The China Vortex

One of the great challenges in the digital world is: “How to create value?” People are spending more and more time online, and are moving to a mobile Internet, which has been attested to by the success of Apple’s iPhone platform. But spending online has lagged behind, especially in China, where advertising has been slow to take off.

Obviously there is something wrong with this picture. What can be done to bring value to people, and are companies looking in the wrong places?

Advertising has been established in the west for more than a century, but it has been much slower to take off in China. There are several reasons for this: for one thing, after having been a strictly socialist society for nearly thirty years, there really wasn’t much of an ad industry in China in the period from 1949 to 1977. A consumer society did not exist, and Chinese citizens did not have many choices. There was the hukou system which meant that Chinese citizens could get enough of what they needed, but only if they were in the right city, and only enough to take care of their basic necessities.

After 1977, when China started to open up, the ad industry had to basically build up from almost nothing. Now, in 2008, it is one of the few markets where ad revenue is growing by leaps and bounds. In the west, many companies are questioning the effectiveness of advertising in the face of the growing power and effectiveness of the Internet and its poster boy for online advertising, Google.

Still though, there is plenty of room for alternative business models. In 1999, while Yahoo! was earning a great deal of ad revenue from banner ads, Chinese companies had to look for alternative business models which were grounded in how Chinese were willing to accept value, and were willing to pay for it with real money.

Tencent, the creator of the fabulously successful QQ IM client, has probably the most successful virtual currency in the world, Q-Coins (in Chinese, Q-bi, it means “Q currency”). Since its introduction, it has become a fabulously successful currency which has its own currency exchange rate, and is bought and sold offline. In short, to many Chinese, it is a real currency with value. This is a case of something which was created in the virtual world, was deemed to have value, and then taken into the offline world.

This leads to a very interesting question for social networks: If Q Coins have been so successful as an online social currency for transactions among community members in China, then why haven’t the western SNS sites such as Facebook, Friendster, etc. created their own currencies which their own members could use worldwide? And why should there not be a secondary market for trading these virtual currencies among themselves, and then with real currencies?

Ogilvy China Digital Watch has done an excellent job of keeping an eye on the development of online advertising in China. But I have a question: “If the volume of online currency denominated transactions were added to digital adspend in China, how would that compare to how much is spent on online advertising in America?”

Could it be that in fact China is already a leader in bringing online-created goods and services to the offline world, and is ahead of the west?

Who knows, maybe the answer for a global ad agency like Ogilvy would be to issue its own virtual currency and to get as many people worldwide to use it as possible?

Now that would be a twist!

Technorati Tags: advertising, banners, businessmodels, China, currencies, google, ogilvy, online, q-coins, qq, US, virtual, yahoo

In technology marketing parlance, the three screens refer to the television screen, the PC screen and the mobile phone screen. Most marketers and advertisers now recognize that more eyeballs and viewing time are going to the PC screen, and even more will soon go to the mobile phone screen, and the question they are asking is “When will advertising on the PC and mobile phone catch up with advertising on the television?”

This is a question which Kaiser Kuo, publisher of Ogilvy China Digital Watch, asked in his article “Closing the Marketing Gap”. To quote from his article:

The “Marketing Confidence Gap.” That’s Ogilvy parlance for that vexing and persistent chasm between, on the one hand, the high percentage of media time spent by the average consumer online and, on the other, the relatively low percentage of overall ad budgets being directed online.

Kaiser then goes on to point out that when TV was the disruptive new technology, advertisers most likely ran into the same kinds of complaints from what were then mainstream media buyers (print and radio). And that it took some time for the new advertising models for TV to take off and then reach a new equilibrium of general acceptance. The new medium created its own new business ecosystem with the most well-known being the television market research firm AC Nielsen.

The three screens model throws the old model of TV advertising into question. For many video watchers on the PC, the main appeal of watching videos on Youtube or Tudou is because they can watch them anytime, without advertising. Contrast this with the old broadcast model of the 1960s in the US, dominated by ABC, NBC, and CBS and a few affiliate networks. In the 1970s, cable TV began to take off; it did not have any advertising and relied exclusively on subscriptions. Then in the 80s, satellite news (CNN) took off. So the good old days were not really as quiet and stable as some would have us believe.

This is why the relationship between time spent online and advertising does not hold water for me. There is no rule which says that the correlations which applied to the first screen of television should also apply to the second and third screens of the PC and the mobile phone. I would go so far as to argue that disk and broadband prices have dropped so low that the traditional ad agency role of playing matchmaker to ad inventory (advertisers) and media (publishers) have disappeared. My opinion is that the only place where there is any meaningful and measurable matchup of ad inventory and media are done online is with search ad results, with Google the leader in most of the world and Baidu in China.

This is why I think Sam Flemming’s talk about Internet Word of Mouth (IWOM) has hit an important vein which the ad agency’s have failed to grasp. It is an uncontested fact that while e-commerce in China has been slow to take off in China, many Chinese look for information about purchases beforehand by visiting BBSes and seeing what others say about a product. So why is there no way to track the main influencers of buying decisions and rewarding them with money if their recommendation results in a completed sale? To me, this has always seemed like a difficult, but not insurmountable, technical challenge. In the west, there would be complaints about people making recommendations because they want to make money instead of actually having tried and used the product, but in China, I don’t believe that those disputes would be likely to arise.

China has a unique retail phenomenon called tuangou 团购. This is groups of individuals and families who meet each other in the BBSes and who are planning on purchasing the same big-ticket items. Then, they go and negotiate volume discounts with individual retailers, eventually selecting the retailer who gives the biggest discounts. I have never heard of this phenomenon anywhere outside China.

There are plenty of opportunities in China; it’s just a question of how you see the challenge.

Technorati Tags: abc, advertising, cbs, China, iwom, marketing, mobilephone, nbc, ogilvy, PC, retailers, television

I just came across this Ogilvy Mindshare report on Chinese consumer behavior which goes beyond the normal reports which cover exclusively the Tier 1 cities.

This one also covers the tier two and three cities, which are becoming increasingly important for marketers. According to the report, consumers are still frugal, and are reluctant to go into debt.

How old-fashioned can they get? And I’ll be that they think savings are a good thing…

Sheeesh…

Technorati Tags: advertising, business, China, market, marketing, ogilvy, spending

Readers know that I have spent quite some time thinking about how the Internet and online advertising will affect the whole overall advertising industry. A recent post on Ogilvy China Digital Watch made me think more about how some of the changes the rapid rise in online advertising spending will affect the advertising industry as a whole.

The advertising industry grew at a time when the divisions and demarcations between different media and media audiences were very clear (TV, radio, print and below the line advertising). It was a good business, and permitted the ad agencies to buy large amounts of media, then resell it to their advertisers, while offering other services (creative, PR, direct mail, etc.) on top as value-added services. Advertising could be divided into brand advertising for global brands and more targeted ads for small local clients. All in all, it was a good service business with healthy margins.

That whole business model has been blown apart with the Internet, and ad agencies are adjusting to the changes. These changes are just starting, and will ripple out to affect other services as well.

The single greatest change brought by the Internet is the shortening of the business cycle. People have more things to do, which means that they need to make decisions, even important decisions, in much shorter time cycles. This means that if they want to find out something about a product/service, they want to know it in as short a time as possible.

This has been enabled by search, a business which Google has built to near-perfection. Add advertising to search results, and you have the Google money machine. Advertising appears in a welcome context instead of being disruptive.

Search advertising has had some negative effect on brand advertising because it is possible, in a very short time, to find out what others are saying about a given product or service. This is not the line from the corporation, but what other buyers are saying. More disruption of the communications process.

The immediate effect for ad agencies is that their whole time-cycle has been disrupted. Instead of the normal annual budgets and precious planning time which goes into big-budget ad campaigns, more corporate attention is going to fighting fires, which usually fall into the PR realm. The agencies are trying to protect their creative and media teams from this hyper speed development cycle in-house, but it is impossible to control what is happening on the advertising client’s side, who is getting continuously distracted by what sounds like noise and chatter.

What is the ad agency to do in order to adapt and survive?

First of all, it is necessary to tell the clients that it is no longer possible to control the message to the customers. The customers are talking back, and there is no way to tell them to shut up. A lot of the customer feedback is noise, but there are also very valuable pieces of information in there.

There is a need for a new kind of ad agency warrior who can go out there and slay the dragons , and collect the valuable information and give it back to the creative teams and client so that they can act on that information in its product and marketing cycle.

Here are my draft job requirements for an ideal candidate:

• Information researcher, able to use Internet and mobile tools to monitor client-relevant information in real-time;
• Able to engage with client at all levels (executive and manager) to understand evolving client needs, and to report in real-time on rapid changes in market situation;
• Able to understand client’s corporate position and voice, and act as a responsible spokesperson and advocate in the digital realm while upholding client’s integrity;
• Understands how to communicate to different clients on different levels and is able to quickly adjust accordingly
• Can quickly analyze and learn and communicate this information back to creative and media teams and back to client on a frequent basis;
• Proactively pushes out information to other team members and clients for their use;
• Comfortable working with amorphous teams which are changing on a constant basis;
• Is comfortable communicating in at least two human languages;

Requirements:

• More than two years’ blogging experience, including acting as an advocate for a product/service;
• Knowledge of SEO tools and terminology;
• Understanding of corporate structures and organizations and how they work, and how to get things done in them;
• Must love doing things fast and independently

Notice that I didn’t include academic credentials? I told you that we needed a new kind of ad agency warrior, didn’t I?

Technorati Tags: advertising, agencies, brand, digital, directmail, google, internet, ogilvy, PR, print, radio, search, TV

Microsoft’s recent purchase of online ad market platform AdECN Exchange highlights the rise of neutral ad market platforms as a new venue for the buying and selling of ads between content publishers and advertisers.

Online ad market platforms represent the next stage, or second generation, of ad networks. The first generation was represented by Google Adsense, the company’s successful platform for publishers, which provided ad inventory from independently-published websites for Google Adwords, the ad targeting and delivery system, and Google’s cash cow.

First generation ad platforms such as the Adwords/Adsense platform have used real-time indexers, or spiders, to scan content for keywords, and then match up advertisers with inventory. Technologically, this is great non-trivial technology, but there are also problems with it.

• If you are an ad publisher or advertiser, you need to join a network (Google, Yahoo!, MSN, Baidu, etc.). By joining a network, you automatically lose advertising and revenue opportunities with other prospects who may not be members of the same network.
• Advertisers and publishers are entrusting a third-party to act as their facilitator and to act in their best interests. While search engines make claims to be objective and neutral; this is in fact impossible. Just do a search on a term of your choosing across several different search engines, and compare the search results.
• As search engine companies go public and come under pressure from Wall Street and investors, management’s strategy is always to blur the line between organic (free search) and pay-per-click (PPC) search. As revenue becomes more important, search results become more skewed to favor sites which belong to their publishers’ network.
• Click fraud is a major problem which the search engines have never been able to come clean about. Aside from waffle statements to the effect that “click fraud is a minor problem which does not affect most users”, all search engines, even Google, have been reluctant to provide independent third-party statistics about click fraud. This reluctance to come clean has led many to believe that the problem is greater and would affect their revenue more than they want investors to know. In a worst case scenario, it could be manipulated into a Ponzi scheme.
• In certain markets such as China, where keywords are sold through distributors, there is even wider room for abuse through distributor collusion. This is why advertiser groups have formed organizations such as Fanbaidu who have challenged charges for advertising clicks made to their accounts.
• As the Cluetrain Manifesto made clear, along with Seth Godin, marketing and blogging are becoming increasingly about conversations. Blogs are nothing more than linked conversations on a given topic, and sometimes they ramble on by themselves. For this reason, blog content resists a “one size fits all” approach, hence the attractiveness of the long tail approach. For unique content, neutral ad platforms where buying and selling is done by human buyers and sellers online work better than networks which have their algorithms continuously tweaked. Since the most knowledgeable seller is the creator of the content, this means that more and more, content creators will become marketers and publishers of their own content. After all, the main task of a publisher is to attract good content creators and market their work.

This is why the ad exchange system is the trend of the future; it works best for unique content and for the long tail. Compared to ad networks, they are more transparent. Click fraud collusion is made much more difficult because the market is real-time and more dynamic, and the content creators and publishers would have it in their own best interests to fight and resist click fraud. Transparency rewards the honest over the long term. Exchanges are not perfect and Ponzi schemes can also develop in exchanges, but this has more to do with human nature than exchanges.

The problem with the advertising industry, as it exists today, is it is built for a world where advertisers and inventory are comparatively static, and where audiences are defined as being “mass market”. In today’s online market, where peoples’ needs, care and interests are constantly changing on a real-time basis, the question should become “Is there a mass market anymore, and what is its definition in quantitative and qualitative terms?” If the answer is no, then the main currency of advertising becomes attention, which would then have to be translated into monetary terms not only on an individual, but on a time basis. Pushed to its logical outcome, advertisers would need to pay consumers for their time and attention.

In an article on Ogilvy China Digital Watch, Kaiser Kuo raised the question about why ad exchanges were slow to take off in China. Although there may be many reasons, I believe the most important single reason is that content creators want to just create content, and don’t like the idea of marketing, buying and selling their own content or becoming publishers. They want to write for someone else and be paid, and don’t want to take the risk themselves. This problem is not unique to China; it will affect takeup of the online ad exchange model all over the world.

Of course, the market always tend to reward the individuals who see and act on opportunities before others.

Technorati Tags: AdECN, adsense, advertising, adwords, baidu, google, marketing, microsoft, msn, ogilvy, yahoo