Guided Navigation and search (we will focus on Guided Navigation for this post) is one of those intriguing concepts that is difficult to explain, but easy to understand once you see its use. When I offer the concept as a potential solution to new clients, I find myself thinking back to Psyche 101 (I hated those classes) where two of us sat back-to-back—one of us describing shapes and the other one trying to draw them.

While there are a few players in this space, I will focus on a technology (MDEX Engine) from Cambridge-based Endeca. As one of Endeca's first partners, I continue to evangelize their solution because frankly, it is one of the best in this space. Frequently, I find myself exploring new implementations (www.homedepot.com and www.walmart.com) and discovering even better ways to use it. Having implemented sites with Guided Navigation (and analyzed their success), I continue to be amazed that more sites do not adopt it.

So what exactly is Guided Navigation?

In its most elegant form, it is a way for users to interface with information in a context that allows them to refine it and explore further.  Typical interaction models support a "query and response" form that requires the user to have knowledge of a given topic. Even if the user has some knowledge, they will most likely receive a long list of responses that may or may not provide any value (oh great, another long list of items to choose from).

Guided Navigation offers an "intuitive" interaction model. This approach treats information retrieval as a dialog between users and a site. It actually presents the user with a response and offers several refinement options that the user might not even know existed. The best part is that it always provides the user with valid next steps.

In order to explain Guided Navigation using a practical example, I am going to use a favorite topic of mine—WINE. This was also one of the first example sites built by Endeca and it remains a great learning tool today.

Continue reading "Guided Navigation is a Provocative Idea" »

Posted by Jim Burke at 04:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

If you want to engage your audience on the web, you need to create engaging content. That means taking risks and creating work that makes your palms sweat a little. Sometimes you win. And sometimes you don't.

Here are three engaging experiences that caught my eye recently. For better or worse. You decide.

Modernista 2.0

In an effort to capitalize on all things web 2.0, the Boston based ad agency recently launched a very different kind of web site (more of a non-site really). When you type in Modernista.com a small navigation bar appears, redirecting visitors to a host of the best-in-class Web 2.0 services. Click on the agency's 'about' section, and you're taken to its Wikipedia entry; 'work' displays a TV reel via YouTube, print examples via Flickr and web executions on Del.icio.us. Agency news is delivered through Google News, and a 'contact' section lets users get in touch via AIM or Skype.

Whether you think this idea is a huge hit or a gigantic belly flop, depends on your point of view. But you have to give Modernista credit for taking a risk in engaging its audience. Not to mention getting plenty of buzz. 

Continue reading "The tricky art of engagement" »

Posted by Steve Lynch at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you're a marketing professional, then you're likely all-too-familiar with the concept of media fragmentation, or the continued splintering of our target audiences as they move away from a handful of large media publishers/sites towards many smaller, niche ones. It makes finding and communicating with our audiences a lot harder, as the number of media outlets through which to reach them has grown exponentially. The phenomenon has given rise to the Long Tail, as well as a new breed of providers that claim to have the solution: ad networks.

Contextual advertising provider ContextWeb, together with BIMA, hosted an invitation-only roundtable in Boston last week to discuss this very topic. Titled, Media Fragmentation: Wandering Audiences and What Advertisers Can Do About It, the session featured Jay Sears, SVP Strategic Products at ContextWeb, and Steve Ustaris, Group Media Director at Carat, discussing the market response to fragmentation and the pros and cons of ad networks.

"Daunting but Exhilerating" Times

Sears opened the session with some pertinent quotes from IAB Chairman and ContextWeb Board Member, Wenda Harris Millard, who noted at the recent IAB Conference that these are "daunting but exhilerating" times - where consumers are calling the shots and the market bears witness to many strange bedfellows.

Consider that portal page views have declined in the last few years (below chart courtesy of ContextWeb), while blogs are growing at a rate of 120,000 per day (Technorati currently tracks 112 million blogs).

Yet 75% of media spend is still going to the top 10 Internet properties...perhaps out of habit, perhaps because planners don't know how to penetrate the Long Tail.

Continue reading "Ad Networks: a Response to Media Fragmentation" »

Posted by Stephanie Rogers at 06:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

On March 29th, millions of people from Albania to Zimbabwe, Atlanta to Phoenix, turned off their lights as part of Earth Hour 2008.This global event was intended to make a statement and act as a call to action for countries everywhere to find new ways to reduce their impact on the environment.

While the idea of joining like-minded individuals together to champion a cause is nothing new, when momentum really starts to build and awareness increases, companies start to take notice. Today it seems like every company is anxious to "go green," from Wal-Mart's experimental concept stores, which have a goal of using 100% renewable energy, creating zero waste and selling products that sustain resources and the environment, to GE's ecomagination campaign. While its nice that companies are recognizing the social benefits of going green, they’re also probably hoping that, in addition to making them a good corporate citizen, green will sell.

And buyers know that.

In the technology space green data centers are getting a lot of attention. Automobile companies have been adding greener models to their offerings. You can practically feel the judgmental stares when your checkout cashier asks, "paper or plastic?"  and then diverts her eyes to the green reusable bags for sale on the rack next to the check-out line. The pressure to go green is huge, so it's no wonder we're seeing company recycling efforts (Sony), corporations seeking ways to reduce their carbon footprint (IBM), even truck fleets running on vegetable oil (Safeway).

But companies have a fine line to toe between doing what's right because it makes sense and doing what's popular because it makes them look good - what could be called the greening of marketing. Can a company or brand create awareness for its social responsibility without coming across as patting its own back - or worse, merely jumping on the green bandwagon to capitalize on a growing trend?

Can a green message be integrated into promotional campaigns or will customers view the mixing of commerce and social responsibility with skepticism?

Continue reading "It Ain't Easy Being Green" »

Posted by Jennifer O'Connell at 08:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

40-somethings know that the term jumped the shark was coined after an episode of Happy Days when Fonzie overcame his fear of sharks by jumping over one while water skiing. The series was pretty much over from that point on. A lot of times TV shows jump the shark when a couple has a baby (Mad About You), a new character is added (Cousin Oliver on the Brady Bunch) or a couple hook up (Tony and Angela on Who's the Boss). Bad decisions that ruin a good thing.

When a TV show and an advertiser hook up during the show is it possible that either one or both can jump the shark? I believe that it's true. Every time an advertiser gets in bed with a TV show the potential is there. Trading Spaces jumped the shark when Paige Davis—reading from a script—told the red team to clean up their newly designed room with Swiffer mops and Bounty. The show would hit us over the head with a product demo then cut to a 5 second close-up of the logo on the package conveniently placed on the counter. Talk about buzz-kill.

Advertisers are buying into the idea that consumers aren't watching TV commercials, that the DVR is killing the medium. Maybe this is sorta true, but I think that what they are doing now—sponsorship inside of a TV show—is killing their brand and ruining the show at the same time. As a consumer and creative director, I am conflicted. I can't blame brands for trying to reach consumers. And I can't blame networks for trying to replace income from less commercial revenue. But as a consumer, I hate it. Most of time it comes off as fake and obnoxious. Is that the right message that brands want to send?

Reality TV is now Brand Advertising TV.

Last night, on Bravo TV's Top Chef, Padma told the cheftestants "Get into your Highlanders, we are going on a field trip." We then see 3 Toyota Highlanders rolling down the road and park behind each other. Close up on car logo. Ugh. I'd rather see more cooking. Then, Padma tells us and the cheftestants that the block party cooking challenge is sponsored by mealstogether.com. What? Who? Luckily Kyle/TheBookPolice, a blogger, did the research for me. Mealstogether.com is owned by Clorox. Clorox owns KC Masterpiece, Hidden Valley and Kingsford charcoal. Oh, that's what all the endless close-ups on the labels were for — product pimping. And at the website — a cross promotion with Top Chef. Don't get me started on all of the cuts to Wholefoods products this year. OK I get it. Who is writing and directing the show? The producers, salespeople, advertisers? All the suits. No one creative.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

I am ranting about this because my beloved Apple is killing their brand during Amercian Idol. Apple has the best advertising on TV. Period. I have never seen product demonstration ads better than the iPhone spots. Or anything hipper than the iPod commercials. Loved the Mac and PC guys. And I think I have every word of "New Soul" song featured in the new Macbook Air commercial memorized. It plays during Idol and everywhere else on the TV.

Last week Ryan Seacrest "borrowed" an iPhone from a girl in the audience who just happened to have one in her hand. He then pretended to demonstrate — the screen was black — how easy it is to use an iPhone to download a Idol's song from iTunes. Behind him a video showed a close up (someone else) touching an iPhone. Bad, bad product demonstration. Last night we saw a five minute video about how the Idols record their songs that are available on iTunes. One used the iPod to learn her song. Cut to iPod while she talked about her iPod. One downloads other Idols' songs. Cut to iTunes Website while she talked about iTunes. Cut to Idol working on the laptop. And so on and so on. A 5 minute lame commercial disguised as a behind-the-scenes package on the contestants. Shame on Fox. Shame on Apple. And I can't believe Steve Jobs approves of this.

Advertisers beware. People are starting to rant. Read the ew.com TV Watch recaps and the reader comments. Bloggers and consumers are talking negatively and complaining about the endless promotions during TV shows. Think twice before hooking up on TV. Has the Apple brand jumped the shark because it's in bed with Idol? Can you think of any other Brands that have jumped the shark because of TV show tie-ins?

Posted by Nancy Carle at 03:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

I was recently reading a Mediapost article by Tameka Kee about how so much creative these days, both online and offline, is ineffective.  While Tameka also argued that some agencies are doing a very nice job producing compelling, highly effective ads and content, I think it is worth focusing a bit more on what isn't working - and why. 

In my opinion, you can blame your creative if you are absolutely sure that your contact plan is optimal.  Otherwise, how do you know that certain elements of your plan, such as target audience selection, media placement, timing or day-parting, channel mix, and a host of other elements, are perfectly planned?  How do you know if the consumer insights fed to your creative team were accurate and useful?  My guess is that you don't always know, so don't be so quick to point the finger when an execution or campaign is not successful. 

Recently, I was playing basketball and a fellow co-worker went down with a serious knee injury (actually, a combination of serious knee injuries!).  When I was in the office the next day and Googled terms such as "torn patella tendon" and "fractured tibia," I was directed to content areas on About.com and WebMD to learn more about these knee injuries.  I usually only pay attention to online display ads when they are highly relevant and eye-catching, but for some reason I was really in-tune with the banners served up to me on these sites each time I refreshed.  I kept a running tally of the ads I saw on About.com: 

1. Mio DigiWalker C230 GPS at Radio Shack
2. Verizon High Speed Internet for $12.99/month
3. Verizon Camera Phone
4. University of Phoenix
5. Saturn Astra
6. Classmates.com (included Boston copy in the ad, but listed Mesa High School as a local high school)
7. AT&T LG Camera Phone
8. Claritin

Other than the Classmates.com ad, not one of these ads seemed to be geo-targeted.  And, as noted above, it was quite transparent to see mention of Mesa High School in a Boston-based ad.  As for the Verizon High Speed Internet banner, I clicked on it to see if Verizon even had service where I worked or lived.  Nope.  In fact, I eventually ended up at what seemed to be a broken page on the site after entering my zip code.  Nice job Verizon!

Alternatively, I thought that maybe I was being served some of these ads within an online ad network due to my surfing behavior and profile points.  What perplexed me though, was if these advertisers considered my visitation to sites such as Boston.com, Yahoo! Mail, and ESPN.com, as well as marketing and media properties, reason enough to serve me ads for Claritin or cell phones.  Maybe something in my web surfing behavior suggested that these ads were behaviorally targeted, but I didn't see a connection.  Or, maybe I'm in the target demographic for these brands.  Again, not sure. 

What I do know is that most people researching the knee issues I was learning about probably would be more receptive to ads that are much more contextually relevant.  An advertiser promoting a product for knee pain relief or a geo-targeted ad representing a local clinic specializing in knee injuries would likely be much more well-received.  The better the relevance, the less impactful or effective the creative needs to be.  However, combine the two elements and you have a highly compelling combination.

Continue reading "Bad Creative. Or is It Bad Planning?" »

Posted by Doug Ellinger at 06:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The other day on my way home from work, I heard a sponsorship message on the local NPR station from a financial consulting firm claiming to help companies with "dynamic needs." Maybe it was just because I'd had a long day or because my blood sugar was low, but it really annoyed me. What exactly is a "dynamic" need? Can a need really be "marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change"? (Merriam-Webster's definition.) What the sponsor meant - I think - was that they could help companies with constantly changing needs. But instead of just saying that, they threw in the much less precise "dynamic."

Now, admittedly, the word "dynamic" is sexier and more, well, dynamic than "constantly changing." But it's also one of the most overused words in B2B marketing and, as such, has almost lost its meaning entirely. The same could be said for "innovative," "cutting-edge" and "forward-thinking." (If a company really is all of these things, I always wonder, shouldn't it be able to think of a more original way to describe itself?)

Of course, my frustration in this area is hardly novel. People have been complaining about marketing clichés for as long as there has been marketing. ("By golly, if I read about one more of these 'new and improved' snake oil tonics, I'm going to bust my buttons!") What starts as fresh is doomed to become over-used and stale, and will ultimately ring hollow.

A couple years back, Jonathan Kranz actually posted a frequency report of what he terms "gobbledygook" in business press releases - words and phrases like "next generation," "robust," and "groundbreaking." (Surprisingly, "dynamic" isn't on his list.)

I'm not suggesting that words like these can or should be avoided completely. But they should be employed with caution, and used with precision -- not sprinkled into copy just because they sound "snappy." In most cases, simple, straightforward language snaps best of all. 

Posted by Jane Roper at 09:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Boston Business Journal is part of my required reading. I look for it every Friday and I've always gone cover to cover by the following Monday. It does a great job reporting across all the key industries, it is civically minded, the writers are well informed, the writing is lively, and largely spot on.

But I take a lot of heat from my people at PARTNERS+simons for not providing illustrative information to the BBJ so we can be included appropriately in the annual list of the "Area's Largest Advertising Firms." A few clients have even wondered about this -- which is a bit more awkward, frankly.

For those ART+Science blog readers who may be unfamiliar with the list, agencies submit "2007 Massachusetts billings" and the number of "Massachusetts employees" among other data points having to do with business breakdown by media and by discipline. But a close look at the list reveals that there is something very squirrelly afoot, that there is a lack of integrity in the information that some of these agencies present about themselves.

For example, the agency listed at #3 claims $2.6 million in billings per employee, the #4 agency claims $4.7 million and #5 claims a whopping $8.6 million, but the poor shop that's ranked #6 reports only $1.2 million per employee. Are these agencies in the same industry? No amount of analysis of the breakdown by media or discipline can satisfactorily explain the astonishing differences.

Instead of presenting some visibility into the relative scale of the region's advertising agencies, the list says more about the hyperbole some agencies invoke on their own behalf. I am sure there are some truthful numbers, and I have a general idea whose those are. And in a more intimate setting, I'd point out where the truth is on leave.

My strategy? I don't play, and I don't feel left out.

Posted by Tom Simons at 04:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When it comes to technology there are two types of marketers. The brand marketers who communicate an aspirational vision that establishes their company as a category thought-leader while connecting with prospects. And the demand generation marketers, who feast on the pain points of prospects to convert them into leads and ultimately sales.

The reality of the situation is that it's tough to be aspirational when constantly yelling fire in the theater. It's equally as difficult to drive action while preaching what a wonderful place the world is. No wonder there's been many a rumble within technology marketing teams.

What is more important, connecting or converting?

BOTH

Your brand communications, even though striking an aspirational tone, need to also give a reason for your prospects to take action. No action means no revenue. That eventually leads to a visit from your CFO and another round of the very fun game of tourniquet budgeting.

Your demand generation communications need to pay attention to the brand impression they leave behind, especially, to the other 98% who didn't convert. Ignore this and miss the opportunity to set the stage for future sales. You can also suffer from a lower sales conversion as opportunities can fizzle late in the process if your message doesn't resonate with the senior level decision makers who actually own the budget.

So how can you connect AND convert?

Continue reading "Aspirational Pain?" »

Posted by Doug Fox at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Tylenol's current "Feel better" campaign is an intriguing new direction in healthcare advertising - one that we can learn from as fellow marketers. Not only is it a totally different tone for Tylenol as a brand, it's also a different take on the challenge of securing both the headaches and hearts of consumers.

One of the campaign's core tenets is providing people with simple tips to lead healthier lives. For example, how better posture can help you avoid headaches. Or how a warm bath can lower a baby's fever. In essence, they're telling us how to avoid Tylenol, which on first glance seems pretty foolhardy.

Imagine Dunkin' Donuts advertising how a good night's rest will keep us from needing coffee. It's not going to happen. Besides, "America runs on 8 hours of sleep" isn't nearly as catchy of a tagline.

Yet Tylenol's campaign works. Created by Deutsch New York, it rings true on a human level, reminding us that, yes, we get sick. Yes, we are fragile. Yet there are simple ways to address these issues—and feel better. And if that doesn't work, maybe Tylenol will. It's a subtle soft sell that strikes the right balance.

 
Even the design is friendly and welcoming, as if the ads are just notes left for you across the media landscape, signed "Feel better, Tylenol." It's a great tagline, especially on the heels of their "Stop. Think. Tylenol" campaign, which was clinical and cold.

I actually worked on a pitch for Tylenol in 2004 while I was at Hill, Holliday. We lost, but when the "Stop. Think." campaign came out, I was shocked. Our ideas connected on a personal, emotional level. Clinical just felt wrong. Apparently Tylenol agreed, albeit four years later. Lesson learned.

The "Feel better" campaign seems so commonsensical, which is probably why it feels so different. Not to sound like a brand ambassador, but it just makes me feel better about Tylenol. AdGabber agrees, while also taking a closer look at the Tylenol TV spot's focus on the realities of aging.

Striking that right chord in an extremely crowded and competitive healthcare marketplace isn't easy. You may disagree that Tylenol actually achieves it, but you have to admit how big of a struggle it can be sometimes. Frankly, it's enough to give you a headache. Hmmm, that gives me an idea…

Posted by Matt Fishbein at 08:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)