(from The Economist)
I saw some figures from Comscore today that put the global online audience at a little over one billion people – and showing China taking over from the US at the number 1 spot.
Seems a long time since we were arguing about whether online would ever make it to the position of being a significant part of the media mix for advertisers.
Sandlines is firmly of the view that 2009 will be a (comparatively) good year for digital marketers – in as much as everyone is hurting, we will hurt least, according to the latest Bellwether reports.
For me, the key to this is that marketers need to think in terms of the people they are marketing to: ie people not simply figures on a spreadsheet.
In other words:
- audience not ‘impressions’;
- individualised/targeted messaging (the right message to the right person at the right time);
- conversations that listen, not just ’spray and pray’ broadcast.
The technical capabilities to do this are increasingly there, in our hands. Let’s use them! There’s a billion reasons out there to get it right.
| 3.2 |
the brains behind your shopping expedition?
Over the Christmas break, Sandlines spent some time reading – and one article in particular (from The Economist) keeps coming back to haunt. It’s all about the science of shopping, and suggests that retailers probably know more about what we’re doing inside their stores as we do. And they’re using that information to get us spending more.
Ever wondered why they keep shifting your regular purchases around at your local supermarket? Or putting the most popular items deep in the store? It’s all about getting us to spend more time in the store… and, it seems, it really does result in fuller shopping baskets.
For me, with my internet focus, this again re-inforces my view that, while we expect retailers to study our browsing patterns online and use that data to sell to us more intelligently, their physical outlets probably know even more – with consumers comparatively unsuspecting.
There are lessons to be learnt here!
| 3.2 |
Welcome back to Sandlines for 2009.
As you may have noticed, since the last few days of 2008, I took a brief Christmas break from blogging, while reflecting on the year gone by, and the challenges of the year ahead.
At the same time, I’ve been considering options about what I’ll be doing for a living in 2009 and beyond. I’ll spill the beans next week, but the decision is made and I’m starting my new role on Monday.
Don’t expect any major changes in content here: Sandlines is still fully focused on the changes that technology is bringing to the marketing discipline – and how the current recession plays to that. And more than ever before, Sandlines believes that relevance is the key to unlocking return on investment.
To what extent will marketing expenditure online be positioned as a ‘cost of sale’ rather than a separate budgeting line?
| 3.2 |
Danger indefinitely...
I spent an interesting couple of hours with a friend of mine this morning who has been a casualty of the melt down in the financial services market. We were chewing over some of the interesting questions about what happens with his industry after the current crisis.
From one perspective, ‘wealth management’ has been based on balancing risk with desire for above-average returns on investment. The industry has been trying to tell us that they’d ‘eliminated’ risk. Right.
So once things do get back to growth once more, will the people who have wealth to invest trust the people who had been looking after it up to now? Will what appeared safe still have that caché? Or will they completely reassess their view of risk?
Our consensus was that there is risk in anything we do, and it’s far better to understand that from the outset. As my friend pointed out, there is now definitely perceived risk in putting money into the bank – or into property. Even government bonds don’t look entirely risk free (Iceland, anyone?)
So is there a technology play that can do better?
Or are we back into trusting investment advisers’ views, based on their past track reconds? And if so, how do we address the problem that it’s almost unknown for any fund manager to remain at the top for any meaningful time horizons?
There are clearly some very bright people in that industry, but there are also a lot of people who, in my friend’s metaphor, command Premiership salaries while being Conference players.
It almost makes me glad that I don’t have the problem of having ‘wealth’ that needs management!
| 3.2 |
Recent Comments