Marketing Pilgrim Published: “Will You “Like” Facebook’s New Ad Format?” plus 4 more

Will You “Like” Facebook’s New Ad Format?
Google Ad Track Blocker “Keep My Opt-Outs” Is Live
B to B Companies Plan Online Spend Increases
Consumer Product Safety Board Puts Complaints Online
Girl Scouts Say Yes to Social Media, But No to Online Selling

Will You “Like” Facebook’s New Ad Format?

Posted: 25 Jan 2011 05:56 AM PST

If you’re not a fan of Twitter’s new sponsored tweets ads, then you’re going to be somewhat grumpy by the time you get through reading this post.

You see, Facebook’s decided that it too would like to turn status updates into sponsored ads and is launching something similar. According to AdAge, advertisers will be able to convert a “like” or check-in–and some other kinds of brand interaction–into a Facebook ad.

How does that work? Here’s an example…

…if Starbucks buys a “sponsored story” ad, the status of a user’s friends who check into or “like” Starbucks will run twice: once in the user’s news feed, and again as a paid ad for Starbucks. Though clearly marked with the words “sponsored story,” the ad — which will includes a user’s name, just like the news feed — is not optional for Facebook users.

And another…

An application play works like this: If a user goes to the Coca-Cola page, and Coke has an app for users to upload photos, the sponsored story that shows up as an ad will read “John Smith used the Coke app to upload a photo.”

Advertisers will also be able to take one of its page updates and increase its distribution by converting it to an ad. If you were wondering how Facebook was going to achieve the estimated ad revenue goal of $4 billion, then here’s your answer.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see if this new ad unit becomes annoying for Facebook users. Based on my (limited) experiences with Facebook ads, I’m gonna bet that these will be a hit. Unlike Twitter, Facebook users seem to be surprisingly willing to accept ads that have connections to their network or their interests. Perhaps the key here is that Twitter’s ads have less personalization than Facebook’s.

What’s your take? A winner or a stinker?

Google Ad Track Blocker “Keep My Opt-Outs” Is Live

Posted: 25 Jan 2011 04:49 AM PST

Yesterday, I discussed how hype and news maybe shouldn't be held up as equals. Some of you disagreed which is cool but what happened today goes to show the risks of talking a good game without having anything to back it up.

Yesterday, Mozilla discussed their ad tracking blocker for their browser but couldn't give an indication of when it would be actually ready. Well, Mozilla's frienemy, Google, has their own extension for their Chrome browser with the difference being it can be used right now.

The LA Times Technology blog reports.

Google’s Chrome and Mozilla’s Firefox Web browsers are each gaining new features that will block advertisers from tracking Web surfing habits.

Firefox’s feature, announced Sunday, will be called Do Not Track and is under development. Chrome’s utility, announced Monday, is called Keep My Opt-Outs and available now.

The two tools to help protect user privacy follow a December Federal Trade Commission recommendation that all Web browsers add do not track features.

Held up side-to-side Google looks a little more on top of the game with their announcement since they actually have a product that you can put in use right now.

Aside from the "is it hype or is it news?" aspect of all of this though is the point that is made very well by MG Siegler of TechCrunch. He cuts to the chase and explores the reality of these announcements.

But let's be honest here: this really doesn't mean much of anything.

Depending on which stats you prefer, Google Chrome has about 10 percent of the total worldwide browser market share. Of those, a smaller percentage actually know what an extension is. Of those, a smaller percentage use them. Of those, a much smaller percentage are going to know what this opt-out extension is. And of those, an even smaller percentage are actually going to install it. (The same argument could be made for Firefox, as well.)

Point taken. In the end all of this talk of being responsible may be all just a PR play to keep regulators out of the ad track blocking business. No one in the online space wants the government to be playing ad track cop so the best offense is a good defense, right? By saying that the industry is taking care of this issue of privacy and ad serving in a self policing manner it makes it much more difficult for the government to come in and claim that since nothing is being done it must protect the people.

In the end, it is likely that this kerfuffle will be just another "see what we are saying we are doing but with relatively low impact" deal that is more CYA than actual protection for the consumer.

The ace in the hole for all online players relates to the point made by Siegler and that is that no matter how much is offered as protections for the consumer, most of them don't even have the slightest clue what is being done with their online data and habits. It's likely that they don't care either.

So in the end, all of this will likely serve to show that the advertising industry is on the job and that no one needs to step in and monitor their playground. If you would like to see Google's spin, visit their Policy blog.

So advertisers need not worry too much and this is just how the industry wants it. Until the general public has real knowledge and understanding of what can be done with their data in the online world there is little to fear for advertisers losing the ability to track people and serve ads based on the online behaviors.

The truth of the matter is most people don't know a lot about this, they want to know a lot about this and they don't care a lot about this. That is until the lawsuits start to fly about privacy invasions due to ad tracking. Then we'll see just what gets done to truly police this area of the Internet.

B to B Companies Plan Online Spend Increases

Posted: 25 Jan 2011 04:05 AM PST

The B to B world online is a different marketing animal in many ways. While B to C marketers get all of the attention with their online promotions through Facebook, Twitter etc the B to B crowd slogs through the online world at a pace that maddens some. In other words, the move a bit slower than their B to C brethren.

B to B Magazine (which I recommend you check out on a regular basis) recently did a survey that echoes the "b to b is a little less sexy online" with the results on where increase in spend would occur in 2011. Essentially it's all about the basics and, quite honestly, I suspect that many of the B to C hares could take a hint from the B to B tortoises. eMarketer shared the following

As for social media the B to B crowd is pretty realistic in that it sees much of social media as a brand building effort. While this is good and obviously important, I think that the B to B players who catch on to the other benefits of social media more readily will reap benefits. Brand building is all well and good but when done correctly social media can do a lot more.

If you are a B to B marketer do you agree with these findings? What makes the B to B space more conservative in its approach to online? Will there be a day when the B to B online space becomes more dynamic like the B to C space or is this just the way it is?

Consumer Product Safety Board Puts Complaints Online

Posted: 24 Jan 2011 04:03 PM PST

If you routinely scan social media for complaints about your business or product, come March you’ll need to add another site to the list. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is now beta testing a new website that will allow consumers to list their complaints publicly. The site is called SaferProducts.gov and AdAge calls it “Yelp with the imprimatur of government authority.”

The site will focus only on product safety issues and complaints will be screened before they go live, but don’t expect too many of the posts to get tossed. The CPSC says, all comments “that meet the minimum requirements for publication in the Database will be disclosed in the Database.” The legalese that follows is pretty extensive but it all boils down to what the screener considers to be reasonable. Which means, unless a consumer sends in a blatantly outrageous claim, it’s likely to get published.

Once the claim goes live, the CPSC will attempt to contact the businesses associated with the product and they’ll have ten days to write their rebuttal which will be published next to the claim.

As AdAge puts it, “the burden of proof there lies with the manufacturer.”

No one wants to see a child injured by a faulty toy or a death due to incorrectly manufactured tires, but given our propensity to sue our fellow man, this database sounds like it has the potential to get out of hand and fast. It’s one thing to see a complaint on Yelp about a plumber who arrived an hour late and another thing entirely to see an injury claim on a government website. No matter what kind of disclaimers they put in the fine print, people are going to assume that these complaints were vetted. It is a dot gov website after all, so that means there’s authority behind the words. Or rather, there should be.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission is a small office that already handles thousands of complaints every year, maybe millions. If even a small fraction of those complaints end up on the public website, it’s going to be damage control time for a lot of companies both big and small.

What do you think of the idea of putting CPSC complaints online? Is public safety more important than a company’s reputation? And as a marketer, are you prepared to handle a sudden wave of very public complaints?

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Girl Scouts Say Yes to Social Media, But No to Online Selling

Posted: 24 Jan 2011 02:14 PM PST

“Man I really want girl scout cookies ppl….. U juss dnt understand…..”

And so the cry goes up on Twitter and Facebook as people all over America begin craving those Thin Mints, Samoas and Tagalongs. It’s Girl Scout cookie time and this year those little green moppets will be using social media to help them hawk those over-priced boxes of sugary joy.

The whole marketing concept behind Girl Scout cookies is pretty amazing. By releasing the product only once a year, they’ve cleverly created a seller’s market. It’s not just a box of cookies, it’s an event! The first Girl Scout cookies were sold in 1917, but the tradition as we know it goes back to the 1950′s, young girls going door-to-door, or setting up tables at the local shopping center, selling bakery-made treats. And it’s still being done that same way today but with a twist – social media.

To aid the annual cookie sale, The Girl Scout Council has set up a dedicated Girl Scout Cookie website where you can enter your zip to find a local seller and a fan page on Facebook. They also have their own YouTube page which already has 67,000 upload views and a MySpace page, which sadly only has 35 friends. They also have a general Girl Scouts Worldwide Twitter feed and many troops have their own social media pages.

The official Facebook Fan Page has 67,000 friends split between people selling and people looking to buy. Here’s the rub, though the Girl Scout Council supports online chatter, they don’t allow online sales.

In the past, future online-marketing mavens have tried setting up websites and even auctioning cookies on eBay, but once discovered, their sales were disallowed. Why? The GS Council says that the annual cookie sale helps teach kids how to handle money and run a business, but why does it have to be a “money box and card table” store? The official website doesn’t say why but my only guess is for safety reasons.

The online marketing guidelines for Scouts says that a girl must be over 13 and that she may not send out any identifying information other than her first name. No location, no troop numbers. Also, emails must be issued through a blind address that keeps the child’s name hidden.

While I applaud the Girl Scout Council’s efforts to keep their kids safe while online, this is the same group that encourages young girls to knock on a stranger’s door rather than sell to him anonymously over the internet. Where’s the logic in that?

Looking to buy cookies in your area? Just get out your iPhone, because of course, there’s an app for that.