I just read Claire Cain Miller's article in the New York Times about Polyvore (www.polyvore.com) an apparel website that makes shopping more interactive. The site is based on Yahoo Pipes a tool developed by Pasha Sadri a software engineer at Yahoo. Yahoo Pipes allows people to aggregate content from various sites on the web.
Sadri used this tool to push digital apparel marketing into a more interactive direction. Using Yahoo Pipes Polyvore visitors download images of clothing from anywhere on the web. All Polyvore users can use these clothing items to create "sets" that look something like a scrapbook page or a mood board. Site visitors are able to create complete outfits and become a sort of web fashion editor. Polyvore tracks the images and allows viewers of someone else's "set" to use a hyperlink to the original site where they can purchase the pieces of clothing. Polyvore gets a commission when users double click or buy the clothing from certain sites. Polyvore is also exploring other relationships like sponsored content with apparel manufacturers and retailers.
The results of this small tweak to the usual static web catalog experience has been huge with more than 835K unique visitors in June which is almost 25% more than for other major sites like Style.com and InStyle.com. Polyvor has 928K registered users who make 28K new "sets" each and every day.
Polyvore is also licensing its technology to other online retailers which is probably the real way for Polyvore to make money. Pasha seems to think that clothing is uniquely suited to a Polyvore tool. But I am not so sure. Certainly, visual products are best suited to Polyvore but clothing is not the only visual product. Why not home furnishings or kitchen appliances (seems like a natural for HGTV).
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Online Gaming as a Brand and Engagement Tool
A couple weeks ago I attended the MITX panel: Is it all Fun and Games?: Online Gaming as a Brand and Engagement Tool. The panel gave me a great sense of how effective online games can be in developing and reinforcing a brand. As a digital marketing novice with more than a bit of skepticism, it was great to hear these experienced professionals share their insights.
Panelists included:
Steve Curran with Pod Digital Design (which he described as a branded entertainment and production company) was really impressive. His team put together an online game that was meant to raise awareness for the History Channel program "Expedition Africa". Other panelists raved about the game and about how addictive it was to play. Curran noted that it was important not to replicate the outcomes of the reality TV show but to use the game as an extension of the content that would launch the program. He underliend that planning is key. Obviously, the goal is to sell the product and encourage engagement with the product (in this case increase viewers of the TV show). To reach this goal, you must research and finely target the demographic you wish to reach and how/where they will find this game. Curran got a lucky break when Apple chose their game as an Iphone app of the day/week (not sure which) which resulted in 350K downloads. I don't believe Curran detailed any other information on metrics.
Glenn Leeder from Microsoft Gaming had a muchmore focused perspective since he focuses on XBox and digital marketing. They have undertaken campaigns with Sprite and the NBA. He pointed out that XBox was a good platform for repurposing advertisements. XBox can also be "re-skinned" which gives brands many options for prominent exposure. XBox is especially good for 18-44 yo male consumers who are among the most difficult segments to reach. He underscored that gaming should be considered a part of mainstream expenditure and Microsoft's "4-screen" approach. He pointed out that gaming can be affordable. A game will cost $50K minimum but that compares to $100K for television ads. Games also have a longer shelf life than TV ads and a game (on XBox?) can get between 5 and 10 million visitors. You also have an ability to position your product next to another brand (presumably Microsoft/XBox). He described a campaign for Burger King in which consumers had to buy the the game (for around $3) but the campaign helped drive a 41% increase in sales for that particular quarter. The game was also able to be extended globally to a 10M consumer audience. Leeder also emphasized that a digital game is the beginning of a long-term dialogue with the consumer. Name capture is essential. You can't simply send out content without a way of using the information available (RFI requests). XBox also has some impressive engagement data for their emails to captured consumer names: 52% open rate; 38% click through rate. But he stressed that they only send XBox related emails and do not sell their data or submit emails on behalf of outside brands. He also stressed that games and associated sites must continually refresh since the consumer will become bored with the game or with the branding message.
Marc Girolimetti, co-founder of ActsLike, described some really interesting campaigns including a game engineered to draw FEDEX users to their website to help launch the online booking tools FEDEX had just launched but consumers were slow to embrace. The campaign drew 18K new online users. They also had great success with an online game for the Warner Brothers film "A Scanner Darkly" and a 2nd Life Playboy retail merchandise presence.
Panelists included:
Moderator: Victor Lee - Vice President Group Director, Marketing and Branded Entertainment, Digitas
Panelists: Steve Curran, Founder/Creative Director, Pod Digital Design; Marc Girolimetti, Co-Founder, ActsLike, Inc.; Glenn Leeder, Business Development Manager, Microsoft Gaming
Panel Description: Online gaming, and the social interaction associated with the games, is a powerful way to engage with your customers. The number of people playing social games is expected to grow to 250 million in 2009, new platform developments have created new opportunities for engagement, and users have become accustomed to high quality, connected experiences at a low cost.
With all these changes, how do you create successful online games? Is it possible to make money - and how? How do you create a brand experience that stands out in the crowd? Join MITX and a panel of seasoned gaming experts as we discuss the evolution of gaming and how marketers can successfully use games an engagement and branding tool. Discussion points will include:
- What does it take to have a successful online game? What are the rules of engagement? Where are the main frustrations and how can they be overcome?
- How do you "brand" the game in a way that successfully communicates your messages but doesn't interupt the user experience?
- What are the pros and cons between a website with gaming elements, a branded microsite, an online gaming community and a social network with gaming elements?
- What do you need to know about the platforms? Which ones work better? Which ones have niche offerings to improve engagement?
- Despite the low cost/low margin structure of social games, how can you make money with interactive games? What advertising options should you consider above-and-beyond traditional banner ads?
Steve Curran with Pod Digital Design (which he described as a branded entertainment and production company) was really impressive. His team put together an online game that was meant to raise awareness for the History Channel program "Expedition Africa". Other panelists raved about the game and about how addictive it was to play. Curran noted that it was important not to replicate the outcomes of the reality TV show but to use the game as an extension of the content that would launch the program. He underliend that planning is key. Obviously, the goal is to sell the product and encourage engagement with the product (in this case increase viewers of the TV show). To reach this goal, you must research and finely target the demographic you wish to reach and how/where they will find this game. Curran got a lucky break when Apple chose their game as an Iphone app of the day/week (not sure which) which resulted in 350K downloads. I don't believe Curran detailed any other information on metrics.
Glenn Leeder from Microsoft Gaming had a muchmore focused perspective since he focuses on XBox and digital marketing. They have undertaken campaigns with Sprite and the NBA. He pointed out that XBox was a good platform for repurposing advertisements. XBox can also be "re-skinned" which gives brands many options for prominent exposure. XBox is especially good for 18-44 yo male consumers who are among the most difficult segments to reach. He underscored that gaming should be considered a part of mainstream expenditure and Microsoft's "4-screen" approach. He pointed out that gaming can be affordable. A game will cost $50K minimum but that compares to $100K for television ads. Games also have a longer shelf life than TV ads and a game (on XBox?) can get between 5 and 10 million visitors. You also have an ability to position your product next to another brand (presumably Microsoft/XBox). He described a campaign for Burger King in which consumers had to buy the the game (for around $3) but the campaign helped drive a 41% increase in sales for that particular quarter. The game was also able to be extended globally to a 10M consumer audience. Leeder also emphasized that a digital game is the beginning of a long-term dialogue with the consumer. Name capture is essential. You can't simply send out content without a way of using the information available (RFI requests). XBox also has some impressive engagement data for their emails to captured consumer names: 52% open rate; 38% click through rate. But he stressed that they only send XBox related emails and do not sell their data or submit emails on behalf of outside brands. He also stressed that games and associated sites must continually refresh since the consumer will become bored with the game or with the branding message.
Marc Girolimetti, co-founder of ActsLike, described some really interesting campaigns including a game engineered to draw FEDEX users to their website to help launch the online booking tools FEDEX had just launched but consumers were slow to embrace. The campaign drew 18K new online users. They also had great success with an online game for the Warner Brothers film "A Scanner Darkly" and a 2nd Life Playboy retail merchandise presence.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Yesterday I attended a terrific MITX (Massachusetts Innovation & Technology Exchange/MITX.org) panel event on what to expect in the digital marketing arena in the next six months. the panelists included:
Jon Chait - Partner, Dace Ventures;
Kristin Marlow - Client Partner, Razorfish;
Hadley Stern - Vice President, Fidelity Labs;
Shar VanBoskirk - Vice President & Principal Analyst, Forrester Research, Inc.
Each had a strong point-of-view and a distinct approach. Together they gave an interesting, broad brush of the digital terrain.
Chait was particularly persuasive. His main point was that digital marketing is now a two-way communication tool. Simply delivering your desired message via digital tools without allowing the consumer to respond not only misses an opportunity to get valuable feedback but can annoy the consumer who is now expecting to participate in a digital relationship. If you don't give them this opportunity you will piss them off. Of course, this is a difficult change. It requires a leap of faith by the marketer since they are in essence giving a certain amount of control over the conversation and the campaign to the consumer. They may take it in a direction that the marketer didn't expect. He suggested that marketers must become "conversation stewards" who facilitate the conversation rather than simply force a message through a pipeline. He gave some examples of a major foreign auto maker who had expected their new models to appeal to specific segments but found via digital tools that the consumers had other ideas and they used this digital feedback loop to revise their marketing campaigns to reach the markets who were actually interested in specific car models. This shows, Chait noted, that segmentation happens continually and is trackable. You've got to follow consumers as they change. He suggested that it is advantageous to use the same platform to deliver and to measure the digital response since the rapid pace of social marketing iteration and campaign management favors integrated measurement solutions. He wishes there were better open platforms and cost effective solutions for multi-source social marketing anaytics but currently we've observed how integrated platforms have been a preferred solution for customers. He stressed it is important to have very specific and well-thought-out goals and then to use time of engagement, depth of interaction (2nd click throughs) and demographic activation to evaluate the digital campaigns. He suggested some interesting vendors including Vitrue.
Marlow pointed out that many businesses expect that social networking should be a no-cost or "free" marketing option but obviously it is not. She agreed with Chait and said that marketers must be influencers without actually owning the transaction. Metrics are difficult and she stressed that the data achieved through digital tools should be treated as "leads" and the marketer must use them as such and market directly to these leads. She also noted that Razorfish has had a number of companies asking them to help rationalize their various digital syndicates, balance the organizing message while allowing an organic relationship with customers. The problem many companies face is that different groups or individuals have undertaken different digital tools and the messages coming from Facebook or from Twitter may not be coordinated. Of course, you don't want to overly control the messaging but they should definitely not be working at cross purposes. She likens the various digital players (both within and outside the companies) as a sort of "franchise" of the message. Very helpful simile. Some vendors she recommends are Six Part and Federated Media.
Stern says his role at Fidelity is to help the company know where digital users will be six months down the road so that the company can make sure that they are helping to secure and improve the brand in whatever new channels might arise. Right now he seems to be very into non Fidelity website based desktop widgets and gadgets on XP, Vista and Yahoo. Meaningful interactions on other websites (other than Fidelity) are a key to success in the coming 18 months. Use of these widgets are trackable (source of traffic, widget downloads, activation, types of activation) and are often on the consumers laptop dashboard so the brand is a constant presence.
VanBoskirk moderated and kept the conversation going. The first question of the morning was about a Forrester Research paper released Tuesday about 5 media in 5 years. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to locate it but will look and post if I can find it later. VanBoskirk also stressed that platforms should "plug-in" to the companies' digital tools (or vice versa).
Jon Chait - Partner, Dace Ventures;
Kristin Marlow - Client Partner, Razorfish;
Hadley Stern - Vice President, Fidelity Labs;
Shar VanBoskirk - Vice President & Principal Analyst, Forrester Research, Inc.
Each had a strong point-of-view and a distinct approach. Together they gave an interesting, broad brush of the digital terrain.
Chait was particularly persuasive. His main point was that digital marketing is now a two-way communication tool. Simply delivering your desired message via digital tools without allowing the consumer to respond not only misses an opportunity to get valuable feedback but can annoy the consumer who is now expecting to participate in a digital relationship. If you don't give them this opportunity you will piss them off. Of course, this is a difficult change. It requires a leap of faith by the marketer since they are in essence giving a certain amount of control over the conversation and the campaign to the consumer. They may take it in a direction that the marketer didn't expect. He suggested that marketers must become "conversation stewards" who facilitate the conversation rather than simply force a message through a pipeline. He gave some examples of a major foreign auto maker who had expected their new models to appeal to specific segments but found via digital tools that the consumers had other ideas and they used this digital feedback loop to revise their marketing campaigns to reach the markets who were actually interested in specific car models. This shows, Chait noted, that segmentation happens continually and is trackable. You've got to follow consumers as they change. He suggested that it is advantageous to use the same platform to deliver and to measure the digital response since the rapid pace of social marketing iteration and campaign management favors integrated measurement solutions. He wishes there were better open platforms and cost effective solutions for multi-source social marketing anaytics but currently we've observed how integrated platforms have been a preferred solution for customers. He stressed it is important to have very specific and well-thought-out goals and then to use time of engagement, depth of interaction (2nd click throughs) and demographic activation to evaluate the digital campaigns. He suggested some interesting vendors including Vitrue.
Marlow pointed out that many businesses expect that social networking should be a no-cost or "free" marketing option but obviously it is not. She agreed with Chait and said that marketers must be influencers without actually owning the transaction. Metrics are difficult and she stressed that the data achieved through digital tools should be treated as "leads" and the marketer must use them as such and market directly to these leads. She also noted that Razorfish has had a number of companies asking them to help rationalize their various digital syndicates, balance the organizing message while allowing an organic relationship with customers. The problem many companies face is that different groups or individuals have undertaken different digital tools and the messages coming from Facebook or from Twitter may not be coordinated. Of course, you don't want to overly control the messaging but they should definitely not be working at cross purposes. She likens the various digital players (both within and outside the companies) as a sort of "franchise" of the message. Very helpful simile. Some vendors she recommends are Six Part and Federated Media.
Stern says his role at Fidelity is to help the company know where digital users will be six months down the road so that the company can make sure that they are helping to secure and improve the brand in whatever new channels might arise. Right now he seems to be very into non Fidelity website based desktop widgets and gadgets on XP, Vista and Yahoo. Meaningful interactions on other websites (other than Fidelity) are a key to success in the coming 18 months. Use of these widgets are trackable (source of traffic, widget downloads, activation, types of activation) and are often on the consumers laptop dashboard so the brand is a constant presence.
VanBoskirk moderated and kept the conversation going. The first question of the morning was about a Forrester Research paper released Tuesday about 5 media in 5 years. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to locate it but will look and post if I can find it later. VanBoskirk also stressed that platforms should "plug-in" to the companies' digital tools (or vice versa).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
