Skip to main content

The Curse of Advertising Resources


With more platforms, more products and more content who are trying to reach a disengaged audience, it is becoming harder and harder for brands to stand out. Conventional practices are no longer working. People don't watch TV as much as they used to, so they don't see commercials.  They don't click on banner ads. They don't pay attention to billboards ads. And they don't trust brands' messages. Part of the problem is that we are too dependent on traditional ad resources, which limits the realm of our creativity. To thrive in this new environment, we, ironically, need the freedom of a tight brief: what can you do with no budget for mass media?  Or limited marketing communications dollars? 
To make a comparison, traditional advertising is a lot like countries and economies that rely on oil. This reliance handicaps innovation. Countries with a vast amount of natural resources tend to have (1) less economic growth and (2) worse development rates than other countries that have fewer natural resources. There are a lot of things that contribute to this, but a glaring reason is that there isn't pressure on the country, its economy and its citizens to innovate. This is evident when you look at countries that don't have natural resources. Those countries are successful because their survival depends on innovation. Israel, Taiwan, Japan and Singapore are great examples of this; these countries rank among the most competitive nations in the world, despite the fact that they have no natural resources. 
We can apply these same principles to advertising. Brands with big ad budgets tend to play it safe and default to traditional ad methods (e.g., TV, Prints, banners).  But today, safe can kill you.  Startups with very limited or no advertising budgets, on the other hand, need to be creative to survive.  Their livelihood depends on looking for innovative ways to get people talking. Dropbox, Airbnb and Facebook marketing tactics, in the infancy of these companies, is a prime example of innovation. They used non-traditional methods of "growth hacking" such as referral, partnerships, and badges to increase reach and, ultimately, get attention. 
Did you know that Dropbox is worth $4 billion despite the fact that it's invested very little on advertising? What have they done that’s made their business so successful? Incentivized referrals. Referrals increased Dropbox signups by 60%.Dropbox makes it easy for users to tell one another about the product and, in some cases, gives users incentives to make referrals. For example, when a Dropbox user refers Dropbox to another person, both people, pending signup, get a 500MB increase. Dropbox also gives users a 125MB increase if they follow them on Twitter or like on Facebook.
In the early days, Airbnb was facing a problem on the supply and demand side. By integrating their service with Craigslist, a platform with million of users, Airbnb was able to gain reach and traction. If a property owner published a listing on Airbnb.com, the site would propose to publish it, with just one click, on Craigslist.com, which would then link back to the original listing.

Similarly, Facebook had some roadblocks when it first started: it wasn’t acquiring users as quickly as it had hoped and the goal to gain 200 million users in 12 months started to feel unrealistic. Facebook managed to accomplish this, however, with some growth-hacking techniques. The first hack was giving away embeddable badges and widgets that users could post on their websites and blogs, linking people back to their Facebook page. This change alone led to millions of signups.
Growth hacking is a mindset. You don't have to be a startup to think outside the box.  A good example is Virgin Airlines' safety video. They looked at something other airlines may overlook and saw an unprecedented opportunity to drive media exposure and customer engagement. They launched a competition that invited people to compete to appear in the next Virgin safety video. By doing so, they asked their customer community to co-create their content and infuse the brand with a sense of fun and exploration that makes Virgin and the travel experience all the more exciting.


Today, every big corporations are concerned about the nimble startups even though they have significantly less marketing dollars, people and resources. I think part of the big brands and companies' problem is their inherent dependency on traditional advertising resources. To break the cycle, we need to cut the addiction. This will force them to innovate, regardless of their size.  Make them think: how can I achieve growth with no mass media budget? Or limited marketing communication dollars?
Paradoxically,  ad agencies will be the biggest beneficiary of this change. It plays to their strength: creativity. Today, every big corporation can do almost anything in-house. But they still can't do creativity. Here lies both the opportunity and the challenge for the advertising industry. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Cool Brands Stay Hot: Aim for Love, Not Likes

Love is an unconditional emotion while like is a more watered-down version of love. Loving someone means that he or she means everything to you while liking someone implies that you are only happy being with that person. Love involves deeper, stronger emotions, while like is more of a tender feeling towards that special someone. In a world of infinite choices, love is everything. Like is a nice to have.  Today, we live in a world of abundance, where people intent to create content surpass their time to consume it. Video content is much easier and cheaper to produce than at any other time in history. YouTube sees 400 hours of video uploaded every minute. Facebook has more than 250,000 status updates in the same span. We could never read and see everything online.  With unlimited possibilities and limited time, we pay sustainable attention to what we love and divided attention to what we like. We spend hours watching Homeland and give our divided attention to our news feed on Facebook. …

Adidas kills TV. Now, let’s debate

The News: Adidas is ditching TV for digital. The company is looking to boost its e-commerce revenues from $1.06 billion in 2016 to $4.25 billion by 2020 — and Adidas wants to use digital channels to get there. The Rationale: Fish where the fish are. Younger consumers don't watch TV anymore. They spend most of their time on their mobile devices. The Controversy: Why do they want to ditch a medium that is allegedly more "critical" to the brand and that generates more sales than digital? Here we have the Debate between TV and digital: Media Consumption TV: People are watching TV now more than ever.  Digital: People are consuming media more than ever, but mostly through digital devices. The Fact: In 2017, people are projected to spend 6 hours on digital – with the majority being mobile devices - while only spending 4 hours consuming television according to the eMarketer forecast. Younger viewers watch 2.5 times more internet video than TV. Consumers aged 13-24 watch 12.1 hours …

Winter and Summer in Adland

It is winter in Adland.  We have moved from a world of scarcity to a world of abundance and algorithms.  We have lost the power of influence. Trust has been severely damaged.  Consumer attention is the new bottleneck. We no longer decide who sees us. Instead, we get picked.  30 second is not enough anymore. We need to take consumers through a scenic journey to create a long lasting relationship.  Everyone is a publisher. It is easier than ever to create, but harder than ever to make a hit.  The impulse to make has far outrun the desire to consume.  New forces have emerged in the form of sophisticated algorithms.  A new model has surfaced called "pay per play,” which scored everything we do on relevance to feeding the machine. It decides what gets picked, when, and where, based on extreme relevancy.  Mass media has vanished. Precision and personalization have emerged.  It is winter in Adland. The good days are all long gone.  It is Summer in Adland We now have the power to make bra…