“I went to school on Tom’s ideas!”
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com
A Clear Eye.
On customers, brands and marketplace success
by Tom Asacker
“I went to school on Tom’s ideas!”
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com
« Camille Paglia on sexuality | Main | Robbie Coltrain on noise »
"Don't blame the platform for failure."
Paul, posting at the new Awareness is Everything blog, is referring to the controversy over Wired magazine's recent story on the failure of the virtual world Second Life as an effective advertising medium. Paul's (and many others) argument goes something like this:
Different platforms are good for different marketing goals, e.g. brand building, selling, relationship building, etc. And it's the responsibility of the marketer or advertiser to gain experience with the platform and develop a full understanding of its audience prior to launching an advertising or marketing campaign.
To this line of reasoning I say, horse hockey! If a company's "platform" is in any way dependent upon marketers for revenue, then it is now part of that company's job to educate and assist those marketers. The good old, simpler days of owning airwaves, pipes, pages, channels, locations, et al. and charging an access fee (e.g. ad rate, time, rent, etc.) to communicate or transact with an audience is quickly coming to an end.
Why? Because there are simply way too many competing platforms (or will be in the next three to five years). Eyeballs and traffic are quickly losing their premium-priced cachet. Success will ultimately move to those platform owners who provide real value; those adept at helping marketers achieve their own level of success with said platform. The rest will either stay alive by charging their audience the access fee (instead of marketers), or they'll quickly fade into obscurity.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5144/20643640
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Paul Janowitz on the platform:
» If the "Platform" shoe fits.... from Hear 2.0
Although Tom Asacker's story is ostensibly about something that isn't radio, it might as well be radio: If a company's "platform" is in any way dependent upon marketers for revenue, then it is now part of that company's job to [Read More]
» If the "Platform" shoe fits.... from Hear 2.0
Although Tom Asacker's story is ostensibly about something that isn't radio, it might as well be radio: If a company's "platform" is in any way dependent upon marketers for revenue, then it is now part of that company's job to [Read More]
"Tom is timely, thought provoking and all about the new brand vision packaged as a Seinfeld stand up. I went to school on his ideas."
- Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com and CEO, Eons.
(Rest assured, we will never provide your email address to anyone. Period.)
RSS feed
Tom, I agree with the basis of your point here - the dynamics are changing and owing the pipeline ain't what it used to be. Most platforms or web properties (Second Life, YouTube, MySpace...)get their value from attracting eyeballs with a compelling value proposition for their users and then reselling those eyeballs in some way at a premium to marketers.
This is the current state of web valuation and much of the excitement around such newer platforms such as Second Life that allow more time and emersion with a brand. If these platforms are to succeed they must, as you point out, show marketers how to leverage them and why they add value. However, I would still argue this does not take the responsibility off of agencies and clients alike to evaluate all forms of media and sub-platforms and determine what is the best fit for their objectives.
For more check out a recent post on Sentient's blog, Awareness is Everything.
http://www.sentientservices.com/blog/2007/07/is-second-life-dip-or-cul-de-sac.html and an AdFed article I just wrote on virtual worls here: http://www.austinadfed.com/newsletter_06-3.shtml. Looking forward to continuing the conversation!
Posted by: Paul Janowitz | August 08, 2007 at 06:00 AM
Hi Paul. Thanks for your comments. Excellent points, and I certainly agree, caveat emptor! That being said, let's not hold the platform owners blameless. If YouTube fails to provide an acceptable return on Google's investment, Google is as much to blame (if not more) than their clients.
Posted by: Tom Asacker | August 08, 2007 at 03:00 PM