#06-03-2014

Yahoo Rolling Out Indoor Maps (via Nokia)

Yahoo has started to integrate indoor maps into its newly upgraded mapping product. Even though Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer didn’t want to go head to head with Google in “local” (read: maps), Yahoo has been improving its mapping and local search user experiencesof late.

The inclusion of venue maps comes courtesy of Nokia’s Here division. Yahoo isn’t creating these maps itself; Nokia has been collecting and mapping venues in different categories for a number of years and now has coverage in 45 countries, with more than 1,000 venues being added monthly according to the company.

Nonetheless, improved maps is part of Mayer’s overall effort to boost search usage. This would presumably extend to mobile; however in trying this on the iPhone I discovered that there wasn’t an optimized mobile experience yet. And there’s no Yahoo Local or Yahoo Maps app (might one be on the way?).

Bing and Google are making similar efforts. Despite some fanfare, it’s not clear what level of progress is being made however. See, for example:

Microsoft Makes Venue Maps More Visible On Bing

Google Maps The Great Indoors (Android Only)

Google Introduces Offline Maps For Mobile, Claims A Billion Users Globally For Maps, Earth

Indoor maps have a number of functions. As a basic matter they can provide a better maps experience in malls, airports, college campuses, hospitals, stadiums and so on. But indoor or venue maps can also contribute to improved online-to-offline ad tracking.

When a mobile user has been exposed to an ad and then visits a mall or store that visit can be captured in a number of ways, including by watching that user cross a store perimeter threshold.

What’s intriguing to consider is whether Yahoo’s Mayer is going to push deeper into improving Yahoo Maps, local and mobile search as a way to capture new usage. And she doesn’t necessarily need to spend tons of money or recreate Google Street View to do so.

Apple Targets Brand Sensibilities: Will Debut Full-Screen, In-App Video Ads

Full-screen video ads that launch automatically on iPhones and iPads will soon be a reality. According to a report in AdAge, Apple will debut the TV-like video ads through its mobile ad network iAds at some point this year.

The ads would mark Apple’s entry into the heated race to lure brand TV budgets online by giving advertisers compelling ways to re-purpose their already-produced TV ads for digital. Giving brands the ability to reach users with full-view in-app video ads on their iOS devices could prove very appealing to brands.

Rather than expanding after being clicked on or hovered over, the new video ads would launch automatically in full-screen view. The assumption is the ads won’t pop-up in the middle of a user experience in an app, but will be placed more like typical pre-roll or post-roll units.

Whether Apple will sell the ads directly or via an ad exchange auction is also unknown. According to the report, one source said Apple had quietly rolled out an ad exchange within the past couple of weeks. Apple has not commented. Rumors about the exchange began floatinglast December.

Last March, iAd became the first mobile ad network to be accredited by the Media Ratings Council — certifying that the network serves ads that are viewable to users and that advertisers are charged only for ads that fully render on users’ iPad or iPhone screens. The stamp of approval seems to have done little to fuel ad sales interest in Apple’s in-app banner ads, however.

In the spring of 2013 eMarketer, had projected that iAD would hold onto 6 percent of the U.S. mobile ad market for the year and increase its share to 8 percent in 2015. Those estimates were revised sharply in August 2013, with iAD expected to have just 3 percent of the mobile ad market in the and show incremental growth to just 3.8 percent in 2015. Google’s mobile ad network AdMob and Facebook lead the market.

Study: 60 Percent Of Adults Switch Screens During The Day

Echoing a 2012 study by Google, Facebook this morning released findings from a new research about multiple device usage. While offering some different figures and percentages it essentially backs up the earlier Google results, which show that people use multiple devices throughout the day and for different purposes.

GfK carried out the research among 2,000 US adults. 

The research found that “more than 60 percent of online adults in the US use at least two devices everyday and almost one quarter use three devices.” It also reported that in excess of 40 percent start on one device and finish on a second or even third one.

Google’s research offered a more dramatic finding: 90 percent of consumers move “sequentially” between different screens during the same day.

The Facebook study determined the more devices owned the more consumers are likely to switch between them: “53 percent of people who own two devices switch between them to complete tasks or activities, and 77 percent of people who have three devices do the same.”

Specific tasks, location and the desire for a larger screen (or keyboard) typically motivated the migration. Facebook added that among screen switchers, “22 percent ended with a tablet and 58 percent with a laptop.” The two common activities across screens were Facebook and email (got that marketers?).

Smartphones are the most frequently and consistently used device throughout the day — on the go, at home and at work:

More than twice as many people in the study use their smartphones at work than their personal laptops, and people are 8X more likely to use their mobile on public transport than their laptop, and 2X more likely than their tablet.

200,000+ Generic TLDs Have Been Officially Registered

As of last night, the 200,000 mark has been broken in Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs). According to Domain Incite the number hit 201,184 registries to date.

The top 10 most registered gTLDs are:

#SXSW Preview: Marketing Land Heads To Austin

Even for the initiated, getting ready for South by Southwest Interactive can be overwhelming. But for the uninitiated, preparing for a first trip to the annual technology festival in Austin is downright daunting.

Five days in Austin, more than 800 sessions — many running simultaneously — to choose from. Do we want do get High on Hashtags or witness A Virtual Conversation with Julian Assange? Can we get from the AT&T Conference Center to the Austin Convention Center in 15 minutes? Who’s got a PhD in logistics?

Not that we are complaining about the chance to join the SXSWi extravaganza, which starts Friday and runs through next Tuesday. It is, after all, “tech’s premier celebration of itself,” as Taylor Hatmaker wrote in an excellent how to survive Southby post this week.

Don’t get us wrong, we do like to celebrate. And eat tacos. And network with the smartest people in hundreds of convention rooms.

But we are heading to Texas to work, and so we’ve been spending the last few days scouring the Southby interactive event schedule for interesting story ideas and events to share with our Marketing Land and Search Engine Land readers.

A few pop immediately. We’ll be sure to report from the session featuring Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, who with Schmidt co-authored “The New Digital Age.”  They will be discussing issues they raise in the book, including: “how will technology change privacy and security, war and intervention, diplomacy, revolution and terrorism? How will technology improve our lives? What new disruptions can we expect?”

We also plan to catch up with another tech futurist, John Battelle, who on Sunday will sit for a conversation with Sundar Pichai, Google’s senior vice president of Android, Chrome and apps. Battelle, an entrepreneur, author and journalist who runs Searchblog, is best known for his founding work on media properties, including the Industry Standard and TheStandard.com and Wired. He and Pichai will discuss what to expect next from mobile devices and the operating systems that power them.

On Tuesday, you can expect us to cover the appearance by Twitter co-founder Biz Stone. Stone, now focusing on a new startup, Jelly, an image-based Q&A app, and Steven Johnson, author and now host of PBS’ ‘How We Got To Now,’ will talk about “our connected society, the science and nature of collaborative networks, creativity, and how great ideas are born into existence.”

In between, you can expect us — the Marketing Land/Search Engine Land SXSWi coverage team, Pamela Parker, Elisabeth Osmeloski and I — to spread out across Austin and share anything noteworthy we find. Watch this space or follow us on Twitter (@MartinBeck,@PamelaParker, @ElisabethOs) for even more details. If you are in Austin, ping us and we’ll try to meet you in person.

If Online Ad Targeting Works, Does More Targeting Work Better?

A former colleague at Forrester Research recently published a study that described his view of the future of online marketing.

The study is available to Forrester clients only, but the crux of the argument is laid out in a blog post: Why Google – Not Facebook – Will Build The Database Of Affinity.

The author, Nate Elliot, describes large media companies building a “database of affinity,” which he described thusly:

Recently we described an idea called the database of affinity: A catalogue of people’s tastes and preferences collected by observing their social behaviors on sites like Facebook and Twitter. Why are we so excited about this idea? Because if Facebook or Twitter or some other company can effectively harness the data from all the likes and shares and votes and reviews they record, they could bring untold rigor, discipline, and success to brand advertising.

Nate’s argument as to why the database of affinity represents the future of online marketing is this: online search was revolutionary for marketers because it allowed them to target their customers better than ever before. Marketers could now spend advertising dollars to get their brand in front of people actively searching for their products (e.g., Samsung advertising to searchers of [buy LCD TV]) rather than passive watchers of TV or print.

In keeping with the thinking that more targeted is always better, Nate argues that brands will be able to use historical affinity behavior of consumers to target more precisely than ever before.

It’s clear that the database of affinity is a prize of gigantic proportion, and ultimately, Nate concludes that Google will end up the winner in that battle because they have the broadest data to draw upon and best chance of making sense of it.

I want to set aside the question of who will win that battle and question some of the assumptions upon which the affinity database argument is built.

Is More Targeted Always Better?

Nate’s argument rests on the assumption that if some targeting is good, more targeting is better. Thinking about this in isolation, at the level of “theory,” it stands up to scrutiny. But there are places where, at the level of “practice,” it seriously falls down — and in my view, these flaws are sufficient to make me question the validity of the whole argument.

For example, not long ago, I bought a pair of jeans online from Bonobos. A little while later, I was shown an ad for Bonobos in my Facebook feed. I was perplexed by the timing of it, until I read an article that described brands’ practice of providing Facebook with customer email addresses that were then mapped to Facebook logins so that targeted ads could be shown to brand customers. This is technically more targeted, but I responded negatively since I had never opted into their feed.

I think the question this raises is this: when it comes to targeting, is there a point of diminishing returns? Maybe there is such a thing as just enough targeting and no more.

Are All Players Equally Able To Leverage Affinity Information?

Any discussion of which media powerhouse (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will win the affinity database race presupposes that all players have the same ability to act upon that information. But, context matters.

In search, I am in research mode: in entering a query into the search box, I am announcing my intent to accept “bids” for my attention from all takers, and I’m prepared to act upon the provider of the best information in the search results to that query.

In social, I am in a very different state of mind. I expect content from my closed network, and unless I have invited a brand in by Liking or following them, their presence is very much viewed as an uninvited intrusion. It’s the loud, slightly drunk guy at the party that keeps interrupting your conversation with the interesting guy/gal.

It’s possible that users will become more accepting of ads appearing in social streams and begin to specifically turn to social networks for a wide variety of information retrieval scenarios — for shopping/product research, job search, etc. This would give brands a strong opportunity to leverage the database of affinity in marketing on social networks.

But as the chart below shows, this is not yet occurring at significant rates. This all adds up to our remaining highly skeptical that purely social companies have the ability to effectively leverage any database of affinity they may be able to build.

The Real Question Is “What Is The Context?”

Finally, I want to question a concluding assumption Nate makes in how the affinity database must be leveraged if marketers are to be successful:

If marketers are going to use affinity data to power brand advertising, simple text-based ad units won’t cut it. Brand advertising demands large, video-based ads to create discovery — TV spots, pre-roll ads in online videos, and supersized online banners.

I don’t buy the argument that large, video-based ads are a minimum requirement to reach consumers. Context matters — there is more than one way to reach an audience, and Google’s $29 billion search advertising business shows that text-based ad units do, in fact have their place.

Database Of Affinity: Great In Theory, Maybe Less So In Practice

The idea that digital marketing is progressing to targeting via a database of affinity makes sense. The argument had me nodding my head in agreement initially, but further reflection produces some serious doubts about the assumptions upon which it is built.

4 Elemental Problems With Low Converting Web Pages

As “power” marketers, our work can look more like scientific experiments than creative campaigns. More and more, power marketers make decisions with data. The collection and interpretation of this data requires a new set of skills.

Nonetheless, the goal remains the same for our online initiatives. We want to get a reaction from our visitors.

We want to get them to do something. Complete the form. Download the document. Buy the product. Subscribe to the list. Water the camel.

When we aren’t generating reactions on our site, we can see the results clearly in analytics.

High bounce rates and exit percentages

Low conversion rates

Low revenue per visit

High acquisition costs

The problem is that — unlike in science — we don’t have a common vocabulary and notations in the marketing world. When someone says, “Let’s send an email to our list,” it will mean something different to each person designing the campaign.

Here is a chemical reaction you may be familiar with.

This is the reaction that powers the volcano in many elementary school science fairs. I’ve also used this to unclog my garbage disposal. The carbon dioxide creates the frothing and bubbling “lava” or drain-clearing pressure.

The notation clearly tells us what elements to combine and what the output will be.

To get frothing, bubbling visitors on our website, we’ve borrowed the chemists’ notation to help us design some online marketing reactions.

The Online Marketing Reaction

When optimizing a website, Conversion Scientists borrow from our chemist brothers to create models for designing experiments. For example, here’s the formula for the classic landing page:

The Inert Gases

In the periodic table of elements, there is a section entitled the “Inert Gases.”  Inert gases do not react, hence the name “inert.” Furthermore, their gaseous nature makes them difficult to contain.

We have a similar section in our periodic table of online marketing elements.

These inert gases interfere with our online reactions, reducing conversion rates, decreasing sales and generally making us look foolish.

Having an understanding of these contaminants on our websites and landing pages will help us to improve our pages and our fortunes.

Bordom

Bordom (pronounced “Boredom”) contaminates pages that present information for only one kind of visitor — one that likes reading text. However, a page full of text, no matter how well written, will not appeal to scanners. Visually-oriented visitors will be driven away if the page doesn’t introduce some images. Long paragraphs, long sentences and industry jargon will bore even the most qualified of visitors.

To eliminate Bordom:

Add some image, motion, or sound to the page

Use short paragraphs, frequent headlines, bullets and highlighting to help scanners

Place text captions under your images

Melium

Melium is introduced when the copy, images and video on a page talk about your company and its products exclusively. Look at your pages and count the occurrences of “we,” “us,” “our company,” “our clients,” or your company name, logo and tag line.

Is the page full of Melium?

To eliminate Melium, mix in some storytelling. For example, your value proposition is the story of what you do, how you do it and what it will do for your customers.

Advanced marketers will mix in the radioactive element Youranium, by understanding the visitors very, very well and creating pages specific to their needs. Youranium can be created by getting feedback, generating personas and testing messages.

Hot Air

This contaminant is generated by unfounded “facts,” posing statements and irrelevant stock photography. We chose the same symbol chemists use for the element Helium. Helium isn’t hot air, but it behaves similarly.

Do you claim you are the “leader” in your space? By what measure?

Will I get to talk to the pretty lady with the headset if I call? Probably not.

This inert gas can be eliminated by adding some important catalysts.

Proof builds credibility and may even make the visitor say, “Oh, really?”

Trust can be added with symbols, testimonials, ratings and reviews. It tells the visitor that others have used your product or service and approve.

Use Images to show the product. Instead of manipulative stock photos of pretty people smiling for the camera, come up with images that communicate the experience of hiring you or buying from you.

Abandon

This is perhaps the most insidious of the inert gases. We chose the symbol “Ar,” which chemists use for the element Argon. When someone abandons your page, they “Are gone.” Get it?

Distractions are a common source of Abandon. Visitors are just looking for a reason to delay their decision to react.

Are your colorful social media symbols enticing visitors to check Facebook? If so, they are gone.

Do you put your corporate site’s navigation on your landing pages? It’ll steal away key conversions.

Does your form ask for my title, company, budget, buying timeframe, mobile phone number and social security number? That whitepaper may not be so interesting to me if it does.

I once tried to purchase a replacement keyboard for my laptop. The first question on the checkout page asked for my “Gender.” I abandoned and paid more at Amazon for that product.

Abandon can really get in the way.

Eliminating Inert Gases

Using our landing page reaction as an example, we can look for testing opportunities that eliminate these contaminants from the reaction.

We can test some catalysts – Proof, Trust and Image – on a landing page to see if we get more reactions. The revised equation looks like this:

By adding Proof, we eliminate Melium. Trust works against Hot Air. Relevant Images work to dissolve Bordom. Then we look at all of the elements on the page. If an element isn’t clearly delivering Offer, Form, Proof, Trust or Image, it is probably generating Abandon. Remove those elements that don’t fit the equation.

As Google Upgrades Google Maps Business Listings, Conflicts Happen Including Duplicate Listing Issues

Google has been automatically upgrading Google Place listings from the old system to the new Google Places dashboard. With this upgrade, there may be conflicts that prevents the upgrade from completing. The latest conflict is that there are duplicate listing issues and Google needs you to step in, fix the issue and then complete the upgrade process.

Google has recently began sending out notices of the duplicate place listings conflict via email to those impacted by this issue. The email reads:

We’d like to inform you that Google Places no longer accommodates more than one authorized owner per business location. Your account contains one or more listings that have been identified as duplicates of other listings and as a result, some of the information you provide will not be shown to Google users anymore…

Jade Wang from Google posted a detailed how to fix this issue in the Google Business Help forums where she summed up the issues two-fold:

(1) Your account and another account that you don’t control became verified for the same business using the old Places dashboard.

(2) You may have verified the page multiple times using accounts you control.

Each has their own method of resolving, which Google has either emailed the business owner or you can read them below in more detail.

From Jade of Google:

In one scenario, your account and another account that you don’t control became verified for the same business using the old Places dashboard:

Additional unknown verified account(s) from the old Places dashboard: Google Places no longer supports multiple verified business owner accounts for the same business location, so we are letting you know that your account has a listing that’s a duplicate of a listing in another account. By logging into your Google Places for Business dashboard, you can view the duplicate listing, which will show a banner reading, “You cannot update this listing because it has been marked as a duplicate of another.” If you no longer want to manage this listing, you can remove this listing from your dashboard. Alternatively, you can request administrative access from the current owner of the listing using the link to Learn more in your dashboard.

It’s possible that someone else in your organization, or a third party whom you once worked with, verified the business in another account. If you don’t believe anyone else could possibly be active in managing this business information, other than yourself, you can always contact support directly to help restore your account’s access to the listing.

Or, you may have verified the page multiple times using accounts you control:

Multiple known verified accounts from old Places dashboard: You may remove the duplicate listing from the dashboard in the account we emailed, which won’t affect the information on Maps. Then, please simply use the other account to manage the listing.

Verified same business in both Google Places and in Google+, same account: You had a listing that you created on Google Places as well as a local page that you created in Google+, using the same account. You PIN verified the local page in Google+. The system now has identified that the listing you have in Google Places and the page you have in Google+ as duplicates. We have marked the listing from Places as duplicate. If you log in to Google Places, and you should see your local page (from Google+) as well as the duplicate listing, which will show a banner reading, “You cannot update this listing because it has been marked as a duplicate of another.” You can remove this listing from your dashboard, and continue to manage the business using the account with the listing which is connected to Maps.

Verified same business in both Google Places and in Google+, different accounts: You or someone in your organization used different accounts to verify the Google Places listing and the local page in Google+. If this is the case, please use the latter account to manage this page. You should be able to do so via Google+ or Google Places. You can remove the duplicate listing from the account we emailed in Google Places, which won’t affect the information on Maps.