’s Head of Marketing, Chris Hooper, said, “Coming from the makers of Sherlock, this version of Dracula is laced with dark humor and rock star swagger. We wanted our campaign to reflect Steven [Moffat] and Mark [Gatiss]’s fresh take on a classic character, so each element has been designed to surprise …”

Marketers what do you think of these billboards? Do you think they will entice BBC’s current audience to watch, as well as attract new viewers? Leave a comment below!

 

The Search Marketer’s Challenge — Striking the Right Balance

Today, the digital marketer has at-hand a veritable arsenal of tools to reach potential customers. There is email, organic search, paid search, and display advertising, all on a dizzying array of platforms.

Today, the digital marketer has at-hand a veritable arsenal of tools to reach potential customers. There is email, organic search, paid search, and display advertising, all on a dizzying array of platforms.

Each platform is busily competing for the marketer’s precious dollars. In the past, organic search has been a dependable, albeit difficult to manage, source of traffic. The Merkle Q2 2019 “Digital Marketing Report” shows that overall in Q2, organic search visits declined by 6%. DuckDuckGo was the only major U.S. search engine to deliver site visit growth in Q2 2019. Organic search produced 23% of all site visits and 21% of mobile site visits in Q2 2019, a substantial share of the market. The sharp focus placed on SEO mobile is aptly placed, because phones and tablets produced 59% of organic search visits.

How are marketers to react to a declining volume of organic search visits when, for so many years, it has been on a nearly continuous rise. In the face of overall search volume declines, marketers must work harder to make sure that they are optimizing not just their organic results, but also the overall mix of platforms and media used: paid and organic search, social, and shopping.

What Are the Drivers?

The answer to what is creating the change in organic search visitors is complex, but one of the answers easily visible to mobile searchers. The small screen is now cluttered with display ads, and the user is likely to not scroll deeply into the results. Those who do and make that click into a site are seldom rewarded with an easy to navigate screen. All too often, the mobile site leaves the user wishing for a better solution.

It is vicious cycle.

A bad user experience discourages the user from making another attempt. Additionally, as users develop favorite sites, where they can dependably navigate and find what they want, they are more likely to direct navigate to them. Amazon is one of these go-to sites; therefore, I have strongly advocated developing a search strategy for Amazon.

In a nutshell, display and paid search, coupled with direct navigation, are creating the environment for decline.

What to Do!

As they say in auto parlance, your mileage may vary.

If you are doing SEO for a site that is in a market sector that does not lend itself to display or is underutilized for paid search, your experience may be different. Declining search results cannot be attributed to the structural changes noted above. A slightly deeper analysis is needed to determine if your decline is driven by SEO mistakes, algorithmic changes, or even market changes. An SEO audit will highlight both SEO mistakes and where algorithmic changes have impacted the site; however, you can easily check for market and consumer preference changes.

Try popping your “money keywords,” those which are key to your business success, into Google Trends using the drop-down to broaden the length of time out from five to 15 years (the max) and then examine the peaks. You may find that the terminology has changed and that you need to revisit your keywords, a tactical solution. If your market has changed, then the challenge shifts from tactical to strategic.

Viewability: How to Act on This Gift to Advertisers and Return to Advertising Transparency

Viewability and engagement signals provide advertisers with the right tools to measure ad effectiveness and to determine whether or not they’re spending their media dollars effectively. Two of the most powerful signals for determining effectiveness include viewability and, of course, engagement.

Smart advertisers need the right tools to measure ad effectiveness and to determine whether or not they spent their media dollars effectively. Two of the most powerful signals for determining effectiveness include viewability, which launched onto the digital scene in 2014 and, of course, engagement (clickthroughs, time-on-site, shares, likes, follows, etc.). But how should advertisers interpret and act on these signals? And when, if ever, do these metrics overlap with each other, when it comes to buying and optimizing media?

Depending on the advertiser’s objective with a given media initiative, the answers will become far clearer.

Determine Strategic Objectives

The fact is, engagement signals should be leveraged differently and at various times, based on overarching strategic objectives. For example, advertising initiatives designed to foster product or service evaluation may rely on clickthroughs and time-on-site as measurements of ad effectiveness, out of necessity. Because of the targeted nature of the initiative that aims to elicit a response, engagement signals make sense. Optimizing for high-engagement ads, while buying viewable impressions, will likely result in a more qualified audience … at a price that may, or may not, be worth it. The advertiser simply must decide what makes economic sense on a case-by-case basis.

If an advertiser wants to drive inspiration and consideration among potential customers, then getting in front of as many viewers with whom the advertiser’s product or service could resonate becomes the primary objective. In this case, engagement metrics may fall short, as would cost-per-thousand impressions (CPM) since an impression, whether viewable or not, gets factored into that calculation. Relying solely on CPM gives only a partial indication of the effectiveness of the ad spend and no indication of the ad effectiveness, whatsoever. Enter viewability.

The Importance of Measuring Viewability

While still an imperfect measurement of ad effectiveness, viewability gives advertisers the option of only paying for impressions that were, in fact, “viewable.” While there has been some ambiguity around what qualifies as “viewable,” the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and Media Rating Center (MRC) have made strides in standardizing the industry’s definition (opens as a PDF) of “viewable.” According to its definition, an ad is only viewable if “a minimum of 50% of the ad is rendered on a user’s browser for a minimum of one second for display ads and two seconds for video ads.”

This improved transparency and common benchmark is critical, in order to continue growing upper-funnel channels and tactics by restoring advertiser faith in the impressions reported. By differentiating between impressions-served and impressions-viewed, advertisers at least have the choice to optimize toward impressions-viewed (at a higher CPM) vs. the opaque alternative.

Viewability Tools for Publishers

Now, even Google’s instituted a “viewability” signal for publishers in its Ad Exchange called “Active View.” Accredited by the MRC, Active View measures impressions generated across publishers’ websites and apps in real-time. Because advertisers increasingly opt to buy viewable impressions, Active View provides publishers with the information they need to increase the value of their display inventory, over time. Publishers with the most viewable inventory will benefit from this buying trend.

Viewability Is Long Overdue

It’s safe to say that viewability is critical and long overdue. It does not, nor should it, devalue engagement metrics. Viewability and engagement metrics can be leveraged simultaneously or irrespectively. Again, it’s important to consider what the advertiser aims to achieve and understand the broader shift in transparency viewability offers.

In full disclosure, I was reared as a direct response marketer, so I am naturally inclined to lean on engagement signals as measurements of ad effectiveness. However, the reflex to solely rely on these metrics can be myopic. If you, too, classify yourself as a direct response marketer, performance marketer or any other flashy way to describe advertisers who care about the bottom line, then I challenge you to question what those lexicons really mean.

Be on the lookout for viewability buzz to continue gaining steam and momentum. This data signal offers much more than a simplistic measurement of ad effectiveness. It provides a return to advertising transparency that has been long under siege in the world of display. It’s a positive step and has its place in enhancing the way we think about buying media.

Denny Hatch Takes on a Direct Brand With Direct Marketing

Harry’s is what’s now classified as a direct brand. But is traditional direct marketing more powerful? Politically correct or not, “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings” reminds us that the piece we write today may be chuck full of insight and wisdom now, but demands a fresh new look only a few milestones down the road.

Harry’s is what’s now classified as a direct brand. But is traditional direct marketing more powerful? Politically correct or not, “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings” reminds us that the piece we write today may be chuck full of insight and wisdom now, but demands a fresh new look only a few milestones down the road.

Denny Hatch’s name should not be an unfamiliar one here. Former Target Marketing editor, blogger and general gadfly, Hatch retains the mantle of data-driven marketing’s provocateur, par excellence, now sadly deprived of his joy at being able to limit his writings to twice the number of characters of the original Twitter. His new marketing blog is full of good stuff.

For his recent 700-character, “Getting Your Prospects to Say ‘Yes’ ” piece, he has turned his sights on Harry’s, the upstart direct-to-consumer razor company featured in this Maverick space almost a year ago. At that time I asked you, our readers:

Will the powerful copy and offer, the Harry’s against Goliath approach, go viral or sufficiently viral to extend the reach of the promotion well beyond the media that has been paid for? Will it bring the cost of trials and conversions down low enough to be “affordable,” attracting customers whose loyalty generates sufficient lifetime value to amortize the total marketing costs over that lifetime and let Harry’s end up with more than a sustainable profit?

direct brand Harry's
Credit: Peter J. Rosenwald

Although headlined, “Make Your Bet on Harry’s or Goliath,” readers were only asked whether they believed that the soft, brand-focused approach would be enough to build a loyal and profitable client base. This direct brand ad and similar treatments break all of the DM101 rules and, because they keep appearing, either they are driving a satisfactory response or, sooner or later, the remains of Harry will be marketing history.

The Denny Hatch traditional direct marketing answer to the “will you bet your money on Harry?” question is a snarling “no.” And he is willing to put his “cheek” (so to speak) where his money is, by offering Harry’s a Denny original, an ad designed to test the “on your face” Free Trial offer against the company’s editorial lede with the same Free Trial offer.

Hatch’s proposed direct marketing ad, seen here, is a classic old school mail-order: “FREE,” “GUARANTEED,” “No Cost,” “No Risk,” “No Obligation.” The call to action couldn’t be improved: “CLICK HERE FOR NO-RISK FREE TRIAL.” And the copy appears to be signed-off by a real person. It’s got everything.

direct brand vs. direct marketing ad
Credit: Denny Hatch’s Marketing Blog by Denny Hatch

But is “everything” what moves today’s consumer, or is the intriguing narrative about changing a $13 billion industry better attuned to today’s sensibilities? Problem is: Will we ever know the results? At this writing, Harry’s soft-focus direct brand ads are everywhere I seem to go on the web.

If Harry’s would run a valid split test of Hatch’s direct marketing ad against one of its regular ads, we would know which one had the better clickthrough. And if we waited long enough, we would know which would have the better lifetime value. (A parenthetical aside: The trouble with measuring lifetime value is that, theoretically, you have to wait until everyone is dead. That’s likely to be longer than you care to wait.) Hopefully, we’ll be able to get some data in this case and share it with you sometime in the future.

When there is more to come, journalists advise you to “watch this space”!

Smart Attribution Modeling

Depending on the size and scope of your advertising and marketing spend, you may have spent time and effort thinking about attribution modeling. Different organizations have very different approaches to attribution.

analyticsDepending on the size and scope of your advertising and marketing spend, you may have spent time and effort thinking about attribution modeling. Different organizations have very different approaches to attribution.

To this end, developing a valuable attribution model that serves your goals and your business can take many forms. Herein, I’ve put together some criteria that’ve been used effectively by a number of organizations we’ve worked with to inform decision-making and use of attribution methods and models.

First Things First: Determine Your End

The most important questions senior marketers need to ask going into an attribution initiative, at any level of investment, include:

  • “What is the purpose for attributing (estimating) media value?” You may be surprised how often that answer is ill-defined. Make sure you can answer, in simple business outcome terms, what the purpose of your attribution is. All else fails if this step is missed.
  • “How logical, defensible and credible is a potential attribution methodology?” While attribution, by its nature, is rarely deterministic, it is requisite that a methodology is credible and has robust basis, or a raison d’etre, if you will, if it is to add value. The understanding individuals often develop is an appreciation that the assumptions underpinning any attribution strategy are tenants of the strategy itself.

The right answers for any brand depend on keeping the end in mind and knowing the expected outcome. So the logical starting point is defining your purpose for attributing media value, as described in that context. For example, “to get the best ROI from our advertising investments.”

3 Strategic Attribution Model Levers

In the spirit of keeping it simple, we think in terms of three strategic attribution levers that an organization can benefit from. These strategic levers are used to inform both the attribution model selection and the weighting of channels. They are as follows:

  • Engagement: Measures a customer’s depth of interaction and potentially, the relationship with the brand.
  • Recency: The amount of time lapsed since the last touch. For example, all other things being equal, a touch yesterday is more valuable than a touch 45 days prior.
  • Intent: Identifies a need the user has or information the user is seeking. Intent is specifically valuable in search, and sometimes in social media. Lead generation programs demonstrate intent, as well. The point of considering “intent” is that it prequalifies traffic in a meaningful way. If the consumer exhibits intent-driven behavior — that should be weighted heavier in your attribution thought process.

While the decision to “attribute” always means judgment is incorporated, the credibility of the attribution is higher when media touches are evaluated within the three strategic levers and should always be based on the nature of the interaction — or lack thereof. If a user did not engage with an ad, then the amount of interaction is lower or even zero.

The following chart breaks out major channels and how you might evaluate each of the strategic levers discussed above.

Ferranti display ad chart

Ferranti display ad chart part two

The ‘Bonus’ Lever: Measurability

Measurability is the “fourth” strategic lever, and can be considered optional for very large brands utilizing traditional non-digital channels extensively. A channel that has evidence associated with its performance is one that can be weighted accordingly. When a channel is measurable, the weighting in the attribution model can be scaled to leverage the predictability of that channel; thereby, improving the efficacy of the attribution. It is a reality that some channels however, will have hard measures, while others require more assumptions and inferences.

Brands should give thoughtful consideration to not inadvertently “reward” a channel, simply because it is hard to measure — and, by the same token, not unnecessarily punish them, either.

Over- or under-weighting channels that have weak evidence of conversion value can actually reduce the performance of the overall media mix.

Viewability and Display-Weighting

While reach, frequency and targeting are hallmarks of display advertising, it has the widely known challenge of “viewability.” Viewability is when an ad is served (and paid for) but a consumer does not see it.

When the objective is to improve the ROI of the media mix, ads that are never seen (un-viewable) should be accounted for in the attributed value of the channel.

One way marketers simplify account viewability concerns is by deducting the percentage of ads that can never be seen on a percentage basis when weighting online display in the model. Bear in mind, “viewable” generally means that only part of the ad was viewable for 1 second. Specific viewability metrics should be discussed and negotiated with media outlets or networks you work with.

How Much Is Viewable or Unviewable?

A recent study done by Google identifies that many display ads are never viewed; therefore, the weighting of display ads should consider this reality (opens as a PDF).

Here are some of the issues with viewability that should influence the weighting of display.

  • 1 percent of all impressions measured are not seen, but the average publisher viewability is 50.2 percent.
  • The most viewable ad sizes are vertical units. Above the fold is not always viewable … Worth considering when weighting display.
  • Page position isn’t always the best indicator of viewability.
  • Viewability varies across industries. While it ranges across content verticals and industries, content that holds a user’s attention has the highest viewability.
  • The most important thing is to give viewability consideration and weight based on your own experience.

Frequently Used Attribution Models

Let’s summarize the most popular attribution models in order of frequency of use, and as based on field experience. There are many more models you may consider, and this list is not intended to be exhaustive.

  • Last Click: 100 percent of the sale is credited to the last click, given its immediacy in driving the sale.
  • Linear Attribution: Equal weighting is given to all touchpoints, regardless of when they occurred. Its strength and weakness is in its simplicity. Not every touch is equal and for good reasons that we’ll describe in some detail below.
  • Time-Decay Models: The media touchpoint closest to conversion gets most of the credit, and the touchpoint prior to that will get less credit. This is the best of the simple approaches. It does not, however, account for brand discovery.
  • Position Model: Position model utilizes intuition and assumption to spread the weights of touches over time, heavying up the first and last touches, and considering the middle touches to spread the difference evenly across them. To be clear, this model presupposes “zero” brand awareness — and, therefore, that every customer “discovered” the brand from a (display/banner) ad impression, for example. Blanketing an audience in advertisements can provide great reach and frequency. It also sets a lot of cookies, which can be used to set the first “position.”

Pointers for Getting Started

The closer you can get to individualized attribution vs. broadcast attribution, the stronger the returns. For example, attribution by segment can provide insights you miss when measuring the aggregate.

Channel measurability should be weighted accordingly. Non-measurable channels should be measured by depth of observable engagement.

The Time-Decay model is widely considered a good place for brands to use when getting started in media attribution. Brands can simply insert logical and evidence-based assumptions and customize the half-life of decay based on the Three Strategic Levers described above.

Follow-up discussion and analysis can refine your thinking and allow you to provide a rationale that helps achieve the most credible, logical and valuable attribution capability.