andydidyk.com

In spite of some of my previous criticisms of Facebook, I have finally taken the plunge and signed up for a Facebook page.  At first, it was simply a practical tactic to try and maintain some traffic to site during my difficulties with Google, but I’ve since continued to use it and update it to finally see what exactly my peers had said I was missing out on.  A couple of initial observations:

1.  It’s fun to get friend invitations from both your current cadre of friends and from people you haven’t spoken to in years.

2.  99% of the communication I’ve received thus far has, in fact, confirmed my initial assertions about Facebook: fun, but not much more than interesting entertainment for now.

3.  I can absolutely understand the immense economic value of marketing on a network like Facebook.  The opportunity to use the data contained within posts, status updates, associtions, groups, etc., is like having the largest and most detailed marketing database available.  Oh, and did I mention that the majority of Facebook users fall within the most desirable demographic in terms of discretionary income?

4.  Every interactive agency should have a Facebook and Myspace strategy for their clients if their target audience’s demographics (and attitudes!) fall within the required parameters.

5.  Within a few days of joining, my Facebook page rocketed up to the #1 search result in Google for my name.  In addtion to the day-to-day banter being fun, it’s also another great way for potential clients to find me (although I wish this site would get re-indexed by Google a little faster).

I know these observations are probably pretty obvious to anyone who has already joined, but for professional folks who don’t find a lot of value in it at first, I can say it’s probably worth setting a page up and seeing what happens.

According to a recent Prospectiv survey and Brandweek article, 56% of survey respondents stated that their social networking experience would be better if they were served ads targeted to their interests, and 62% said they would be interested in offers from their “preferred brands”.

While research is certainly important to our business, I’m not quite sure why anyone had any doubts about this issue. Ask anyone involved in sales at any level, and they’ll tell you: it’s much easier to sell to someone you’ve already sold to then to try to sell to someone new.

“But what about getting new prospects?” one may ask. Surely there is some value in the scattered, “shotgun” approach to buying online media, but it is much more valuable to create brand evangelists that are absolutely in love with your product or service. They’ll do the best job of creating new customers for you.

Advertisers can get such a bad rap in the name of trying to better the world, can’t we? A recent CNN article details some innovative (and presumably cost-effective) new ad placement technologies that Microsoft is developing for online applications. Of course, because it has to do with advertising and with Microsoft, all new technology must be “scary”.

What they are talking about actually sounded really cool to me. Check out this excerpt regarding the new role of advertising in streaming video going forward:

Microsoft — along with Google Inc. and other competitors — is also hard at work on new ways for companies to advertise their brands to Web surfers watching video clips.

One crunched a clip, looking for the most appropriate stretch of time and spot on the screen for an advertiser’s “bug,” or logo. For example, if a car company wanted to show its logo for 10 seconds in the bottom-right-hand corner of the screen, the computer program would find the 10 seconds in which the logo interferes least with the action in the video.

Another used speech recognition to make a transcript of a video, then served up ads — in the demonstration, they were text links — alongside the video. As the topics discussed on screen changed, so did the ads.

The third program scanned a video for surfaces where ads or product images could be inserted later. The demo showed how the same frames could display a Coke ad one moment and a Pepsi ad the next, without having to reshoot the video.

This isn’t scary to me…it’s exciting for a couple of reasons.  First, inserting bugs or other visual content into videos is already highly annoying, so any technology that reduces how obtrusive those elements are is great with me.  Second, we’re all looking for ads to be more relevant to us - both advertisers and consumers.  Most people are at best disinterested in an ad that is irrelevant to them, at worst they are downright offended.  I remember watching an episode of “Dirty Jobs” online at Discovery.com, and every single online ad was for a “regenerating facemask”cream that I had absolutely no use for (this did, however, confirm for me that there must be a lot of middle-aged women watching Dirty Jobs, or there was a totally inept media buyer for the facemask company.).

How much better would your media consumption experience be if it were personalized to you?  Every other aspect of consumerism is heading this direction, and with good reason, because we’re all unique as people.  Ads finally catching up with this isn’t “scary smart” to me, it’s refreshing.

Valeria Maltoni at Conversation Agent posted an article today that also contains some interesting perspectives on consumer pricing. Evidently, according to a study reported on by the Economist, people who pay more for something enjoy it more. Imagine that.

But what’s really interesting is that if you tell someone something is expensive, even if it isn’t, they will enjoy it more than if you tell them that it’s something cheap. My guess is that Freud would have predicted that, but it’s still interesting to see a legit study that backs this concept up.

So, if I were a seller, I’d immediately do three things.

1. Raise all prices on any goods that are not staples and/or have percieved value aside from necessity
2. “Precise up” all prices and eliminate all round numbers
3. Hire some really good marketers

And as a buyer, I’m going to immediately do three things:

1. Disregard an exact price and haggle anyways
2. Ignore most marketing that I didn’t sign up for
3. Look for social media and user-generated content to guide my purchasing decisions

On a side note, I just recently found out that the Economist isn’t about the economy. It’s about a bunch of different topics economized into one magazine. It’s well written and a good read, too.

A recent study completed by the Social Science Research Network confirms another quirk of human behavior that is sure to get marketers’ attention. Evidently, if something is priced with an exact dollar amount (e.g., $1174 vs $1100), people are much less likely to debate the price. Indeed, the study found that if the price were “precise”, retailers and sellers could raise the price and people would be more likely to pay it without debating than if a round number were selected instead. People will actually pay more and ask fewer questions if the price isn’t a round number!

This, however, is my favorite part of the study (which, by the way, could benefit greatly from a table of contents and a better layout…ahh..science):

“These results have important substantive implications for buyers and sellers (and their agents). Buyers (and their agents) should be more cautious in their price magnitude judgments in light of our results. Sellers (and their agents) can strategically “precise up” their prices, i.e. choose a higher precise price rather than a lower round price.”

Behold the power of the information age. This is one case where knowing more will really pay off. I know that I certainly won’t look at a price of $150 the same way again.

High-five to these guys for bringing the study to my attention. Thanks!