A good digital analyst is also part detective. And while an advanced degree in forensic science from the University of Mississippi isn’t necessary, they need to go beyond the obvious metrics to tell the story. I know what you’re thinking: The digital story is direct, so it tells itself! This is not really the case. When dealing with situations where the call to action is not directly related to the bottom line, analysts have to be willing to dig. And, to make matters more complicated, they will need to understand the disciplines of their colleagues.

Campaign planning — with variables like competitive spend, weather, seasonality, trade volume, economic conditions, fashion trends, health fads, hairstyles, income levels, pets, etc. — can be chaotic. It’s important that planners, interaction designers, and analysts are aligned in their objectives. Planners use their audience intelligence insight and negotiation prowess to get the message in front of the right person at the right time. UX Jedi use the Force to create high quality experiences that make a user want to convert. But how do they know if they have been successful? Enter the analyst!



Analyzing click-through, view-through and even residual data is a lot like looking at page impressions. They do not tell you what to do, only that you got someone to do something. They are, however, clues that can be used to build more effective metrics. Analysts must not only create actionable metrics that are based on campaign goals, they also need to tell a story to planners, interaction designers, and their clients. Measurement of a digital media plan does not happen by accident, it requires collaboration, planning, testing, learning and repeating.

Start by defining campaign success. Next, build a recommendation for page tagging, and agree on success metrics. Incorporate the model into reports and dashboards. Socialize metrics with marketing strategists, user experience gurus, digital media planners, and client marketing analysts. Most importantly, dig into the data and your model to tell the story. The elementary metrics are not enough.

Who isn’t a photographer these days, I mean really?

Who hasn’t taken a picture within the last day, maybe even hour on their phone or digital camera and ran to post on their Facebook, Flickr, Picasa, Snapfish, or Webshots page for the world of photo critics to see and comment on.

Why would anyone post vacation pictures, pictures of their kids eating, their dog running, the most recent concert they went to where the artists look like brightly colored sprinkles on top of an ice cream cone, or a glorious day of apple picking for all to see?

It’s simple, because we all have this desire, this passion to be creative and share that creativity, no matter how raw and untrained with the world.

And that’s pretty cool.

To have anyone, even strangers comment and praise or even criticize us on our talent and even our subject matter. Who cares, it’s my photo and I love it!

“Nice apples!”

“Thanks, that’s my favorite shot too.”

I have to wonder what real classically trained pre-digital craze photographers think about this online photographic revolution.

Well, I had a chance to ask one of the best in the world, Annie Leibovitz.

I went to see Annie speak at the First Parish Church in Harvard Square in Cambridge recently. She took questions after her talk promoting her new book, Annie Leibovitz at work.

“So Annie, what do you think of everyone in the world now having their own digital camera and pretending to be a professional photographer?”

To be honest, I was kind of shocked by her answer.

I fully expected her to launch into this tirade about talent, who has it, who doesn’t, who deserves it, and lastly who’s really entitled to call themselves a “photographer.”

I was wrong.

She said with a huge smile on her face, she thought it was simply wonderful.

Interesting. Not that she needs to feel threatened mind you, but interesting with the amount of photographs available to be viewed online every minute you think it would begin to demean the craft. People that have spent a lifetime honing and refining this art form, now their work being viewed along side photos of weekend apple picking, thinking that was all right and pretty cool.

It made me appreciate and respect true artists like Annie even more.

That they truly believe the more photographs people in the world are exposed to, the better for the art of photography.

People become interested, passionate and maybe even have a shot of becoming the next Annie Leibovitz.

I have had the distinct pleasure of living through college tour and application hell for the past several months.

My daughter is a senior in high school and is applying to art, marketing communications/design and photography schools, some of the best in the country.

All solid well respected schools that clearly understand how to market themselves.

Or should at this point right?

They’re creative schools, so you’d expect beautiful photography, design, and marketing, it is what they do right?

The money they spend on their websites, the brochures, the posters, the postcards, the CD’s would blow your mind, to get 70’s on you.

But what exactly happens when you finally go to see the school?

Do they deliver on the slickness, the polish, the expertise? Is the experience what you’d expect after all the expensive catalogs and mailings, the personal phone calls, the CD’s the DVD’s and the dozens of videos posted of their famous alumni on the websites?

This is where it unfortunately all falls apart.

This is the first real on campus school experience for incoming freshman, and the students handling this experience are mostly untrained or seem to be and have no clue as to what they are doing, saying, and what potential students take away from this engagement.

Let alone what parents footing the bill take away.

Not what those slick brochures promise. It all falls apart and it’s really sad and it’s really kind of embarrassing. And you know what, it really pisses me off. I want to shake them. The branded experience right?

Give the student something, anything, that begins to replicate the experience you’ve given them online, or in that beautifully produced brochure. Something other than students that tend go on a bit too long about a school they go to, but aren’t all comfortable selling.

Is it their fault?

Should they be selling? Is it wrong to ask them to sell the school? All colleges have their students run the tours. Which if you think of it makes perfect sense, right?

Or does it?  Is this the administration trying to cut corners? Cheap help in a tough economy. Then again would a potential student want to hear from the administration, teachers, rather than a student?

Probably not.

The kids are nice enough. Pleasant enough. They most of the time connect with the students on the tour. Much less the parents.

But the problem is these kids are the closers. This is where and when you decide after all the research you’ve been wading through and doing for months, whether you’re going to apply or if you’ve already applied, whether you want to spend the next 4 years here.

A lot of weight based on this tour.

It’s where the parents are going to spend on average, $35,000-50,000 a year. Do we deserve something better? After all, $35,000 plus a year? Gulp……

Someone needs to teach the teachers.

There is a recent and growing drumbeat that the business of sports marketing — especially sports sponsorships — is bad.  If the US Congress and organizations as reputable as the New York Times are correct, spending corporate dollars on sports is (pick as many as you’d like here) distasteful, unethical, wasteful, and perhaps even illegal.

The recession has all of us concerned, even panicked, and as a result strong rhetoric is flying.  But what about the past 100 years?  During which literally thousands of successful corporations have spent billions on sports marketing to build their business?  I guess the record-setting 95 million viewers of the 2009 Super Bowl don’t buy products.  How is it that, only now in 2009, sports investment has become a bad business decision?  Or has it?

Bank of America recently told Sports Business Journal that for every dollar they spend on sponsorships, they generate $10 in revenue and $3 in net earnings.  FedEx spends over $30 million annually on its relationships with the PGA Tour, the NFL, and auto racing, yet sees multiple returns on its brand awareness, favorability, and bottom line investment.

Sports investments are based largely on fundamental economics –- if they generate more in revenue than they cost, it’s good business.  And for 100 years, that has generally been the case, as corporate investment in sports has continued to increase year after year.  Flawed marketing strategy occurs all the time, but it certainly doesn’t last 100 years unless it has a proven history of results.

There is a legitimate case to be made that, similar to ticket prices and player salaries, sports sponsorships are far too expensive.  In this market, should sports spending be reigned in, or evaluated more closely?  Certainly.  And some brands (see automotive, GM) may have a hard time justifying any sports investments in the near future.

But as long as the majority of sponsorships continue to help corporate America build business and generate revenue, I say: Batter up!

Before we discuss the privacy aspects of behavioral targeting, lets define what it is:
Behavioral targeting uses information collected on an individual’s web-browsing behavior, such as the pages they have visited or the searches they have made, to select which advertisements to display to that individual. This helps deliver online advertisements to the users who are most likely to be influenced by them.

Behavioral marketing can be used on its own or in conjunction with other forms of targeting based on factors like geography, demographics or the surrounding content.

Behavioral Targeting allows site owners or ad networks to display content more relevant to the interests of the individual viewing the page. On the theory that properly targeted ads will fetch more consumer interest, the seller may ask for a premium for these over random advertising or ads based on the context of a site

So why is there an issue? Well, concerns focus on three areas:

1. Data collected for behavioral advertising may find its way into the hands of criminals or other wrongdoers

2. Companies may not keep their privacy promises when they change their privacy policies

3. Sensitive data - medical information or children’s activities online, for example - may be used in behavioral advertising

You probably heard the uproar over Facebook’s Beacon. and other behavioral targeting . Not surprisingly, many advocacy groups are very concerned and have recently proposed a “Do Not Track” list to limit behavioral profiling techniques similar to “Do Not Call” lists that keep telemarketers away.

There are however FTC voluntary guidelines:

• Every Web site where data is collected for behavioral advertising should provide a clear, consumer-friendly, and prominent statement that data is being collected to provide ads targeted to the consumer and give consumers the ability to choose whether or not to have their information collected for such purpose.
• Any company that collects or stores consumer data for behavioral advertising should provide reasonable security for that data and should retain data only as long as is necessary to fulfill a legitimate business or law enforcement need.
• Companies should obtain affirmative express consent from affected consumers before using data in a manner materially different from promises the company made when it collected the data.
• Companies should only collect sensitive data for behavioral advertising if they obtain affirmative express consent from the consumer to receive such advertising.
• The FTC is also seeking comment on what constitutes sensitive data and whether the use of sensitive data should be prohibited, rather than subject to consumer choice

Besides these guidelines, one concept that is gaining interest is data portability, essentially allowing consumers to be in charge of their own data by opting in (or not) to allow their online behavior and profiles to be tracked. Consumers take their data availability with them.

The bottom line: As long as consumers can easily opt out and the FTC guidelines are followed behavioral targeting is a legitimate (and effective) tool for marketers. If these voluntary guidelines aren’t rigorously followed, though, we’ll end up in the same situation as Europe, where strict laws enforce data protection

Watch Andrew Graff, Chairman of the Ad Club of Boston and President and CEO of Allen and Gerritsen, as he talks about the impact of both the recession and new technology on advertising.

Watch the Video.

Marketers used to spend the bulk of their money on TV ads, which ran for a few weeks or months at a time. But these days, because of the Web, the shelf life on ads is infinite.

Read the full story at boston.com