Advertising agencies get a digital wake-up call from Nike

Just Do It! Nike just did, ditching its running shoe advertising agency of twenty five years not because it was unhappy with creative or because of costs, but because Wieden & Kennedy just didn't have the digital media passion or expertise needed to adequately engage the new consumer.

While Nike moving its running shoe business after so long and successful a partnership is news in itself, what is really making waves in the agency world is the reason for the move. Agencies worldwide are generally still doing a half-hearted job of leveraging the internet and related technologies for brand building, and most of them know it. When a manufacturer as intimately in touch with its consumer as Nike is sees the need to do more and do it better, and is willing to just do it, the agency world looks over its shoulder to see who is next to go.

Wieden & Kennedy are not a minor agency – they have long been a creative powerhouse doing work for companies like Procter & Gamble and Coca-Cola. They must have seen this coming, and probably had plenty of warning from Nike, but were simply unable to change fast enough to keep the account.

In February, Mark Parker, Nike's CEO, told investors

The Nike brand will always be our strongest asset, but consumers are looking for new relevance and connections. We're fundamentally changing the way we're organized as a company. It's really all about going deeper to get deeper connections and deeper insights, to get more innovation and more relevance, and to make us ultimately more competitive in each of the discrete pieces of our business. This allows us to be more informed and more surgical in creating products and optimizing our go-to-market strategies within each category.

Nike gets it. The consumer – particularly in Nike’s demographic – is now calling the shots, and companies who insist on pursuing a 1980’s-style mass-market broadcast approach to communicating risk being marginalized or, worse, becoming irrelevant.

As the New York Times put it,

The message is clear: No matter how talented an agency's creative team or how well the client's management likes the firm's executives, the agency is of limited value unless it embraces digital media.

That means, just as the web has permeated the lives of consumers, agencies must permeate digital culture throughout their organisations, instead of regarding “internet stuff” as an afterthought, add-on, or external business. For many markets, digital thinking needs to be a foundation of advertising strategy. And while it makes sense to start digital operations as a separate entity (thus bypassing all of the legacy resistance), there has to be a plan to reintegrate online operations as soon as the “interactive agency” is up and running.

But advertising agencies the world over are still dragging their heels. Given that the internet attracts more advertising money than radio worldwide, and was second only to TV in the UK last year, it's hard to keep on regarding online as something that is still not important.

Last week at the Online Media Marketing & Advertising (OMMA) conference in Hollywood, a panel of industry insiders agreed that most ad agencies are simply not ready for the digital era. Tim Hanlon, from Publicis, was adamant that the traditional structure of ad agencies is an obstacle, and that de-siloing brand advertising and response advertising is essential to create the flexibility and spontaneity necessary to get to the online consumer.

Bant Breen of Interpublic was of the opinion that acquiring so-called interactive agencies is easy, but integrating them into existing agencies is not, and that’s the thing which is necessary for a more powerful approach to advertising which can do things like build customer relationships and enable transactions.

What’s the problem with traditional ad agencies?

Firstly, the whole structure within agencies (and the communication structures between agencies and clients) makes change a painfully slow process. Not good when rapid and disruptive change is a key characteristic of online consumer environments. How long does it take to brief, pitch, create and roll out a campaign? Given the aversion to risk within agencies and clients, it can take months. Online, you need to be able to do this stuff in days if not hours. The risk of not operating quickly vastly outweighs the risk of moving so slowly you are effectively doing nothing. Agencies need to be given more latitude to act almost spontaneously, but it is unlikely clients would allow that, and even less likely that agencies would want it.

Secondly, agencies and their clients are way too precious about protecting brand identity. Remember when the primary role of a brand manager was to police the “brand bible” and ensure the eternal purity of the proposition? In a web 2.0 world, consumers want to talk about products. And, in the words of the Cluetrain Manifesto, whether the news is good or bad, they tell everybody.

Trying to protect a brand from consumer comment, being afraid that customer opinion may pollute or hijack your carefully crafted identity, is no longer a valid marketing activity. But encouraging discussion and being ready to respond to it, and making sure you are structurally able to maximize net advocacy, are alien concepts to many marketers and their ad agencies.

Thirdly, the traditional approach to broadcasting generic messages to largely mass markets is inappropriate for digital media, which is all about sharply focused messages for niche audiences who are discerning, informed and impatient. When your medium is newspapers or television, you have to communicate across the broad mix of audiences that they reach, and being too focused in your message risks completely missing important components of those audiences. True, satellite TV and niche publications do allow for a more narrowcast approach, but it is nothing compared with the laser-focused nanocasting and individual consumer conversations that the web allows – and requires. But the broadcast mentality of traditional agencies results in nothing more imaginative online than generic corporate banners on mass traffic sites like directories and online newspapers.

Fourthly, the online business model does not work well for agencies. If a major part of your income originates in placement commissions paid by traditional media, it is very hard to look at online opportunities as anything but financially retrograde. So the only real financial incentives to pursue digital strategies are macro incentives: you’ll pull in big accounts if you are seen to be on top of this web thing, or you’ll lose big accounts if you are not. Ad agencies need to reinvent their business models for the 21st century, because their old models are a significant handicap to progress.

Google to provide a pay-per-action advertising model

In the past if you wanted to advertise using Google you went the pay-per-click (PPC) route, having Google place your ad either on its search results page in response to a search term you had bid on (the AdWords model), or on a web page in response to some context-relevant content on that page (the AdSense model).

In either case, you as an advertiser paid Google only if a web visitor actually clicked on your advertisement. If you wanted to place ads where you would pay the website publisher only if the clicker actually performed some action (such as buying something, subscribing, or providing information) you could use other services. Prominent among these pay-per-action (PPA) services are secondary search engines like Snap, PPA broker Turn, and affiliate marketing networks like Commission Junction and LinkShare.

In March, Google announced that it was putting a pilot PPA product on the market. That’s huge news, because Google is such a dominant player in online advertising. The implications for advertisers are significant. A PPA model lets you pay only on successful conversion of the traffic that your ad sends to your site, instead of making you pay only for the clicks themselves. Many PPC ad clicks are of no value – the clicker made a mistake, was merely curious, or was deliberately fraudulent. Or your landing page and site structure were poorly designed and just got in the way of them doing business with you.

With PPA, you don’t pay for those clicks that go nowhere. But the sites hosting your ads expect something in return, namely a bigger payoff when they do deliver a visitor who actually becomes a customer.

Unlike with Google’s PPC product, where sites displaying the ads don’t get to choose the ads and are not allowed to encourage clicking those ads, sites displaying PPA ads are being given a lot more ability to both select the ads, or a basket of ads, and urge people to click. So expect much more traffic to sites, and correspondingly lower conversion rates – but higher ad ROIs.

Because a PPA payout depends on clear policing of what action (if any) was actually taken, it requires a system that can automatically monitor and verify those transactions. And because of this additional layer of technological complexity, PPA has not been widespread on the web. Till now. Google has the clout and the tech muscle to make this work, and work well, and the existing PPA players must be expecting their businesses to feel a great deal of pain once Google gets into full swing.

For small advertisers, Google’s PPA could be a boon, the equivalent of paying a small sales commission only on closed deals rather than their existing PPC approach which involves paying each time a visitor wanders in through their virtual doors.

Google is also testing ads that appear in text, similar to those currently run by Intellitext. These ads appear as words or phrases that have been double-underlined. Hovering a mouse cursor over those phrases pops up a small box containing the advertisement. As more and more online content is read through RSS feeds, the importance of in-text ads grows, so it is not surprising to see Google move into this space.

Got your MOO cards yet?

These days it's increasingly hip to be geeky. If you really want to make a statement about how web 2.0 centric you are, you put your commitment to humanising business, personalisation, niche marketing, and social networking right on your business card. And you do it in a format that deliberately bucks the boring uniformity and conformity of ordinary everyday business cards.

How? You have a batch of MOO cards made up for you, printed in a “widescreen” 70x28 millimetre size, with a range of colour photographs on the back that reflect your personal interests or passions.



MOO cards started out with people who spend a lot of their private time in the 3D virtual world of Second Life, allowing them to put screen shots of their alter-ego online avatars on the back of their calling cards. A simple viral concept, the craze spread rapidly, and now it seems everyone in the web world is doing it.

How do you get your own MOO cards? Online, of course, from www.moo.com

No longer limited to Second Life images, you can upload your own photographs or choose from thousands already available at their site. MOO’s online tools let you easily crop your photos to get the best effect. You order packs of 100 cards with as many as 100 different images per pack, for only US$20, and they will ship anywhere in the world.

Not only do MOO cards say a lot about your cutting-edge geekiness, they present an opportunity to promote your interests – or your business – in a way that regular business cards cannot. Because there is a distinctly casual and “fun” element to MOO cards, you can put photos of your your product, or your service in action without risking looking tacky.

There's another advantage, at least while MOO cards are relatively new. Ordinary business cards get stuffed in a pocket and forgotten. MOO cards are not only ice-breakers for your own first encounters, they get shown to other people long after you have gone.

Sun International to buy stake in Chilean firm

Sun International has agreed to buy a 40% stake in a Chilean firm that holds a 15-year casino licence covering the capital Santiago, it said today.

You can read the article on Business Day

Protea Hotels sold to Australian group

Australian travel services and hospitality company Stella Group has bought Protea Hotels, Africa’s largest hotel management company, for R1,48bn, or A$255m.

You can read the article on Business Day.

Don’t let website developers rip you off

Here is a dire warning: read the small print before contracting a website developer, and make sure that it is contractually clear that you will own the code for both the resulting site and your domain name (that's the www.yourdomainname.co.za).

Don't accept the story that it is standard practice in the industry for a developer to own the code outright, because it is not. Any development work done for you should be done on a work-for-hire basis, so there is no legal presumption that the intellectual property resides with the contractor after the job is complete.

The same is true of any artwork or photography you buy for your site -- you, not your developer, should own that intellectual property agreement. Of course graphics and photography are slightly different from code in that you rarely own the original image outright, but you acquire rights to use it in specific ways.

Small businesses in South Africa appear to be at the mercy of unscrupulous website developers, who exploit the inexperience of first-time site buyers. How widespread the scamming is, and how well penetrated it is in larger and supposedly smarter client organisations, is hard to tell. But over the past two months virtually every business owner we have dealt with has a similar tale of woe: the company who developed their website refuses to let them have the code for their site, will not allow them to move to a different support company, and, in many cases, will not release even the domain of the business.

As if this cyber-squatting and code-grabbing were not bad enough, the reasons that most people are wanting to move to new web support companies is that the customer service that they originally signed up for has simply faded away. If it takes you weeks, and a great deal of money, to get a simple change made to your small business site, you have every right to move on. Any web developer worthy of the name knows that sites have to be dynamic and evolving, and that static brochureware sites belong in the 20th century. If their development business is not equipped to handle the creation and maintenance of modern business-oriented websites, they should not be in business.

The horror stories of attempted extortion make your hair curl. One business owner was told that she could have her domain (which costs about R200 per year) only if she paid the developer R200,000. Others wanted to have third party programmers work on their site since the original developers were unable to make desired changes, and were refused access to the code. Still others created new sites after successful legal action to get their code, and found that new site vindictively hacked.

Developers will try to persuade you that to own your code you will have to pay a lot more, but this is rarely justified. In some instances your site may be sharing certain software applications, such as database software or content management software, with other sites being hosted by your developer. In those instances it is perfectly fair to let you know that should you move to another hosting company you will need them to provide similar services.

If the developer absolutely refuses to let you own the code and you really do not want to use someone else, at the very least ensure that your written agreement grants you a free license in perpetuity to use a copy of the code for the purposes of running your own business, and grants you the right to modify the copy of the code as you see fit.

But do not allow bogus claims of how much money you are saving by not owning the code make you captive to ongoing hosting and maintenance fees, with no recourse if customer services are inadequate. The internet in South Africa is evolving rapidly, with newer, better, cheaper services appearing all the time. You need the freedom to put your business where it gets the best attention. If a developer tries to play hardball on intellectual property ownership, find another developer.

While we are at it, it seems that developers are also pressuring site owners into putting a promotional link on their home page which takes your visitors away from your site to the developer's site. Don't accept this, unless the developer is willing to pay for the advertising, and even then put the link deeper in your site, say on the contacts page. Make the site linked to opens in another browser window. You work very hard to get visitors to come to your site – don't lose them that easily.

At Britefire we interact with an awful lot of people who are relatively new to website development, and we are more than happy to pass on recommendations of good companies to deal with -- as well as warnings about those whose business ethics and integrity are suspect. Let us know about your experiences.

Telkom acquires 75% of Nigeria’s Multi-Links

Telkom is gaining momentum in its plans to march across Africa with a $280m deal to gain control of Multi-Links Telecommunications in Nigeria.

This raises two questions: 1) Why is Telkom spending all of this money expanding internationally instead of investing in providing a superior, lower cost service in South Africa, and 2) How will Telkom manage in an environment where it actually has real competition?