attention
Source: http://gizmodo.com/5576453/youtube-gets-it-will-allow-ad-skipping
There’s nothing worse than watching a 30-second ad to watch some 30-second clip of something the world inevitably finds funnier than you do. Google/YouTube are acknowledging this phenomenon of the consumer psyche and will introduce an ad-skip button this year.
The idea is as simple as this: If an advertiser’s commercial isn’t captivating enough to watch in its own right, it’ll be skipped by viewers. If viewers don’t watch the ad, Google doesn’t charge the advertiser.
Now I know what you’re thinking: Why would anyone watch an ad voluntarily? See exhibit A, the lead video in which the god of the infomercial, Ron Popeil, does his thing. The only way that 9-minute clip could be more captivating is to put ANOTHER 9-minute Ron Popeil clip in front of it.
This skippable ad model will inevitably lead to better ads—at least in terms of catering the online attention span—and, for those of us* with the libidinal fortitude to turn a blind eye on GoDaddy-esque BOOBIES BOOBIES BOOBIES teasers, a lot more free time. [WSJ via Fast Company]
* OK, maybe I don’t skip every such commercial. But I only** watch them to be educated enough to write about them on Giz.
** This is a flat-out fabrication***.
*** What sort of monster have I become?
Tags: advertiser, ANOTHER, Anyone, attention, attention span, blind eye, BOOBIES, button, Clip, commercial, company, consumer, esque, exhibit, eye, fabrication, Fast, fortitude, free time, front, funnier, Giz, God, GoDaddy-esque, google, idea, infomercial, libidinal, lot, mdash, minute, model, monster, nothing, online, phenomenon, psyche, right, Ron Popeil, something, sort, Source, span, thing, time, video, Watch, way, World, WSJ, year, YouTube
As more and more users adopt tools to de-clutter web pages and remove all distractions (such as ads) the effectiveness of display ads will continue to decline, despite innovations and advancements in targeting technologies.
Source: http://lifehacker.com/5568752/add-safari-reader+like-powers-to-firefox-and-chrome
The Safari 5 feature that’s caught the web’s attention is the Reader button, which strips down articles and blog posts into an ad-free, highly readable format. Two add-ons for Firefox and Chrome do a good job of recreating that convenience.
If you missed our round-up of what’s new in Safari 5, the short explanation of Reader is that, while many bookmarklets have come along to offer a simplified, less-cluttered reading experience, Safari is the first major browser to go ahead and offer that kind of feature by default, as an address bar button. If you’re a fan of bookmarklets, and your bookmarks aren’t too cluttered to lose them in, we recommend the tools from arc90′s Readability, the Instapaper Text bookmarklet, and the Readable app for highly customized formatting.
But maybe you want your Firefox or Chrome rig to offer that kind of button-click functionality. You’re in luck. First off, here’s the Top 10 feature we’ll try our reading tools out on—click the image for a larger view:
Now here are two add-ons for Firefox and Chrome, and a look at how they do at getting all minimalist with the text and pics. Click any of the images below, too, for a larger view
Readability (Firefox)
Baris Derin rolled the Readability bookmarklet into a full-fledged add-on for Firefox, but also added in a pretty neat auto-scrolling feature for the true lean-back-and-read experience. Readability tends to keep more of the text and formatting in and around the page, but strips out all the marketing and navigation material. It places an “R” button in the lower-right status area of Firefox, which isn’t the most convenient spot for our use, but some may prefer having it hidden away until needed. Notice the transparent icons, too, that provide printing, email, and refresh functions for live-updating posts.
iReader (Chrome)
Mhd Hejazi’s iReader is directly inspired by Safari’s Reader function, offering the same kind of pop-out white box that darkens the rest of the page, a button right in the address bar, and very, very minimal decoration—as you can see, it pared down our Top 10 feature quite a bit. There are also keyboard shortcuts for Windows and Mac to activate iReader, and options to change the background opacity, font and formatting, and add a “Send with Gmail” link to your articles. Neat stuff.
Both add-ons are free downloads. Know of another reading/simplifying extension that gets the job done? Tell us about it in the comments.
Thanks to emmikkelsen for the inspiration!
Tags: address, app, arc, area, attention, bar, Baris, blog, bookmarklet, bookmarklets, browser, button, Chrome, click, clutter, convenience, default, Derin, display, distractions, effectiveness, email, experience, explanation, extension, fan, feature, Firefox, format, functionality, good job, hejazi, Image, images, innovations, Instapaper, iReader, job, kind, lean back, look, luck, Mac, marketing, material, mdash, minimalist, navigation, offer, page, Readability, Readable, readable format, Reader, reader button, reading, reading experience, rig, Safari, Source, Spot, status, text, tmpPost, transparent icons, view, Web, web pages
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/07/mark-cuban-foretells-netflix-demise-sees-a-future-filled-with-o/
To call Mark Cuban eccentric would be akin to describing the ocean as wet, but what’s not so often acknowledged about the Dallas Mavericks owner is the sharp mind and commercial nous that have gotten him to the position of hiring and firing millionaire ball players. One of Mark’s recent blog posts, entitled “The future of TV … is TV,” got the attention of NewTeeVee, who sought to debunk his contention that VOD (video on demand) services from cable operators would become the primary means by which we consume digital media in the future. They cite the growing success story of Netflix’s digital distribution model, as well as the 12 million hours of March Madness video consumed via CBS’ web portal, in arguing that web streaming is indeed the great new hotness.
Mark’s response tackles Netflix head on, and points out that the company’s rapid growth is about to start working against it, with movie studios and other content providers likely to jack up prices and demand further concessions from the streaming service as it turns into a real competitor to cable companies. According to him, Netflix is presently getting its content at prices that are unsustainable, and his prognostication is that content owners seeking bigger levies — together with the expansion of VOD choice, which he sees as foolproof compared to the overwhelming complexity that web streaming entails — will lead to Netflix passing costs on to the consumers and losing out to cable operators. Irrespective of whether you agree with him, the whole exchange is well worth a read. Use the links below to get filled in.
Mark Cuban foretells Netflix demise, sees a future filled with on-demand video originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:09:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink 
CNET | 
Blog Maverick, NewTeeVee (1), (2) | Email this | Comments
Tags: attention, ball, blog, cable, cable companies, cable operators, CBS, cbs web, choice, company, competitor, complexity, content, content owners, content providers, contention, Dallas, dallas mavericks, dallas mavericks owner, demand, demise, digital distribution model, distribution, Engadget, EST, exchange, expansion, foolproof, Fri, future, growth, head, hotness, Irrespective, levies, Madness, March, march madness, Mark, Mark Cuban, Mavericks, May, millionaire, mind, model, movie, nbsp, Netflix, NewTeeVee, ocean, owner, Portal, position, prognostication, Read, response, service, Source, story, streaming service, success, tmpPost, use, video, video on demand, VOD, Web
With the greater efficiencies of digital, the overall “pie” will shrink because fewer dollars are needed to achieve the same effect. In other terms — for every DOLLAR pulled out of traditional and general advertising, 20 – 50 CENTS is put back into “digital” channels and tactics. Thus the overall pie will continue to shrink while some parts grow and other parts shrink dramatically.
Source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/print/magazine-ad-revenues-pages-fall-in-q1-2010-12574
Ad pages also declined in Q1 2010 compared to Q1 2009, falling 9.4%, according to the Publishers Information Bureau (PIB).
Source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/tv-ad-revenues-drop-12-12613/yankeegroup-media-averages-apr-2010jpg/
Total US TV and online advertising revenues dropped 12% in 2009, although online revenues independently grew, according to research from The Yankee Group.
TV Revenue Decline Worse than Expected
In 2009, the total US TV and online advertising market totaled $67 billion, compared to $77 billion in 2008. TV advertising, by far the largest portion of this combined market, was hit especially hard by reductions in spending during 2009.
The TV ad market declined 21.2%, from $52 billion to $41 billion, between 2008 and 2009. This was significantly more than the 4% (or roughly $2.1 billion) decline The Yankee Group originally forecast in June 2009. As highlighted below, a shift in consumer attention primarily drove the steep decline in the TV ad market.
TV’s Loss is Internet’s Gain
Internet advertising grew during 2009, as a result of consumers spending more time online and less time watching TV. Online ad revenues grew 8.3% between 2008, when they totaled $24 billion, and 2009, when they totaled $26 billion.
Media Consumption Dwindles
The total amount of time consumers spent on media per day actually declined 14.3% between 2008 and 2009. Consumers spent about 14 hours per day on media in 2008, but only 12 hours per day in 2009. Most of the decline in media consumption was represented by declining TV viewership.
Americans spent an average of three hours and 17 minutes per day consuming TV and video in 2009, compared to an average of four hours and 13 minutes a day consuming online content. In addition, average daily mobile phone use reached one hour and 18 minutes. Thus Yankee Group advises marketers and advertisers to increase their focus on online and mobile promotions.
Annual US Ad Spending Falls 12.3%
Total US advertising expenditures (including print, radio, outdoor and free standing inserts) fell 12.3% in 2009, to $125.3 billion, as compared to 2008, according to Kantar Media.
Some of Kantar’s findings echo findings from the Yankee Group. Internet display advertising expenditures increased 7.3% for the year, aided by sharply higher spending from the telecom, factory auto and travel categories. Meanwhile, spot TV advertising fell 23.7%, Spanish language TV advertising dropped 8.9%, network TV fell advertising 7.6%, and cable TV advertising only fell 1.4%.
About the Data: Statistics are taken from the updated Yankee Group “2009 Anywhere Advertising Forecast.”
Tags: 1 billion, 50 cents, addition, advertising, advertising revenues, amount, amount of time, Annual, attention, auto, average, Bureau, CENTS, consumer, consumer attention, consuming, Consumption, content, day, decline, digital channels, display, display ads, dollar, Dwindles, effect, efficiencies, Expected, Factory, Falls, focus, forecast, free standing inserts, Gain, gain internet, general advertising, Group, hour, information, Internet, internet advertising, June, Kantar, LOSS, market, marketers, Media, media consumption, mobile phone use, online, online ad revenues, online ads vs tV ads, phone, PIB, pie, portion, print, publishers information bureau, q1, radio, research, Result, revenue, revenue decline, search ad revenues, search ads, search ads vs online ads, search advertising, shift, Source, spending, standing, steep decline, telecom, television and print advertising, television tv, time, time consumers, Total, travel, tv ad, tv advertising, tv revenue, tv viewership, US, use, video, viewership, watching tv, Yankee, yankee group, year
godaddy superbowl ad spending led to sharp spikes in search volume every February for the last 5 years straight. Other advertisers who spent on Superbowl ads have similar lift in search volume from the TV advertising.
Source: Google Insights for Search
If you believe that lift in search volume indicates interest and intent and if you consider that each 30-second ad cost $3 million in 2009 (WSJ: NBC Super Bowl Ads to Cost $3 Million) and assuming GoDaddy’s ad did not air more than once, they spent $3 million to get their ad in front of a TON of people and to get people’s attention. Those people who saw the ad and were interested enough to take action went online and searched for more information by typing godaddy into search (see lift in search volume during February of each year) .
If we assume that it took $3 million to generate a certain lift in search we can use multiples to calculate the media dollar equivalent of any lift in search — for example, if godaddy spent $3 million to get X lift in search, then a 2X lift in search would have required $6 million of media (in a very very simplified back of the envelope estimate; it usually would cost more than 2x to get that lift) — i.e. it would have cost at least $6 million in superbowl ad media dollars to achieve a 2X lift in search volume.
So, if we now compare search volume on megan fox side by side with godaddy search volume, we will see that in Feb 2009 Megan Fox was indexing at 21 while godaddy was indexing at 12 (this is normalized to a scale of 0 – 100). So search volume on megan fox indicates she was getting the equivalent value to $6 million of super bowl media ad spend – FOR FREE — roughly 2X the search volume of godaddy in the same time period.
At the peak of her search volume in June 2009 (corresponding to the release of Transformers 2: The Revenge of the Fallen), she was indexing at 100 and godaddy at 7. This is 8x the index of godaddy of 12 during the Feb 2009 time period when they were airing their superbowl ads. This implies that she was getting the search volume that would have required the equivalent to a $24 million super bowl ad spend to achieve — again for FREE!
If you want to research futher, use the following link to bring up Google Insights for Search to see relative search volume
In February 2008, Megan Fox indexed at 8 and GoDaddy at 8. In 2008, Superbowl ad spots cost only $2.7 million — so she had the equivalent search volume as a paid advertising spending $2.7 million on a Superbowl ad.
In 2007, Godaddy indexed at 6 during Feb 2007 Superbowl. Megan Fox indexed at 43 during the July release of the first Transformers movie — this is an 8X multiple on Superbowl ads that cost $2.6 million — or $21 million
So the perfect “product placement” of Megan Fox in the two Transformers movies garnered her nearly $50 million worth of advertising based on search volume equivalency. This does not even take into account her sustained and increasing search volume, compared to most advertisers’ search volumes which drop right back down to pre-ad levels once the ad is finished airing.
Tags: 2009 superbowl ad rates, 6 million, account, action, advertisers, advertising, attention, Bowl, cost, cost of super bowl ads in 2007, cost of super bowl ads in 2008, cost of super bowl ads in 2009, dollar, dollar equivalent, envelope, equivalent, equivalent value, estimate, example, Fallen, Feb, February, fox, FREE, front, futher, godaddy, godaddy superbowl ad spending, google, index, information, intent, interest, July, June, lift, link, Megan, megan fox, Million, movie, NBC, online, peak, period, Placement, Product, release, Revenge, same time period, scale, search, search volume, search volume equivalency, side, spending, spikes, Super, super bowl, super bowl ad, super bowl ads, superbow, superbowl, superbowl ad, superbowl ads, time, TON, transformers, tv advertising, use, value, volume, WSJ, X, year
Summary
Facebook click-through rates of 0.01 – 0.05% (Facebook CTRs)
Facebook effective CPMs turned out to be $0.01 – $0.19 (Facebook eCPMs)
Facebook average CPCs ranged from $0.05 – $0.25 (Facebook CPCs)
Other social media benchmarks from my experiments (Adwords, StumbleUpon, PayPerPost / Izea) can be found here.
As a scientist, I like to run experiments. And I like to make stuff. So my team and I made a few Facebook apps that solved needs that we had (a few samples listed below) and shared them publicly on Facebook to see if they were also useful to other people too.
I beta tested some apps with a few friends by inviting them directly. Then to get it out to a larger number of people, we decided to try Facebook advertising, the much-hyped, holy grail of display advertising on one of the largest and most active social networks.
- visual discovery, share, and queue management interface for Netflix
- visual discovery and sampling interface for music (Amazon backend)
- create and send photo or video e-cards by drag and drop (Flickr and YouTube backend)
- visual display of your friends (closest ones have the most recent status updates)
- social commerce – I’ll buy what he bought; things I have, things I want
But what I found was eye-opening to say the least. Despite the potential of social ads where the social actions of your circle of friends could make the ads more targeted, none of the anticipated positive effects were observed. Despite the promise of mass reach, there was not the corresponding attention or clicks. And despite the use of demographics-based targeting, there was no statistically significant difference between different targets nor the control sample, running during the same time period.
What we saw were click-through rates of 0.01 – 0.05% — and the 0.01% often seemed like rounding because they did not report more than 2 decimal places. As a result of these click rates the effective CPMs turned out to be $0.01 – $0.19 and average CPCs ranged from $0.05 – $0.25. I’ve been running these Facebook ads for more than 12 months; and millions of impresisons later, there is no observable improvements to CTRs and thus CPMs and CPCs. But since I set up the campaigns to only pay when there is a click (CPC basis), I can let these run indefinitely because I am getting so few clicks, it’s not even making a dent on my credit card (which I use to pay for the ads).
Ideas for Facebook
In the spirit of openness, as an advertiser who wants to continue using Facebook advertising, perhaps there are a few things they can do to improve the effectiveness of Facebook display ads.
1. reduce the number of ads per page to 1 – displaying multiple ads artificially depresses click-through rates because users can only click on 1 thing at a time, even if they liked more than one of them. Displaying 3 on a page simply increases the denominator while the numerator does not increase — in the click-through rate equation: clicks / impressions.
2. make ads sharable – in the rare instance a user views an ad, it may or may not be relevant to her, but she may know that it is relevant and timely for a friend. By making ads sharable, she can click and send to a friend, who is very likely to find it useful and valuable, especially having been sent by a friend.
3. let users opt-in to ads in specific topic categories - when users are in the market for specific things, they are more likely to subscribe to pertinent news feeds, offers, etc. related to that topic or category. By giving users more power over what they want to see, it will also give advertisers more targeted and engaged prospects to target.
4. expand search-based advertising – when users search they are looking for something and are open to discovering something they didn’t know to ask for. So ads served up in response to a search is usually a lot more effective than ads served up simply when a page is loaded (display advertising). Facebook can serve display ads based on pertinent search queries.
Earth to Facebook… anyone listening?
By Dr. Augustine Fou. Dr. Fou is Group Chief Digital Officer at Healthcare Consultancy Group a group of agencies within the Omnicom family specializing in pharma and healthcare. He helps clients develop digital marketing programs or improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness existing campaigns via advanced analytics, social marketing, and digital strategy. You can read more of his writing on digital marketing on this blog and follow him on twitter @acfou.
Excerpt from TechCrunch: “Click fraud is serious business on the big search engine advertising networks because the bad guys can make serious money. Sign up for an Adsense account and put those ads on parked domain names or wherever. Then all you have to do is start clicking those ads like crazy, using bots or cheap labor.” On Facebook, “advertisers are clicking on competitor ads to drive up their costs and drive down their ROI.”
“So the bad guys just create thousands of fake Facebook accounts with a wide variety of demographic information. This sounds like a lot of work, but it’s highly automated. the going rate was just $10 per 100 accounts if you supply the unique email accounts. Once the accounts are created, they use software to fill out the varied demographic information, and that software also manages all these accounts. The fraudster then logs in to Facebook via these accounts and views the ads that are displayed. The right competitive ads come up and Bingo, the software then clicks them. Facebook rules allow an account to click any advertisement up to six times in a 24 hour period, and all those clicks are charged. All you need is a few accounts to view the ads and then click to the max.”
Despite click fraud, the click through rates are still incredibly low. So if you subtract all the click fraud, is ANY advertiser making ANY money from facebook advertising?
Others have found similarly dismal click through rates from Facebook advertising
Source: http://www.friendswithbenefitsbook.com/2008/04/07/facebook-ad-click-through-rates-are-really-pitiful/
Facebook Ad Click-Through Rates Are Really Pitiful
April 7, 2008 – 5:03 pm
Quite by coincidence, I’ve encountered a few statistics on Facebook’s advertising platform. I thought I’d post links to the results I’ve uncovered, in case anybody is wondering about average CTR rates for Facebook.
First up, Rod Boothby got a click-through rate of 0.01%:
This week, I ran $105 worth of Facebook Fliers. That bought me 52,500 impressions. It looks like the flier bought me about an extra 500 site visits. That’s about $0.21 per hit.
Michael Ferguson ran a bunch of Facebook ads for Kinzin:
Click-through rates are abysmal. I was running the identical ad in about 15 different regions (you need to run them as separate ads to get the stats broken out), getting just over 10M views. Our average clickthrough rate was 0.06% (that’s 1 in 1513, for those counting at home). The best we did anywhere was 0.14%.
He later reports that the conversion rate was “at a pretty reasonable clip” at about 5%. By ‘conversion’, I think he’s meaning people who actually signed up for Kinzin’s free service. All of this stuff is contextual, but if visitors had to lay down money, the conversion rate would be considerably lower.
The folks at Valleywag report similarly dismal numbers:
Media buyers — the agency people who book campaigns — report that the college social network is a truly terrible target. They’re mainly students, with low disposable income, of course; but, beyond that, the users appear to be too busy leaving messages for eachother to show much interest in advertising. Facebook’s members appear indifferent even to movie advertising aimed at their demographic. Clickthrough rates, the percentage of time users click on an ad, average 0.04% — just 400 clicks in every 1m views — according to one report seen by Valleywag.
From AllFacebook:
Fred Wilson has been updating the world about his venture in Facebook advertising over the past week. Today, Fred posted and updated screenshot of his ad campaign’s performance and it doesn’t appear to be too stellar. For one of his campaigns, out of 10,080 impressions there were only 8 clicks. The average cost-per-click for Fred was $0.08 and the average CPM was $0.06. This is a less than stellar performance. This is nothing new though.
And lastly, from a digital student marketing blog in the UK. This would seem like a natural fit for Facebook’s audience:
Our most recent campaign saw 1.4 million page impressions delivered at specific universities – and only a 0.04% clickthrough rate. Ouch.
Click-through rates seem to sit around 0.04%, which is profoundly lame if you ask me. I’m no online advertising expert–it’s not really our thing–but I’ve run a bunch of Google AdWords and other contextual advertising campaigns. We regularly get click-through rates of 3%, and I gather that’s nothing special.
Here’s my theory on Facebook: it’s a silo. People visit the Fun House of Facebook, and conceptually treat it slightly different than the rest of the web. They’re in Facebook, interacting with friends, playing games, sending messages and now chatting on IM. As such, they’re really unmotivated to leave. Who wants to leave the Fun House?
We’ve seen similar results across Facebook. It’s really difficult to drive visitors out of the app and to your own website.
Tags: a good click through rate, Abysmal Click-Through Rates, advertisement on facebook statistics, advertising, advertising click-through benchmarking, advertising effectiveness on facebook, Advertising metrics, advertising on facebook, Adwords, adwords average ctr, Amazon, apps, attention, augustine fou blog, automated click fraud, average ad price on facebook, average advertising response rates, average click rate on facebook ads, average click shared content on facebook, average click through rate Facebook ads, average click through rate for facebook, average click through rate for facebook ads, average clicks per facebook app, average cost facebooks clicks, average cost of Facebook ad, average cost per click for facebook, average cost per click rates, average cost per month to serve display ads, average CPC facebook, average CPC for Facebook, average CPCs, average cpm click through rate, average cpm facebook 2010, average CPM on Facebook, average ctr "LinkedIn", average ctr facebook 2009, average ctr facebook ads, average ctr on facebook, average CTR on facebook ad network, average display click through rates, average facebook ad costs, average facebook ad ctr, average facebook campaign costs, average facebook click through rate, average facebook cost per click, average facebook CTR, average metrics facebook ads, backend, Benchmark Facebook, benchmark for impressions for an ad campaig..., benchmarking facebook, benchmarking in social marketing, benchmarks, Benchmarks facebook, Best Facebook CTR, Best Facebook CTR You Have Seen?, beta, campaign effectiveness useful metrics, Chief Digital, circle, click, click farm, click fraud, click per impressions facebook ads, click rate on facebook ads, click through rates on facebook ads, commerce, control, cost of making a facebook ad, cost per advertising in facebook, costs for facebook advertising, CPCs, cpcs card photo, cpm advertising by demographic, cpm benchmarks, cpm ctr cpc, CPMs, crm on facebook, CTR - Clickthrough Rates on Facebook CPC Ads, ctr ad metrics, ctr facebook, CTR facebook ads, ctr in facebook, ctr on facebook, CTRs, decimal places, difference, difference between click and impression on ..., digital marketing, discovery, display, display advertising, Dr. Fou, drag, drag and drop, e cards, effective cost per thousand for facebook, effective CPMs, effectiveness of facebook ads, effectiveness of facebook advertising, email marketing metrics benchmarks 2009, Examples of Advertisement Benchmarking, facebok ctr, Facebook, facebook ad average ctr, facebook ad benchmarks, facebook ad campaign rates, facebook ad click through rate, facebook ad cpc, facebook ad ctr, facebook ad effectiveness, facebook ad impressions, facebook ad in increse in impression, facebook ad metrics, facebook ad rates, facebook ad specs, facebook ads Actions Rate, facebook ads average ctr, facebook ads click rate, facebook ads click through rate, facebook ads cost, facebook ads cpm rates, facebook ads CTR, facebook ads effectiveness, facebook ads effectiveness 2010, facebook ads examples, facebook ads impressions, facebook ads impressions vs clicks, facebook ads low ctr, facebook ads market cpm rate, facebook ads metrics, facebook advertising, Facebook Advertising Benchmarks, facebook advertising click rate, facebook advertising click through rate, facebook advertising clicks, facebook advertising clicks impressions exp..., facebook advertising cost, facebook advertising costs, facebook advertising effectiveness, facebook advertising impressions, facebook advertising kpi, Facebook advertising metrics, facebook advertising rates, facebook advertising software, FACEBOOK ADVERTISING VS GOOGLE ADSENSE MOVI..., facebook average CPCs, Facebook Average CTR, facebook benchmark ctr, facebook benchmarking, facebook benchmarks, Facebook Click Fraud, facebook click through rate, facebook click through rates, facebook clickthrough rate, facebook cost cpm, facebook cpc advertising, Facebook CPCs, facebook CTR, facebook ctr rates, Facebook CTRs, facebook display advertising, Facebook eCPMs, facebook effective CPMs, facebook good click through rate, facebook kpi, facebook marketing, facebook marketing rates, facebook metrics, facebook statistics, facebook stats, facebook stats and metrics, facebook targeted advertising effectivness, facebook what's a good cpm rate?, facebook's advertising costs, faecbook metrics, flickr, Fraud, friend, good click through rate for facebook, good CTR for facebook ads, good facebook ads, good kpi's for a facebook app, grail, Group, healthcare, holy grail, how effective are facebook ads, how effective facebook advertising, how to lower costs on facebook advertising, how to run effective facebook ads, hyped, increase your clickthrough rate on facebook, interface, inurl:blog intext:facebook ad, is advertising on facebook effective, Is Facebook Advertising Effective, izea, lot, management, management interface, marketing, mass, metrics for facebook ads, metrics what do advertisers look for, music, Netflix, none, number, page, PayPerPost, photo, potential, price of facebook ad, promise, queue, reach, ROI, same time period, sample, scientist, search, share, So Few Clicks, So Many Ads, social actions, social ads, social marketing benchmarks, social media benchmarks, social media kpi, social media response rate benchmark, social networks, something, status, status updates, stuff, StumbleUpon, summary, team, time, topic, use, video, viral advertising metrics, visual discovery, what are click rates for facebook ads, what is a good click through rate for facebook ads?, what is a good click through rate on facebo..., what is a good CTR on facebook, what is a good ctr on facebook ads, what is a good facebook click through rate, what is a good facebook ctr, what is considered good CTR on facebook ads, whats a good click rate for facebook ads, whats a good click through rate, whats a good click through rate facebook, whats a good click through rate on facebook, whats a good ctr facebook, whats a good ctr for facebook ad, whats a good ctr on craigslist, whats a good ctr on ebay, whats a good ctr on facebook, whats a good ctr on facebook ad impressions, whats a good ctr on facebook banner, whats a good ctr on facebook conversion rate, whats a good ctr on gmail, whats a good ctr on google, whats a good ctr on hotmail, whats a good ctr on msn, whats a good ctr on myspace, whats a good ctr on twitter, whats a good ctr on yahoo, whats a good ctr on yahoo mail, whats a good ctr on youtube, whats a good ctr online, worst Facebook CTR, YouTube
in a budget-constrained environment, the best thing an advertiser can do is shift more attention (notice, I didn’t say money) to social marketing and stimulate social actions among target users and customers. While paid media used to just get people to some place (like a website), social marketing is about stimulating social actions — so the people actually do something — share, rate, comment, recommend, etc. These actions lead to an accumulation of value over time such that future visitors will get the benefit of all of the actions that went before (e.g. I only watch the highest rated or most viewed videos on YouTube; I don’t have to wade through and find the good stuff myself). Furthermore, social actions are free to the advertiser — think “advocacy.” When real people carry the message forward to their friends, it is free amplification for the advertiser — social amplification.
Tags: accumulation, advertiser, advocacy, amplification, attention, benefit, budget, digital strategy, environment, good stuff, marketing, message, money, notice, place, rate, real people, share, share rate, shift, social actions, social amplification, social marketing, something, stuff, target, target users, thing, time, value, website, WOM amplification rate, YouTube
Mhd Hejazi’s iReader is directly inspired by Safari’s Reader function, offering the same kind of pop-out white box that darkens the rest of the page, a button right in the address bar, and very, very minimal decoration—as you can see, it pared down our Top 10 feature quite a bit. There are also keyboard shortcuts for Windows and Mac to activate iReader, and options to change the background opacity, font and formatting, and add a “Send with Gmail” link to your articles. Neat stuff.
Recent Articles by Dr. Augustine Fou
