A few days ago The Wall Street Journal ran an article by well known writer and author Chris Anderson titled, "The Economics of Giving It Away," which tries to tackle (in non-book form) one of the more difficult challenges online – users want almost everything for free and users want to pay little to nothing. As the article says, "For the Google Generation, the Internet is the land of the free," and for those wanting to set up shop in the land of the free, they didn’t worry about not charging money. They tended to adopt a Twitter like attitude that banked on a large user base being the shield against any outside skepticism and instilled a sense of confidence that money could flow whenever they wanted. Perhaps not Twitter, but many good just not "it" companies have had to readjust their view on building prior to a business plan. Continues Anderson in the article, "…this year, for the first time since 2001, the overall tide of investment and advertising won’t rise. Indeed, it will almost certainly fall. Venture capital has dried up, Google is killing products rather than buying them, and Yahoo can barely support itself, much less look for others to fund. What does that do to Free as an economic model?" Such statements while generally scary sounding are quite refreshing. We need some common sense brought back into the world, a sense of accountability and rationality. And more often than not, it means opportunity for those whose business has focused on results and not ideas.
The key question asked above is what do the changes in the economic landscape do to companies who survive on free. Some kill products, some lay off staff, and others look for ways to increase the activity of those who do pay, which in the free world is advertisers. We’ve been so trained by Google to expect negative news when companies update their advertising guidelines. That’s why when we read the following last week on Facebook Ad’s Notes, we started to prepare for the worst. The site contained much of the expected language, namely that they "are working hard to improve our advertising products to help our advertisers reach users in an effective and meaningful way and how they "are always striving to provide a great experience for (their) users." What wasn’t expected, was their adding the following, "In the past, we have made changes to our ad policies in response to user concerns about the quality of advertising. We realize a few of these changes have prevented some legitimate advertising opportunities and impacted ad diversity, both of which are crucial to creating a positive user experience." The real kicker, came next, where the post reads, "In an effort to communicate our policies more clearly, we’d like to share some minor adjustments to our Advertising Guidelines. We are lifting the restrictions on some content including quizzes, surveys, some ringtones and other business opportunities. We’ll begin rolling out these changes over the next few days and the official details will be posted to our Advertising Guidelines early next week."
It Starts with One
While you might not think so from the way the ad is written, it leads to an example from a topic that we have written about more frequently, the flog space. Like the world of mobile subscription marketing which most took to mean simply ringtones, the world of flogvertising started in one arena – health and beauty, namely affiliates promoting that "dynamic duo" of Acai Berry and Colon Cleanse. Not long after word of their success spread did some fearless and clever marketers begin looking for other areas where they could apply the same formula. If based on past performance, the next vertical wouldn’t have ranked high on the list of obvious choices despite its economic relevance – government grants. What it does have though are some key ingredients seen in flogs – high payout and the ability to craft language that has just enough to do with the offer but not a whole lot. The flog takes an offer that on its own is incredibly average and makes it personal. It gives the reader a connection to the offer in a way much deeper and real than a simple ad or any product specific landing page could. The problem of course is what happens when that gets taken to the next level
Killing the Golden Goose
 |
With Facebook opening up their guideline (and WickedFire adding fuel to the fire), it hasn’t taken long, though, for the one simple ad to multiply. In less than a week, I’ve gone from seeing the occassional government grant flog to one instance, all three ads. Hats off to the marketers for some serious examples of adaptation. President Barack Obama hasn’t been in office a mere two weeks, but already the ads all tout his influence, never mind that any check received today has nothing to do with him. Looking at the ads left, in addition to making me want to create a flog and join the fray, makes me think more of The Matrix and Hugo Weaving’s Agent Smith where he calls the human race a cancer of the planet – multiplying and using up all the natural resourcs until none are left. Is the affiliate marketing the cancer of the online advertising world? Do we look for any opportunity, push it to the natural extreme and simply hope that those in charge of the resources (the advertisers and more importantly the inventory) won’t notice? Or, do we simply assume that we can adapt to the environment because we have already. If we sound critical, we’ll be the first to say that we’re partially jealous of those who market in a manner we haven’t mastered and tell ourselves we won’t because of some higher moral ground. It’s equally if not more so because we plan on being in this industry for the long-run. We don’t plan on making quick cash and then getting out. We also don’t want to see Facebook user’s take issue with ads like the one we’ve seen causing Facebook to take two steps back.
|
Network
