Advertising Week 2011 recap: Part 2

The sessions I attended during day two of Advertising Week 2011 were informative but nothing I hadn’t heard from day one. These sessions, especially the panels and round tables, did little more than affirm that we are indeed living in a social, multi-platform world in which advertisers can no longer simply talk at consumers. This is because consumers have more ways of talking back. Here is what I found useful from day two.

Bloomberg Round Table – McCann World Group, Global Hue, MPG, Dentsu Network West, OMG Worldwide, Colle+McVoy

The big takeaway from this session was a stat about how companies are investing in technology and staffing to surmount the challenges associated with technology. Companies that use to invest 10 million dollars with 40 year olds are now investing 1 million with 20 year olds. They want people for whom technology is less like door hiding social interactions until you’ve mastered how to open it and more like the process of social interaction, itself.

The discussions also included less inspired observations, including the following statements:

• Technology is only as good as one’s engagement with it (as opposed to the technology that is great in and of itself)
• Agencies need to find a way to engage new platforms and experiment with changing technology (I’m sure that somewhere there are businesses that have been successful despite their unwillingness to change with technology, like . . . newspapers?)
• Clients want more for less (no comment necessary)
• Relevant media is more important than old or new media (I smell a new buzzword)

One panelist made the bold claim that long term planning is dead; that it’s more important for agencies to be more fluid and organic. I’m not sure I buy this one. Sure, it’s a different world than 1984, but would Apple be what it is today if it abandoned long-term planning? The knack for seeing the longview is still evident in their products (but we’ll have to see just how well they’re able to continue in the wake of Jobs’ death).

Todays Marketing Reality – Facebook Facts

Marketing professionals have been banging the Facebook drum for a while now, but unless you really look for supporting data you’re not likely to find a compelling reason to set up a company page other than because you heard it at a conference. This session actually offered some statistics about the social website, but, as with everything else, the stats have little meaning unless they’re put into context. Here are a few facts to crank out at your next networking social:

• Facebook now has 800 million users
• 2 billion posts are logged every day
• There are 100 million people visiting Facebook pages every day
• Users who “like” a brand on Facebook are 51% more likely to make a purchase
• According to Nielson, users are three times more engaged when a friend “likes” something, 68% more likely to remember the product, and four times more likely to make a purchase

The speaker also talked about Facebook’s Timeline feature, which is a sort of digital scrapbook that’s even more revealing than your regular profile. As far as which businesses are doing a good job with their Facebook campaigns, hopefuls should look at the Facebook pages for Starbucks, Bing and Southwest Airlines.

CNBC – Masters of Monetization – Facebook, Groupon, Huffington Post, AT&T Adworks, Buzzfeed

The points that the speakers made during this panel may seem obvious, but they were hitting some fairly simple points because sometimes answering the simplest question involves a complex solution. For instance, the notion that advertisers need to show brands how they can monetize on digital and convince brands to advertise on creative social platforms is a no-brainer, but a lack of a verifiable methods continue to leave advertisers looking for performance measurements. Now that consumers have more of a voice advertisers are dependent on consumers to be the catalyst for products.

The assertion that brands have to be storytellers and social by design is also a generic blanket statement that begs the question, “why don’t we create disjointed messages and only face inward?” Maybe that approach would work for some business. Bob Greenberg, after all, recently forecasted the end of metaphor.

Playing the Symphony of Screens or Creating Cacophony? Bill Buxton, Microsoft

It seems that the only time advertisers and brands have the opportunity to step back, return to basics and think about what matters is when they’re at a conference such as Advertising Week. Buxton’s phone example made this notion evident: The job may be to advertise a phone, but what you’re really selling is the conversation. When you’re constantly answering questions about features and functionality, and we get plenty of those at Wiredrive, it’s easy to forget that solving a problem or enhancing a particular experience is why customers are interested in your products in the first place.

The same kind of logic should be used to approaching how ads are delivered. The surprisingly obvious is the best kind of advertising. For example, wouldn’t it be a better experience for potential customers to pop up an application on an ad rather than a popup ad on an application?

Game Changers – MySpace, ATT Adworks, Live Nation, Martini Media, Deutsch NY, Major League Eating

One useful point was brought up during this panel: people with more money spend more time online. This is the kind of information that advertisers can take advantage of. Other than that, the panelists beat some standard drums, such as the idea that agencies need to integrate media with unique and distinct ideas. Additionally, it’s valuable to build a relationship with a brand so they trust and believe in your innovative ideas.

I had to listen a little harder to tease out the good stuff from the sessions I attended, but the day was definitely worthwhile. Stay tuned for part three of my Advertising Week 2011 recap.