Tag: lorem

People Powered Stories Ad Product Introduced By Microsoft

Microsoft and Bazaarvoice have entered an advertising partnership resulting in the introduction of a new social advertising solution called People Powered Stories. This was revealed in a presentation from Jenn Creegan, General Manager for Display Advertising Experiences at Microsoft Advertising in her Social Media Week presentation.

PPS will incorporate ratings and reviews about products within a rich brand ad, a Microsoft representative tells WebProNews.

“To make this happen, Microsoft Advertising partnered with Bazaarvoice to integrate the consumer ratings and reviews into the PPS ad format,” the rep says. “Advertisers will be able to tap into Microsoft’s highly social and engaged audiences across multiple screens and deliver relevant ads in a way that is targeted and more measurable than is available for social advertising on the web today.”

In a blog post, Creegan explains, “We believe it will give marketers the ability to create ads that tell powerful stories and create brand relevancy beyond just a “Like” by adding the authenticity and believability of real people’s real stories.”

“As an industry, we intuitively know the power of social and the potential it holds for advertisers to engage with consumers,” she says. “We also know that people want to hear what others have to say about various products and services. Despite the brand dollars that are flowing toward social media, advertisers have told me they continue to be frustrated at how difficult it is to measure ROI and confirm whether they are successfully engaging their target audiences.”

“Simply running display ads on social sites doesn’t make those ads social,” BazaarVoice co-founder Brant Barton says. “What make the social space different and powerful are the connections it creates between people. So unless the ad is also doing that – creating a connection between consumers around whatever the ad is promoting – is it really social advertising?”

The solution will be available next month.

February 14, 2012
Google Enhanced Ad Sitelinks Launched For AdWords

Google announced the launch of enhanced ad sitelinks, which the company calls its “strongest performing experiments.”

Google says that on average, clickthrough rates are 30% higher for ads with sitelinks, compared to ads without.

On the Inside AdWords blog, Google shows the following example. The first ad shows sitelinks. The second image shows text ads from the advertiser’s account.

The new offering would allow for the following:

“In testing, people reported that ads with enhanced sitelinks were more useful and relevant,” Google says. “And clickthrough rates were significantly higher than the same ad with traditional 2- and 3-line sitelinks.”

Only ads that show above Google results are eligible for this format. Also, the advertiser’s account must have active ads that are closely related to the sitelinks in the campaign.

February 14, 2012
FairSearch: Google Is Lying [Updated]

Update 2: Politico says it didn’t pull any ads (via Danny Sullivan).

The FairSearch Coalition put up a blog post today saying Google lied about a FairSearch ad campaign.

The post references a recent Public Policy Blog post from Google’s Betsy Masiello that went by the title: “Busting Myths About Our Approach to Privacy.”

The first “myth,” as Masiello puts it, says:

Myth: In 2011, Google made $36 billion selling information about users like you. [Fairsearch – PDF]

Fact: Google does not sell, trade or rent personally identifiable user information. Advertisers can run ads on Google that are matched to search keywords, or use our services to show ads based on anonymous data, such as your location or the websites you’ve visited.

FairSearch says:

Ironically, the stated intent of Masiello’s post is to “give you the facts.” And yet, her first point is factually inaccurate. Here’s what the ad actually says (check out the PDF, which remains online):

“Google sold over $36 billion of targeted advertising in 2011.”

That’s straight out of Google’s own statement of its 2011 full-year financial results, which shows $36.531 billion in “total advertising revenue.”

The FairSearch post then goes on to point out an update to Masiello’s post, which says:

*Update: The FairSearch ad referenced below as myth #1 was pulled because it was inaccurate.

“That’s just pure fiction,” FairSearch says. “The ads ran as part of a week-long series in several publications, which all thoroughly fact-checked our statements (for the record, we passed). And the campaign is still up on our website.”

This appears to be the ad in question as FairSearch presents it:

A source tells WebProNews the actual ad ran here, and did say “Google made $36 billion selling information about users like you.”

Update: Another source points out:

The rest of the ad that ran on Politico (as linked to above) clearly refers to targeted advertising. It says the following:

A message from FairSearch.org: Every time you use “free” Google products like Search, Maps or Gmail, Google is collecting data about you. The more information it has about you, the more money it can make selling targeted advertising. Recently, Google announced a new privacy policy (which users can’t opt out of) which will track everything you do using 60 of its most popular products, including Search and Gmail. Which means they make that much more “monetizing” you. Now that’s good to know. www.fairsearch.org/goodtoknow **

FairSearch tells WebProNews, “Google’s blog post clearly linked to the ad that you embedded in your post, not the Politico ad, leaving Google Public Policy Blog readers with two false impressions: 1) that the ad was pulled (neither was) and 2) that it was false (both ads were approved by the publications that accepted them, and are accurate). Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. FairSearch stands by its blog post.”

February 14, 2012
Online Advertising is More Than Just Clicks!

I noticed a VentureBeat article that makes me shake my head in amazement at the apparent lack of understanding of online advertising. The sensationalistic headline, “Yelp advertising is a rip-off for small advertisers” reveals a simplistic viewpoint on the value of targeted online advertising. Yelp is not ripping off small business advertisers, but in fact is providing a platform that business are benefiting from whether they are paying Yelp for prominent placement or not.

However, my article is not really as much about Yelp as it is about defending online advertising, which the article in question attacks with a vengeance. In essence, the article paints a picture of online advertising where all ads should be sold for 60 cent CPMs regardless of whether they are geo and industry targeted or provide branding with prominent placement. Don’t charge too much or you might be accused of being a “rip off”!

Additionally, the article attacks the very core of online advertising by stating, “”For online advertising, I strongly recommend against commitments and impression-based advertising.” In short, the article advocates that all advertising be priced like Google Adwords and Facebook ads or similar. As marketers know, online advertising is more than just clicks. It’s about reaching your potential customers and pay per click (PPC) advertising isn’t the only way to go about that.

>>> Do you feel that Yelp is a rip off? Do you believe that all online advertising should be cost per click (CPC)? What is your experience with online advertising, good or bad? Comment Here…

Let’s give this article a proper dissection:

1. The article states, “At a time when much online advertising is being sold for 60 cents per thousand impressions (CPMs), Yelp is charging some local advertisers $600 per 1,000 impressions. That’s not a typo. Yelp is charging small businesses 1,000-times the standard online CPM rates for local ads that appear on Yelp.”.

This simply doesn’t make sense to anyone who has experience in online advertising. Sixty cent CPM’s are NOT the standard online rates for local ads. That is a rock bottom rate that large ad sellers charge for non-targeted inventory. To get placement on a premium site that is geo targeted with a very specific industry niche, advertisers will pay substantially more, even a $600 CPM. Sometimes much less, but certainly not a measly 60 cents!

2. The article states, “Now consider the types of local Yelp ads that small businesses buy: In this scenario, the ad goes to the advertiser’s Yelp review page. That’s a page where users are free to leave any kind of review for the business, including ones that trash it. That ad runs about a $600 CPM.”

What about TripAdvisor or Urbanspoon? The concept of reviewing restaurants or other businesses does not make paying for a premium placement a bad decision. Obviously, a business should make sure they are providing a great service and excellent product before advertising. However, it is pretty naive to believe that it’s somehow stupid to pay top dollar for a highly targeted ad spot on Yelp simply out of fear that someone could “trash” your business. As businesses in the service industry know, review sites and apps like Yelp can drive significant new business for free and it seems to me that paying for that top placement might even drive more business.

3. The article states, “It’s common for more targeted inventory, such as the type that Yelp provides, to command higher CPMs. But triple-digit CPMs are extremely unusual.”

At least the article finally acknowledges that targeted ads are worth more than untargeted ads. However, the assumption that it is “extremely unusual” to charge over $100 CPM’s and therefore makes Yelp a rip off is inaccurate. Ad spots are priced based on demand for those spots by advertisers and obviously Yelp has more demand than they can deliver for many of those top spots on review pages. There is good reason for this – businesses want to be the dominant brand in their service category in their locality. To many businesses, that is worth paying a premium and they don’t consider themselves “ripped off”. If you own Rory Lake’s Karaoke Dreams in Chicago, you want to be the featured listing for “Nightlife in Chicago”. Rory is not making that decision because of a high or low CPM, he is spending cash with Yelp because he wants to be the dominant brand in the nightlife category. He wants everybody that uses Yelp to at least consider stopping by Rory Lake’s Karaoke Dreams. All advertising isn’t about the cost, sometimes it’s simply about the exposure, despite the price.

4. The article states, “At the high end, it’s a $600 CPM. At the low end, that’s a still eye-popping $367 CPM — more than 10-times the rate of a Super Bowl ad.”

Is the writer suggesting that no ad should cost more on a CPM basis than Super Bowl ads? Super Bowl ads are by their very nature only loosely targeted, skewing somewhat more male and youthful, but not much more targeted than that. After all, Super Bowl 2012 set a record as the most-watched television show in U.S. history because almost everybody from young kids to Grandma watched it. Again, targeting increases the value for advertisers and thus increases the cost. Yelp is not only targeting by business type, it is also targeting by geo location. This adds significant value over a Super Bowl ad on a CPM basis. Not to mention that with a Super Bowl ad, a business that spends $3.5 million for a 30 second spot deserves a little CPM discount.

5. The article states, “To make matters worse, Yelp requires a 12-month commitment for these rates. Even if Yelp doesn’t deliver your business a single customer, you’re on the hook for $3,600.”

Paying $3,600 to be the top position on a popular site and app like Yelp for your business category and in your locality is a deal if your business needs branding. It’s about being in the right spot at the right time in order to attract customers. As with all advertising, the hope is for all new customers to become regular customers, thus paying for the cost of your Yelp ad. If you’re a donut shop, would you want your competitor’s shop to be at the top of Yelp or would you consider paying to make sure you are? Additionally, advertisers on Yelp are reaching potential customers that have only one reason to use yelp; to purchase a product from them or their competitor. With that in mind, a $3,600 fee to reach real potential customers rather than just Facebook clickers can be a great deal.

6. The article states, “For comparison, Facebook only requires that you set your budget to $1 a day and does not have a commitment. A business could try it for a week, see if it performs and then decide.”

It is very misleading to say Facebook only requires $1 a day, since if that’s your budget you will not even get one single impression of your ad run on Facebook. To be fair, Facebook is a cheaper alternative for advertisers. However, to be fair to Yelp, it is not even remotely comparative. Facebook clicks range from around 50 cents to $3, but the targeting and volume of clicks would not match Yelp’s in my experience. Facebook allows targeting by location and interest. However, the interest is based on people’s selection in their profile or what they have “liked.” It’s not all that scientific because if I “liked” a restaurant on Facebook, it does not mean I would click a different restaurant’s ad in the future. That’s why Facebook ads are not great for micro targeting and Yelp ads most certainly are!

7. The article states, “I cannot think of any scenarios where I would advise businesses to advertise on Yelp at these rates.”

I can think of a very good reason … branding. As a business owner I want my business to be the most noticed in my category and location. I don’t want my competitors to be. I understand as a business owner that many businesses also want to be at the top of Yelp categories, so I am willing to pay a premium for my business to be there instead of theirs.

8. The article states, “For online advertising, I strongly recommend against commitments and impression-based advertising.”

Actually, many businesses desire to effectively reach their targeted potential customers and that Facebook and Google are not always the best way to do this. Really, should all online advertising be cost per click? Advertisers, such as WebProNews or Yelp value their audiences and have limited space in which to allow businesses to also reach their valued audiences. Those targeted audiences are worth way more than 60 cents per thousand impressions or a few cents a click. For a sponsor to lock up ad space for them to reach their potential customers and potentially keep their competitors out of that space requires a “commitment” with the publisher and is worth paying a premium CPM. Just ask the advertisers on Yelp, WebProNews or even VentureBeat.

The article mentioned Super Bowl advertising earlier… exactly how many people clicked those CPM ads?

>> Discuss the article with Rich Ord and other commentors in the comments section….

February 12, 2012
Google Search Funnels Interface Redesigned

Back in 2010, Google launched Search Funnels, an AdWords tool, which helps advertisers make decisions based on search impressions and clicks so they can try to improve their conversion rates.

The tool has received a refresh. The previous version will be available for the next few weeks, but if you use the tool, you may as well start getting used to the new one.

One new feature is the ability to compare date ranges. This helps you determine how your funnel has changed on a year-to-year basis.

Another new feature is the ability to access drill-down dimensions via tabs, which appear at the top left of the Search Funnels tables.

Users can also view total conversions and conversion value right next to each other.

“We’ve also made it easier to create persistent drill-down filters so you can view multiple reports focusing on the same analysis,” says product manager Laura Holmes. “For example, if you’d like to do an analysis based on ‘all the Top Paths where the first click was Campaign XYZ,’ you can now Save this drill-down and then click through multiple reports. If you no longer want to have this view, just click the ‘Clear’ button above the report title and you’ll return to the unfiltered version of the report.”

February 10, 2012
Facebook Testing Sponsored Action Stories

A few weeks ago, Facebook launched their Sponsored Stories initiative to allow advertisers to promote specific posts within users’ news feed. The sponsored stories are not newly generated ads, but already-existing posts that companies can pay to promote after the fact. You can identify a Sponsored Stories by the ~~impossible to see~~ slightly visible gray text near the timestamp on posts.

Now, Facebook is allowing the “action” posts – reading, watching, listening – to be turned into ads and given prominence on both your ticker and your news feed.

According to Josh Constine at Tech Crunch, Facebook is allowing this a small pilot program for the time being, but it could definitely turn into a situation where any and every advertiser could promote any Open Graph action.

The Open Graph actions, of course, are part of Facebook’s big push toward “frictionless sharing.” You know the types of posts – “John Grant listened to Kanye West on Spotify” or “Jessica Smith read ‘Obama’s Economy’ on The Washington Post.” These are the stories that appear in your ticker and oftentimes in your news feed that show activities in which your friends are participating.

The “frictionless” part comes from the automatic sharing of the activity once you’ve authorized it’s connection with Facebook.

This change would mean that instead of Spotify being the only entity that could sponsor and promote a post about someone listening to a song, now a record company or a band itself could promote these types of stories.

As Constine points out, the Open Graph is the key to the future of advertising on Facebook. It provides for more targeted ads based on user’s own activities and that of their friends.

Facebook’s sponsored stories have gone through a slight name change, with the company referring to them as “featured stories” now. One report says that these featured/sponsored stories are going to be coming to your mobile devices within the next few weeks.

February 10, 2012
LinkedIn Mobile Ads On The Way

Facebook isn’t the only social network looking to better monetize its mobile users. LinkedIn said in its earnings call on Thursday, it will be launching ads in its mobile apps in the future, though it’s not clear just how near a future that will be.

Anthony Ha quotes CEO Jeff Weiner as saying the company is ready to “start to introduce advertising in our mobile solutions”.

“Ready,” to me, indicates sooner rather than later, but we’ll see.

LinkedIn has already seen impressive revenue growth, and mobile ads would add another healthy layer, no doubt. At $167.7 million, the company saw a 105% increase in revenue for the fourth quarter compared to 2010. For the entire year 2011, revenue increased 115% to $522.2 million (from $243.1 million). LinkedIn hasn’t even been public for a year yet.

LinkedIn became much more usable on mobile devices last year, when the company launched a major update to its apps:

Even by the time that was released, the company claimed it had already seen a 400% year-over-year increase in mobile pageviews.

It’s probably about time LinkedIn started making more money from the mobile experience.

February 10, 2012
New iPhone 4S Ads Still Pushing Siri As Standout Feature

Are you guys still using Siri?

As an iPhone 4S owner myself, I’ve noticed that I’ve been using Apple’s voice assistant less and less as time goes on. It’s not that Siri wasn’t useful on many occasions – because she was. It probably has something to do with being set in my ways. My first thought is always to just do something manually – set a reminder, look up something – before I even think about poor Siri just sitting there, waiting to help me.

For their part, Apple is still pushing Siri as the main draw of the iPhone 4S. They’ve just released two new TV spots, both of which highlight some of the various ways that Siri can be rather useful.

The first ad, called “Road Trip,” shows all of the things that Siri can help you with while you’re, well, on a road trip. The users ask for directions, nearest gas stations, facts about Orion, and even “where are we” when they get lost. Check it out below:

The next ad, entitled “Rock God” is probably the best of the two. It also stars Siri, but this one is about an aspiring musician. Siri helps him locate a guitar, learn how to play a couple of classic rock songs, and even text some girls about his garage show. Check it out:

As you might have caught, both ads feature Siri calling up Wolfram Alpha in order to fulfill her requests. That partnership has been particularly beneficial to Wolfram Alpha, as they recently said that Siri accounts for about 25% of their queries.

[Hat tip to Slashgear]

February 10, 2012
Ace Metrix CEO Reveals Super Bowl Ad Winners and Losers

The Super Bowl has come and gone, and while the final play is still getting talked about, the ads are too. Last week, WebProNews spoke with Peter Daboll, the CEO of ad effectiveness firm Ace Metrix, who told us that there is a difference between an ad being likable and effective.

He told us that many ads are likable, but for an ad to be effective, it has to connect with consumers on an emotional level. In other words, consumers need to remember the brand, the product, and the goal of the ad.

Which ads did you consider “effective” this year? Please let us know in the comments.

As Zach Walton wrote earlier this week, the top 5 ads this year all included humor. Here’s the complete top 10 list from Ace Metrix:

In a post-game interview with Daboll, he explained that Ace Metrix bases its analysis on a balanced set of geodemographic consumers viewing the ads. It then scores them on a 9-point scale model that rates the ads on the most important attributes that drive effectiveness. From there, it determines its Ace Score on a 0-950 scoring basis.

“It’s not just a poll like American Idol voting contests with the thumbs up or thumbs down,” he said.

Through this model, Ace Metrix can find out how effective ads were in connecting with consumers and spurring a behavior change. The firm analyzes ads all throughout the year in order to compare and contrast its data.

Speaking about the winning ads of the Super Bowl, Daboll told us that it was obvious the brands had conducted adequate testing. Incidentally, when we spoke to him last week, he predicted that M&M’s, Doritos, and Coca-Cola would be in the top spots, and he was right. According to him, the marketers behind these ads are some of the best in the world.

Because humor connects with broad audience, such as the Super Bowl, Daboll was not surprised it was used in the top commercials. He did point out that, humor isn’t the only element that works. The 6th most effective ad was the “It’s Halftime America” from Chrysler and was not humorous at all.

Although the ad has sparked some controversy, Daboll said it really connected with consumers since it had the highest overall relevance score out of all the ads.

Chrysler’s ad also topped the “Most Effective Automotive Super Bowl Ads” list but was followed by the humorous driven ad from Honda, “Matthew’s Day Off.”

Here’s the complete list of automotive winners:

The least effective ads this year were a bit surprising, since Budweiser had 3 of its 5 ads in the bottom 5. The others that didn’t connect well were Hulu’s “Hulubratory” and H&M’s “David Beckham’s Bodywear Collection.”

Daboll told us that the H&M ad was long, boring, and way over the top, saying that the only group that liked it was women over 50. He also called Hulu’s ad “incomprehensible” since it wasn’t able to communicate its message.

Although Budweiser normally does well, the company’s Bud Light Platinum spots did not resonate with consumers at all. In fact, many consumers were just puzzled by them. The company took a risk with advertising a new product at the Super Bowl, and it didn’t prove to turn out in their favor.

“When you’re launching a new product on such a large venue, you still have to communicate some information about it… or people are confused,” said Daboll.

“It’s very hard to do a great Super Bowl ad – that’s why you can’t give enough credit to the guys that seem to do it year after year,” he added.

Daboll went on to say that the brands that consistently do well are likely already starting on next year’s Super Bowl ads. The key to success is not being funny, he continued, but it’s having the right message and testing until it’s perfect.

February 9, 2012
Marketing With Video: Recommendations Make A Huge Difference
Unruly Media put out a new report looking at the impact of social video recommendations on traditional brand metrics such as brand recall, brand favorability, purchase intent and brand association.

Keep in mind that this is the firm behind such viral hits as Evian Roller Babies and Old Spice: The Man Your Man Could Smell Like (not to mention the campaign that got Chrome’s PageRank penalized):

“Notably, it was found that viewers are far more likely to recall a brand name and engage with an ad’s message if a branded video has been recommended to them by a peer,” an Unruly spokesperson tells WebProNews.

The firm points out the following highlights from the research:
- Brand recall and brand association rose 7 percent among viewers who had been recommended the videos versus viewers who found it by browsing;
- 73 percent of respondents who viewed a peer-recommended video recalled the brand when prompted versus 68 percent of viewers who had browsed to the video directly;
- There was a 14 percent increase in the number of people who enjoyed the video following a recommendation versus those who had discovered it by browsing;
- People who enjoyed a video were 97 percent more likely to purchase the product featured in the video
Here’s a closer look at the enjoyment comparison between recommended vs. non-recommended videos:

As Unruly notes in its report, the enjoyment level is important because it has a direct impact on key brand metrics:

The entire report is available in white paper format.

Need some pointers on what makes a video go viral? Here are some good points made by Robert Knorpp at the BlogWorld and New Media Expo in November.
February 7, 2012
New Tech Can Track Where You Look On Dating Sites

Dating sites can be a wealth of information for those looking for that special someone. The looking part is being studied by Tobii to determine what men and women spend their time looking at on dating profiles.

Tobii in collaboration with their research partner AnswerLab were using their new X1 Light Eye Tracker technology to showcase the main benefit of the new product to researchers. They found their samples at a San Francisco coffee shop and asked them to participate in a study that would have them looking at dating profiles of the opposite sex according to All Things D.

The test had participants viewing mock-up pages at eHarmony and Match.com. After thoroughly perusing the results, they came to a few interesting conclusions. Men spent 65 percent more time than women did reviewing photos in profiles. Women spent about 50 percent more time than men reading the text of a person’s background and interests.

Women spent an average of 84 seconds looking at a profile to find out if the profile was to their liking, compared to 58 seconds for men.

The study also found that people tend to relate better to dating profiles that reflect how they would build their own. If a person would share a lot of personal information about themselves, they were more likely to search out the profiles that were very personal. On the flip side of that, people who don’t like to share much about themselves went for the profiles that were just straight facts without much elaboration.

This is just the first test in many where Tobii will be testing their new eye-tracking technology. The eye tracker can pinpoint exactly where a person’s eye is looking within a centimeter. They will be using the X1 Eye Tracker in more scenarios to demonstrate how researchers can use it to obtain accurate results.

They also feel that their studies may help dating sites develop a better interface for their users.

The test involved 40 people which is a decent sample size. They will be conducting further research to demonstrate their eye tracker’s capabilities to the market research community.

February 6, 2012
Facebook Featured Stories Reportedly Coming To Mobile Within Weeks

As discussed in a recent article, Facebook is making it harder for brands to not use sponsored stories (or “featured stories” as Facebook is calling them these days). They recently started appearing in users’ news feeds, and as the free marketing that comes in the form of Page updates loses visibility by the hands of Facebook’s algorithm, sponsored/features stories are a way to make sure those posts are getting in front of eyeballs.

Now, according to a report from the Financial Times, sponsored/featured stories are coming to the mobile news feed as well, “within weeks.”

According to the report, “several people familiar with Facebook’s planning” say Facebook has already discussed proposals with ad agencies.

This is interesting, considering Facebook just told us the other day, “We want to clarify that we are not working with any agency to create paid ads on our mobile platform.”

That, however, was in response to a story about reported pilot testing of mobile ads. That story stemmed from Razorfish talking about them, which the company’s Paul Gelb later clarified, “Razorfish is NOT working with Facebook on any mobile media ad buying. Rather, in the interview I was referring to rich media featured stories, not paid ads.”

Well, featured stories are one kind of paid advertisement Facebook offers. You say potato, I say pa-tah-to.

Note: I don’t really say “pa-tah-to”.

Facebook made it a point that its mobile experiences generate very little revenue, indicating that this is a risk factor, given that the company’s mobile user base continues to grow. Long story short, Facebook needs to better monetize mobile, and it looks like that will begin happening soon. I doubt that Facebook’s other ad offerings on mobile are incredibly far off.

February 6, 2012
Facebook Ads Expected To Grow In 2012

You probably heard of Facebook’s IPO filing last week. Lots of interesting factoids about the social network company were made public, most of which was built around their financial information. One salient fact: companies seemed not to care how much they had to spend to advertise on Facebook as long as they got to advertise on Facebook.

Business Insider pointed out the ad craze: Facebook increased the price of ads 18% but the ads sold increased 42%. That’s a lot of companies who didn’t care too much about forking over the extra money to get their name on Facebook.

Today eMarketer summed up the usage of social media marketing among the five hundred fastest-growing private companies and, perhaps not too surprisingly, their usage of Facebook is rising. In Q4 2011, Facebook was the go-to for ad agencies as 89% said they planned to buy ads on Facebook for their clients.

Facebook’s not the only social media site that’s gathering advertising steam as LinkedIn and Twitter were both used quite a bit by companies.

As you can see in the table above, Facebook’s growth as a tool for advertising slowed in 2011, but it’s debatable whether that’s worthy of any concern as other social media sites like Twitter and Myspace also saw a decline in growth (Myspace actually saw a decrease, which isn’t surprising because who really uses that site other than local bands still praying to get signed to a major label).

What’s more interesting than companies throwing in with social media sites is the success levels that companies have had with advertising on Facebook and Twitter. As it would turn out, message/bulletin boards and blogging are still the most successful ways for companies to advertise on social media. While 82% of companies reported success with advertising on Facebook, which is by no means a paltry achievement, it still lags behind other social media (LinkedIn, YouTube, and Twitter were all used to greater success). Additionally, 96% companies had the most success with message/bulletin boards. That could change in 2012, however, as the amount of companies that used social media for advertising rose 50% in 2011.

Another factor that will certainly come into play in 2012 is the undeniable rise in popularity of Google+, which is nowhere to be found in this data. Whether that will affect how companies advertise on Facebook or other social media is anybody’s guess, but one things certain for now: companies want their name on your Facebook experience.

February 6, 2012
Best And Worst Super Bowl Ads: Vote On Facebook

Facebook and USA Today are hosting an “Ad Meter” at facebook.com/sports, where people can go to express who had the best and worst Super Bowl ads by casting votes. The voting starts at kickoff, and runs until 6PM ET on Tuesday. Results will be announced later that night.

“While the USA TODAY Ad Meter has historically been the authority on what brands had the best, most popular commercials, this year, USA TODAY partnered with Facebook to let the more than 800 million global Facebook users share commentary online and view their favorites even after the Super Bowl Champs leave the field,” a representative tells WebProNews.

“Designed to marry the industry authority of USA Today’s Ad Meter with the social engagement of Facebook, the collaboration will open up how people discuss and rate iconic Super Bowl ads by putting consumers at the center of this long-standing annual event,” she adds. “We’ll be interested to see who reigns supreme this year based on the social vote!”

It’s still early as of the time of this writing (kickoff isn’t until tomorrow evening), but may of the ads have already been going around online. Have any stuck out to you so far as being particularly good or bad? Let us know in the comments. Then after kickoff, let Facebook know.

February 4, 2012
Facebook Mobile Ads Are Not In Pilot Testing [Updated]

Update: False alarm, apparently. A Facebook spokesperson says:

“We want to clarify that we are not working with any agency to create paid ads on our mobile platform.”

Gelb clarified further:

“I would like to clarify a statement I made in an interview yesterday regarding Facebook. Razorfish is NOT working with Facebook on any mobile media ad buying. Rather, in the interview I was referring to rich media featured stories, not paid ads.”

So, I guess we’re free top continue speculation on when Facebook actually will start offering mobile ads. It’s still expected top be the near future.

Original Article: We’ve been hearing for a couple months now that Facebook would soon be launching mobile ads. And why not? Frankly, it’s astonishing that the company has not already put them out there.

News comes today, however, that the company is already test piloting some mobile ads, and rich ones, possibly with animation, at that. DigiDay spoke with Razorfish’s Paul Gelb, who says that Razorfish is “currently engaged in pilot programs for ‘mobile and cross-platform rich-media ads”.

DigiDay’s Jack Marshall reports:

It remains unclear on what basis the ads will be sold, but Gelb implied advertisers will be able to reach users across all devices with a single buy. Judging by Facebook’s desktop ad formats, it’s likely they’ll be disseminated across users’ networks as they interact with them.

The units themselves, meanwhile, will offer similar functionalities to other mobile rich-media ad providers such as Medialets and Crisp Media, Gelb suggested. Ads powered by those companies typically feature interactive elements and animations, video content, location-based features and various calls to action such as tap-to-call and tap-to-coupon.

Not exactly your standard Facebook ads, but there’s no reason to think those won’t be coming along in the near future as well.

Rising mobile use, without ads on Facebook’s mobile ads, is one of the things Facebook listed in its “Risk Factors” section in its IPO filing. What better way to avert such a risk, than plastering ads onto the mobile experience(s).

I’d expect to see plenty of sponsored stories showing up in the mobile mix as well.

Ads have done little to push Facebook users away so far. I doubt mobile ads will do much either.

Facebook has 845 million monthly active users. 425 million of them use Facebook mobile products. Facebook also announced $3.7 billion annual revenue.

February 4, 2012
Facebook Sponsored Stories: Unavoidable For Brands?

Facebook is going public soon. You already knew that I’m sure. You probably also know that Facebook makes most of its money from ads. Not all of it, but a very significant portion. If the company’s relationship with Zynga ever sours, it may have to rely on ad revenue even more.

There is still plenty of room for Facebook to grow ad revenue, even if there’s less room for it to grow users. For example, they don’t even have mobile ads yet, though that is expected to come soon. That should be another huge source.

Recently, Facebook began showing Sponsored Stories in the news feed. These are posts that are arleady out there on Facebook, which brands can decide to promote for increased visibility among the people connected to that post, whether it be from a friend or from a Page they “like”.

The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting piece about how brands are essentially being forced to pay for advertising on Facebook to reach users, simply because the visibility of free Page posts has declined so much. There is so much content flooding users’ News Feeds, and of course Facebook controls what users are seeing via their algorithm, based on what the company calls “EdgeRank.” More on EdgeRank here.

Some are finding it harder to get posts to gain traction.

The Journal cites a study from BlitzLocal, saying that between June 1 and Dec. 31 of 2011, unpaid displays of marketing posts to users decreased 33% among the firm’s over 300 clients.

“Content that used to live for a day may now live minutes in a user’s News Feed,” CEO Dennis Yu is quoted as saying. The piece looks at retailer Gordman’s specifically, as a company which has felt the need to turn to sponsored stories just to gain some visibility. The company reportedly found that sponsored stories increased the number of users who saw a post by over 100,000.

Basically, what this all means is that if you don’t pay Facebook for ads, you’re left to the mercy of their algorithm for visibility, and who knows just how Facebook is tweaking that? Does it remind you of the search marketing game?

There is one key difference, however. Facebook does allow users to adjust the way they view their News Feed, so you can see stories by time, rather than what Facebook’s algorithm handpicks for you to see. This is the way many users do view their news feed. I have no idea what the numbers look like in terms of how how many people do this, and how often, but I’m guessing many, many people don’t bother. That’s likely where those extra 100,000 users come in.

Whether or not advertisers choose to pay for sponsored stories, brands are still going to want to take full advantage of the free marketing benefits of the world’s largest social network. To do that, you have to consider that EdgeRank algorithm, and of course engage on Facebook.

Sundeep Kapur, a guest author on BlitzLocal’s blog, said in a recent post:

Successful brands need to focus on increasing interaction effectiveness with their consumer base. You do this by increasing the frequency of exposure, paying close attention to what is being discussed, and focused advertising.

Interactions with consumers will occur as you post and more than 70% of the interaction occurs within the first hour. So keep up your efforts on posting more often and monitoring right after you post versus posting and “going to bed.” Also, a post with a “question” tends to drive increased interaction.

Don’t forget that advertising does work. Your engagement rate can go up by 21% to 43% by knowing what to say, when to say, and of course how you say things on Facebook.

In a separate post, the firm, after conducting research on both large and small brands, also suggested:
posting when your users are most likely to be online
running sponsored stories to amplify organic postings
substituting humor and discounts for boring promotional posts
not applying SEO methods to Facebook (such worrying about keywords, page titles, etc.)
building an open graph app with actions to avoid getting drowned out of the news feed

Some valuable tips. At least only one of these (sponsored stories) is something you have to actually pay Facebook for. Unfortunately, that might be the one that helps you drive visibility more than anything. That is, unfortunately for businesses with tight marketing budgets. Fortunately for Facebook, as it aims to boost revenue as a public company.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see it become even harder for brands to get their messages through without sponsored stories. What do you think?

February 4, 2012