Cream

News

Follow Us

Archive for the ‘Search’ Category

  • Feb
  • 7

5 Myths About Marketing to Affluents Online

5_Myths_about_Marketing_to_Affluents_OnlineLast week, we came across an interesting piece of research regarding affluents and digital media we thought we should share. 

It was conducted last year by Ipsos Mendolsohn in association with the Interactive Advertising Bureau and concerned the use of and attitudes towards digital media by affluent consumers. In this case, ‘affluents’ were defined as those with household incomes over $100,000 (the top 20% of earners).  And although the study was conducted exclusively in the US, we believe thay many parallels would be found amongst UK affluents.

The findings concurred with our own experience but conflicted with many of the myths that circulate about affluent consumers, namely: 

1. Affluent Consumers are More Difficult to Reach than their Less Affluent Counterparts

 This is certainly true of traditional media channels such as TV and radio – in both cases the research found that affluents spent just half of the time consuming TV and radio content than the general US population did – but not of digital media, where it was found that affluent consumers were easier to reach. 

The reasons? They’re more likely to use the internet (98% vs. 79% of the general US population), spend more time online (26.2 hrs per week vs 21.7 hrs per week) and are more likely to own digital devices such as smartphones and tablets when compared to the general population. 

In fact, 79% of them agreed that their lives had become ‘intertwined with technology’.

 2. Affluents Don’t Like Online Advertising 

In fact, affluents were more likely to understand and support (57% vs. 53%) the ad-funded content model than the rest of the US population, realising that publishers needed advertising to support their online activities. 

3. They’re Too Busy to Consume Advertising 

Not true, at least according to this research.  88% had recalled seeing a digital ad compared to 85% of the general US population. And the number of ads they recalled seeing was higher too – 21 in 7 days vs. 20 for the general population. And because of the higher penetration of smartphones, they were more likely to have been exposed to mobile advertising (42% vs. 39% for the general population). 

4. They May See Online Advertising, But They’re Not as Likely to Respond to It 

Wrong again.  Affluents were more likely to become a fan on a social networking site after seeing online advertising, more likely to make purchases (both online and offline) and more likely to share information via email, Twitter or Facebook etc. 

5. Affluents are Less Likely to Share Information About Themselves Online

In fact, the research found US affluents were happier to share information about themselves (32% vs 26% of the general US population) in order to get a better customized online experience. 

In the UK too, affluent consumers are more likely to be online, will spend more of their time online and will access the internet via a wider range of digital devices than their less affluent counterparts. Given this, the reticence of premium and luxury brands to engage deeply in digital channels becomes all the more puzzling. 

In truth, they should be innovating at the sharp end of digital media and many of the successful brands, such as Burberry, are doing exactly that.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Graham Painter

  • Feb
  • 7

How Digitally Competent are Europe’s Niche Fashion Brands?

Digital_IQ_Index_European_Niche_Fashion‘While digital continues to dominate, many of Europe’s niche fashion brands remain absent online.’

That’s the rather damning verdict of Professor Scott Galloway and his team at L2, a thinktank for digital innovation based at NYU Stern, after they turned their Digital IQ lens on to the world of niche fashion in Europe.

Digital IQ is a weighted scoring system to assess the digital competence of luxury brands. Brands are rated in 4 categories – their site (40% of the final IQ rating), their digital marketing (search, display and email marketing, 30% of the rating) and their social media (15%) and mobile marketing efforts (15%).

Brands are then ranked into 5 categories based on their IQ score – from Genius (140+) and Gifted (110-139) to Challenged (70-89) and Feeble (<70).

The reason for Galloway’s damning verdict on the sector?  Well, no brand was able to claim ‘Genius’ status and only 10 of the 46 analysed were rated as ‘Gifted’. By contrast, 32 were rated as either ‘Challenged’ or ‘Feeble’.

Most niche fashion brands were found to underperform on a range of metrics:

- 1/3 were still not selling online.

- less than 1/2 were participating in paid search, with only 43% purchasing their own brand terms on Google.

- their adoption of the 3 big social media platforms lagged well behind the global fashion players and even those that had adopted them often had rudimentary presences. For example, only 23% of the Facebook pages had a custom landing page.

- only 1/3 offered any sort of mobile experience, with 18% of brands in the sample having a mobile site and 17% offering an application. Even for those that did have mobile sites, less than 30% offered a m-commerce option or a store locator.

But it wasn’t all doom and gloom.

Both Vivienne Westwood and Superdry were praised for their Facebook presences – with Superdry in particular held up as a shining example of what can be achieved with regionally focused pages. In addition, both Aubade and Lancel were praised for achieving both significant followings and high levels of engagement on Facebook.

Stella McCartney were commended for their successful twitter persona with close to 200,000 followers (as at October 2011 – well ahead of their nearest rival JP Gaultier at 18,000) and for their interactive iPad app.

And the crown for most gifted niche fashion brand was scooped by Agent Provocateur, which won praise for the quality of their site experience, particularly their personalisation options, their social media integration across channels and the quality and popularity of their YouTube channel. In addition, Agent Provocateur was one of only 2 brands in the sample to offer both a mobile site and an application.

Galloway’s contention is that Digital IQ directly relates to shareholder value, and hence luxury brands that fail to embrace it are doing their shareholders a disservice. Given that the consumers of luxury are more likely to consume digital media, and are more likely to consume that media via a range of channels including mobile, he’s got a point.

Digital innovation is one area where the niche brands can genuinely compete with the global fashion players, unlike traditional media where the winner will always be the brand with the deepest pockets. And examples from the US such as Kate Spade, Tory Burch and Oscar de la Renta show that it can be done. European niche fashion brands need to grasp the digital ‘nettle’ if they’re going to thrive in the competitive world of 21st century fashion.

To download the Digital IQ Index for European Niche Fashion, click here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Graham Painter

  • Nov
  • 1

Which Media Deliver the Best RoI?

Which_Media_Delivers_the_best_RoINo sooner had we reported recent research from ThinkBox which claimed that TV was the medium which delivered the greatest return on investment than that research is contradicted by a new study.

ThinkBox’s research, which analysed campaigns over a 5 year period, found that TV returned £1.70 in profit for every £1 spent, compared to £1.48 for radio, £1.40 for press, £1.06 for online static display and £0.45 for outdoor.

In addition,the study found that TV was the best medium for delivering sales uplift – 2.5 times more effective than it’s nearest rival, press.

However, the results of GfK’s Media Efficiency Panel, released last week, drew very different conclusions.

Their research tracked customer response to 8 major cross-media advertising campaigns from FMCG brands that ran in the last year, across a panel of 7,500 consumers. Sales uplift was measured in the 2-4 week period after the campaigns had finished.

Their findings contrasted sharply with those of Thinkbox’s study. In this case, TV delivered the worst RoI of the media measured – just 43p for every £1 spent.  The best performer was online activity, which delivered an average 75p for every £1 spent, following by press at 66p and Outdoor at 53p.

Online was also found to deliver the best sales uplift – 9% on average as compared to print’s 8%, TV’s 7% and outdoor’s 6%.

So how can 2 seemingly thorough pieces of research draw such widely differing conclusions? The differing scopes and methodologies offer some clues.

For example, ThinkBox’s research incorporated only static display: GfK’s included more effective formats like online video advertising and search, which would have boosted effectiveness scores. GfK’s research only measured short term RoI, measured over 2-4 weeks, something which is going to favour more responsive ad formats such as search and online display. In addition, GfK’s study focused on FMCG only, a sector which already heavily invests – and perhaps over-invests as the research would suggest – in TV. And finally, one could cynically suggest that one survey was sponsored by a body responsible for promoting commercial TV advertising and the other study was conducted in association with Google, a body with a vested interest in online marketing, so the results are compromised by their sponsors.

In truth, arguments about the absolute effectiveness of any medium are rather too general and largely unhelpful. Campaigns rarely happen in one medium, and it’s exceptionally difficult to isolate the impact of any particular medium when all media will be playing differing, but mutually supportive, roles in the purchase process. Understanding how media can work together to optimum effect is the question that most marketers should be striving to find the answers to, and it’s here that GfK’s research does unearth some interesting insights. 

For example, their findings did demonstrate that online activity can deliver substantial reach – in this case, 34% of their panel.  This doesn’t rival TV, with a 73% reach, but it is close to that delivered by press (39%) and exceeds that delivered by outdoor (29%).

But perhaps the most interesting finding was the incremental reach that online delivered. Between 25% and 63% of individuals exposed to at least one online ad were never exposed to the respective TV advertising and 46% of people exposed to YouTube and other online videos ads had no contact with the corresponding TV ads for that campaign.

In this case, online activity was not only found to play its traditional ’sharp end of the purchase funnel’ role of turning interest into action, but to expand the reach of campaigns into hard-to-reach, particularly younger, audiences who tend to escape traditional media activity.

The lesson from these findings is to think digital at the very earliest stages of planning – to understand how it can enhance and extend the reach of your campaign to audiences who may well not see any other channel executions – and not see it as purely a support for traditional media.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Graham Painter

  • Nov
  • 1

Which Fashion Brands Boast the Best Digital Strategies?

Which_Fashion_Brands_Boast_the_Best_Digital_Strategies‘Most fashion brands still approach digital as a series of pet projects rather than presenting a coherent multi-platform strategy.’

This rather critical summary comes from the latest piece of research from the L2 Digital ThinkTank, released last month.

Headed by Professor Scott Galloway of NYU Stern, L2 has been releasing its Digital IQ research since 2009. For the first time, the Digital IQ reports have been broken down by industry, giving Prof Galloway and his team more scope to comment on the performance of each individual sector.

With the invention of Digital IQ, Galloway and his team have attempted to create a universal measure for the digital competence of luxury brands.  Each brand is rated on 4 criteria:

Their sites, which account for 35% of their overal Digital IQ Index, including appraisals of their functionality and content and the translation of the brand online.

Their digital marketing (25%), rating their overall performance in disciplines like search, online display advertising and email.

Their social media efforts (25%), scoring their performance on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Tumblr.

And their mobile strategy (15%), including mobile sites, apps and other mobile innovations like SMS.

Once scored, brands are then classified as ‘Genius’, ‘Gifted’, ‘Average’, ‘Challenged’ or ‘Feeble’ dependent on their overall rating.

So which are the brands their fashion peers should holding up as digital paragons of virtue?

Unsurprisingly, Burberry lead the pack, praised for their sector leading Facebook page (boasting more than 9m fans), an unconventional site which successfully blends content and ecommerce and their continuing innovation on new platforms such as the photo sharing and filtering app Instagram.

But the number 2 slot went to Kate Spade, proving that a thirst for well thought-through innovation is a remedy for a lack of resource and heritage when successfully translating a luxury fashion brand online.  Kate Spade was praised for its customer centric shopping experience, including sharing plug-ins and customer service integration, its integrated and innovative approach to social media, its RoI-driven approach to digital marketing and its desire to experiment with new concepts like F-Commerce.Digital_IQ_Ratings_for_Luxury_Fashion_Brands

But this year’s Digital IQ Index also shows how quickly brands can fall from their perch if they fail to keep up with the pace of innovation.  Hermes’ rating fell 35% on last year, primarily due to a site which the authors felt dated in terms of functionality and technology. And even Oscar de la Renta, a brand which leads the way in social media innovation, was criticised for scant updates to their ecommerce site and a lack of a mobile presence. 

It’s Galloway’s contention that Digital IQ relates directly to profitability and shareholder value, so what can brands do to boost their IQ in the eyes of the L2 team?

In terms of sites, it’s about getting the blend right between content and ecommerce.  Despite 67% of EU consumers claiming they research their luxury purchase online before buying, still 1 in 5 luxury fashion brands in the survey aren’t offering ecommerce capability.

With regard to digital marketing, it’s leveraging simple RoI-proven techniques such as search and email to maximise sales. Kate Spade were praised for their practise of automatically emailing all those who abandoned shopping carts with a free shipping offer to entice shoppers back to the site.

For social media, it’s not just about fan building but engagement and integration. For example, despite 57% of affluent consumers reporting that information gathered on social media influences their luxury purchases, only half of the brands in the survey had implemented sharing features on their product pages. The report noted that brands utilizing social sharing enjoyed twice the year on year traffic growth of those that hadn’t.

And finally, for mobile it was moving beyond the legacy iPhone apps created in the past couple of years and creating m-commerce sites and new apps with genuine utility and stickiness. Galloway and his team highlighted the fact that just 18% of the brands in the survey maintained an m-commerce site whilst 40% of affluent consumers accessed the internet daily through a mobile phone.

The overall learnings from the report are that although fashion brands need to innovate to stay ahead of their rivals, many are innovating at what can only be described as the ‘bleeding edge of technology’, putting time, effort and money into projects that will struggle to deliver any sort of commercial return.

The bedrock of any commerically successful digital strategy is getting the basics right and many of the brands in the survey would be served better by getting on with the nitty gritty of RoI-driven digital marketing than moving from one headline grabbing initiative to the next.

For a full copy of L2’s Digital IQ Index, just email ben@creamuk.com and we’ll be delighted to send you a copy.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Graham Painter

  • Oct
  • 17

Who’s Spending What and Where? Latest Media Spend Trends

It’s the conundrum facing all marketers, and it’s one that’s becoming ever more pressing as marketing becomes increasingly results focused – how should I be proportioning my marketing spend to achieve maximum return on investment?

Of course, the answer is different for every product and brand, but one useful input into this process is ‘what is everybody else doing?’ and it’s here that Ofcom’s recently released Communication Report for 2011 can help.

The report, produced annually, examines a wide range of communication trends from media consumption habits to smartphone adoption. It also includes figures from a wide range of sources which analyse advertising spend by media from 2005 to 2010. Here are the key findings:

- Spend on internet advertising, including search, display and classified, has more than trebled proportionally since 2005, from 8% of overall spend to 26% in 2010.

In the first year of the recession, between 2008 and 2009, it was the only spend category which grew in absolute terms, overtaking TV to become the largest single spend category in 2009 – a position it retained (but only just) in 2010.

Throughout the 5 year period, most of the growth has been driven by increased search spend, which has not only grown in absolute terms each year between 2005 and 2010 but has also grown as a proportion of overall online spend – from 56% in 2005 to 61% in 2009.

Internet_Advertising_Spend_by_Category

Expenditure on search advertising grew yet again between 2009 and 2010, by 9%, but for the first time its share of internet ad spending fell – from 61% to 57%. This proportional fall was driven by the phenomenal growth of online display advertising. In 2010, online display ad revenues increased by 33%, driven entirely by the growth in Facebook advertising. Facebook accounted for over 41% of all online display advertising in 2010. Online advertising expenditure across other media actually fell by 3%. 

- So which sectors have been losing out as marketers shift their budgets online?

Well, it’s not TV, which has proven to be exceedingly resilient. TV advertising revenues enjoyed their best year last year since 2005, buoyed by the World Cup, and TV still commands 26% of overall spend (compared to 25% in 2005).

The main losers have been newspaper and magazine advertising. The former is down from 30% of overall spend in 2005 to 21% in 2010 and the latter down from 12% to 7% in the same period.

UK_Advertising_Expenditure_by_Category

Given the sharp falls in circulations seen by newspapers in particular, these falls in spend are hardly surprising. What is frustrating for the publishing industry is that they haven’t been able to reap the full benefit of the growth in online display advertising as Facebook has stolen their thunder. It’s no wonder that the advent of the tablet computer is seen by many in the industry as a means to claw back not only subscription revenues but ad revenues too.

- So are mobile ad revenues growing as fast as publishers would like them to? Well, they’re growing rapidly, but from a very small base.

Mobile advertising revenues almost doubled in 2010 from £36.7m to £83m but the mobile advertising market ended the year only 2% of the size of the overall internet ad market.

Search based advertising drove most of this growth from a volume perspective, growing by 172% in 2010 and growing its share of overall mobile marketing from 54% to 66%.

Mobile display advertising may be losing share, probably due to the limitations of screen size when viewing advertising on mobile phones in particular, although ads do dominate more page real estate than their PC-viewed competitors.  The growth of the tablet market, both through the established market leading iPad and new entrants such as the Kindle Fire may do something to redress the balance.

The other interesting fact about mobile advertising is that its client base is becoming broader. A discipline dominated by the entertainment and media sector, accounting for 66% of spend in 2009, is now much more diversified with sectors such as Finance, Consumer Goods and Automotive seeing significantly increased spends.

Top_5_Mobile_Advertising_Sectors

In general, Ofcom’s report shows that brands are still probably more wedded to ‘old media’ than perhaps they should be, particularly premium and luxury brands whose affluent consumers are more likely than the mass of the population to be consuming their media online, be it via their PC or mobile device. Progressive brands such as Burberry are reported to be as spending as much as 60% of their on digital – well above the average.

But offline media still has a role to play in delivering impact, tangibility and in being ‘interruptive’ in a way that consumers are accustomed to and comfortable with.

It’s not all about conversion at the bottom end of the purchase funnel – offline media can play a vital and very effective role in driving prospects into the funnel in the first place. The key is to understand your audience, what media they consume and how, understand your product and the best environment in which to showcase it and understand exactly what your competitors are doing. Of course, collecting data on what is driving sales is key – but as you’re likely to be recording only what is happening at the sharp end of the purchase funnel it’s just one of the factors you should be taking into account.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • email
  • Print

By: Graham Painter