The Quality (In)equation
One of the most common selling points used by online and emerging media is content/property quality. If you think about it, this is a pretty slick sales technique. Who wants to say they don't care about quality? Because of the frequency in which I hear this, I want to take a look at quality, define it, and determine how that definition impacts the value of properties that are most typically seen as being high quality.
In many people's minds quality is interchangeable with recognizable. Ask 100 folks in advertising which online vehicle is of higher quality - Yahoo or alllyrics.com. Even if you offer "not enough information" as an option (and it's correct answer, at that), I suspect significantly more people will answer Yahoo than alllyrics.com. Why? For starters, the participant in this survey has probably been to Yahoo and not alllyrics.com. The Lake Woebegone syndrome leads people to define themselves as above average and creates the desire to associate themselves with "quality." This theoretical scenario would likely play out similarly using online, mobile, or video game ad networks and their site lists as well.
Traditionally brands with large budgets historically targeted "quality" consumers, which translated to those with enough disposable income to purchase their product. Reaching these consumers mostly meant prime time on TV and drive time on radio. This original idea of quality, I submit, somehow morphed to be defined more as "large audience" and "recognizable" than reaching a consumer likely to be considering or intending to buy your product. After all, how many people in advertising would qualify Judge Judy as higher quality programming than Grey's Anatomy? A personal injury attorney's media buyer - that's who!
And therein lies the crux of the problem. Reaching the largest number of consumers within the target audience with the least amount of waste is real quality. Ultimately, quality equals efficiency. In automotive, no more than 1% of the population will be in market to buy any given new vehicle in the next six months. Six months! 1%! Yet look at the deluge of auto advertising in prime time TV reaching 80%+ of a (very broad) demo. I'm not here to pick on broadcast or any one category. This is just an example of how the definition of quality has perhaps gotten away from us.
Defining quality as efficiency means that no matter what product you're marketing, you're audience is likely to be found on a mix of large (recognizable) and small (obscure) properties. And, because every product has a slightly different target buyer profile, one publisher or network of web sites, mobile web sites, or even video games simply can't be the highest quality for everyone. Will Dollar General, Ferrari and REI all find their best prospects on one network, portal, or publisher site? Not only is it unlikely, but this is all the more reason to look hard at how you define quality and more importantly, the metrics you're measuring with your campaign. The truth is that you can likely find your prospects efficiently across multiple properties and networks. With thorough cost/result projections it’s possible that properties and networks traditionally pegged as "high quality" do not actually give you the best return.
To be fair, there are other factors that go into a property's or network's quality. What type of targeting is offered? Behavioral? Contextual? What type of environment do you want your brand to be seen in? Targeting capabilities are more easily measured within the campaign itself, where as environment quality either has to have a direct impact on the campaign’s performance, or will need to be measured through other consumer research. Are there mechanisms in place to measure the impact of factors not directly contributing to this campaign’s success? If not, “quality” is hard to measure.
The purchase funnel is a byproduct of human behavior, which none of us is going to change here and now. It’s just as important to apply metrics to upper and mid-funnel campaigns as it is those targeting lower funnel consumers (presumably through leads.) Once a campaign is identified as fitting in a particular point in the funnel, the metrics are easily derived and a successful campaign measured.
In many people's minds quality is interchangeable with recognizable. Ask 100 folks in advertising which online vehicle is of higher quality - Yahoo or alllyrics.com. Even if you offer "not enough information" as an option (and it's correct answer, at that), I suspect significantly more people will answer Yahoo than alllyrics.com. Why? For starters, the participant in this survey has probably been to Yahoo and not alllyrics.com. The Lake Woebegone syndrome leads people to define themselves as above average and creates the desire to associate themselves with "quality." This theoretical scenario would likely play out similarly using online, mobile, or video game ad networks and their site lists as well.
Traditionally brands with large budgets historically targeted "quality" consumers, which translated to those with enough disposable income to purchase their product. Reaching these consumers mostly meant prime time on TV and drive time on radio. This original idea of quality, I submit, somehow morphed to be defined more as "large audience" and "recognizable" than reaching a consumer likely to be considering or intending to buy your product. After all, how many people in advertising would qualify Judge Judy as higher quality programming than Grey's Anatomy? A personal injury attorney's media buyer - that's who!
And therein lies the crux of the problem. Reaching the largest number of consumers within the target audience with the least amount of waste is real quality. Ultimately, quality equals efficiency. In automotive, no more than 1% of the population will be in market to buy any given new vehicle in the next six months. Six months! 1%! Yet look at the deluge of auto advertising in prime time TV reaching 80%+ of a (very broad) demo. I'm not here to pick on broadcast or any one category. This is just an example of how the definition of quality has perhaps gotten away from us.
Defining quality as efficiency means that no matter what product you're marketing, you're audience is likely to be found on a mix of large (recognizable) and small (obscure) properties. And, because every product has a slightly different target buyer profile, one publisher or network of web sites, mobile web sites, or even video games simply can't be the highest quality for everyone. Will Dollar General, Ferrari and REI all find their best prospects on one network, portal, or publisher site? Not only is it unlikely, but this is all the more reason to look hard at how you define quality and more importantly, the metrics you're measuring with your campaign. The truth is that you can likely find your prospects efficiently across multiple properties and networks. With thorough cost/result projections it’s possible that properties and networks traditionally pegged as "high quality" do not actually give you the best return.
To be fair, there are other factors that go into a property's or network's quality. What type of targeting is offered? Behavioral? Contextual? What type of environment do you want your brand to be seen in? Targeting capabilities are more easily measured within the campaign itself, where as environment quality either has to have a direct impact on the campaign’s performance, or will need to be measured through other consumer research. Are there mechanisms in place to measure the impact of factors not directly contributing to this campaign’s success? If not, “quality” is hard to measure.
The purchase funnel is a byproduct of human behavior, which none of us is going to change here and now. It’s just as important to apply metrics to upper and mid-funnel campaigns as it is those targeting lower funnel consumers (presumably through leads.) Once a campaign is identified as fitting in a particular point in the funnel, the metrics are easily derived and a successful campaign measured.
posted by Jay Friedman - Goodway 2.0 @ 8:22 PM
<< Home