GLG News by Lee Baler

Implications: Did I help kill the local daily? The Capital Times, an afternoon daily in Madison, Wis., this weekend folded its print edition and became an online-only newspaper.  As an online marketer do I think this is a likely to continue trend and more so, do I feel a tad bit responsible or guilty about The Capital Times.

Analysis: The first time I saw my name listed on a web page was not even close to being as exciting as the first time I saw my name in print. It couldn't have hurt that when I saw my name on a web page it was for AdTech and that when my name was in print was because I was 8 and had the winning goal for my soccer team. AdTech also went well if you were thinking about asking.

The real problem with local in all mediums now is how do you compete with Craig's List. Search can actually help local publishers but Craig's List is the financial killer. Frankly, local advertisers still want to see some of their 1/2 page ads in print. I'm a digital guy all the way and I believe there's a place for local print. It's the revenue from classified ads that are getting harder to replace.  
 
If I was put in the unenviable task of managing a local paper or any paper now I'd make sure that every customer, classified and display I had received listings online and offline. The Pittsburgh Penguins now send text messages to their base when they have extra hockey tickets. If I was in the market for an apartment I'd want a text message that a new listing just went up on Washington Street. If I was a bratwurst enthusiast in say the Capital Times home city of Madison, Wisconsin, maybe I'd want to know about the 2 for 1 Brat Night that the new barbecue joint just began via email or SMS. I may even want a Facebook page where my local readers can match their geography skills against my local travel writer via the Traveler IQ Challenge.

The more touchpoints you can develop with your customers in whatever medium, the happier your clients will be. There are things the Capital Times' of the world can offer savvy advertisers, and many of them are cheap, but very few of them have really figured it out yet.  

Implications: A recent piece in Forbes was titled, Micro Who? Google Rules The Ad Roost. Basically the longer this goes on, the better it is for Google. while it doesn't hurt Google to see their competitive set take whacks at each other, this is the same Google who needs to find more balance in their overall offerings. Can Google use this time to work out some of the kinks with Doubleclick and figure out a more competitive display offering.

Analysis: I keep hearing the longer the Yahoo deal takes, the better it is for Google to establish their true dominance in the digital space. Conventional wisdom says as the most stable outfit, they'll benefit the most during this turmoil- not to mention whatever cash infusion they receive from Yahoo's 2 week test outsourcing their clicks.

But true dominance in politics, sports, business, Tiddly Winks, etc., is established not when the competition is weakened but when one person, team or entity is at the height of their productivity. Google's ability to benefit during however long this process takes while be tethered to their ability to stabilize and augment the number of qualified paid clicks they're receiving and just as important, work out the nuts and bolts of becoming a true force in display media. Right now, most digital media buyers will tell you Google's still very much a one click pony. In the past few weeks they've made a number of overtures to pitch YouTube custom channels and new display offerings but everything is still in their nascent stage.

A more likely scenario will be that Google benefits but the real benefit will be splintered amongst a number of digital possibilities including ad networks that supply reach, content sites that supply greater customization and the next generation of social media players who may not currently receive the ad dollars they could given their level of knowledge about their users matches a Yahoo (LinkedIn anyone?).

I love the education of the digital space because of what it's not: Chock full of conventional wisdom.

Implications: How are digital agencies currently approaching Yahoo Are clients asking about our Yahoo relationships How is Yahoo trying to present themselves to their customers.

Analysis: Every Thursday our Yahoo rep dutifully comes in for his regular office hours. The day to day planners discuss ongoing campaigns, pending efforts and underutilized platforms like Yahoo Mobile. The more seasoned members of staff review the overview given from some of Yahoo's senior leadership team on a recent road trip to key agencies. Everyone knows the financial commitments being discussing are in the seven figures.

All the talk about mergers makes for fascinating theater and I've spent a couple of afternoons explaining to younger members of the team why Yahoo is outsourcing their clicks to their biggest competitor. Sometimes though, you can overthink the situation. If Yahoo's users aren't going anyplace, and recent boosts in traffic potentially thanks to the election and their fantasy baseball platform suggest they're not, then people like me need to plan for our clients accordingly.

I'll be the first one to say Yahoo's silos have hindered their ability to implement a campaign of an innovative manner. We go elsewhere for these types of projects. I compare Yahoo to Apple in the mid 90's- the legacy technology company that lost it's way a little but still had a loyal following. There's likely no proprietary IPod like rescue coming for Yahoo but they're not working without potential. 

As for if and when they do get acquired for a stock price of either $31 or higher than that, it will be a long time off before any changes are made that could possibly affect the consumer, his/her navigation habits pertaining to Yahoo and how we market to them.

Implications: What does this really mean for Microsoft in their quest to stay relevant?
 
There are a lot of predictions that marketing within games has some major upside but is there a precedent for predicting it's scalability.

Do major brand marketers outside a few key verticals really care about in-gaming marketing?

Analysis: Wow could Microsoft use some good news. Their search platform is gaining ground so slowly on Yahoo and especially Google I wonder if those guys are even worried about the Gates crew these days. MSNBC isn't bringing in the digital revenue they hoped and I saw a photo of the Zune on the back of a milk carton

So, the EA deal with MSN and Massive is really good news for Microsoft and here's why. If you buy into the old Jack Welch philosophy that if you're not 1st or 2nd in the space, it's probably not the greatest use of your company's time, then Microsoft has been wasting a lot of their own time. But n,ow, for a good number of marketers that want in-game advertising the list of vendors they would call runs like this:

1. Microsoft
2. Someone else 

I'm sure AOL would have some umbridge with that and maybe Google, Yahoo and plenty of other folks but Microsoft now has a competitive advantage in two really vital areas.

1. For marketers who didn't know they definitively wanted to do in-game marketing 9 months ago and are not hard coded into a game, here's a chance to do something effective in a far smaller window of time. Massive, Microsoft's gaming platform, is better at integration into games marketers care about than anyone else.  AdScape owned by Google is a smaller outfit without the reach at this time.

2. There's only one John Madden football game. Only one Tiger Woods golf game. You can do just fine with the third most popular news site. but no marketer wants to be in the third most popular football game. Brand recognition among the EA games are unparalleled.

So Microsoft, in a digital rarity, is #1 in the category. Instead of building something from scratch they bought or merged with best in breed companies. Great job gang. Have you filled a sizeable niche or is there really a huge upside here?

I'm pretty hesitant about most things. I never ever think mobile will be a big deal. I think most marketers don't have the patience for the long tail of social media. But I think in-game advertising has some long legs and there's a real simple reason why.

Because marketing in the live sports world and especially on the field of play and in the stands has exploded.

Digital ads you see while watching tv change by the 1/2 inning. Ads embedded in the ice of a hockey game are omnipresent. Ads on the top of the hoop when they go to 'dunk-cam' of the NBA. All of these very passive promotions bring in millions. Users can't or will likely do nothing by seeing a Coke ads behind home plate. At least not immediately. That's branding you see.

But it's so much different online. If Massive is going to use their behavior targeting for the guy who's been playing Madden football for the last 2 hours, now it's time for some Domino's and here's a coupon code... well that's active marketing and that's more valuable than passive marketing. There's no reason in-game marketing can't meet or surpass on-field and out of home advertising in stadiums.

Right now it's just the endemic marketers but others may follow suit and it's not in the distant future. Who knows, maybe even my financial client will dip their toe in the water. And when we're set to test, we'll probably begin with Microsoft and call the other guys later.

Implications: If Yahoo continues to lose their top people, is that an ominous sign for marketers or more of a symbol of the overall fluidity within the online medium How are major agencies viewing the Yahoo Panama a good half year after launch Is Yahoo Panama still going to be relevant once Google gets their Doubleclick operations up.

Analysis: I've always felt Yahoo has persisted as the top portal not because they're great inventors but because they're great consolidators. MSN builds things, Yahoo buys things. And it worked for a long time.

So where do I view Yahoo now and Yahoo Panama.  Let's take general Yahoo first. They've come up with some platforms that have caught on in the last year. Yahoo Answers has been a big success with about 17MM "uniques" per month. (Here's the URL  http://answers.yahoo.com/) I believe they've been adding not a flood but at least a steady stream of paid users to some of their exclusive content. This includes Yahoo Music, Yahoo Small Business Tools and even add-ons to your Y! Fantasy League teams. Yahoo has been able to maintain and to some extent monetize their loyal customer base. MSN.com has not really been able to make a dent into Yahoo. 

But if you're going to base a Yahoo success/failure ratio primarily to Google then they have not succeeded and I imagine that could be why they're losing key personnel.  For us as an agency, we've seen rising conversion rates on Yahoo but it's not enough to change our spend ratios. It's all about the traffic and easy 'branded' clicks and those exist on Google.  Anytime we need to test something, a new piece of copy or a new landing page, the tests are done on Google. Tell a client your search campaign is live and they'll check Google 100% of the time. I've never had a client send me a campaign screenshot of something wrong on Yahoo.

I was most excited about something called 'assists' on Yahoo. They were going to be able to tell me what KW's a user searched for before finally taking the desired end action. In addition, Yahoo was going to be able to tell me what ads they saw on Yahoo display and how that affected their search behavior.

Well, the first piece of that is live and it can be helpful as an FYI. If you're a marketer selling vacation packages, it's nice to know someone is looking for Europe Vacations and then later typed in Barcelona Vacations or better yet, your travel website.

But wouldn't it be great to definitively know that the guy who saw a Delta ad with a special fare to London on the Yahoo Travel section two days later went to Yahoo Search and typed in 'Delta or Delta Special.' As long as this piece is missing, I view Panama as incomplete and I'm sure the Google folks do as well. When they launch their functionality with Doubleclick, I'd be shocked if they won't be able to tell you that someone saw an ad on AOL and later looked for that company on Google.

Panama updated a bad system. It's easier to make copy changes and we don't have the huge mistakes anymore on Yahoo. Our group complains way less about Yahoo know so that's great. However, when I think of the long term prognosis for Yahoo Search and the chances of them closing the gap with Google, I don't see it in the next 12 months and that's how people are measuring their success.

Implications: Yahoo has always been a bellweather stock for the digital space. Should Yahoo's rise or fall still indicate how the medium is doing.

Analysis: I was sitting with my team recently talking about our 2H plans. In years past, we'd begin with the portals and work our way down to the next levels. This time, we worked a bit backwards. We talked about sites we were including for multimedia reasons or because of sponsored events. Check publishers like the New York Times and other business books. No check for Yahoo.

We talked about verticals that really offered content most endemic with our immediate initiatives. Check for vertical publishers, no check for Yahoo.

We talked about sites where we get the most bang for our buck and the teams we liked working with. Finally we got down to Yahoo as a 'fill the gap' measure. They're a supporting actor in our plans now and not the lead.

Listen, Terry Semel should probably still be at Yahoo at the end of the year because I'm not sure someone else could step in and solve Yahoo's woes.  That said, if I'm not thinking about Yahoo display as my most cost efficient way to move traffic or move the branding needle, and if I think about Yahoo Panama as a help for conversion but not really as a breakthrough piece of search technology, what am I thinking about Yahoo?

And a better question is what does Terry Semel what me to think.