I think people may be a little over-concerned or, in some cases, missing the point around the Instagram kerfuffle, but if you’re not familiar with the ad industry and where it’s going, I can see why. Maybe this will help.
FB & Instagram want to create “native ads” – ads that look and feel like they are a natural part of the user experience – instead of cramming standard square ads or banners into the app. Having worked at Silicon Valley social media company, I’m very familiar with how these companies think, and believe it or not, this comes from a very well-intentioned point of view: we want people to love using our products, but we need to make money, and most likely that’s going to come from advertising. Like most users (and unlike most traditional publishers) they HATE standard internet ads; they feel they degrade the user experience and look like crap on their beautiful products. They want to take a page out of Google’s book, which figured out a way to insert ads that actually fit really well with the Google experience, and in most cases add real value. In Twitter’s case, this means “Promoted Tweets” that appear similar to regular tweets in your stream. In FB’s case, this means ads that appear in your newsfeed and look similar to how people share content on FB, and maybe indicate that some people you know like that advertiser’s page or that brand. Facebook is getting paid for that, but they’re not going to share the revenue with the people mentioned in the ad – which I don’t disagree with.
Instagram is working on the same thing: how do we insert ads – since we need to make money somehow to pay for this technology that millions of people use for free – but make the ads feel like they actually belong, vs. something that appears to be a foreign object wedged into the page that interrupts or otherwise degrades the user experience? Well, let’s start with how our users actually use the product: they use it to share pictures in a very public way. So what if we created ad units that actually featured some of the photos that are being shared? Like an ad for Disneyland, that actually features some of the Disney pics your friends have shared, instead of stock photos? Or an ad for Tahoe that actually features some of the pics you and your friends have shared while there? Instagram is going to get paid to run those ads, and they need to make it clear that they’re not going to pass on any of those dollars to you, at least not directly – they’ll use them to continue to maintain the service that you’re using at no cost.
Could this get out of hand? Yes, but this approach has been happening on FB for a while now (“Your friend John likes Disneyland”), and the fact is it would be really stupid for an advertiser and/or Instagram to abuse this, since they’re ultimately doing this to get you to be a customer of the advertiser. I’ve seen advertisers do lots and lots of dumb things, and there will be dumb things they do with this (if Instagram proceeds despite the uprising), but I don’t think it’s as bad as people seem to think it is.
The more that marketers use data to inform their decisions, the more relevant the marketing is for the recipient. McKinsey has a great piece on how Gilt Groupe is creating highly-personalized marketing for their customers by leveraging the data they’ve collected over the past 5 years:
Within a single minute at noon everyday, there are over 3000 versions of our message that go out to customers, based on what they shop for, what they like, even what sizes they wear. It’s tailored, one-to-one communication with the customer.
Check out the full article here: http://cmsoforum.mckinsey.com/article/gilt-groupe-using-big-data-mobile-and-social-media-to-reinvent-shopping
Last week I was in the check-out line at a major retailer, reading a very interesting story on my iPhone while waiting, when a salesperson from a company that was showcased in the store approached me and started selling to me. The person was a very, very good salesperson and doing a very good job, but the whole experience underscored how broken the sales & marketing process has been for some time: I was annoyed by the interruption, I wasn’t in the market or interested in the product at the time, and even if I was, it was a high-consideration purchase that I certainly wouldn’t make without wanting to do a great deal of research and investigation on my own and with my wife.
Sound familiar? It’s pretty much the same experience we encounter online and offline multiple times a day; while consuming content, doing work, or punching through our email, we’re bombarded with interruptive marketing that is often irrelevant or poorly timed. And for the consumer, that sucks.
I’ve had the good fortune to work for and spend time with LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, one of the leading thinkers on the topic of relationship management. LinkedIn itself is very much a reflection of Reid’s philosophy: Relationships Matter. In his book, The Start-Up of You, and in recent blog posts, Reid hammers home the point that the relationship networks you build and maintain play a massive role in how you manage your career and interact with customers in the new world of work.
I couldn’t agree with him more, and I’d argue that while the social networks have made it incredibly easy to build relationship networks, they’ve arguably made it harder to maintain relationships, and the maintenance part is the piece that makes all the difference. Most of us know that the key to maintaining relationships is to invest in them when you don’t need them, so that they’re active when you do; no one likes being the “fair weather friend” who only reaches out when they need something, and no one likes getting the call from that person.
A few considerations:
Legions of B2B marketers and sellers have been trained to aim their sites at the C-level decision-maker. Search Google for “selling to C-level executives” and you’ll get 2.6M links to articles, books, blogs and other forms of advice providing everything from timing tips (“call early in the morning!”) to crafting an elevator pitch (“make it simple and impactful”).
And for the longest time, I was a firm believer that nothing happened without a C-level engagement, and that our marketing and selling efforts should be directed towards only the most senior decision makers. Don’t waste time with people who can’t sign the seven figure checks, went the thinking.
But there have been a number of developments over the past few years that have flipped this thinking on its head, and more and more businesses are embracing a marketing and sales approach that runs completely counter to the traditional wisdom. Let’s take a look at some of the big changes in the purchasing ecosystem:
I’ve spent the better part of my career in the B2B marketing world, and can say with a great deal of certainty that a major shift is underway creating a very different dynamic between marketing and sales. Now, you might be thinking “oh great, another post about the new world of marketing, everything is social and digital and unicorns, your customers own your brand, etc. etc.” but bear with me.
Not long ago, there was a clear approach to the B2B sales funnel: marketing was primarily responsible for filling the top of the funnel with leads, and the sales organization was responsible for pulling those leads through the middle and lower portions of the funnel and closing business. In theory it seems like a reasonable approach, but in reality it was flawed, and typically created a sizable rift between the marketing and sales organizations: sales was dissatisfied with the leads that marketing delivered and felt they were alone in pursuing revenue, and marketing felt sales couldn’t convert the leads they delivered and felt alone in developing strategy.
The result was that marketing would work harder to generate more leads in the hopes of finding a quantity of qualified leads, and sales would spend more time chasing more unqualified opportunities. Both groups became even more frustrated and the rift widened.
Meanwhile, two important things happened over the past few years: businesses dramatically changed how they buy, and the toolkit for marketers got far more powerful than it’s ever been – not just by a little, but by leaps and bounds.