<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Digital Media - Marketing IQ</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/category/digital-media/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 10:35:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-GB</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>UK Media Adspend and Revenue Forecasts 2026</title>
		<link>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/uk-media-adspend-and-revenue-forecasts-2026/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simon Foster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 19:25:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Adspend Forecasts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Direct Mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Effectiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK adspend 2024]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK adspend 2025]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK adspend forecasts 2026]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/?p=5274</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In this article, we ask how the UK media spend landscape might look as we move through 2025 and into 2026. We use publicly available AA<span class="excerpt-hellip"> […]</span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/uk-media-adspend-and-revenue-forecasts-2026/">UK Media Adspend and Revenue Forecasts 2026</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h5><strong>In this article, we ask how the UK media spend landscape might look as we move through 2025 and into 2026. </strong></h5>
<h5><strong>We use publicly available AA WARC adspend data as a reliable source for baseline spend levels, and we use our own modelling to identify and extend underlying trends to forecast 2026 spends by channel.</strong></h5>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 14px">Key UK Adspend </span>forecast<span style="font-size: 14px">s by channel &#8211; key take-outs for 2026:</span></strong></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>Cinema</strong></span><span style="font-size: 14px"> will enjoy moderate growth, and we forecast adspend / revenue of £254m in 2026</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>DM</strong></span><span style="font-size: 14px">&nbsp;will continue a significant downward trajectory, and we forecast adspend / revenue of £874m in 2026</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>Magazines</strong></span><span style="font-size: 14px">&nbsp;will continue to decline quite strongly, and we forecast adspend / revenue of £414m in 2026</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>Newspapers</strong></span><span style="font-size: 14px">&nbsp;will also continue to decline strongly, and we forecast adspend / revenue of £656m in 2026</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>Online classified</strong></span><span style="font-size: 14px">&nbsp;has not recovered since 2022 and is likely to continue to decline and we forecast adspend / revenue of £984m in 2026</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>Online display including social</strong></span><span style="font-size: 14px">&nbsp;will continue to grow and on a strong trajectory and we forecast adspend / revenue breaking through £20bn in 2026</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>OOH including DOOH</strong></span><span style="font-size: 14px">&nbsp;will continue to grow but growth rates are reducing slightly year on year, we forecast adspend / revenue of £1.5bn in 2026</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>Radio, including online radio</strong></span><span style="font-size: 14px">&nbsp;will be stable YoY and we forecast adspend / revenue of £752m in 2026</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>Regional news</strong></span><span style="font-size: 14px">&nbsp;will continue a strong decline, and we forecast adspend / revenue of £394m in 2026</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>Search</strong></span><span style="font-size: 14px">&nbsp;will continue strong growth alongside online display and social and we forecast search will also break through the £20bn level in 2026</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>TV including BVOD</strong></span><span style="font-size: 14px">&nbsp;will continue to recover vs 2023, but the overall pattern does suggest continued decline and we forecast adspend / revenue of £5.4bn in 2026</span></li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>Let’s examine the AA WARC estimates to look at the how media spends have grown across the period 2021 to 2024 as actuals (Chart 1)</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px">We see that total Adspend has grown significantly since 2021. Of course that was a COVID year, but recovery has been strong in terms of total spend.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chart-1-UK-Media-Adspend-by-Channel-2021-to-2024-with-2025-estimate.jpeg"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" src="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chart-1-UK-Media-Adspend-by-Channel-2021-to-2024-with-2025-estimate-1024x595.jpeg" class="alignnone wp-image-5260" alt="UK Media Adspend by Channel (2021 to 2024 with 2025 estimate)" width="693" height="403"></a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px">Totals spend in the channels shown has grown from £33.6bn to £43.8bn. Within this, Search has grown from £11.6bn to £16.9bn and Online Display has grown from £10.8bn to £16.7bn. TV and BVOD has remained relatively flat declining only slightly from £5.5bn to £5.3bn. OOH and DOOH has grown from £901m to £1.4bn.&nbsp; Radio is also flat at £720m to £738m. Cinema, which was hit heavily by COVID restrictions made a strong recovery in both audiences and revenue and climbed from £103m in 2021 to £212m – more than doubling revenue.&nbsp; Fallers include Online Classified £1,053m to £1,017m, Direct Mail falling from £1,082m to £964m, Newspapers £844m down to £727m, and magazines down from £556m to £469m.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>Percentage YoY changes are shown in chart 2 below, with channels ordered by largest spend on the left and smaller on the right (Chart 2)</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px">We see that as well as dominating levels of adspend, Search and Online Display (including Social) dominate growth trends. Between 2023 and 2024, these channels enjoyed YoY growth of 13% and 15% respectively.&nbsp; The 2025 estimates suggest this growth might be calming slightly to 8% and 9% respectively.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chart-2-UK-Year-on-Year-Growth-in-Media-Ad-Spend-by-Channel.jpeg"><img decoding="async" src="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chart-2-UK-Year-on-Year-Growth-in-Media-Ad-Spend-by-Channel-1024x708.jpeg" class="alignnone wp-image-5259" alt="UK Year-on-Year Growth in Media Ad Spend by Channel" width="653" height="451"></a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>In Chart 3, we see estimated 2025 (full year) media spend across these 11 channels.</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px">We see Search, Online Display and Social are accounting for more than 70% of spend. TV and BVOD sit at 11% and the remaining 8 channels share the balancing 12.4%, with OOH and DOOH the largest of this group at 3%.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chart-3-2025-Estimated-UK-Media-Spend-and-Share-by-Channel.jpeg"><img decoding="async" src="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chart-3-2025-Estimated-UK-Media-Spend-and-Share-by-Channel-1024x756.jpeg" class="alignnone wp-image-5257" alt="2025 Estimated Full Year UK Media Spend and Share by Channel" width="657" height="485"></a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>Total spend vs growth in UK media 2025 vs 2024 (Chart 4)</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px">Chart 4 plots 2025 estimates spend and YoY growth from 2024. We see Online Display (including Social) and Search continuing to plough ahead in the top right with high growth and the highest revenues. Unfortunately, in the opposite quadrant, we see a lot of traditional print media in YoY decline; Magazines, Regional Newspaper, Direct Mail and Newspapers.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chart-4-UK-2025-Est-Media-Spend-vs-2024-YoY-Growth.jpeg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chart-4-UK-2025-Est-Media-Spend-vs-2024-YoY-Growth-1024x756.jpeg" class="alignnone wp-image-5256" alt="UK 2025 Est Media Spend vs 2024 YoY Growth" width="659" height="486"></a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>2025 UK Adspend full year estimates (Chart 5)</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px">In Chart 5 below we see growth rate changes between 2021 and the 2025 estimate from AA WARC.&nbsp; &nbsp;We see that Online Search, OOH including DOOH, Online Display (including Social), Radio and TV and VOD are in growth over the period whilst there are five consistent decliners: DM, Magazines, Newspapers and regional news all decline consistently. Online classified has declined consistently since 2022.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chart-5-UK-Media-Ad-Spend-Trends-by-Channel-2021%E2%80%932024-with-2025-estimate.jpeg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chart-5-UK-Media-Ad-Spend-Trends-by-Channel-2021%E2%80%932024-with-2025-estimate-1024x756.jpeg" class="alignnone wp-image-5258" alt="UK Media Ad Spend Trends by Channel (2021–2024 with 2025 estimate)" width="685" height="506"></a></span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 14px">UK media </span>adspend<span style="font-size: 14px"> forecast for 2026</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px">Chart 6 uses a modelling technique that extrapolates the evolving (non-linear) growth curves into 2026.&nbsp; We see growth in 2026 for Cinema, Online Display and Social, OOH and DOOH, Radio, Search and TV and VOD, although TT/VOD is slightly down from its 2021 position. Downward trends and forecasted to continue for DM, magazines, newspapers and regional news.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chart-6-UK-Media-Ad-Spend-Trends-2026-Forecast-by-Channel.jpeg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Chart-6-UK-Media-Ad-Spend-Trends-2026-Forecast-by-Channel-1024x619.jpeg" class="alignnone wp-image-5255" alt="UK Media Ad Spend Trends 2026 Forecast by Channel" width="670" height="405"></a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><strong>Implications for marketing and media planning</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px">The cost of media is generally a reflection of supply and demand &#8211; that applies across almost all biddable and non-biddable channels.&nbsp; If audiences (supply) grow, media owner revenues can grow at a flat CPM. This is good news for marketers and their media agency partners (providing demand) because media owners are less likely to raise unit costs (CPMs).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px">In our analysis of the AA WARC data, we see that some media channels are in high growth; Cinema continues its post-Covid recovery, Online Display (including Social) and Search are powering ahead with growth of more that 8%, slightly down from last year. OOH and DOOH look positive, as does Radio.&nbsp; &nbsp;This growth means that advertisers are likely to see more stable costs in terms of audience CPMs overall (some sub channels and audience sub groups might differ) – simply because media owners can maintain growth within significantly increasing unit costs.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px">But we also see that some channels are facing revenue declines; Online classified, DM, Newspapers, Magazines and Regional News. Clearly, this is a major concern for both the media owners and advertisers. If the businesses in these channels have high fixed costs, then they have to increase unit costs to increase maintain revenue. This has both short and long term implications; in the short term, media becomes more expensive and potentially performs less well. This in turn makes these channels less likely to be used in the medium term which further exacerbates the revenue decline problem.</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px"><em><strong>Please note this caution</strong></em></span><span style="font-size: 14px"><em>: The 2025 and 2026 data are forecasts which identify and extrapolate the underlying growth trends for each channel. They do not account for other important factors such as the economy, the international situation, changes in consumer demand, the health of firms using marketing spends and the budget shifts they may apply in response to changing market scenarios.&nbsp;</em></span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/uk-media-adspend-and-revenue-forecasts-2026/">UK Media Adspend and Revenue Forecasts 2026</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why digital media attribution could be compromising your media ROI</title>
		<link>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/why-digital-media-attribution-could-be-compromising-your-media-investments/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simon Foster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2023 08:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Advertising Evaluation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Effectiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Evaluation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital attribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketing effectiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media attribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media effectiveness]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/?p=4001</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;ve probably heard the expression &#8216;The devil is in the detail&#8216;. It tells us that focusing on detail is the way to solve problems.  In many<span class="excerpt-hellip"> […]</span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/why-digital-media-attribution-could-be-compromising-your-media-investments/">Why digital media attribution could be compromising your media ROI</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;ve probably heard the expression &#8216;T<em>he devil is in the detail</em>&#8216;. It tells us that focusing on detail is the way to solve problems.  In many ways, this expression is true, but in this post I&#8217;d like to argue that placing too much focus on the digital detail can mean marketers and their agencies miss the bigger picture and it is, in fact, the big picture that drives your commercial sales and success.</p>
<h5>How marketing and media metrics have changed</h5>
<p>Prior to around 2005, the main metrics marketers used were of three types:</p>
<ol>
<li>The media metrics that monitored the delivery of their campaigns &#8211; GRPs, reach, frequency etc.</li>
<li>The attitudinal metrics that measured how these campaigns had changed attitudes towards their brands &#8211; e.g. brand consideration, preference and purchase intent.</li>
<li>And of course, commercial metrics that captured the impact of marketing investments: unit sales, value, volume, purchase frequency and market share.</li>
</ol>
<p>Since 2005, the digital media industry and particularly its giants, Google, Facebook Microsoft have produced huge amounts of microscopic detail covering almost every digital movement made by millions of online consumers. Through the cookie, we are able to see exactly where consumers have been, what they&#8217;ve looked at, what they&#8217;re interested in, where they have engaged, what they have registered for and what they have bought. And modern marketers inhabit this world of tracking, measuring, analysing and reporting the microscopic detail produced by digital media owners and their platforms.</p>
<p>Real time micro-measurement has become the main source of campaign performance insight for a generation of marketers. It is relied up by marketers and their agency partners across the industry and across the globe.  Micro-performance data is used to set budget and optimise campaign on the presumption that it is accurate and correct. But what if it isn&#8217;t accurate and it&#8217;s not correct?</p>
<p>Some senior marketers in leading brands have questioned real-time digital measurement data. Here are two examples:</p>
<p><em>&#8216;This real-time ROI can mean brands get tempted into ploughing investment heavily into digital – but, actually, he noted, that can result in short-termism that doesn&#8217;t ultimately grow the brand or sales, and can give &#8220;misleading&#8221; results </em>&#8211; Simon Peel, Global Media Director, Adidas.</p>
<p><em>&#8216;Digital attribution doesn’t take into account the [full consumer journey], [like] the fact [that consumers have] been influenced by a TV ad, or that their mum recommended this product to them. While it’s brilliant that we’re getting more accurate with digital measurement, there are so many more factors that influence why and what the customer does&#8217;- </em>Rosie Hanley, Head of Marketing, eBay</p>
<h5>This problem may be even worse that it looks when we consider the opportunity cost of doing the wrong thing</h5>
<p>There is good evidence that managing and optimising this digital performance detail compromises your overall media ROI and even worse, too much focus on this detail can harm a brand&#8217;s commercial health and have a major opportunity cost. Here are four very strong large-scale case study examples that have provided support for this point:</p>
<h5>Case study 1 &#8211; Airbnb</h5>
<ul>
<li>In 2020 AirBnB cut $50 million of performance media investment. The result: it made no difference to their overall business performance.</li>
<li>During an earnings call in February 2023, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky said that AirBnB now sees the role of marketing as evolving from buying customers to educating markets and has shifted its marketing priorities accordingly.</li>
<li>Airbnb CFO, Dave Stevenson added that this strategic change in marketing had proven to be incredibly effective during the period 2020 to 2022. He added &#8220;Our brand marketing is delivering excellent results overall with a strong rate of return, and it&#8217;s been so successful that we&#8217;re actually expanding it to more countries&#8221;.</li>
<li>Great news. But consider for a moment the resource costs required to deliver the digital planning, activation, tracking, measurement and reporting that $50 million of performance marketing spend would require.</li>
</ul>
<h5>Case study 2 &#8211; Adidas</h5>
<ul>
<li>AirBnB are not alone. Around the same time, Adidas undertook a similar shift. The result: they concluded that they had too much focus on short term ROI and this had led them to over invest in performance marketing at the expense of brand building.</li>
<li>What&#8217;s interesting about the Adidas case is that they had previously assumed only performance activity drove e-commerce sales (ie total reliance on the digital ecosystem), but further analysis showed the brand development activity was actually driving 65% of sales across wholesale retail and e-commerce.</li>
<li>At that time Adidas&#8217; marketing investment was split 77% into performance and only 23% into brand. ￼ The reason for this misalignment was an overfocus on short term digital performance metrics. Simon Peel, the global head of media at Adidas, called out some specific metrics as being responsible: Google last click, Google custom, Adobe and Facebook, and within these platforms, too much of an emphasis on short term, real time measurement.</li>
<li>This cycle was only broken when Google AdWords went down in Latin America and search was halted. During this time, Adidas did not see a dip in traffic or revenue from search marketing activity.</li>
</ul>
<h5>Case study 3 &#8211; ASOS</h5>
<ul>
<li>The third case study is ASOS, who also made a similar set of discoveries. Across the 2020-22 period more than 80% of the ASOS marketing investment had been put into performance marketing. ￼</li>
<li>According to ASOS new CEO, Jose Antonio Ramos Calamonte, insufficient levels of brand investment was a contributory factor to a slowdown in customer acquisitions. Calamonte observed that historically ASOS had under invested in marketing relative to its peers (aka Share of Voice), and that marketing spend had not been &#8220;effectively prioritised&#8221;, or &#8220;managed effectively&#8221; to ensure a return on investment.</li>
<li>As in the case of Adidas, it was a halting of spend, in this case brand spend, that led to the change in marketing investment thinking; after pausing a broad reach [brand] campaign in the US, ASOS saw customer acquisition and visits growth slow.</li>
</ul>
<h5>Case study 4 &#8211; eBay</h5>
<ul>
<li>In 2015 eBay was spending 90% of its budget on performance using hyper-targeted product to audience techniques. By 2017 revenues had fallen to pre-2010 levels at $7.4bn.</li>
<li>By 2022 it had switched back to full funnel marketing and a focus on the experience of using the eBay brand. Revenues grew to $9.8bn.</li>
<li>In a 2022 earnings call CEO Jamie Iannone said the shift away from &#8220;just lower funnel optimisation has worked out really well for us&#8221;.</li>
<li>These four brand case studies are further supported by multiple additional studies. In March 2022, Kantar chimed into the debate saying, &#8220;There is inalienable evidence that unbalanced brands won&#8217;t win in the long term. Multiple Kantar studies reveal that if marketing mix allocation consistently favours performance marketing, baseline sales will steadily weaken&#8221;.</li>
</ul>
<h5>Case Study 5 &#8211; Uber</h5>
<ul>
<li>In 2018, Sundar Swaminathan, an analyst at Uber was reviewing data and suspecting that Meta was not driving incremental returns in Uber new driver acqusition.</li>
<li>As a result of his recommendations, Uber ran a dark test turning off Meta acquisition activity for new riders in a test region.</li>
<li>The test ran for three months.</li>
<li>The results of the test showed that there was no incremental gain from Facebook activity.</li>
<li>Uber turned off this activity permanently across the US and Canada and saved $35m.</li>
</ul>
<h5>Is there any robust experimental research evidence to further support this view?</h5>
<p>Yes. A brilliant and comprehensive large scale, field experiment designed to measure the true effectiveness of brand and generic ￼keyword search terms was undertaken by eBay and the university of Chicago in the US in 2013.</p>
<p>These were not small scale tests but large scale experiments. One stopped bidding on a 30% sample of eBay&#8217;s US traffic across a 60 day period.</p>
<p>This study sought to understand whether search marketing really has any genuine incremental uplift effect on consumer purchase behaviour. Here is what the eBay experiments found:</p>
<p>The brand, keyword, advertising experiments found that halting brand terms resulted in no detectable drop in traffic and sales.</p>
<p>Search engine marketing did have a significant effect on new registrations and those consumers with a low purchase frequency &lt;2, but this was not sufficient to offset inefficient results across higher frequency eBay users.</p>
<p>￼The generic keyword experiments showed that search engine marketing had a very small and insignificant effect on sales.</p>
<h5>Conclusion and actionable insight</h5>
<p>These case studies make clear that an overemphasis on the detail of performance marketing does not add value to the business and risks a significant opportunity cost through misplaced marketing budget investment.</p>
<p>This is not just about the unhelpful &#8220;brand&#8221; and &#8220;performance&#8221; categories and nor is it about digital versus traditional mainstream high reach media. The problem is around why and how much marketing budget we deploy across all channels. It&#8217;s about the objectives we set, the strategies we develop, the plans we implement, and the way we measure and optimise.</p>
<p>In terms of actionable insight, simple Occam&#8217;s Razor maths tells us that in the case of Adidas, if 23% of budget was driving 65% of sales then 35% of budget could deliver 100% of sales. And, more importantly, shifting more budget into brand would grow sales substantially. In this case, 50% of budget could potentially grow sales by 150%. That&#8217;s a 50% increase in sales for 50% of the current budget.</p>
<p>More broadly, we must ask, how much more shareholder value would have been created if the $50 million spent by Airbnb would have been generated if this money had been focussed on growing market penetration, purchase, frequency, and overall market share?</p>
<p>If you are working in a category where the majority of spend is over committed to performance marketing, you have a significant opportunity to build share whilst your competitors over optimise activity that is probably not contributing to business growth.</p>
<h5>And meanwhile, over at Google</h5>
<p>The company posted annual revenues of $182bn in 2020, $257bn in 2021 and $280bn in 2022.</p>
<p>Just imagine the increases in market penetration, purchase frequency and market share that marketers would have generated if just a fraction of that revenue had been invested in building and strengthening in high reach media.</p><p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/why-digital-media-attribution-could-be-compromising-your-media-investments/">Why digital media attribution could be compromising your media ROI</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why we must learn to build brands in digital media</title>
		<link>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/why-we-must-learn-to-build-brands-in-digital-media/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simon Foster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:44:47 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Effectiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media effectiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media planning]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/?p=3883</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In this article, written for the mSix&#8217;s website, I highlight how digital media has passed the tipping point and why marketers must evolve beyond the simplistic<span class="excerpt-hellip"> […]</span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/why-we-must-learn-to-build-brands-in-digital-media/">Why we must learn to build brands in digital media</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<header class="container container-inset mb-10 mt-20 md:mb-20">
<div class="col-span-full md:col-start-3 md:col-end-12 lg:col-end-11">
<p class="md:text-lg">In this article, written for the mSix&#8217;s website, I highlight how digital media has passed the tipping point and why marketers must evolve beyond the simplistic &#8216;long and short duopoly&#8217; and use digital media to build brand fame as well as driving performance.</p>
</div>
</header>
<article class="container-inset">
<div class="container mb-16 lg:mb-28">
<div class="col-span-full lg:col-start-3 lg:col-end-11">
<div class="RichText_richText__CVmyy RichText_richTextContent__7TfQd">
<p>The time is right to challenge and develop the original works of Binet and Field.  ‘<em>Marketing in the Era of Accountability’ </em>[1] and ‘The <em>Long and the Short of It’</em> [2] are now more than a decade old. This work reflected the mesia landscape as it as then and put TV at the heart of brand building, but since then the media consumption landscape has changed &#8211; and it has changed dramatically.</p>
<p>In 2013, and taking the US as an example, TV, radio, and print dominated with 53% of media consumption minutes. Within this, TV delivered 4:30 minutes per day (38%). At the same time, digital channels accounted for the 4:50 mins (40%).   But by 2022, US TV, radio, and print consumption had fallen to 34% and US mobile and desktop had grown to around 62% of consumption (although total media consumption minutes have increased by around 15%, likely due to mobile ubiquity) [3]. Most significantly, US mobile consumption has almost doubled from around two hours per day to over four. Patterns for the UK are broadly similar, with 2:26 mins on TV in 2012 failing to 1:42 in 2022 and 24:00 mins per day in Social growing to 1:17 mins by 2022 [4].</p>
<p>Against these tectonic shifts, Binet and Field’s 2013 argument that TV is the prerequisite brand-building channel must be challenged and, as a consequence, we need to ask, how do we build brands in digital media?</p>
<p>Traditionally, TV has been the place where ‘System 1’ messaging has been delivered through  emotional connections, fame and reach.  System 1 messaging is a core ingredient of fame building. This type of communication aims for high mental availability and fast effortless decision making through ubiquity &#8211; which is essentially, fame.  At the core of this thinking is reach &#8211; reaching as many of your potential audience as possible. Put in a slightly different way by the late Jeremy Bullmore, “if you want to be as famous as BMW, it’s no use being known only by the tiny percentage of the population who can afford to buy your car today”.</p>
<p>Until recently, digital channels have been used primarily to target these “tiny percentages&#8221; with System 2 “buy now” messaging. But this approach severely undervalues the reach potential of digital channels.  According to IPA Touchpoints the post lockdown high reach digital media channels are social media and functional internet (commercially funded websites which are not for media, social media or communication e.g. search, shopping, researching). These channels can deliver 70% to 80% weekly all-adult reach, putting them on a par with commercial TV and way ahead of commercial radio, magazines, newsbrands and cinema.</p>
<p>Of course all this means moving your guardrail KPIs from performance to brand metrics like attitudinal shifts, recall, preference, purchase intent, and <em>incremental</em> brand growth. Measurement and monitoring techniques need to shift uplift experiments, MMM and tracking studies.</p>
<p>The shifts in focus that are required to build brands in digital are summarised in the checklist below:</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<ol>
<li>Targeting: Move from tight signals targeting to brand audience reach</li>
<li>Mental message processing: Move from System 2 (aim to close the sale) to System 1 (aim to change instincts)</li>
<li>Messaging: Move from rational to emotional engagement</li>
<li>Mental availability: Move from Low to High</li>
<li>Optimisation: Move from short term CPA to longer term attitudinal metrics like consideration and purchase intent</li>
<li>Evaluation metrics: Move from performance metrics to a set of agreed attitudinal metrics</li>
<li>Evaluation cadence: Move from short term to medium term</li>
</ol>
<div class="container mb-16 lg:mb-28">
<div class="col-span-full lg:col-start-3 lg:col-end-11">
<div class="RichText_richText__CVmyy RichText_richTextContent__7TfQd">
<p>By changing the way we plan, activate, measure and benchmark digital channels we unlock their ever-expanding potential to build and reinforce brand attributes and, in doing so, prove it&#8217;s now  time to move beyond the long and short of it.</p>
<p><strong>References</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Binet and Field, ‘<em>Marketing in the Era of Accountability’</em> IPA 2007</li>
<li>Binet and Field, ‘<em>The Long and the Short of it: Balancing Short and Long-Term Marketing Strategies’, </em>IPA 2013</li>
<li><em>‘Average time spend with media in the US’, </em>eMarketer April 2016 and April 2022</li>
<li>IPA Touchpoints 2023</li>
<li>IPA ‘<em>Making Sense: the Commercial Media Landscape’</em> 2022</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</article><p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/why-we-must-learn-to-build-brands-in-digital-media/">Why we must learn to build brands in digital media</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is Paid, Owned and Earned Media?</title>
		<link>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-paid-owned-and-earned-media/</link>
					<comments>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-paid-owned-and-earned-media/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simon Foster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2018 17:31:34 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[earned media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[owned media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paid media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[POE]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/?p=2471</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Paid Media is any communications media &#8220;space&#8221; that you have to buy from a media owner. Typically this would include TV, outdoor, press and magazines, cinema,<span class="excerpt-hellip"> […]</span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-paid-owned-and-earned-media/">What is Paid, Owned and Earned Media?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<ul>
<li><strong>Paid Media</strong> is any communications media &#8220;space&#8221; that you have to buy from a media owner. Typically this would include TV, outdoor, press and magazines, cinema, radio and third party DM and email lists. It also includes all paid digital activity, whether that paid display, search or social media. It excludes things like SEO which are paid for by fees, but which do not involve the purchase of media assets from a media owner.</li>
<li><strong>Owned media</strong> is any communication space or opportunity that is owned by a company or brand. The best examples are websites, retail space and shop fronts, product packaging, catalogues or even things like truck and van sides. Your own customer list is owned media. Your own pages or channels on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube are also part of your owned media portfolio.</li>
<li><strong>Earned media</strong> is generally comments and reviews that are created and posted by third parties. Great reviews on Trustpilot or Amazon would be examples of earned media coverage. But so would bad reviews. Such reviews occupy space in a media sense, but they are not created or owned or by the brand itself.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>The dynamic of control in Paid, Owned and Earned media</strong></p>
<p>Paid media is the most controllable &#8211; you can control when it runs, where it runs and the message that is carried. Owned media is also controllable &#8211; these are your assets so you can determine how they are used and the messages carried. Earned media is different. Earned media is often owned and created by people outside your company. This means control is much more difficult. In some ways, earned medias is where your brand is laid bare &#8211; warts and all.</p><p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-paid-owned-and-earned-media/">What is Paid, Owned and Earned Media?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-paid-owned-and-earned-media/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is the marketing mix in 2018?</title>
		<link>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-the-marketing-mix-in-2018/</link>
					<comments>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-the-marketing-mix-in-2018/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simon Foster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2018 16:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Customer Analytics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketing mix]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketing training]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/?p=2364</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Introduction This article outlines the case for considering Permission as the 8th P in the marketing mix. It is slightly lighthearted as I wouldn&#8217;t presume myself<span class="excerpt-hellip"> […]</span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-the-marketing-mix-in-2018/">What is the marketing mix in 2018?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Introduction</strong></p>
<p>This article outlines the case for considering Permission as the 8th P in the marketing mix. It is slightly lighthearted as I wouldn&#8217;t presume myself worthy of adding the 8th P, but the recent rise in big data analytics and the resulting changes in data regulation (GDPR) mean that there may be a case for finding a place for Permission in the marketing mix.</p>
<p><strong>Let&#8217;s start with the 4Ps of the original marketing mix</strong></p>
<p>Everyone, or at least most people reading this article will be familiar with Jerome McCarthy’s 4 Ps of marketing. McCarthy, a US academic, proposed the concept of the 4 Ps marketing mix in his 1960 book <em>Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach </em> [1] – the foundation text of modern marketing<em>. </em>This work helped to give a managerial definition to marketing by outlining its scope of reference and providing a framework for marketing planning. For many years McCarthy’s four Ps helped to define what marketing is:</p>
<ol>
<li>Product – developing the right type of product to meet the needs of the market</li>
<li>Place – distributing the product where the market will want it and be able to buy it</li>
<li>Price – pitching it at a price that will be suitable to the market and the firm</li>
<li>Promotion – communicating the product and its benefits to the market</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>The growth of services and the move to 7Ps </strong></p>
<p>In 1981, in response to the growing service economy, Booms and Bitner [2] proposed a model of 7 Ps, comprising the original 4 Ps plus three more – <em>people,</em> <em>process </em>and <em>physical evidence.</em></p>
<p>These are the three new Ps that Booms and Bitner added to the original four:</p>
<ol start="5">
<li>People – most services cannot be delivered without people. How well those people perform can define the quality of the service provided</li>
<li>Process – process is what delivers the service think carrying you from home to destination by public transport or going to the dentist, hospital or even the hairdressers</li>
<li>Physical evidence – makes the intangible service process more tangible and can confer quality – think pilot’s uniform or public services, fire, police and ambulance.</li>
</ol>
<p><b>How has data and tracking changed marketing activities?</b></p>
<p>Over the last fifteen years marketing promotion and distribution (place) have been revolutionised by technology and eCommerce.</p>
<ul>
<li>Promotion &#8211; online advertising and email use personal data to drive promotional activity. Ad technology uses tracking data to identify prospects for products and services and predict when current customers might purchase again. This technology has become mainstream and many businesses now depend upon it.</li>
<li>Distribution has been revolutionised by ecommerce which allows consumers to shop from home or work without entering a physical store location. Purchases are delivered to the door, again without having to leave work or home.</li>
</ul>
<p>These developments have been underpinned by digital user tracking, both on site and within ad networks. Data from tracking cookies is used to build target audiences, target individual advertising messages, predict purchase behaviours and geo-locate prospects and customers.</p>
<p>Consumer tracking data is used by a number of large online advertising networks &#8211; these include well-known brands such as Facebook and Google and less well-known data brands such as Appnexus, Liveramp, OpenX, Rubicon and Pubmatic.  This tracking data, and in particular personal level tracking, has caught the eye of EU regulators and as of May 2018, a new stringent data regulation framework, the EU General Data Protection Regulation, comes into force.</p>
<p><strong>GDPR puts the brakes on ad tracking and programmatic digital advertising</strong></p>
<p>GDPR puts far more onus on those collecting individual level data than ever before. It practically demands that all data use is expressly consented or permissioned by the data subject (the consumer) and that responsibilities for what happens to that data extend along the chain of organisations using that data. To cut a very long story short, where a company is using a piece of data that can be used to locate or identify an individual person, it could be breaking the law if permission to do so has not been freely given.</p>
<p>This changes a lot in digital user tracking. The use of non-permissioned third party data which is used to expand the target audience of many brands using programmatic trading, effectively becomes a likely breach of the GDPR regulations.</p>
<p>So now in June 2018, having permission to talk to a consumer in digital space impacts three areas.</p>
<ol>
<li>Acquisition –It will be harder to use PII to predict future behaviour and it will be harder to construct data pools of consumes who are demonstrating pre-purchase behaviour. It will also be harder to build cookie-based target audience pools.</li>
<li>Retention – the data of sending our blanket emails to non-consenting recipients are at an end. Over the last few months you will have received a request for consent email, or even a piece of direct mail, from most organisations that have been regularly visiting your inbox.</li>
<li>eCommerce &#8211; tracking is used both onsite and in ad networks for eCommerce. Whilst onsite tracking is less of an issue, tracking across third party ad networks is. eCommerce sites use ad networks to run re-messaging campaigns &#8211; trying to persuade consumers who have to abandoned a purchase to return and complete the transaction</li>
</ol>
<p>In marketing mix terms &#8211; the GDPR regulation is having a direct impact on place (distribution) and promotion (advertising).</p>
<p><strong>So, is Permission now the 8<sup>th</sup> P in the marketing mix?</strong></p>
<p>In my view it is.  We’ve had a revolution in digital marketing that&#8217;s been driven by data, We now have a regulatory environment that changes everything for marketers using individual level communications.</p>
<p>Moving forward, there can’t be a marketing meeting or action that doesn’t talk about permission – whether it’s about product or service usage, personal level communication, distribution targeting or even pricing if that pricing is based on individual level behaviours and data.</p>
<p>How can Permission not be the 8<sup>th</sup> P in the marketing mix?</p>
<p><strong>References</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Jerome McCarthy Basic Marketing &#8211; A Managerial Approach Hardcover – 1960 (Irwin – original publisher)</li>
<li>Booms, B. H. and Bitner, M. J. Marketing Strategies and Organizational Structures for Service Firms Marketing of Services 1981 &#8211; American Marketing Association &#8211; Chicago</li>
</ol>
<p><strong> </strong></p><p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-the-marketing-mix-in-2018/">What is the marketing mix in 2018?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-the-marketing-mix-in-2018/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does social media drive sales?</title>
		<link>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/does-social-media-drive-sales/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simon Foster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 18:51:13 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Evaluation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media planning training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ROI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social ROI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[training]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.fostermedia.co.uk/?p=357</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The question of sales generation is a growing problem for social media. Despite all the hype, it’s almost impossible to find any conclusive cross-category evidence that social<span class="excerpt-hellip"> […]</span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/does-social-media-drive-sales/">Does social media drive sales?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The question of sales generation is a growing problem for social media. Despite all the hype, it’s almost impossible to find any conclusive cross-category evidence that social media drives sales.  Yes, there are some isolated examples of success; Dell&#8217;s Twitter pages announces some great deals and I&#8217;m sure ASOS can whip up a bit of extra demand by tweeting Axl Rose&#8217;s US flag shorts, but the reality for most brands is that they are going to struggle to make social media deliver measurable sales.  This view might not be flavour of the month, but the four experiences of social media listed below certainly give the &#8220;no sales&#8221; view a high degree of credibility.</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: left;">In 2010, Pepsi undertook a massive social media initiative called <em>The Refresh Project </em>which was designed to give $20m to good causes. According to Bob Hoffman, the <a title="AdContrarian" href="http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AdContrarian</a>, it delivered over 80 million votes, almost 3.5 million Facebook likes and nearly 60,000 Twitter followers. But there was just one big problem; it didn&#8217;t drive sales &#8211; despite the funding coming from Pepsi marketing budgets. Pepsi&#8217;s sales fell in the year the project ran and the brand lost 5% market share worth about $350m. To make matters worse, if that were possible, Pepsi slipped to third in brand share behind Coke and Diet Coke.</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">In both 2012 and 2013 IBM used data from around 800 e-commerce sites to track social media&#8217;s contribution to sales. In 2012 it arrived at a figure of 0.34%. In 2013 it didn’t publish the number, but hinted that it was even less.</li>
<li style="text-align: left;">In September 2012, one of the world&#8217;s leading digital research companies, Forrester Research reported that <em>&#8220;Social tactics are not meaningful sales drivers. While the hype around social networks as a driver of influence in ecommerce continues to capture the attention of online executives, the truth is that social continues to struggle and registers as a barely negligible source of sales&#8230;&#8221; </em></li>
<li style="text-align: left;">In March 2013, Mark Ritson, formerly a professor at London Business School observed in <em>Marketing Week</em> that &#8220;&#8230;.<em>marketers are finally beginning to apply some measures to assess the ROI of their [social media] efforts. Once they do that they can do the one thing the social media mavens have counselled against: compare the value of social media with other options, apples to apples. And, in many cases, they are discovering the hullaballoo drummed up by the marketing media and various industry events is not quite all it was cracked up to be</em>.&#8221;</li>
</ol>
<p>I think most people in social media are well aware of this &#8220;no sales&#8221; problem. And because social media can&#8217;t deliver sales, they&#8217;ve invented a snow-storm of flaky measures designed to obscure harsh commercial realities. These measures include: &#8216;likes&#8217;, &#8216;fans&#8217;, &#8216;followers&#8217;, &#8216;shares&#8217;, &#8216;retweets&#8217;, &#8216;pins&#8217;, &#8216;follows&#8217;, &#8216;friends&#8217;, &#8216;influence&#8217;, &#8216;amplification&#8217;, &#8216;forwards&#8217;, &#8216;mentions&#8217;, &#8216;tags&#8217; and &#8216;reactions&#8217;. In a commercial context these are nothing more than diversionary measures. They might enable some positive looking PowerPoint charts but they don&#8217;t deliver positive looking sales. These are ROI potatoes, when everyone else is comparing apples.</p>
<p>Amazingly, when social media campaigns fail to deliver sales, social media experts almost always suggest that it was the company management who got it wrong rather admitting to any shortcoming of social media itself. Whilst this claim blames marketers and management, it also spawns a convenient stay of execution for social media&#8217;s &#8220;gurus&#8221;; failure brings an opportunity to &#8220;learn lessons&#8221;, to &#8220;revise approaches&#8221; and to &#8220;develop new strategies&#8221;. <em>In other words social media failure provides a new opportunity for marketers to waste even more money on social media activity.</em></p>
<p>Marketers badly need a serious reality check on social media. Social media environments aren&#8217;t much more than an online version of a public waiting room. People drop in, take a seat, look around and leave. They may leave a bit of rubbish. They may take a bit of rubbish with them. But that, I&#8217;m afraid, is pretty much the long and short of it for most brands. Don&#8217;t spend too much time in there, nothing will come of it.</p>
<p>If this sounds old-fashioned, I make no apologies. Advertising exists to drive sales.  To have advertising that doesn&#8217;t drive sales is like going to a dentist who doesn&#8217;t look at your teeth, or a barber who doesn&#8217;t cut your hair, or a mechanic who won&#8217;t fix your car. If what you&#8217;re doing can&#8217;t be directly or indirectly linked to generating sales, you&#8217;re wasting precious budget.</p><p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/does-social-media-drive-sales/">Does social media drive sales?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is programmatic advertising?</title>
		<link>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-programmatic-advertising/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simon Foster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2013 08:15:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Buying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[programmatic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real time bidding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ROI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RTB]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.fostermedia.co.uk/?p=434</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>If you are an advertiser you may have heard the expressions &#8220;programmatic buying”, “real time bidding&#8221; and &#8220;ad exchanges&#8221;. You may be wondering what all this<span class="excerpt-hellip"> […]</span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-programmatic-advertising/">What is programmatic advertising?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you are an advertiser you may have heard the expressions &#8220;programmatic buying”, “real time bidding&#8221; and &#8220;ad exchanges&#8221;. You may be wondering what all this is and what it means for advertisers, if you are then read on&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8220;Programmatic&#8221; advertising, is effectively automated online media buying &#8211; often at large scale and at very high speed (faster than lightening in some cases). Advertisers use computers to participate in real-time automated auctions for digital ad space across a large number of publisher web sites.</p>
<p>Bidding is supported by big data analytics; predictive algorithms are used to target bids using information about web users such as location, platform, device, browser, and where available, other forms of behavioural data relating to specific but anonymous users. There is some big data science behind this, much of which has its origins in high frequency algorithmic trading in financial markets where the principles are very similar to automated online advertising. For example, information about a user is matched to a bidding rule in a minute fraction of a second &#8211; enabling a bid to be made and a relevant ad to be served by the time the page being visited by the prospect fully loads. This high speed automated decision making is not dissimilar to rule-based or algorithmic trading in financial markets.</p>
<p>So is programmatic advertising important? Yes; it’s important to the long-term health of digital display as a medium and it&#8217;s important to advertisers in terms of increased advertising efficiencies. Let&#8217;s look at each of these.</p>
<p>Firstly, automated buying is boosting the fortunes of digital display advertising by creating renewed interest in the medium. Online display has struggled to demonstrate efficiency in the face of PPC which is based on pay per click (PPC) trading. For many years display has been traded on a CPM basis, that&#8217;s simply the cost of reaching people in their thousands, with no accounting for click or sales performance. That&#8217;s why Google has commanded such as large share of digital budgets over the last decade. But programmatic buying allows advertisers to place data-driven bids to ensure campaigns deliver the most responsive target audience at the right rate. This will significantly boost the ROI delivered by digital display and make it much more competitive with PPC. This in turn should enable it to take larger share of digital advertising budgets.</p>
<p>For advertisers automated buying offers a real opportunity to increase ROI from digital display. This opportunity comes from three sources: ROI-based trading mechanics, better ROI based audience targeting and clear performance transparency. All this offers advertisers a chance to make digital display much more cost effective. Moreover, the increased efficiencies delivered by automated trading will make digital display more competitive against PPC. Long term, automated display buying could have the effect of diffusing spend out of PPC alone and across the two platforms &#8211; theoretically this reduction in demand could reduce bid prices in PPC.</p>
<p>Are there any down sides?</p>
<p>It remains to be seen whether automated buying &#8211; which by its nature can reduce ad revenue &#8211; will deliver consistent long-term growth to digital display. It&#8217;s also worth noting that not all media owners will sign up to ad exchanges; those who feel they can realise the value of a web site more holistically than the lowest CPC denominator may well be resistant to signing too much inventory over to automated trading platforms &#8211; leaving them to fight over the lowest value inventory.  There are also  issues around the quality of the traffic delivered through high volumes of remnant inventory &#8211; remnant inventory is by its nature ad space that can&#8217;t be sold by normal means because it&#8217;s not demanded by media buyers. Buying remnant inventory through ad exchanges can mean you are buying into some low quality sites which may not be right for your brand&#8217;s image.</p><p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/what-is-programmatic-advertising/">What is programmatic advertising?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Facebook ‘likes’ don’t increase brand preference or sales</title>
		<link>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/facebook-likes-dont-increase-brand-preference-or-sales/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simon Foster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 15:28:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Advertising Evaluation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facebook likes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social ROI]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/?p=1729</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Here’s an iron for the fire: “Facebook ‘likes’ do not cause increased brand preference or increased sales so marketing campaigns designed to increase the number of<span class="excerpt-hellip"> […]</span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/facebook-likes-dont-increase-brand-preference-or-sales/">Facebook ‘likes’ don’t increase brand preference or sales</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here’s an iron for the fire: “Facebook ‘likes’ do not cause increased brand preference or increased sales so marketing campaigns designed to increase the number of ‘likes’ are unlikely to increase brand preference or sales.”</p>
<p>I was moved to develop and explore this hypothesis after reading an article on<a href="https://www.marketingweek.com/2011/10/12/the-real-cost-of-brand-building-with-facebook/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> the real cost of brand building in social media</a> by Mark Ritson who is a professor of marketing, formerly at London Business School. Ritson is renowned for injecting some good solid critical thinking into the often sloppy logic of marketing. Ritson argues that whilst there may be apparent relationships between brand preference, share or sales and Facebook ‘likes’, the relationship between these factors is unlikely to be causal.  Causality is important. It’s about understanding the the cause of relationships between variables in order to assess their significance; just because there is a relationship between two things, it doesn’t mean that one of them causes the other. To say with certainty that one factor drives the other, causality has to be proved.  Ritson argues that causality is being overlooked or even ignored in studies that set out to consider the value of Facebook likes in relation to brand performance.</p>
<p>There have been a number of studies which show that the most popular brands have the highest numbers of Facebook fans. but this shouldn’t come as a surprise to any marketer with more than a handful of brain cells.  Common sense tells us that the most popular brands are likely to have the most Facebook ‘likes’ because they have higher numbers of users and advocates.  But we need to remember that these  ‘likes’ are an expression of pre-existing brand preference and not a cause of it. Moreover, when studies try to assess the financial value of a Facebook ‘like’ they find that Facebook fans spend more on a product than Facebook users who are not fans.    One study found that Facebook likers of Starbucks coffee spent more in store than non-likers.  Well that shouldn’t come as a surprise either. Those consumers who prefer certain brands are likely to spend more money on those brands &#8211; after all isn’t that the whole purpose of consumer marketing and the process of building brands?</p>
<p>In both cases, there is a relationship between Facebook likes and brand performance but the relationship is caused by the strengths of the brand that almost certainly existed before the impact of Facebook. The Facebook like is not the cause of brand preference but simply a reflection of it.</p>
<p>If we use logic to extend these observations into prediction we can say that if likes do not cause brand preferences or increased sales, then strategies and campaigns that seek to increase the number of likes will not increase brand preference or sales. However, the predictive power of logic doesn’t stop there; brand owners developing social media strategies to grow likes risk creating “false-positive” brand advocates. These false-positives are consumers who have no genuine relationship with the brand or product but simply click the like because they are incentivised to do so. Corralling opportunistic consumers into Facebook fan pages may actually skew the brand’s Facebook page and community away from genuine fans. Worse still,  subsequent eCRM activity to develop these prospects may prove to be far less fruitful than initially anticipated.</p>
<p>Marketers, Ritson argues, would do well to remember the factors that really did build their brand preference.  These are likely to be product quality, availability, consumption experience and visual branding. They might also bear in mind the fact that research company TNS says that 61% of Britons do not want to engage with brands via social media and suggest that much of what is being build by brands in the social media space amounts to little more than “digital waste”. I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say that brands need to tread carefully when investing in these areas.</p><p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/facebook-likes-dont-increase-brand-preference-or-sales/">Facebook ‘likes’ don’t increase brand preference or sales</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Social Media Metrics Made Simple: Focus on Sales and Customers</title>
		<link>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/social-media-metrics-made-simple-focus-on-sales-and-customers/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simon Foster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:48:13 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Advertising Evaluation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social media metrics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social ROI]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/?p=1731</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>I am amazed that so many people spend so much time defining and discussing social media metrics. Why? Because the answers marketers (and shareholders) want are<span class="excerpt-hellip"> […]</span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/social-media-metrics-made-simple-focus-on-sales-and-customers/">Social Media Metrics Made Simple: Focus on Sales and Customers</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am amazed that so many people spend so much time defining and discussing social media metrics. Why? Because the answers marketers (and shareholders) want are very, very simple. Marketers want only one thing from marketing budget investment. Marketers want sales &#8211; sales are key; almost everything else is a proxy for some point on the journey to the sale. Make no mistake, companies and marketers are working to deliver sales. Sales are the elixir of life for commerce. Sales drive economies of scale and increase profitability. Sales are the business. In fact, sales are business. Period.  And despite this,  the ever expanding list of social media metrics contains virtually no hard commercial measures. Here is a list of 30 popular social media metrics I am aware of as of today:</p>
<ol>
<li>Active network size</li>
<li>Amplification rate</li>
<li>Applause rate</li>
<li>Bookmarks</li>
<li>Channel views</li>
<li>Comments</li>
<li>Downloads / Installs</li>
<li>Email subscribes</li>
<li>Engagement</li>
<li>Fans</li>
<li>Favourites</li>
<li>Feed subscribes (RSS)</li>
<li>Followers</li>
<li>Following</li>
<li>Forwards</li>
<li>“Influence”</li>
<li>Klout score</li>
<li>Likes</li>
<li>Lists</li>
<li>Mentions</li>
<li>Reactions</li>
<li>Re-Tweets</li>
<li>Sentiment</li>
<li>Shares</li>
<li>Subscribes</li>
<li>Tags</li>
<li>Tweets</li>
<li>Tweet Reach</li>
<li>Tweet Velocity ( I like this one!)</li>
<li>Wall posts</li>
</ol>
<p>There is a big problem here. Most of these metrics have little or no commercial meaning. What for example is the value of a “Like”? A like is no more than a mouse click on a web page. It requires no effort and takes a fraction of a second to perform.  A like requires no trade in information between the user and the item being liked. Anyone can do it and it signifies virtually nothing. Even the popular ‘email address for download’ exchange has limited value; I have downloaded a number of papers from companies it’s unlikely I’ll ever do business with &#8211; even though I am sufficiently interested in the content being provided to exchange my email address for it.</p>
<p>It’s ironic that whilst social media commentators and practitioners are busy churning out metrics with no real commercial meaning, traditional media is moving away from proxy data like coverage and frequency and into measuring and proving commercial behavioural change (fancy talk for sales) resulting from media activity.  It seems to me that social media evaluation has slipped into reverse gear and no none has noticed.  If social media is to advance its cause it needs to show either a direct or indirect link to more commercial measures like sales and customers. Is that possible? Well yes it is and it’s relatively straightforward.</p>
<p>All communication and media channels including digital media feed into sales funnels. Digital media traffic is the most measurable of these and can be tracked and measured in great detail from clicks to basket values.  This means it is possible to measure the commercial value of traffic generated by social media. If your Facebook page is generating traffic you can identify it in your inbound traffic logs. And if you can track the traffic through to sales baskets you can measure the sales generated by Facebook. And then you can start looking at your social media ROI numbers. If your Facebook page is referring 1,000 sales a month with a profit of £10 per sale, and costing only £1000 per month to manage and maintain, it’s making a valuable contribution to your business. If other hand it is producing 100 sales per month with £10 profit per sale and costs £10,000 per month to manage and maintain, then you are throwing money away.</p>
<p>The truth is that many social media variables only exist because of a strong supply side data push. Social media metrics are easy to produce; be they likes, friends, tweets, connections or channel subscribers they’re just descriptive data. At worst these metrics are a distraction for marketers. At best they are a rough proxy that needs to be calibrated with more meaningful commercial data. What marketers and business leaders want is sales, share, customers, customer value and profit. If social media sticks with likes, friends and subscribers sooner or later it will have to show what they mean.</p><p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/social-media-metrics-made-simple-focus-on-sales-and-customers/">Social Media Metrics Made Simple: Focus on Sales and Customers</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Social Media CRM&#8217;s new platform?</title>
		<link>https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/is-social-media-crms-new-platform/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Simon Foster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 10:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[CRM Training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Customer Analytics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CRM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eCRM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social ROI]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/?p=1720</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>For many years CRM has been a “direct” channel delivering one way communications to customers. Now, with the advent and maturity of social media networks brands<span class="excerpt-hellip"> […]</span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/is-social-media-crms-new-platform/">Is Social Media CRM’s new platform?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For many years CRM has been a “direct” channel delivering one way communications to customers. Now, with the advent and maturity of social media networks brands have the opportunity to engage in more balanced and cohesive discussion with customers and consumers. Social media with its wide accessibility and easy to use functionality offers brands a platform on which to engage with consumers on their terms. This in turn offers brands a sea change opportunity in the way they manage customer relationships.</p>
<p>CRM has never been perfect. Traditionally, the term CRM has meant email, direct mail, SMS and phone. These are ‘push’ communication channels. Brands push their message out to their customer base. Push communications have always had a problem; they are by nature interruptive, as such they risk being seen as intrusive or irrelevant at time of receipt. This is just one of the reasons why many forms of DM based CRM are still referred to as ‘junk mail’ by consumers. Other reasons for ‘junk’ status are that these communications are often not requested, they’re irrelevant, they’re not green, and they leave your customer with the feeling that you are trying to persuade them to do something they may not want to do. In short, people like being in control. By pushing your message into your customers’ lives you threaten that control and risk being ‘junked’.</p>
<p>The advent of social media offers us the opportunity to overcome these issues and move towards a more perfect world in CRM. With its ability to aggregate, assemble and cluster groups of like minded individuals social media allows us to address and overcome the junk issues listed above. Social media gives brands an opportunity for a radical re-think of what CRM is, how it works and how we deliver it. Let’s look more closely at the sources of “junk mail” categorisation and examine how social media may make CRM a more involving experience:</p>
<p>1) Lack of control: Junk mail is called junk mail because it’s not requested. In the social media world consumers control the dialogue; they do the requesting and they are in control. As a brand you are not imposing yourself on the customer. You are simply there for them when they want to engage with you. This is a different dynamic to traditional CRM. It puts the customer in control of the conversation and that’s where they want to be.</p>
<p>2) Irrelevance: Junk mail is called junk because it risks being irrelevant at the time of receipt. Here’s where social media really scores. If you allow the consumer to control the conversation then they are likely to contact you only when they have something important to say. Consumers will either like product, dislike a product or need more help with it. If you are dealing with these issues for customers at a time of their choosing then you are more likely to maximise the relevance of your communication.</p>
<p>3) Environmental issues: Junk mail is called junk because prospects and customers think it’s not green. The statistics around DM paper wastage are staggering and the DM industry should move forward from denial to recognition. It has been estimated that the UK is subject to more than 500,000 tonnes of waste paper through DM every year. Even if it’s recycled we should be thinking about the energy costs of this mammoth recycling task. Whilst all social media has some costs, they are minuscule compared to the environmental costs of paper manufacture, printing and recycling of millions of tonnes of DM. In 2011 brands must be seen to be environmentally aware and social media allows this to happen by reducing your dependence on less environmentally friendly paper-based forms of communication.</p>
<p>Social media gives us the opportunity to reverse the drive train in CRM. It’s time we used the internet to move from putting things into peoples’ homes to inviting people into our brands. It’s time we stopped trying to control the customer. It’s time we put the customer in control of us. It’s time we moved from push to pull. There nothing new here, marketing theory dictates that companies should be responsive to customer and consumer needs. The problem has been that until the advent of easy to use social media networks being open and responsive was easier to say than do.</p>
<p>By moving into social media CRM we open up our relationship with consumers. This sends positive signs. Companies that are prepared to openly discuss issues between themselves and their customer base will be perceived as accessible, caring and confident in the way they provide products and services. These are all valuable brand attributes.</p>
<p>Of course running CRM in social media where all comment can be seen by others requires marketers to have a high level of confidence in the brands and services they are delivering. But rather than being seen as a hurdle to be overcome, this should be seen as a useful litmus test of a company’s relationship with its markets. If as a brand you don’t feel confident enough to open up your CRM in the social media environment then that tells you something about the prevailing relationship you have with your customers. If thinking about social media raises negative issues then you should use this as an opportunity to clarify and address those issues.</p>
<p>And if you are confident that you can press the social media button now, then your openness can only serve to increase the confidence customers and consumers place in your brand.</p><p>The post <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk/is-social-media-crms-new-platform/">Is Social Media CRM’s new platform?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://www.marketingiq.co.uk">Marketing IQ</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
