I’m currently trialing LinkedIN’s DirectAds. I must say, I’m substantially underwhelmed. Despite the ability to really focus in on your target demographics, DirectAds doesn’t deliver RESULTS. This is usually why I’m skeptical of any service which is based on impressions rather then clickthrus.

In the spirit of openness, here is our report on the last few days of activity.

Sure, I know ad copy can be tweaked and written for better optimization but when 1600 impressions yield 2 clicks that is a pretty abysmal showing on behalf of LinkedIN. I do hope that overtime DirectAds improves the quality of the network and also gives me the option to select impressions or clicks. Until then, we’ll skip on DirectAds.

Who sat down and made the executive decision that advertising must look crappy and out-of-place? I understand that the point of advertising is to attract attention and therefore should be an anomaly that the viewer is drawn to, but come on… enough is enough. People are starting to become desensitized to big flashy ads that are borderline unethical.

So how does one maintain ad-space and a good design? The online radio site Pandora managed to solve this problem. Instead of sticking the ad in a banner and calling it good, Pandora takes it to the next level by incorporating the ad design into the background. Not only does this draw more attention to the ad (by using the entire background it creates more visual interest) it also doesn’t sacrifice the design for an ad - it adds to it. Furthermore (and probably most importantly) the ad is usually a memorable one. A good example of this was when I was debating this topic with a co-worker (who is a general hater of flash sites) and he named a previous ad without even thinking about it. I say good work, Pandora. Not only do I love your music, but you made me a believer in ad-space.

Google has announced a new feature; the ability to share your Google Analytics data with the public and Google. At first this may seem counterintuitive especially for companies who guard their Analytics data; however there are some very useful instances to consider data sharing.

There are two aspects to the Data Sharing feature of Google Analytics:

Share with Google Products Only (by default)
It’s important to note that by default Google will share your data with other Google services unless you’ve opted out. The real plus of this feature is the benefits you’ll gain with Google Conversion Optimizer. Assuming you are using Google AdWords. Conversion Optimizer will offer automatic bid management tied to your maximum CPA goals. But Conversion Optimizer hasn’t been released just yet, so we’ll have to wait to see how good this really is.

Share with Google Products and Benchmarking Service
First off, it is all anonymous. The concept behind the benchmarking service is sort of a “I’ll show you mine, you show me yours” approach to industry trends. By opting in to the service you agree to submit your Web traffic data to a greater pool of annoymous statistics. In theory once this is available you’ll be able to better compare the performance of your site verses the industry.

A Recommendation to Google
Give the site owner the option of showing snippets of analytics code on their Web site. This would be useful for any site which is ad revenue driven. It would give advertisers greater transparency to the performance of various advertising channels.

One of my new favorite blogs is by Netscape Founder Marc Andreessen. As I was reading a few post today I stumbled on his post called “Left unchecked, this could become problematic” in which Marc highlights the decline in revenue for print, online and classified advertising, suggesting this could be a problem in the years to come.

I’m not sure I agree with Marc on this issue. I’m encouraged by the decrease in traditional advertising because it suggests to me a few things:

1. People are tired of the old media advertising ways. We are skipping commercials, blocking ads and using Craigslist for our classifieds.
2. Smart companies are avoiding traditional advertising and looking for creative ways to reach their audience, consumer and markets.

Perhaps rather then worrying about the decline in advertising we should be looking at it as a shift in thinking. Maybe we’ve reached a tipping point and this downturn in the traditional ways is the mark of something new, better and different. I think the book “Punk Marketing” does an excellent job at discussing the future of advertising and Marc’s recent article is just another indicator that the shift is underway.

Just yesterday I was asked by MediaPost about my thoughts on Google’s “new” Placement Targeting for a upcoming article they were working on. I was quoted in the article as saying the CPM is “so old school”, so I wanted to take a moment to elaborate on that concept a bit more.

For readers unfamiliar with CPM I’ll just point you to Wikipedia. Previously, Google offered Site Targeting, a method for listing your Google Ads on a wide variety of non-Google sites. The principle bidding method for Site Targeting was CPM. Often advertisers didn’t know what price to start their bidding at and most of the time the bids were too low. With Placement Targeting Google has revamped Site Targeting and is now asking the advertiser to bid on ads using the familiar Google CPC (cost-per-click) method. This change by Google makes bidding on non-Google ads a more understandable process for the new advertiser.

CPM still has it’s place for branding; however it is my stance that CPM is quickly going the way of the dodo bird. Our clients aren’t likely to quantify branding via CPM, yet CPC is very quantifiable. CPC measures action, CPM hopes for increased awareness. One method gives me a shotgun to hit my target from 50 yards, while the other gives me a sniper rifle to hit my target from 300 yards. I’ll take the sniper rifle please.