Take control by being a lifetime learner

personalized learning 2

I’ve never been someone who takes things for granted. For many reasons I’ve felt like the most fortunate person in the world, meet my beautiful pregnant wife and you’ll soon start to see what I’m talking about. One of the biggest blessings I’ve had is from being a shy Yorkshire lad, 21 years old with a degree in Business IT, somehow stumbling into the crazy extroverted world of Digital media. I’ve met and worked with some of the most talented people in the industry who have always had the time to teach and inspire me. I’ve spent ten years working within both digital media and marketing and feel like the industry has evolved so much since back when we were sticking banners on MySpace & Lycos. The measurement has gained new ground, the publisher landscape is completely changed; I’ve been through FIVE organisational restructures! That’s one every two years.

The biggest thing I realised during this time is if your world resembles a giant tumble dryer then you’re going to have to keep moving if you want to stay on your feet. The secret to being motivated, happy in your surroundings and confident in your skill set is to embrace change and force it upon yourself before it’s forced on you.

If you work like a machine then you’ll soon be replaced by one  

I don’t need to stress the point of Artificial Intelligence, or scare anyone into thinking their job is soon under threat. But rather than look upon this as a threat to my job I see it more as a wake up call. If someone really thinks their job could be replaced by a machine then they’re probably not thinking enough within the day-to-day, or talking to people enough, or mentoring people enough. There are things machines currently struggle to do which are arguably the most interesting parts of our days at work:

  1. Emotional intelligence – Being great at reading situations, compromising with stakeholders and making something happen. Machines tend to be quite binary in their objectives
  2. Connect the incompatible – Can you take what you learnt from one meeting and translate it to be relevant in another? It would take a pretty impressive computer program to be able to do this effectively
  3. Draw abstract parallels – Stitching experiences together and taking abstract learnings for other purposes is a hugely undervalued human attribute, and one that needs an attitude of lifetime learning to be effective

“If you’re in the tech industry and everyone else is just reading tech publications, but you also know a lot about biology, you have the ability to come up with ideas that almost no one else could”

Michael Simmons from the Observer, theorising on why Elon Musk is such a fast learner

Be more than a cog

In keeping with my tumble dryer analogy, the reality really hit me when one day my washing machine broke and it turned out the problem was this tiny valve that needed replacing. This tiny insignificant valve that took five minutes to replace and discarded even quicker, with no other value to me. It suddenly made me realise (whilst likely daydreaming/procrastinating as my washing machine was fixed) how fragile our employability is if we allow ourselves to be specific cogs within a machine.

Most organisations love cogs and are more than happy for you to be institutionalised and become one. Cogs are easy to train, fit nicely and neatly into an organisation chart and are easily replaceable. Have you ever wondered why your company has so many processes? Well one of the reasons is a continuity plan, if you fit a defined shape then if you ever leave your role is commoditised, put to market, filled and the world moves on – How else can media agencies cope with such high staff turnover? We all know that ex-colleague who thought they were irreplaceable….

No one is going to stop you from becoming an institutionalised cog apart from yourself. Insist that your role gives you the runway to learn new experiences as part of your day-to-day and if work is more physically challenging (with crazy hours and ridiculous deadlines) than mentally challenging then it’s time to take a stand.

A generalist species is able to thrive in a wide variety of environmental conditions and can make use of a variety of different resources. A specialist species can thrive only in a narrow range of environmental conditions.

Keep moving, keep learning

The best advice I can give to anyone is to keep learning. There’s a wealth of information freely available on any topic we just need a motivation to take it in. If you’re lucky enough to get the opportunity then there’s no better way to get out of your comfort zone than trying a different job. As I said at the beginning, I’m hugely fortunate as I’ve been thrown the opportunity a few times. I’ve lived in London, Sydney and now Singapore, and was lucky to be given the opportunity with Telstra to broaden my media knowledge to more marketing. And recently I’ve switched again, working within Product marketing.

I’ve made many mistakes, oversimplified challenges, overvalued my work’s significance and generally showed naivety to the bigger picture. Mainly due to the fact that I felt like I got Digital, until I moved into a different role and found a new dimension to the Digital ecosystem that completely blows my mind. Uncomfortably, I’ve met people who say they don’t understand digital that have a much more rounded grasp than I did coming from my media silo. The more I learn the less I realise I know, and I’m still in a marketing silo! Moving into marketing with Telstra has been a very humbling experience. There will never be a time to stop learning new things, things that re-wire and enhance the way I’ve thought in the past.

Things i think i know

The two sides to jumping into a new role:

  1. The stuff you don’t know – Leave your ego at home and be prepared to feel like the stupidest person in the room. Cling to every word and read whatever is suggested to you. Be as respectful as humanly possible to anyone willing to teach you new things, it’s a rare gift so grab it with both hands. They want to meet at 7:30AM? Be there. And repay them tenfold with whatever you can do in return to make their life easier.  Pedal like CRAZY to get up to speed with what everyone’s talking about as being ‘the new guy’ has an expiry date.
  2. The stuff you know – It’s hardly likely that there won’t be some overlap in what you know, otherwise there’s no logical reason why you’d be given the job. For the things you know this is your time to shine and you need to smash this out of the park. Put yourself under great scrutiny, more than your peers and manager can and make yourself useful.

Push the boundaries of your role

Whilst searching for opportunities to jump out of your comfort zone be on the lookout for new experiences in your role that can provide an extension. Find people you want to learn from and look for ways to make it happen. Perhaps there are projects you can ask to be a part of, or initiatives you can suggest that benefit the company.

If all else fails then learn something outside of work and then try to apply it to your work. If you’re a media buyer who wants to be the analytics guy? Try subscribing to Lynda courses on Google Analytics and start integrating it into your reports. Do it long enough and people will start asking you to do it for them, it won’t be long till it will make sense for the company to make this part of your role.

There’s nothing stopping you from embracing change and becoming a lifetime learner. Stop being bored at work and grab every opportunity you can to feel stupid again as it’s the only way to grow.

 

 

 

Advertisements

The tragic story of the world wide web

What’s the difference between the Internet and the world wide web? I remember this being a question I was asked at University back in 2002 and it sparked far more debate and confusion than it would today. The reason being that the ‘www’ protocol was by far and away the dominant use of the Internet, it eclipsed the Internet so much so that you’d be forgiven for assuming they were the same thing.

These days ‘the web’ feels like really old fashioned terminology, something you’d correct your grandparents on without really being able to explain why.

Decline of the world wide web google trends
world wide web search volume decline – Google trends

If you feel like the term ‘web’ has lost its relevance in today’s world of communications you wouldn’t be on your own, but I have a feeling one day we’ll be reminiscing back on those days rather than scoffing at the infancy of where our world of Internet connected devices came from.

The birth of something special

Going back to 1989 when Tim Berners Lee created the world wide web, his vision was to reduce the barriers for the sharing of information with an egalitarian hierarchy. This encouraged world wide collaboration and made new levels of innovation possible at scale. Usage of the internet grew exponentially as per Metcalfe’s law, networks get more useful the more people use them.

This abundance of information led to a real need for organisation and this is where search engines came in – you don’t need me to tell you who won that battle. This I’d argue was the first time Tim Berners Lee’s vision was being altered given the impact Google had over how they rank content.Whilst the web in its design was still egalitarian, Google’s significant role in how we access the world wide web meant the users of the web had voted for their governor.

Publishers and businesses had to be very wary of playing by Google’s vision (not Tim Berners Lee’s vision) and there’s been some big cases such as Interflora in 2013 where manipulation of this vision has led to expulsion. Not many companies can bring down a business overnight by flicking a switch, but this just shows how much power Google has over the world wide web.

Social media – The world wide web’s new flame

Throughout the late 2000’s began a mainstream wave of a whole new way to access content from the world wide web, why seek out your own content when you can kick back and wait for your friends to deliver it to your doorstep? Among others, Facebook and Twitter became a whole new way for people to discover content, and for publishers to amplify their audience.

Search and social worked hand in hand, people with specific intent looked to seek out their content via search,
and social gave them the opportunity to share. It was a marriage made in heaven and for the time being played nicely with Google’s vision over content quality. Why would anyone share content that didn’t offer high quality information that gives visitors the information they are looking for?

The web was dominated by Google, but since the value of their product fed off delivering the best possible user experience of the web’s content, this wasn’t such a bad thing. And social’s ability to amplify content reach meant publishers could really invest in delivering quality content to their audience off the back of their ad revenue models.

Social outgrows the web

In recent years, whilst search was still the predominant focus for maximising readership, publishers and brands started to stray from Google’s vision for the web’s content due to the growth of social platforms. Instead they chose to innovate with ways to make their content fly across social, leveraging their loyal advocates by piggybacking off their influence within their own social communities. ‘New wave’ publishers like Buzzfeed switched their entire focus on writing content ready made for people to share and even provided tips on how to make content go viral.

Whilst having years of successfully dominating search engine competitors such as Microsoft’s Bing, a whole change of ecosystem was on the horizon. It was becoming increasingly clear that Facebook in particular was evolving to become a real threat to Google’s dominance over the world wide web. By June 2015 research by Parse.ly stated that Facebook had overtaken Google as the largest referrer of traffic.

google-v-facebook-referral-traffic

This is huge for any content creators as it meant there was potentially more to gain by writing content to be shared rather than content to be found. There’s fundamental differences in these approaches and it will likely change the way we consume content from now on.

Closed ecosystems create their own rules 

Google had a significant role to play in the web, but they will be known as enhancing the experience and helping people get the most out of it. They govern unsavory content from being indexed and if it’s not indexed it’s pretty much invisible, cast to the depths of the deep web.

Facebook is completely different, it’s a closed ecosystem to the web. You can find it via the web but you shut the door behind you. The problem with a closed ecosystem is it sets its own governance; when Facebook sold advertisers ‘Fans’ only to obliterate their owned media value further down the line there was no Internet police you could turn to. Facebook’s platform, Facebook’s rules. Deal with it.

Even with a closed ecosystem the web’s content is still valuable right? It’s the blood pumping through the veins of the internet surely? Distribution pipes are one thing, but social still needs content to be shared and that content comes from the web.

The pipes take over

As Facebook’s oxygen is still content found on the web, Google are still happy. Content is written in HTML, collected by Google crawlers in the free web, indexed and ranked accordingly. More content for Google, to be found through intent, and then shared across Facebook.

If Facebook is so important to publisher’s content distribution then surely they’re in a position to just eat the web? What’s stopping them? As they govern their own ecosystem they can offer incentives to publishers to just go direct to them rather than going all traditional with the web. Well that’s exactly what they’re trying to do by launching Instant Articles.

This is a platform which publishers can use to provide great tailored experiences to their audience, super fast loading and importantly an integrated ad revenue model which is immune from the ad blocking epidemic. Who knows, maybe further down the line Facebook will use this enhanced user experience as a way to justify an increase in organic reach for publishers who take up Instant Articles. Maybe as uptake increases they’ll insist content is uploaded exclusively without a duplicate version being published on the web? All speculation at this point but again, your platform, your rules.

Why would Facebook target the web? Tim Berners Lee’s innocent creation hasn’t hurt anyone! Facebook was born out of the web, how else would you find it? The problem they have is a growing jealousy of the big profits Google make for organising content. But if content isn’t uploaded to the web then Google’s product begins to lose its usefulness.

“Google makes the lion’s share of its money on search, and Google search doesn’t work if the web isn’t searchable” – The Verge

Facebook could potentially be on a path to starve out Google’s product, with the world wide web being a casualty caught in the cross fire.

Mobile Devices escalate the gang warfare

When creating the web, Tim Berners Lee created the open platform infrastructure for this to live on. It sneaked up on the likes of Microsoft, for whom it represents a missed opportunity of catching it in a box and rebranding ‘Windows Web’ – Has a nice ring to it.

The big boys weren’t going to make the same mistake twice, and when consumer habits evolved to Internet devices they had their chance to put their own spin on the web. Step forward Apple, their iOS platform took the internet’s connectivity and created their app store. The App store offered developers a way to create rich applications that could be hard coded to the Apple device and powered by the Internet – Importantly this is a walled garden available only to Apple users.

The scale of Apple’s marketshare for mobile devices, added to the sweeping trend of accessing the Internet via a mobile device. This means that this closed ecosystem is a significant player in the world of closed ecosystems. The app store offers great utility and content and…. yep they’re also trying to eat the web’s content too with Apple News.

With such a threat to their lifeblood, Google are having to match the ecosystems with their very own. Back in 2005 they made the savvy purchase of Android, which would effectively become the ecosystem used by every phone manufacturer bar Apple. They’re even planning to keep the web on life support as they incubate its migration to an existence on mobile devices. They’re doing this through announcing a partnership with Twitter to create AMP, Accelerated Mobile Pages. which will allow publishers to enhance their HTML content when it’s being served on a mobile device – One of the biggest growing pains of the our device evolution is load times, so Google are moving quick to remedy this.

Given both Twitter and Google rely heavily on the web it makes complete sense for them to team up and preserve it. Although Twitter’s rumors over expanding their character limit from 140 to 10,000 would lead to speculation that they’re eyeing up their own closed ecosystem for publishers.

 A game of thrones

So there you have it, in the space of ten years the Internet landscape is virtually unrecognisable. Who would have thought when Tim Berners Lee created the world wide web that it would be the target of multi billion dollar tech companies?

The transformation of the world wide web

Whilst I must say the three rivals have transformed the distribution of information beyond the wildest dreams of Tim Berners Lee, we are heading down a path of lost innocence that I believe by the time we see the repercussions it will be too late. By moving from an open platform accessible to everyone, we will live in a world where the ecosystems we play in are tainted with a self serving motivation.

At the moment we’re free to play the field between tribes and they’re all roughly talking the same language. Tribes have a habit of demanding loyalty, and as they start to make you choose one over the other it will ultimately shape the way we communicate, which might not necessarily be shaped in your best interests.

The moment you step out of the free web and into a controlled environment you hand control over to the gate keeper.

Content Sludge – Why it exists and how to avoid it

We all nod in agreement when someone says ‘quality over quantity’. Whether it’s discussing sausages for the barbecue or picking out flowers for your wedding day, no one wants to be that host who compromises the experience for their friends. It’s a gesture you make to those who are willing to give up their time to spend with you, showing value and appreciation for their presence. The same can be said for client meetings, interviews and even dates, no girl has ever said “That was a really boring date, but I was really impressed he managed to talk for hours!”.

Similarly when we read magazines we are being catered to with the best Screenshot 2015-02-21 at 10.54.18experience possible, New Scientist is a relatively small magazine for the cost, but it never lets the readers down, delivering interesting articles that leave a lasting impression on an audience looking to broaden their understanding of the world.

When it comes to digital content we’re slowly starting to see quantity being valued over quality, without anyone really owning up to it. For publishers pumping out page impressions and growing unique users seems to be the end goal, delivering a quality experience seems to drop into the periphery.

Betraying the community 

Mashable Australia, a respected tech blog that delivers latest innovation, insight and opinion decided to cover a story that has absolutely no relevance to their tech community. This isn’t their first offence, just one of the most obvious betrayals of their editorial integrity.

Not Mashable's finest moment
Not Mashable’s finest moment

As a reader of Mashable I’m not impressed that they’ve deemed this an adequate dish to serve up. I’m dining at Sydney’s exclusive Rockpool Bar & Grill but being served a mainstream Big Mac, and the most insulting part is they expect me not to notice. Is this sort of article worth diluting Mashable’s output and alienating their audience? It really depends on what they’re trying to achieve.

Everyone loves a Big Mac

A story about sweaters for penguins is bizarre, cute, feel good and arguably quite funny. You’d be hard pressed to find a topic and hero image that was more sharable across Facebook across such a broad audience of people ranging from girls cooing over cute animal pictures or guys sharing random weird stuff to their mates. The likelihood is that this article was shared across social channels, attracting a different audience to the usual tech community, and helped to grow Mashable’s unique audience number for that month. Mashable clearly values quantity over quality, and whilst by now you might think this is an attack on their site, it’s a much greater industry problem over how we measure success for publishers.

Look at this headline from Nielsen, Australia’s official supplier of online measurement. It champions Sydney Morning Herald ‘reaching top spot’ for news within Australia – amazing! great news for Fairfax, they’re beating their arch rivals, News Limited, time to break out the champagne!

Nielsen Fairfax News

A minor point in the detail is that News.com.au increased their time spent by a huge 17%! When we look into the breakdown of the numbers below, Sydney Morning Herald only beat News by 2.4% for unique audience visitors, and when you compare the time spent per person, News.com.au smashes SMH with 71% additional time spent. News also generates 18% more sessions per person, indicating a greater loyalty from their community. So who’s the real winner here? I’d argue not the site being headlined.

News.com.au are killing it for audience engagement
News.com.au are killing it for audience engagement

 Reach the people who count, rather than count the people you reach

Advertisers can sometimes take headlines over audience reach far too literally, everyone likes to back a winning horse and picking media partners is exactly the same. It’s far easier to tell your client “You’re in the biggest site in the category” rather than debate audience quality. Who can blame Mashable for their content strategy when reporting audience growth seems to be the only thing advertisers value?

The challenge then becomes a question of who you reach rather than where. If I want to reach an audience of Rockpool food connoisseurs, I can’t assume everyone in there is right for me, if half of them are happily chugging down Big Macs and finishing off with a McFlurry.

Take Subaru for example, they’re advertising the new Liberty, a car that starts at $30k for the base model. Assuming they want to reach an ambitious high income professional, a great audience for them is Business Insider. The problem for Subaru is they happen to release the Liberty during Valentine’s Day, a perfect seasonal stimulus to pump out content sludge.

Not the content Subaru had in mind
Not the content Subaru had in mind

Baring in mind Subaru are likely to have been sold a business audience, it’s likely they paid a hefty premium for such a high impact sponsorship. The last thing they’d think they were about to appear against would be movie suggestions for Valentine’s Day; especially when the audience they’re trying to reach are likely to be literally dining out at Rockpool that evening.

This is clearly a case of Business Insider having their cake and eating it, claiming they have a strong business audience, but propping up their unique visitors with broad viral content that will dilute the premium advertising product they’re selling.

Three tips for advertisers to avoid content sludge

1 – Be specific with the content you buy

The most important tip is not to be seduced by ‘Run of Site’ CPM rates. Most of the time media buyers can get a discount on inventory if they’re happy to run across any pages within the domain, even cheaper to run across a whole network of sites owned by the publisher. The justification for this is usually that you can maximise reach, and a wrongly assumed guaranteed quality of visitors to such niche community sites. It’s buys like this which publishers can take advantage of and fill up their bookings with sludge.

Be channel specific within your environment – You may pay more for channel specific content but it ensures that you reach your desired audience, as well as being contextually relevant and aligning with your audience’s frame of mind at the time of exposure. If you have a finance product, then be in the finance content of News.com.au rather than Run of Site.

It’s also best if you drill into relevant sub categories to maximise audience relevancy. Within finance if you’re providing a mid market insurance product such as TAL’s ‘coverbuilder’, then your most relevant audience are within the subcategory Money, then subcategory budgeting.

Screenshot 2015-02-21 at 13.34.21

Very rarely is there a further premium for drilling into sub categories, so you’re free to be as specific as you need to be – Publishers won’t like it as it makes it harder for them to deliver, but stay strong and get the content you’re paying for.

Mashable post
Unimpressed Mashable fans

2 – Get the most out of audience data

When using Nielsen the most common flaw media buyers have is looking at total audience reach. No surprises that Mi9 or Yahoo7 have the most users of a particular demo, but it doesn’t indicate quality or relevance for the product you’re advertising. The best way to use Nielsen data is to look for the most relevant category breakdown and rank sites by greatest audience index (how rich is the site with your required audience). Whilst Nielsen audience data will always have its flaws over accuracy (as it’s panel based data), this method is the best indication we have in market at the moment. It allows you to weed out the sites who bloat their traffic with mainstream content sludge.

Once you have that data you can insert a layer of site quality to increase the value of your media. You can do this by taking the average user time spent on the site and divide it by the amount of pages they read, giving an average dwell time per page. If you pay for media on a CPM (cost per thousand impressions), it will give you more control to pick the sites where your ads are likely to appear next to engaging content and will therefore be viewed for longer.

3 – Embrace contextual technology

If there are specific content topics you want to appear next to then there’s ad technology which makes this a whole lot easier. Within real-time bidding platforms such as the DoubleClick Bid Manager, you can specify relevant keywords within your bidding strategy. Across millions of websites whenever a page is loading DoubleClick will read the page, detect a relevant keyword and bid on the ads around it. This is great for when you know what type of content you need to be next to, and you don’t mind where it is. For example with Kia’s new 7 year warranty, they can target any pages discussing ‘Car warranty’, and serve the audience a message with their unbeatable offer to an audience highly likely to be receptive to it.

As our media buying approach develops and our measurement technology evolves, hopefully publishers will be encouraged to focus on delighting their hard-earned community, rather than having to slap them in the face.

@martynshaw

Ad Viewability – An agency perspective

Ad viewability is a topic we’ve had to deal with great sensitivity when discussing with clients. As an industry we’re very comfortable revealing a problem when we have an antidote up our sleeve ready to solve it. With viewability however we have a challenge that’s been well documented by the trade press but unfortunately it’s a can of worms without a viable solution yet, and that makes advertisers feel very uncomfortable.

The burning question is why has such a significant breakthrough in ad tech provoked so much discomfort, anger and mistrust? You only have to read the provocative headlines in the trade press to see who’s portrayed as the villain. Bold headlines such as ‘Trouble brewing’ ‘Wasted money’ ‘Publishers wary of increased scrutiny’ really paint the picture of the industry screwing over media buyers, and those buyers letting it happen.

Panic has escalated with inflammatory news headines
Industry panic has escalated with inflammatory news headlines

Publishers are being carved out as the villain exploiting advertisers, and as a media agency it’s our job to protect our clients from the tricks of the trade. No marketer wants to know half of their money is being wasted so I can completely understand the frustration. What would the knee jerk solution be to quash that discomfort? Stamping our foot down and saying loud and proud “I will only pay for ads that have been seen!”. Bravo Mr agency, thank you for protecting me against the nasty publisher.

 Buying guaranteed viewability – Who wins?

Who wins? Why you of course! How could you not? Ads seen are better than ads not seen, correct? Yes absolutely, but the question is how much is it worth to be 100% viewable? Would you be happy to pay more than double your CPM for it?

Insisting on only buying inventory from publishers that’s 100% viewable puts the power firmly back into the publisher’s hands, it’s another premium layer that can drive up their ad yield and your CPMs.

As a media buyer the easy option is to say you’ll only buy 100% viewable inventory and you may even get a low cost inflation due to first mover advantage ahead of the pack. Although that’s a really shortsighted answer to the solution, what happens over time when everyone’s buying 100% viewable? The market takes a shift for the worst, suddenly publishers are charging extortionate rates for their viewable impressions, and selling their ‘low viewability ratio’ inventory at knock down rates.

It’s not our job to react to client demands and give them what they want, our job is to understand the landscape, communicate clearly to clients and take leadership in states of confusion. Media is probably about 10% – 20% of our client’s day to day focus, so we can’t expect them to know the answer, they rely on us to support them with our expertise.

There’s gold below the fold

Have you ever noticed that you sometime get hooked by websites, reading content piece after content piece? Do you ever wonder how you get caught up in their web of Kim Kardashian stories? Well it’s likely you don’t scroll back to the top of the page, just like with video tapes and cassettes, we don’t take kindly to rewinding! Instead you’ll often see content links at the bottom of the page, craftily aligned to dovetail with the content you’re reading. No need to trawl back to the top of the page, you’re ready to keep on rolling.

These are valued readers by any publisher, they’ve managed to make it to the end of an article, and in today’s age of narrowing attention span that takes some discipline.

The Guardian know the value of below the fold
The Guardian know the value of below the fold

Perhaps only 20% – 30% of people make it down to the depths of below the fold, but for the Guardian it’s those resolute folk who are worth fighting for. We can learn a lot from publishers in their tactics to keep their site sticky, why else would we have such a thirst for native ad formats? If it’s good enough for them then as an advertiser we should think twice about ignoring low view ratio inventory.

Take Car Advice for example, a site rich in detail with really lengthy engrossing content. When I’ve used this site in the past it’s their below the fold ad formats which deliver the most efficient conversions (that’s post click conversions i’m comparing, but more on that later).

Engaged Car Advice readers are found below the fold
Engaged Car Advice readers are found below the fold

To the knee jerker, that’s implausible. “I’m on the same site with an 80% viewable ratio leaderboard, how can you get better performance with a 20% viewable ad? Surely mine should be four times as effective?”.

My theory is that users who don’t make it to the bottom of the page (aptly i’ll call them ‘tire kickers’ for my Car Advice example) are not engrossed in the content enough to make it down there, and therefore that one person out of five who does is worth so much more than the other four tire kickers. They’re keen, they are engaged and focused enough to keep reading. All I need to do is offer the navigational solution to match their desires, and if I’m targeted enough, and have relevant messaging then it will likely be money well spent. If I was buying on a viewability ratio these gold nuggets would be overlooked.

Embrace measurement to stay in control

In many ways the call for guaranteed viewability is history repeating itself from the days of buying on a guaranteed Cost Per Acquisition (CPA). The ad technology evolved enough for accountability over the acquisitions generated and our instant reaction is to hand accountability back to the publishers to guarantee our returns. Similar to a fixed rate mortgage the security of a guarantee is more often than not stacked in the seller’s favor, exploiting the market knowledge gap between buyer and seller.

Over time media buyers took the CPA responsibility back into their own hands, choosing to buy on a CPM and work this back into the effective CPA value (saving the guaranteed cost margin). What we can learn from CPA buying is that to maintain a competitive edge no one should know more than you about how your media is performing.

By embracing measurement we utilise the tools we have to get a comprehensive view of our media against a clear objective, avoiding jumping through endless hoops of vanity proxies. The more robust our measurement is the better decisions we’ll make as media buyers and this is how you gain a competitive edge. Programmatic is removing the friction between campaign insights and media buying, making a robust measurement framework absolutely vital to remain competitive.

We need to look past viewability and focus on what this technology can do for our measurement. I want to be able to see value in placements that others can’t and I especially want to expose flawed placements which everyone else perceives of value.

Here’s three enhancements I’m looking forward to:

Genuinely viewed post view conversions 

Behind all the scaremongering about non-viewed inventory there is a very real flaw in the current measurement of media – the unseen post viewed conversion. This is ultimately an ad that you haven’t clicked but you’ve gone through to the site since to buy the product. Unseen ads can be counted as post view conversions which is unfair and unjustified recognition. If you haven’t seen the ad on the page, yet it’s been counted as a post view conversion then I don’t think anyone could argue it’s had zero effect on that sale.

To make matters worse, if three ads are loaded down a page only the last one loaded is going to get the post view conversion; and as a page loads from top to bottom which of the three ads do you think is loaded last and claims the post view?! Post view conversions are the scourge of performance activity for this reason, but I believe viewability technology is going to be the answer.

At the moment Google’s Doubleclick adserver have viewability measurement in silo to the rest of the interface, but as soon as this is integrated we will be able to remove post view conversions that were in fact not seen. This will be a revelation for advertisers and help remove those publishers making a living off unfair recognition. For anyone using an attribution model the potential to remove unseen ads from the path to conversion will significantly enhance campaign analysis. We’ll be able to see which ads were pivotal in the path to conversion and which just limped along in the background taking a slice of the credit.

Visible reach and frequency

For brand campaigns viewability is a great way to measure audience reach across our audience. If half of my ads are not seen then it’s really hard for me to put a figure on the amount of people I’ve exposed my message to, and control the frequency of my delivery. If viewability can discount the impressions unseen then we should be able to layer this into our reporting very soon.

Do the savviest shoppers always buy the best quality? Absolutely not. Growing up my mum would evaluate everything she bought against the value she got in return. She’d take hours in the supermarket. Media is no different, we need to have a clear focus on value against our objectives and remain true to that, balancing price against quality.

Rather than buy on 100% viewable impressions we have the tools to work our media back to a cost per user reached. Once you factor the cost implications of media into your viewability comparisons it might be more cost efficient to take a lower viewability ratio with one publisher over a higher priced alternative.

Sometimes price can compensate for a low visibility ratio
Sometimes price can compensate for a low visibility ratio (example data)

Visible brand uplift studies

When running brand uplift studies of my campaigns against both a control and exposed pool of users I’ve always been bemused over the results I’ve seen. In most cases they indicate one thing – Buy takeovers to drive efficient impact. Whilst this might be true it may also have something to do with takeovers being 100% viewable which skew the results against placements that aren’t so visible.

I want to prove the impact digital can have on brand perception and purchase intent, but given half my ads are unseen then these supposedly ‘exposed’ users are blunting the impact of the results when their brand survey results show no impact of the ad served. If we are able to detect these unseen impressions we should be able to move these people back into the ‘control’ group and focus our brand uplift results from people who’ve genuinely been exposed to our messaging.

Media agencies should be excited about Viewability

There’s been little in the trade press from media agencies about viewability but that doesn’t mean we’re not ready to embrace it. Publications such as AdWeek are advising that a ‘good’ viewability rate you should be looking for is 60%. We need to avoid tying ourselves up with industry benchmarks, we still haven’t managed to throw the devilish CTR% benchmark out of the window!

We need to stop looking at various industry benchmarks as a proxy for performance and focus on the job in hand – meeting our defined objectives. We need to set our own benchmarks and try to improve on them as we progress. Reporting tools like viewability help us get there, but are best used to refine the measurement we already have rather than being seen as the silver bullet.

@martynshaw

It’s time cinema grew up

popcorn

It’s amazing where time goes as you get older, I’m within a few days of turning thirty and can’t help but feel like I’m starting to really evolve in ways I’d never have imagined. All of a sudden the thoughts and opinions people have of me don’t feel such a pressing concern, I’m having to work a tad harder to shed the Christmas cheese board, and I’m starting to really feel like the latest pop bands are singing over me rather than towards me. In short I’m becoming the middle-aged man I’ve always dreaded, and the scary thing is I’m absolutely loving it.

I’ve spent the best part of my life feeling like my interests haven’t changed one bit. During my late teens/early twenties I’d rattle down pasta as pure fuel, save all my cash for going to nightclubs as much as I could, laugh hysterically through the whole night with my friends and wake up the next day not remembering a thing. Life couldn’t get better than this, I had it all, and things would stay like this forever.

Nowadays though food is a major hobby of mine, I can’t think of anything better than sitting with a nice bottle of wine and a good meal with a small group of close friends. The thought of queuing all night at a busy bar like a pack of pigeons hustling for breadcrumbs makes me wince.

Not the best company on a Saturday night
Not the best company on a Saturday night

So what do I do for fun? Well I can’t eat ALL the time, those Christmas cheeseboards are hard work enough! I’ve actually rediscovered the Cinema as a perfect way to spend an evening, my girlfriend and I regularly have a lovely meal, visit the cinema and top it off with a cocktail.

Sounds nice doesn’t it? Well the reality is despite the comfy chairs there’s a growing issue (which grows every year I get older), your typical multiplex cinema is designed for people who frighteningly could be my own kids already.

Here’s my problem with cinemas:

  • Shocking food – popcorn is nostalgic, but I want some choice. More than a hot dog
  • Soft drinks –  Sugar laced water or a choice of plain water? Why can’t I have a wine? You can check my ID if you like
  • Brats – Everywhere! I didn’t mention, but growing older has also made me less patient with idiots
  • Rubbish films – Cinema seems to be highly catered for the same garbage to hit demand, whilst I like the cinema we often run out of films remotely worth watching

From my time working on Warner Brothers I know that there’s only so many Dark Knights, and Harry Potters, the rest of the schedule is filled with safe film fodder. And how do you build film fodder? You know your audience, what’s worked before and you play it safe; build revenue gradually and take minimal risks. This is why Pretty woman led the way for hundreds of imitations, one guy, one girl and a white background, the perfect blend for a moderate box office win.

Girl + Guy + Whitebackground = Predicable box office revenue
Girl + Guy + White background = Predicable box office revenue

There’s surely a bigger opportunity than what we have at the moment, and the numbers aren’t looking good for cinema as it stands. Revenue may be growing year on year but that’s largely due to hikes in ticket prices, (as 3D briefly became the savior of cinema) the number of cinema tickets sold is actually decreasing over time. As with anything played safe over and over again, the effect gradually declines.

But what if the cinema industry had a whole refreshed audience? What if Art house filmmakers were given a bigger platform to entertain? What if Jennifer Anniston could remain in the 90’s where she belongs? I believe the time is now.

Underlying issues for the Movie industry

As we can see from the global revenue reports, the industry sees a very healthy year on year growth of 3% – 6%. On the surface everything looks great for cinema, Avatar boomed and created another premium in 3D to add to the revenue stream.

Revenue masks the long term issue
Revenue increase of 3.5% for 2013 (Source: Statista)

The revenue shows no signs of slowing down at the moment, great time to be in cinema it seems doesn’t it? Well actually when you scratch the surface there’s some big problems ahead, and I don’t think they’re too far away.

Whilst box office revenue is increasing year on year, the ticket sales is actually on the decline, meaning only one thing. The revenue is increasingly being supplemented by a hike in ticket prices, the figures are masking an unhealthy industry. The problem is by increasing the cost to go to the cinema ticket sales are likely to continue decreasing, and the industry will eat itself.

Source: MPAA
Source: MPAA

I can see a time where cinema multiplex revenue hits decline, more and more money conscious teens are pirating content and the rising costs of cinema viewing is only going to make piracy more compelling. Whilst having teenagers crunch popcorn in your ear is annoying it does supplement ticket sales revenue, but if fewer people visit that’s less popcorn crunchers.

Life doesn’t stop at 25

The movie studios need to stop focusing on preventing piracy (ask the music industry how that’s going…) and address the fact they’re all fighting over the same decline audience demographic! The 18-24 demo are only 10% of the population, and whilst they’re over indexing by 70% for tickets sold there’s surely a lot of scope to increase this net.

Source - mpaa, US stats
Source – mpaa, US stats

The 25-39 demographic is 20% of the population yet they’re only over-indexing in tickets sold by 15%. This demo is begging to be serviced appropriately with relevant films and more importantly a relevant experience. Cinema needs people with high disposable income who don’t mind paying for content, and they need to distribute to places where these people want to be.

Why can’t bars offer Theatrical content?

So going back to my usual evening out, I start off in a nice restaurant with like-minded people, then step back into my teens at the cinema, picking the least ill-fitting film I can find. I wrap my night up with a nice cocktail bar where I’m back with my thirty year old peers. What I want to know is why can’t I have my cocktail with my film? If there’s one thing that Starbucks has taught us it’s the value of creating a destination, the longer you keep people comfortable the more they’ll spend. If I spent as much time in the cocktail bar as I did at the cinema I estimate my bill would hit $45 instead of the usual $15. You can double that too if you include my girlfriend.

I can’t be alone in wondering if cinema needs to be liberated from the multiplex youth club so that we’re not all shoehorned into the same venue. We’re already seeing high calibre bars such as Sydney’s, ‘Beresford Hotel’ showing cult films on a Tuesday night, and art house cinema houses such as Darlinghurst’s Palace Cinema are also providing a good alternative and paving the way for change.

In a time where internet speeds are growing so fast we don’t know what to use it for, it’s not impossible to see how this could work. Surely paid content can be policed through an on demand steaming service, and catered for the size resolution required? Then bars could pay a varied fee based on the screen size, and audience size to go with it.

Bars could offer bar food, cocktails and end up making $60 -$80 per head, plus a potential entrance fee. This would be an amazing cinema experience and I’d pay good money to never have to share a cinema with thirteen year old kids again.

@martynshaw

Digital Plumbing

Throughout my relatively short career in digital media I’ve had to battle through all sorts of challenges with convincing clients of the importance of digital. I have memories of the TV lads pretending we’re the IT help desk, asking for us to fix their computers; what hope do you have of persuading clients to take digital seriously when even internally you’re getting mixed up with the IT team?!

Thankfully we’re now at a stage where the majority of clients value digital. We’re somewhere between 25% – 30% of media investment allocation across the majority of clients. The challenge we’re taking on now as an industry is not just ticking digital off with some banner ads (no one gets a shiny star for that anymore), we need to ensure clients are using digital effectively by providing the very best advice we can based on their needs.

The most common mistake agencies make when client servicing is to assume their clients know and understand what their digital needs are. We often deliver what clients ask for when we should be the ones advising them on what they need. This often leads to fueling brand vanity, over-focusing on trying to make people fall in love with us, when we should really be focusing on being lovable.

Essential priorities

When renovating a house you wouldn’t just jump to the fun parts would you? Building a shiny conservatory and picking out a TV before fixing up the electric and installing a boiler, that would be incredibly naive.

Well that’s what far too many marketers are doing within digital, assuming the digital essentials are covered already and jumping to the glossy brand campaigns on the Sydney Morning Herald homepage.

Ironically after often being confused with the IT team, as years have gone by the role of a digital media professional increasingly integrates with our client’s IT infrastructure. As PWC noted in July this year, two out of three marketers are seeing a shift in investment from bought media into owned channels. The industry is maturing, and we’re increasing our focus on getting our house in order. Lay the groundwork to get the best business results out of great innovative campaigns.

What’s the essential plumbing I need to cover? 

Here’s five questions you need to ask of your client’s business before even thinking of investing big in media to attract incremental audience:

  1. Are we mobile optimised?

This year we’ll see mobile internet consumption overtake desktop for the first time, and it’s likely that those brands with a younger audience skew have already gone past that threshold.

Despite such large mobile consumption, it’s staggering that many businesses continue to force their users to put up with the scrunched up desktop version of the site on their small screen, and still expect to drive sales. See the Domino’s example below, which site do you think sells more Pizza? Cater the user experience to the device, make it as easy as possible for people to give you their money.

Dominos Pizza Mobile optimised vs Standard site
Domino’s Pizza Mobile optimised vs standard site

2.  Can we make it easier for our customers to buy?

Similar to mobile optimisation, make sure your site is as intuitive to use as possible, don’t assume that visitors love your product so much that they’ll tolerate a bad customer experience. Amazon invest bucket loads to improve their user experience, and how easy is it to spend money on Amazon? Just vising the site makes me want to read more.

amazon-435-cs013113If you make 10,000 sales a month with a cost per sale of $25 that’s a media cost of $250,000. If you wanted to double your sales per month you’re likely to find it a lot cheaper to improve your site’s visit/purchase rate through simplifying the user journey on the site, rather than just spending an extra $250,000 every month in media.

If a marketer were to assume the essentials were already covered they’re likely to think their site is as good as it’s always going to be, doubling their investment would then appear like the only option. This is why we need to work more collaboratively with clients to deliver relevant recommendations rather than just answering a media brief.

3.  Are we easily found by those who are looking?

If you’re going to invest in getting people through to your site through paid media then a good first option is to make sure you’re making the most of organic search. We spend far too much focus (and money!) on convincing people to come to us and tend to overlook servicing those who are already keen. It’s like walking into a restaurant and finding all the staff are stood outside handing out menus.

Ski jacket

Whatever goods or service your website offers, there will always be a base demand of people who just need their problem answering with a relevant solution. If you don’t have anyone who needs your service then you have bigger business problems! You need to grab this opportunity firmly as these people are not brand loyal. You haven’t eased them down the purchase funnel and they just want a quick fix to their need – if you’re not visible then they’ll simply pick your competitors for their product based requirement.

Make sure your site is visible for relevant searches by investing in SEO consultancy, then build useful, relevant site content to capture incremental search traffic from an interested audience.

4.  Are you finding and capturing people who show interest?

If in the real world you could hear every time someone mentioned they were interested in your products you’d jump at the chance to take advantage.

You want taxi boat?!
You want taxi boat?!

If you’ve ever been to the islands in Thailand imagine how much the annoying, noisy longboat drivers would love it if they had a way of detecting exactly who ACTUALLY wanted a ride as opposed to asking everyone who walked past on the off chance?

In digital we can do this, but it’s often overlooked as we prefer trying to convince the whole island that they want a boat ride.

People search for brands, tweet about brands and read about brands; all simple to reach through advanced targeting and you’re able to deliver a bespoke message when relevant. It might not deliver huge volumes of traffic but by leaving it running constantly you’ve always got your ear to the ground.

5.  Are you retargeting your site visitors?

Even if your site is highly visible and a dream to navigate, there’s lots of reasons why people might not purchase on the first visit. Maybe their bus has just arrived? Lunch break has finished? Waiting till payday? Too scared to buy without consulting the wife? Or maybe even for some reason people are not completely in love with your product and they want to shop around the competition before they decide.

A massive assumption often made is that people will remember to come back to you, and that they’ll even remember what they were looking for in the first place. With the right tagging on your site you’ll be able to cookie your visitors and find them again with either display media or search ads.

The first step would be to tag everyone and give them a one size fits all brand message to direct them back to the homepage; that’s just the tip of the iceberg though, you can get really specific with your targets and messaging. Why not target someone specifically with the products they viewed and bring them back to those specific products? Or even target based on the recency that they visited?

Companies such as AdRoll and Criteo specialise in offering this type of service; and if you wonder just how deep and precise retargeting can get, AdRoll even published a jaw dropping 192 page Retargeting Playbook!

Summary

Both improving your owned media and prioritising wannabe customers will deliver your most efficient sales, as these are your lowest hanging fruit. Everything you can do to enhance the user experience will make your paid media work harder for your client’s business. Create a superb brand experience that you can be proud of before you invite people in!

@martynshaw

Facebook’s ad model is the ultimate smoke screen for taking on the telcos

Since May 2012, over two years ago when Facebook finally filed for IPO their business has had an incredible amount of scrutiny cast over its business model. The main reason for this being a whopping $104 Billion valuation for a business that only managed to record less than 1% of that value in 2011 profit.

Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg signs IPO
Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg signs IPO

Given Facebook were already showing signs of audience saturation in 2012 founder Mark Zuckerberg would surely have a hard time keeping investors happy, yet he’s always remained very confident in his mission, often alluding to long term and only last year asking for patience from his trigger happy shareholders.

Facebook have gone toe to toe with many rivals in the past, from Myspace, Twitter, a constant battle with Google for a variety of reasons, and a flirtation with eCommerce. In the midst of their feuds they even managed to make a friend in Apple, bonding over their mutual concern for Google’s potential. However it’s increasingly looking like their long term goal is setting their sights on the telcos, to turn their gravy train upside down and transform our communication ecosystem, and here’s why:

There’s no money in advertising

Well… not enough to satisfy Facebook’s shareholders anyway. In 2013 the company beat its chest over the great growth made within the space of two years to increase the revenue per user from approx $1.00 per quarter to $2.00.

Facebook revenue per user
Facebook revenue per user. Source: Fast Company, April 2014

That’s a pretty impressive increase but it’s still from a very low base. It shows that despite the groans of users having advertising clogging up their news feeds, Facebook actually make very little off a service that has become such a staple media diet in everyday life.

At $2.00 per person and with 1.3 Billion users it’s going to take ten years until they generate enough ad revenue to match the company valuation. Not to mention the fact they’re highly saturated in North America where their most profitable user base is located, so increasing their userbase may increase overall revenue, but they’ll likely become even less efficient per user.

You’d be right to wonder if it’s just Facebook making a mess of the ad model, and maybe they’re not charging enough for their ads; but as Forbes reports, other media owners are working to the same figures, so they’re staying competitive in market. LinkedIn and Yahoo! are roughly the same as Facebook, and whilst Google sit on a search goldmine, thrashing everyone in sight for profitability, they still only make 10 bucks a user.

Revenue per user. Source: Forbes
Quarterly revenue per user. Source: Forbes August 2013

Is selling goods and software the way forward?

So who does actually make money off their audience? Well it seems Amazon have hit the jackpot, they’ve reported that on average they generate an eye watering $968 per customer per year from an active user base of 244 Million. With comparatively only 19% of the user base (Amazon customers vs FB users), Amazon are clearly making the most of their audience. Apple are operating in a similar trend, building value from iOS users through app downloads and iTunes sales at an annual rate of $48.00 per user.

Amazon's new Fire TV and Apple TV
Amazon’s new Fire TV and Apple’s successful Apple TV product

Both are currently battling to increase their user value by supplying their audience’s living room content consumption, creating TV set top boxes Amazon Fire TV and Apple TV.

Rather than selling off your audience engagement as ad space, selling products and services to them directly would seem a more profitable way to make money – That would make sense wouldn’t it? Since that’s what the majority of advertisers are trying to do with their purchased ad space it would effectively cut out the middleman.

Both Apple and Amazon show that size of audience doesn’t necessarily equate to profitability; you can have all the traffic in the world but if you’re not harvesting revenue from it then surely it’s nothing but a vanity metric – Unless of course you have bigger ideas.

I’m sure at some point so far you’ve asked yourself why Facebook don’t just follow the model of recently purchased WhatsApp and charge a subscription fee? Surely the majority of Facebook users will be happy to pay $1 a month for access for Facebook and to avoid ads? When you consider how much people depend on the platform on a daily basis it would still be a bargain for its users and would deliver a 50% increase on the $8.00 annual revenue they’re currently getting from each user.

If you haven’t considered that then surely you’ve wondered why they haven’t gone hard on becoming a supplier of goods and content. Given Apple and Amazon’s success in making their audience work so hard for them.

The telco revenue potential is worth too much to get distracted by short term gains 

The truth is selling goods and content would slow Facebook down in their overall mission,  which I believe is to take on the telecommunication services. To do that they must keep growing connections as fast as they can as they’re absolutely fundamental to the telco business.

Telstra - It's How We Connect

Take Telstra for example, the leading telco here in Australia. They recently announced $25.5 Billion in profit for 2013, that’s more than triple the global revenue Facebook made whilst they announced huge growth! Not bad for an Australian company based in Melbourne; in a country which holds only 1.7% of the worlds GDP

Maximising users and therefore connections are vital to Facebook, whereas by putting up a paywall to access the platform they would almost be guaranteed to drop traffic no matter how low the cost is.

Whilst eCommerce revenue would be great in the short term it would serve as an unwelcome distraction to go down that route when the likes of Telstra and Vodafone are in their sights.

Connections monopoly

Facebook have a monopoly in connections, a currency which has so much potential yet so misunderstood by many. As stated in Metcalfe’s law the value of a network increases exponentially the bigger it grows; this is why in the 80’s mobile phones were seen as a yuppie luxury but in the 90’s as their popularity grew they became a necessity in everyday life.

Zuckerberg has repeatedly said his ‘mission’ is to connect the world, and whilst this sounds sentimental he’s deadly serious.

Metcalfe's Law
Metcalfe’s Law

As the graph shows the value of a network increases the more connected devices you have, which means whilst buying WhatsApp for $19 Billion may seem excessive, but it was highly worthwhile to Facebook’s mission. Adding those incremental connections to Facebook’s connected ecosystem was far more valuable to Facebook than it would be to anyone else due to the size of their pre-existing audience base; and I doubt they’ll stop there on buying connections.

Mark Zuckerberg -“We’ve made some long term bets on the future while staying focused on executing and improving our core products and business. We’re in great position to continue making progress towards our mission.”

As the diagram below shows, WhatsApp is very popular in Europe especially, far more common than Facebook Messenger. When it came to WhatsApp, Facebook had a choice: do they compete for connections using their messenger service or do they bite the bullet and just buy their connections?

Messenger service usage across the globe. Source: Techcrunch
Messenger service usage across the globe. Source: Techcrunch
Facebook's brand portfolio reach
Facebook’s brand portfolio reach Source: Fast Company

It seems Facebook are not looking to wait anymore, the outlay of $19 Billion to bring those connections in was deemed very worthwhile as they’re fully aware just how powerful a connections monopoly is.

Adding the acquisition of Instagram we can see Facebook don’t need to force everyone to use Facebook, they just need to build a portfolio of communities to maximise their connections’ reach.

What’s so important about connections?!

Let’s breakdown what a telecommunications company offers. It provides the ability to connect people and organisations with ease and importantly… at scale. Sounds pretty crucial, doesn’t it? Well, telcos know that already, and they know they can charge substantial fees for their services because of the lack of competition.

Telcos provide the ability to connect people and organisations. We can break this down into two attributes:

  1. Connections – A network, such as a social network
  2. Connectability – Infrastructure which facilitates communication

Connections – I hope by now we can tick off connections within Facebook’s plan, with their monopoly they’re probably the only business at the moment who have the potential to cover this. Google are a contender, but as personal email decays in usage their Gmail database is lagging the Facebook personal data source.

Google have incredible data on everyone, but they don’t hold personal connections since Google+ hasn’t worked out they way they wanted. Android penetration may open this up in the future.

Connectability – This is where the door has been blown wide open by the Internet, Mobile_phone_mastopen for businesses to infiltrate the profit margin of the telcos. Infrastructure has always been the telco’s ace card. They invested in telephone masts across the globe to carry data, and tapped into a universal phone number system shared between all the telcos to deliver the missing connection element.

As internet access becomes so important to society (again due to Metcalfe’s law) governments and tech developments will render internet access ubiquitous. Once internet access becomes a commodity, we will see connection costs drop rapidly.

The internet is eating away at the telco infrastructure with Skype providing a perfect example of their vulnerability. It comes as no surprise that WhatsApp announced Voice Over IP within weeks of being bought by Facebook, sharpening their teeth over the growing wireless revenue source highlighted by AT&T.

By leveraging the Internet, all it takes is for Facebook to grow their connections. Then their mission is underpinned by how fast the internet becomes a global commodity.

Surely it’s time they invested in growing the world’s access to the Internet? Oh wait…. Mark Zuckerberg has began spearheading Internet.org! A joint venture between tech companies to deliver greater internet access across the globe.

Internet.org have plans to deliver internet access in a variety of ways dependant on environment, incuding flying wifi routers, hovering in the sky! They’re not alone on this, Google are currently working on the same, naming it ‘Project Loon’, giving the world internet access with hot air balloons.

What’s holding Facebook back from competing with the telcos? 

The challenge for Facebook is twofold, firstly they need to maximise connections in order to make clunky phone numbers irrelevant. A user intuitive, pre populated phonebook with robust security access settings without the need to associate phone numbers is clearly a more user friendly solution. Until Facebook’s limited reach is addressed there’s still going to be a need for a 100% compatible and far reaching connections service to streamline business and personal communications.

Secondly, they need to drive ubiquitous internet access to devices as fast as they can through an alternative source, once this is done the power of telcos will be potentially matched, leaving Facebook to monetise the greatest network of people in the world, competing against the telco’s connection technology.

Facebook will be able to restructure the whole industry of communication access, whilst making the required profits to keep investors happy.

I live in hope that Zuckerberg will have a positive effect on the world’s communication structure, and that he keeps to his mission of connecting the world rather than shackling it with extortionate fees.

@martynshaw