Bing Hopes 3-Month UK Ad Campaign Can Wipe Away 10 Years of Sucking Wind

I don’t remember what Microsoft’s search engine share was, when I left the UK in the summer of 2000, but I’m pretty sure it was a lot better than the current anemic 3%.

According to the Guardian, Microsoft would love for Bing to recapture those glory days and is willing to spend the rest of its natural life next 3 months trying to claw it back.

The three-month campaign, which includes three TV ads created by the agency JWT, starts on Wednesday and uses the strapline "Bing and decide". The ads aim to show that Bing simplifies the "information overload" that accompanies the results of many searches.

The TV campaign will run solidly for a month and then in two-week bursts until mid-June. It will be backed by a digital campaign across Microsoft’s network and on media including social networking websites.

Three whole months, huh? Way to lay it all on the line Microsoft. You lose market share over a 10-15 year period and expect to win it all back by reaching consumers while they’re watching Coronation Street?

Of course, I know that Bing’s ad campaign won’t run for just 3 months–just this particular push–but consider this: Google achieved 90% share in the UK via word-of-mouth. Bing has been available to UK users–albeit in beta–since June. If they felt that Bing was truly revolutionizing search, they would have pushed the needle already. Right?

People You Know Influential, Social Media Isn’t, in Purchase Decisions

People may be more honest on Facebook these days, but we still don’t trust them. MediaPost reports that an ARAnet study shows social media and search engine recommendations coming out tied among the general population—but search engine recommendations leap out in front among affluent (>$75,000/yr—49%) and younger adults (25-34—50% vs. 31% for social media).

However, the general consensus was that personal advice from friends or family members was tops, with 59% rating it as important in influencing their buying decisions. But to me, that sounds like a completely different dynamic—are we supposed to be measuring the influence of people we know vs. strangers vs. corporate messages, or are we measuring what medium is more influential? If your mom delivers her advice via your Facebook wall, are you less likely to take it than if she told you in a phone call? Is it surprising that most people trust people they know, who know them and their preferences, than random strangers on search engines or social networks?

Maybe the medium isn’t the message.

The full breakdown, however, does show an interesting breakdown among the information from people we don’t know (and from corporate sources):

Overall, most people participating in the survey — 59% — choose personal advice from friends or family members; followed by TV news or other broadcasts at 40%; search engines Google, Bing, Yahoo or Ask at 39%; TV ads, 36%; articles in newspapers or magazines, 33%; newspapers or magazines ads, 31%; online articles, 28%; and radio news or other broadcasts ads, 25%.

The remainder of the breakdown follows. Direct mail came in at 24%; radio ads, 20%; emails from retailers or manufacturers, 20%; online ads, 19%; messages or posts on social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or MySpace, 18 percent; and billboards, 15%.

Also note that the younger segment found social media to be far more influential than the general population did—31% vs. 18%. They also liked corporate information more: 32% (vs 20% for all respondents) appreciated information in emails from retailers or manufacturers, and 30% believed online ads were influential.

So really, what we’re saying is that younger people on the Internet are more influenced by random strangers and advertising.

What do you think? Is it the source of information or the medium used to convey it that has more influence here?

Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

Will the New Google Chrome TV Ads Convince You to Dump Firefox or IE?

When we shared Google’s first TV ad for its Chrome browser, Marketing Pilgrim’s had mixed opinions about it: some hate it, some loved it.

OK, so now we have a new series of TV ads out of Google’s UK office. What do you think of these?

My take? I grew up in England–and our UK readers can will relate to this–but the ads look like they were directed by the creator of Bagpuss!

(via Mashable)

Google Testing Skippable Ads in YouTube Videos

Online ads might be working well for news sites, but YouTube is always looking for a bigger piece of the online video advertising pie. As of today, Google is testing skippable ads on YouTube, as part of its ongoing search for the “right” way to monetize the most popular video site on the web.

The test will run with videos from content partners who have opted in to the program. The preroll ads will feature a link to skip through the ad and go straight to the video content.

MediaPost says that this test will provide Google with a demographic break down of their audience for high quality ads:

The test that determines if and when people watch the video clips will provide Google with insight into the type of person who may skip an ad, what type of ad they might skip, and what piece of content does better than another. Google also will look at whether some ads are skipped in a specific portion of the session. Does the person skip the ad in the first video versus the third during a 30-minute time slot while on YouTube?

This information could be assembled into another ad method: “The model is cost per engagement, where advertisers would only pay for opt-in engaged views of the ads.” Phil Farhi, product manager at Google’s YouTube, mentions that the promoted videos model is another example in this area, and in the future, there could be a model where advertisers only pay for complete plays of their ads.

They’re also comparing TV ads vs. video ads created specifically for online audiences. Generally, television ads take 30 seconds to make sure viewers get the message, image and contact/purchase information (call to action). Online, the call to action can run along side the video, in accompanying text that remains after the ad is over, they can use direct links or other methods.

What do you think? Will you skip ads on YouTube? Could this finally be the way to monetize YouTube?

Microsoft Now Promoting Cashback Program With TV Ads

TechCrunch reports Microsoft is continuing with the Bing TV commercials but this time promoting the Cashback program.
Most recently, Bing doubled the Cashback rewards to drive more awareness to the program. That double reward increase was so successful on some sites that Microsoft had to pull the program four days early. Maybe TV commercials [...]

….

Yahoo’s Testing a New Search Interface…Bing’s Interface Actually

It’s not really a secret that Yahoo has given up on search. If handing the keys to the car over to Microsoft didn’t give it away, then the next step would be to run TV ads saying “We’ve! Given! Up! on Search!”–yeah, complete with those annoying exclamation marks, Yahoo! likes! to! use!

So, Yahoo really isn’t fooling anyone with the announced testing of a new search engine interface. Sure, superficially we get to see lots of cool new features such as “show results from” filters, social media content, video playback within search results, and a whole host of new whistles and bells, but it’s nothing more than prepping for surgery. In this case, the surgical implanting of Microsoft’s Bing.

Here’s a screenshot of how some folks will see Yahoo’s search results:

And, here’s how a similar search on Bing looks:

So, basically, this is nothing more than Yahoo preparing its users for a switch to Bing–and its three column search design.

That’s it, end of story!

If you think there’s something more to this, then please feel free to sound-off in the comments below.

The One in Which I Ponder the Chances of Success for Microsoft & Yahoo

Now that we’ve all had time to digest Microsoft’s 10-year deal with Yahoo, it’s time to ask ourselves if this partnership will live up to the hype?

It seems like we’ve been talking about this deal every other day for the past year or more. In fact, digging through the Marketing Pilgrim archives–and ending up 30 pages deep in “Microsoft/Yahoo” rumors–I discovered it was back in September of 2007 that the idea first germinated:

…Under the scenario discussed by top executives, Yahoo would have outsourced that search-advertising activity — which places small text ads next to Web search results — to either Google or Microsoft Corp…

At the time, Yahoo’s then CEO Jerry Yang said there were “no sacred cows” for the company. Then promptly dismissed any notion that the company would give up operating its own search engine.

My, how things have changed.

Now–with the drama behind us and the deal announced–we need to consider if this act of collusion will end up presenting a serious challenge to Google’s dominance. While Microsoft’s Bing.com continues to inch forward with market share, will the general search public flock to the Google alternative–or will it send us deeper into the warm embrace of the search engine we’ve loved for the past decade?

I could see how we might ultimately come to like Bing. It’s got a catchy name, some cool TV ads running, and could provide those that love to live outside the mainstream, a flashy new search engine to evangelize. But, does a partnership with Yahoo actually dilute Bing’s chances of success? I’m not talking about success as measured by an increase in market share–by that measure, the deal is already a winner. I’m talking about real success. The kind of success that doesn’t just come from cannibalizing Yahoo’s existing search traffic, but from honest-to-goodness market share stolen from Google.

That’s where I simply don’t see much chance of a happy ending. I’ve worked for a company that decided it wanted to increase market share by means of acquisitions. Sure, you get to show growth on paper, but that’s not growth that’s sustainable. It pleases the shareholders, but neither the heart or mind are satisfied. Want further proof that buying market share is not sustainable? Take a look at the stagnation going on over at IAC’s Ask.com.

The biggest obstacle now facing Microsoft’s Bing is this: do we consider it a weaker offering, because it had to partner with Yahoo? Or, does the partnership increase its chances of success?

Perhaps the only glimmer of hope for Microsoft is that Yahoo has played this role in a previous life. Remember when all of your searches at Yahoo were powered by Google? Back then, Google was still building its own audience, and the exposure provided by Yahoo was, obviously, valuable to the company. Can Yahoo do the same for Bing?

There are many questions that I’m leaving unanswered. This post is merely a means for me to share my own thoughts on the deal–not to tell you how you should feel about it. Feel free to chime in with your own opinion on the chances of Microsoft and Yahoo truly challenging Google. I look forward to reading them!

<img border="0" src="http://constanthit.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/3be0d_vertical-leap-seo-234.gif”>

Only 33% of Us Trust Our “Online” Friends; Barely More Than Trust in Banner Ads!

It seems like a new report on social media marketing is released weekly. Today, we see a new report from Razorfish–which surely must help with its attempts to find a knight in shining armor.

Aside from Razorfish’s creation of a new Social Influence Marketing (SIM) Score–which measures the reach and sentiment of your brand in social media–there’s nothing earth-shattering contained in the Fluent report.

Except, perhaps, this:

76% of the 1,000 consumers polled, said they trust their offline friends when making a product purchase decision. Compare that to just 33% who say they trust their online friends!

Clearly, this demonstrates that while social networks might encourage us all to be one big friendly social network, we’re clinging to our old-school definition of friend. It’s somewhat encouraging to see that we’re not collectively being duped into believing that when we add someone as a "friend" we’re instantly BFFs.

More startling is we trust our online friends less than we trust TV ads, social network ads, or online reviews. In fact, we barely trust the opinions of our online friends more than we trust banner ads!

This chart sums-up our trust:

You can read the full report here.

Search Ads Less Helpful than TV, Newspaper

The results of a new poll from Harris Interactive indicate that Internet advertising isn’t as effective as search engine marketers would like to think. When asked what medium’s ads were most helpful in making purchase decisions, the 2500+ American respondents indicated that first television, then newspapers, then search engine ads. Internet banner ads fared even worse:

• 37% said television ads were most helpful in purchase decisions
• 18% said newspaper ads
• 14% said search engine ads
• 3% said radio ads
• 1% said Internet banner ads

Perhaps most revealing, however, is the math. Those numbers don’t add up to 100% because another 28% (rounding effects) said that none of those ad media were helpful in purchase decisions.

The Harris poll also asked about what kinds of ads people ignore. Again, the banner ads didn’t do so well:

• 46% tended to ignore Internet banner ads
• But only 17% of people said they ignored search engine ads
• 13% ignored TV ads
• 9% ignored radio ads
• 9% don’t ignore any of those ad media

The full results (PDF) break out the data by demographic and geography:

I’m kind of torn about these results. I’ve long said that as an Internet marketer, I’m proud to have people so subtly influenced by search engine ads that they don’t recognize that influence later. On the other hand, it’d be nice to be considered “helpful.” On yet another hand, since when is the point of advertising to be found “helpful”? Should that even be our goal?

What do you think? Is this something to get worried about, or should we go along our merry way, advertising or persuading but not “helping” people?

via

TV Better Learn a Lesson From Newspapers

We have chronicled the slow death of the newspaper industry for a while now. First, there was the thought that maybe the Internet could displace newspapers with the delivery of content in a more timely and personalized manner. Newspapers decided that they were doing just fine and that they were moving into the digital world in a way that could help them maintain their content delivery fiefdom with no problems. Now, we see a landscape of wreckage where some of the most venerable names in newspaper including the Boston Globe are losing value both monetarily and in reputation. It’s been painful to watch but now there is even more carnage predicted as a result of the Internet age.

Henry Blodget penned a column over at Ad Age that can be summed up neatly in its headline “Sorry, There’s No Way to Save the TV Business; It Should Take Its Cues From What Happened to Newspapers”.

The traditional TV industry — cable companies, networks and broadcasters — is where the newspaper industry was about five years ago: in denial.

If this is even half true the folks on the TV side of the ledger better wake up and smell the erosion. The erosion of their leverage, profits and influence is taking place but it is believed that the arrogance that led to the dismantling of the newspaper industry is just as active in the TV world.

Specifically, the TV industry’s attitude is the same as the newspaper industry’s attitude was circa 2002 to 2003: Stop calling us dinosaurs. We get digital; we’re growing our digital businesses; we’re investing in digital platforms; people still recall ads even when they fast-forward through them on DVRs; there’s no substitute for TV ads. And traditional TV isn’t going away: Just look at our revenue and profits!

Blodget posits that the Internet still represents such a small percentage of profits and revenue of TV today but as it continues to grow the tide will quickly turn. As a result, the traditional broadcast industry will buckle and eventually crumble under the weight of its own in cost structure. Sounds painful.

So why is TV still successful? The old model may still have some legs but it is certainly aging out fast. Less and less people are dependent on TV of their information and entertainment. A quick comparison shows the following:

Television Depends On

1. Few options at home other than TV
2. No way to get video content other than TV
3. Only broadcast, cable and satellite options to get TV content
4. Choke points for delivery give inordinate control to those who own the access points

Reality Is

1. More and more simple fun options including games, Internet, social media etc.
2. New ways to get traditional TV content like Hulu, YouTube, iTunes etc.
3. More options for video content including telcos and cable companies providing broadband
4. The Internet is everywhere. You can connect more easily, more often than ever and that will only get better

So how has the TV industry responded?

Thus far, the TV industry has reacted to these changes the way most people would: by trying to port its existing model to the new world and maintain its hold on power and money. This is why we’re getting so many ridiculous, consumer-unfriendly TV solutions

These solutions include, but are not exclusive to, market-based control over what can or can’t be watched, single episode downloads that expire after 24 hours and time shifting of popular shows.

So Blodget’s conclusion is as you may have guessed; TV is headed for the gallows and a slow death from their own ignorance and arrogance.

You won’t have five channels, or 50 channels, or 500 channels. You’ll have millions of channels. You’ll be able to watch anything you want, live or taped. You’ll be able to watch it wherever you want — TV, computer, mobile device. You won’t have to sorry about “slinging” video content around or programming your DVR. You’ll just plug a pipe (internet) into a box (device) and watch.

So all of folks in TV land better take heed. The same day that you reach for your morning paper that no longer exists at your desk in the corporate office could be the same day that your control is handed over your viewers and they leave you for greener pastures. Then what?