OMMA Conference Track: Maximizing Brand Advertising Via Search
|
Written By Reprise Media | September 27, 2005 | Share This
|
|
If you’ve ever looked into your empty wallet after a night of drinking or dining out and been disgusted at how much money you wasted, imagine how you’d feel after having wasted over 2.4 million dollars, and in 30 seconds no less.
According to Panel Moderator Peter Hershberg (who just so happens to also be our […]
If you’ve ever looked into your empty wallet after a night of drinking or dining out and been disgusted at how much money you wasted, imagine how you’d feel after having wasted over 2.4 million dollars, and in 30 seconds no less.
According to Panel Moderator Peter Hershberg (who just so happens to also be our Managing Partner here at Reprise Media) that’s exactly what some Super Bowl marketers did when they failed to tie in their TV ad campaign in with their search advertising efforts.
“Maximizing the Value of Sponsorships, Celebrity Endorsements and other Brand Advertising Through Search” was the focus of this panel, whose members included Seana Mulcahy of eBrains Inc; Ian Schafer of Deep Focus; and Jason Lehmbeck of Yahoo Search Marketing.
Peter opened the panel with some eye-opening slides of exactly how much money was spent (and by whom) on Super Bowl advertising in 2005. He then went on to give a side-by-side comparison of who made the most of the opportunity with tie-ins, value-added content, URL inclusion, etc. and who, um…didn’t.
Then the panel discussion began.
Some highlights:
On the role of search in an integrated campaign:
Seana- It should be at the crux of everything. I’m a branding chest beater so I believe you can’t do this stuff in a vacuum. Tag your URLs to an appropriate product page, don’t just slap any random page on there.
Ian- One of the great advantages that branders don’t capitalize on is the timeliness of search. Search represents what consumers are looking for in the moment. Be one of their first touchpoints.
Jason- GM is one of the companies that gets it. They bid on the term “superbowl” and were able to leverage the millions of impressions that came about as a result. McDonald’s is another, they used a fake blog based on a french fry that looks like Abe Lincoln to build pre-bowl buzz.
On who should handle SEM:
Jason- The SEM side the expertise. The direct response side has the metrics and the overall approach. The branding side holds a lot of untapped opportunity. They bring a whole new perspective to search that’s really exciting, particularly as it relates to flow-through from the landing page.
Seana- I’m a little biased, I think it should come from the branding side. Consistency is key when there’s so many moving pieces.
On whether it’s possible to make a deep connection with your customer, given the restrictions of the graphical ads (i.e., they’re plain, 2-3 lines of text, etc.):
Jason- Search has a unique opportunity to reach people who are making an association with an impression. For instance, your car brand + safety. It’s not just the ad, but the landing page and what happens beyond the landing page.
Ian- Much of what we do has a short shelf life. The goal of the SEM is increasing frequency amidst niche auidences, whether it’s movie trailers, 30 second spots, music videos, etc. You want as many of the right people as possible to engage with the ad media.
On buying competitor terms and affiliate confusion:
Seana- If you’re doing it right there should be no affiliate confusion. I’m against buying competitor keywords, I think it’s bad for business.
Ian- It goes back to human nature. If you’re looking for a Dell computer you don’t want to be interrupted by an HP salesperson.
The session ended with a Q&A that got off to a slow start but quickly picked up speed.
For more on this topic, check out our coverage earlier this year.
Topics: Conferences & Events |