EqSim

I am in the process of thinking how to collect into an e-book or something what I’ve been observing regarding product simulations in advertising.

I’m not thrilled with the term ‘degrees of closeness’, but the idea is to have some measure to evaluate a product demonstration or exposition with respect to a real experience with the product.  Today, there seem to be a number of product advertising sites that simulate the experience in a somewhat static way, stitching together product photos (or 3D recreations) with selections such as color.  For example, I came across the 2011 Ford Explorer’s site, which, in the 3D view, lets one navigate from position-to-position, and change the exterior and interior colors.  Done in a professional way, it doesn’t give any interaction with the car.  Maybe the ‘degrees of closeness’ would have various categories, two for example, might be functionality and physical presence (the Ford example being closer in the physical presence category).

I’ve been a bit preoccupied with one demo for the Sony Cyber-Shot TX7 camera that features Taylor Swift.  I can’t seem to find the link anymore, but the idea is that the camera lets you stitch together photos to make a panorama shot.  The demo lets you take pictures of Taylor Swift in a few situations, and I think you can ‘save’ those snapshots somewhere.  On the surface, it seems like a product demo that lets one ‘try out’ the camera.  After some reflection, I see that the functionality demo’d really isn’t terribly useful, from an ‘understanding the camera’ perspective–it doesn’t really use the feel of the camera to give me any more information than if it were briefly explained with some static photos.  Certainly one ‘uses’ the camera to take the photographs, but there doesn’t seem to be anything interesting one learns from that demo as a result of being able to ‘use’ it.

This reminds me of another type of ‘simulation’ which I think falls short on the advertising side.  This happens when manufacturers are sold the ‘product placement’ concept, without a corresponding specific product use.  There seems to be an aura around the product placement concept of ‘if I simply put my product into an ordinary situation, people are going to subconsciously want to buy it.’  I have seen it in games that use branded equipment, presumably as advertising (or adver-training).  If the training (or problem presented to be solved through the ad/training) does not accentuate unique features of the product, then it might be a good training piece for that type of equipment (or it might not even be a good training piece), but certainly it’s advertising effectiveness is questionable without a direct tie-in to the specific product’s specialness.  Ultimately, this makes it of questionable value as an advertising vehicle.

Rick Braddy’s post about storytelling for product launches, “Psychology of Social Product Launches — Part 3, Storytelling” is a quick and interesting read about using stories as part of presenting a product, rather than the typical verbiage we develop.  The article immediately made me think about the power of case studies for marketing, which seems to me to be a more acceptable formal term than a “story.”  I made a post a few months ago about using product simulations to enable viewers to participate in their own success story.  As Rick highlights, “Crafted properly, stories don’t sell – they simply tell and teach by example.” I would take this a step further with an interactive simulation woven into a story by saying that they can tell and guide by example.

Another key sentence in his post is as follows:

By allowing people to make up their own minds (instead of coercing them through slick offers and time-limited deals that everyone knows are lies concocted by marketers to get them to buy), people are much more willing to listen to what you have to say when conveyed as an interesting story.

What better way to help them make up their own minds than by evoking them to interact to solve their problem(s)?

I’m a bit late to read this post, but author Alan Moore of “Communities Dominate Brands” makes an observation in early 2007 in his post entitled “Gaming the New Marketing?“.

His point is that games represent a new way to communicate with an audience, in an immersive, engaging way.  He dismisses “branded entertainment” and “product placement”, which I agree, are indirect at best.  Then he states “where the content is the advertising and the advertising is the content”.

This is exactly the point of product simulation advertising or marketing, namely making the advertisement the content and the content the advertising (or vice versa).  I agree with his point that games are an important new form of marketing to the gaming demographic, but I would argue that a more direct interactive simulation, focused on competitive features of the product solving real-world problems, is a more compelling incentive — after all, the advertiser wants the viewer to see how the product solves the viewer’s problems, not just walk away with a good feeling about the product (a nice side effect, of course).

In other words, games are a good manifestation of interesting interaction (to the viewer), but not the most direct.  The most direct would be interaction with the product itself.  So have I just invented a “degree of closeness” measure, namely, that games are typically second or higher degrees of closeness compared with direct product experience (being 0 degrees, and 1 degree being some type of product simulation)?  Of course games can have direct product experiences, or authentic product experiences, but games that don’t wholly focus on the product experience would earn farther degrees of separation.

I would say that Alan’s use of the word “game” may be fairly general, judging from his other comments in the post, but I think adding the word “gaming” unnecessarily shifts the perspective away from the core that the content is the advertising and the advertising is the content.

I finally got a chance on an airplane ride to take a look at Paul Mosenson’s e-book “Digital Marketing The Right Way: an Introductory Primer for B2B” (NuSpark Marketing). It is a nice introduction to essential elements of digital marketing (web site purpose/presentation, SEO, social media, content, lead management), helping the B2B vendor reader understand important elements of a vendor’s online presence (web site, blogs, interaction in the online world) and how customers and potential customers can be reached, drawn in, and held.

I am particularly interested in his comments about good content, because I feel that product simulations for advertising and training can be great, relevant content for a vendor. Regarding content strategy for the new breed of potential customers who make buying decisions based on their online research, he states naturally that “[c]onsistent and relevant content is a key influence when buyers make decisions on vendors.” Okay, that makes sense. He then quotes “B.E.S.T.” principles from Joe Pulizzi, “Content Expert” — I really like the principles, but the title “Content Expert” sounds kind of vacuous):

• B = Behavioral. All content has a purpose; What do you want your customers to do?
• E = Essential. Deliver information that your prospects need and find useful.
• S = Strategic. Your content efforts must be an integral part of your overall business strategy.
• T = Targeted. You must target your content so that it is relevant to your buyers.

Not coincidentally, since product simulations are content, these principles are directly applicable to what a smart vendor should consider in developing an effective simulation aimed at product marketing. It is easily possible to make a simulation and have it not deliver results because it is merely a duplication of functionality, as opposed to a demonstration of how it solves real problems that the viewer/prospective buyer has. That becomes the next section of discussion (nice flow, Paul!).

Paul continues with developing a content strategy by considering the types of people who are coming to your site (or seeing your ads), and then which types of content is going to appeal to each type. That is a nice observation and a useful exercise because when a buyer is considering a vendor, especially with products that take considerable review to procure, there likely will be several visits by different people in the buyer’s organization, each potentially looking for different angles about the product or service. A vendor has to have materials targeted to the visitor (the “buyer persona”, I don’t know if David Scott Meerman invented that, but it is a big theme in his work), but that material has to show up in the natural course of that buyer’s online research, not simply dumped in one big pile of steaming everything that the visitor has to sort out how it is relevant to himself or herself.

The fact that purchases happen over time is critical with regard to formulating a content strategy: what message (and content that delivers it) is appropriate for an early, middle, or late phase of the sales cycle?

Regarding product simulations, I think there is relevance at each of these phases. In the early message, the simulation attracts the buyer because it is like playing with the real product. In the middle message, the simulation deepens the engagement by demonstrating competitive advantages and how the product solves important problems for the buyer. In the late message, the simulations that convert to training tools demonstrate a commitment from the vendor to ensuring safe, efficient, and proper training, which lets the potential buyer see how the product will be supported post-sale.

I wasn’t as much interested in the rest of the primer, but I found it overall a quick read (a lot to absorb!) and definitely thought-provoking. What are you waiting for, go take a look! I’m sure you’ll come away with further insights as well.

This post is a departure from my typical observations that demonstrate how appropriate product simulations are for such-and-such (am I really that predictable?).

This post is going to be a short missive on getting myself properly oriented to positive change.

I was catching up with a friend recently who I had been out of contact with for several years, and we were talking about mistakes we make and how easy it is to see what other people should do, but much more difficult to see the right path for ourselves.

She told me about the experiences she has had with the Handel Group, and how it has helped her a lot in shaping positive views–real progress in her business and personal life.  Not the stereotypical psychoanalysis of “how does that make you feel?”, rather, establishing what we want to achieve and then actively looking for things in your life that confirm that hypothesis.

It is so interesting that we do this almost instinctively in the wrong direction (maybe I shouldn’t say ‘instinctively’ because that paints me as having this problem!)–we have a personality flaw that we have internalized and then we confirm that flaw in things around us.  Very self-defeating, but why is it so easy to fall into this pattern?

In “How Catchy is Your Content?“, Ardath Albee (‘Marketing Interactions’) does a nice job of presenting and discussing a few metrics one can apply to content for B2B marketing (really to anything), to ensure the content gets the right reception.  She calls the metrics “Catch Factors” (catchy!).  She defines “Catch Factors” as “the preferences and aversions that form a prospect’s gut reaction to your content and communications” and lists five of them as:

1. Urgency: Does it apply to a business problem they have now?
2. Impact: is your information on a topic critical to their professional success?
3. Effort: how much energy do they have to expend to access and understand it?
4. Reputation: what’s their immediate perception of your company?
5. Intent: what will they think you want from them?

Read her article for details, but I think she’s got a succinct, useful list.  My observation is that if a manufacturer makes a marketing piece that uses a simulation of its product that shows how to solve a relevant business problem, it can nail four of the five (#4, Reputation, is more of a big picture item, but also #3 depends on how accessible the manufacturer makes the operation of the simulated product).

Admittedly, a pretty bizarre title, but it comes (late at night) from me seeing a juxtaposition of Seth Godin’s “A sad truth about most traditional b2b marketing” a few days ago and Adam Singer’s (Online Marketing Blog) “Thinking Critically About Web Video.”

I struggle often with the question about why product simulations/demos are not yet a popular marketing tool, while the marketing world is crowing about the effectiveness of videos (which seems to me one or more steps away from an engaging product experience.

First, the former post, which I read a few days ago.  Seth introduces and summarizes his post with the words “People who don’t care, selling products to people who care less.”  The message: no matter what we sell, successful B2B marketing has to express the passion we have about what we sell.  Good, I believe it.

Then along came the second article, in which Adam Singer bemoans that the creation of videos typically is not strategic, rather, it is because it is something marketers are told they should be doing–and then expect results when they haven’t set realistic targets.

The real question you need to ask yourself is why am I making web video? What marketing problem does it answer, and how does it answer it? How does it feed digital marketing KPI/objective metrics? Am I doing it because I read an article about it in AdAge or because it’s an elegant way to express my brand’s story to the world?
-Adam Singer

It seems to me that marketers being told they need to create a video are already one step too deep — is video the best way to portray my product?  The seemingly alternatives are static pictures, technical information, text, and then videos.  Videos show viewers about some aspects of the product, or usually about people who are using the product, but the missing ingredient is the focus on letting the viewer experience the product themselves.  The video is supposed to be a means to expose viewers to the product, but in an attempt to have it go viral, most often there are elements added that distract from the product experience.  Again, quoting from Adam’s post:

Placing web video on a pedestal, as if it’s so different from any other digital content, is the wrong approach. It has to be just as sharp, creative and relevant as your text-based content.

what can be more relevant than experiencing the product through simulation?

My take-away message blending these posts is that marketers need to be passionate about what they’re selling and they need to present relevant content.  And how much more relevant content can there be than a marketing-driven simulation about the product itself?

In “Study finds customer engagement hard to measure,” B-to-B Magazine’s Kate Maddox posts some high-level findings from a recent study from Forbes Insights about measuring customer engagement.

“Customer engagement is a top priority for CMOs, but many companies are struggling to implement strategies and measure customer engagement, according to a new study from Forbes Insights and George P. Johnson.”

A majority (67%) of marketers polled view customer engagement as very important, but a good percentage feel their companies do a fair or poor job engaging their audiences. They view retention, sales, and revenue per customer as key metrics for customer engagement.

I hypothesize that “product engagement”  — using tools and methods to present products in a more interactive and engaging way, such as via product simulation marketing — would be a big contributing factor to overall customer engagement.  Furthermore, it may be easier to measure product engagement because of the direct relationship between what is presented and how the viewer/customer interacts with it.

I came across this interesting blog post on Monday Note entitled “The lethal self-complacency of advertising“, later posted on the Washington Post as “Why is digital advertising so lousy? Industry is too smug to innovate“, but Frédéric Filloux.  I agree with his conclusion that online ads are not innovative in the capacity that they could be, and I think product simulation advertising (or marketing) is the kind of innovation which would deliver much better results (as I’ve seen with my own informal work).

The author’s prognosis is on the basis of digital media not delivering results, stating that an “electronic reader brings 15 to 20 times less in advertising revenue than a print reader does.”  I can believe it, but I don’t know exactly where to put the blame.  Fortunately, he posits some thoughts as to why he believes that digital advertising is getting poor results.

Number 1. Poor design.  Essentially, he bemoans the lack of creative talent in the current crop of ads–banners, skyscrapers, sliders, pop-up’s, etc.  They act as reader-repellants and fodder for ad-blockers.  I don’t think we can do a lot for the containers, though perhaps there is some room — ads have to be placed somewhere, and there has to be standardization for sizing, just like in print ads. I think if you ask about the creativity of the content within the ad, I think the point is valid–we need to get beyond the ‘in-your-face’ style of text, flashing things, etc.

Ultimately, in our search-driven online world, I think that the best type of advertising is one that engages the viewer with relevant content.  After all, isn’t the best time to present your product or service when someone is looking for it or something like it?  It’s no wonder that search advertising is so strong in the online world.  I don’t mean all advertising has to be focused on the specific product, but I think if advertising were designed around where the products or services are being used, in other words, scenario based, and if the advertising delivered some useful content, then the advertisements would not be so repelling to viewers because the viewers want to see or use that content.

Therefore, I hypothesize that content-based advertising, or in the case of products that can be simulated, ‘product simulation advertising’, will be a potent and effective form of advertising that takes unique advantage of the medium both in terms of interactivity and measurement (of course the latter is all-important in a marketing world).

[Update 6/17/2010]

I was reading some comments from Frederic’s post, and a response from “Matt” caught my eye.  He responded that we ought to point a finger at the container problem, not the digital ad problem.  In other words, it is the business model of “ads in a container” that is likely the root of the issue Frederic complains about.  I agree with Matt — my observation was a roundabout way of seeing that.  The problem is that we have generally taken the ad model from print — ads on the fringes of reading materials — and stuck that in a digital world that is not constrained by those boundaries.

Over at Get Elastic, they had an interesting post about research from Invodo (a company focused on using videos for product marketing, not coincidentally) regarding improving conversion rates using videos.  I think when mainstream marketing get around to seeing the benefits of product simulation marketing, many of these same observations will be relevant.

In my mind, product videos share some effects with simulations, except that videos are fixed and uninteractive (is that a word?).  Videos illustrate points, they try to get the viewers involved in the product, but there’s no flexibility, or really “owning” the product.  I believe that the more diverse product videos a manufacturer produces, the better the results will be, because it is almost like making the marketing interactive — the viewer chooses which aspect of the product or message to observe.  This will bring the retailer or manufacturer closer to the point of realizing that product simulation will take the positive effects of videos to the next level — truly engaging the prospect or customer.

Back to the points.  Linda Bustos summarizes the report finding in 4 hypotheses tested, and specifically calls attention to improving a metric called “View Through Rate” (VTR), or how many videos are watched per impression with a video.  She comes up with a nice list of interesting questions one might ask in testing to improve VTR, such as thumbnail images, showing video length, captions, text, headlines, etc.  Each of these sounds like they would call attention to why the viewer should be interested.  In the comments, I added something about looking at how long a person watches the video, to see about correlation with conversion.  My thinking is that the video is a crude way of seeing how much it takes before the viewer has satisfied himself or herself that the product has the elements they want — something I think could be done more effectively if the options are laid out for them (such as through a simulation, or interactive product demo).