Les caractéristiques de ce dispositif :
// HIGHLY COMMENDED
CONSUMER ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR
// HIGHLY COMMENDED
BEST USE OF RESEARCH BUDGET
// HIGHLY COMMENDED
Alors que plusieurs études constatent le déclin du « Reach organique sur Facebook », une étude publiée par Shareaholic et réalisée sur 400.000 sites web dans le monde et plus de 300 millions d’utilisateurs consacre la domination persistante de Facebook et reflète les nouveaux changements affectant le partage social :
Facebook domine toujours le trafic social
Facebook arrive toujours largement en tête du classement des réseaux sociaux en termes de trafic généré. Le réseau social s’arroge 21,25% du trafic social généré sur les sites étudiés en hausse de 37,65% depuis décembre 2013.
Forte progression de Pinterest
Pinterest se classe désormais en deuxième position en terme de trafic social avec 7,10% du trafic issu des réseaux sociaux. Une progression de 48,1% depuis décembre 2013.
Twitter en troisième position
Twitter arrive en troisième position du classement à 1,14% de trafic généré en progression de 0,02% sur trois mois.
Autres enseignements marquants de l’étude, aucun autre réseau social de dépasse les 1% de trafic. Shareaholic constate cependant une forte progression de Google + de 53,18% en trois mois même si le réseau social demeure à un niveau relativement faible avec 0,08 du trafic social généré.
L’étude rapporte enfin une forte baisse de trafic sur YouTube -53,88% de trafic en trois mois à 0,09% et Linkedin -20,77% à 0,04% de trafic social généré.
Advertising is always most effective when it is well integrated into the customer experience. Over this past year, programmatic buying and native advertising (both popular buzzwords in our industry) have taken two very different approaches in enabling marketers to create engaging and relevant experiences for their audiences — one by using data, and the other by masquerading as content.
However, regardless of the channel or advertising strategy, the overall brand goal generally remains the same: to reach audiences, evoke brand experiences and, essentially, sell more products. The better the experience, the greater the chances are that you will meet your brand goals. However, none of this is possible without scale.
Even with roughly 73% of publishers offering native advertising across their sites, advertisers are more likely to buy their audience via real-time bidding (RTB), no matter what site their audiences are on, vs. buying from a particular publisher.
Native advertising can be done one of two ways: either with custom advertising, which encompasses custom units within a publisher’s site, or integrated ads, which can come in the form of sponsored tweets and/or other types of ads strategically worked into the publisher’s content.
Citi Bike is a great example because it is both custom and integrated, which is the nirvana of native advertising.
Programmatic & Real Time Buying
On the other side of the fence lie programmatic and real time buying (RTB), which offer a scalable solution for marketers based on data and which make custom advertising seriously challenging.
If you only know who your ad is reaching, and don’t know exactly where the user is seeing the ad (i.e., because you are buying media via ad exchanges), then it becomes very difficult to customize the experience on a site-by-site basis. The technology used to enable this kind of customization is not on anyone’s deployment horizon.
Integrating Programmatic & Native
Even integrated advertising is difficult to implement, as it requires different types of creative for different opportunities. What native advertising needs to succeed is an oxymoron: custom integrated advertising that is standardized for scale.
In practice, this means that if you have a huge audience (think Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) then you can achieve the oxymoron because your custom advertising has a greater opportunity to reach your audience (i.e., larger percentage of the total available population). The only other plausible option is to develop a standard ad unit that can seamlessly incorporate into content so that it can integrate across enough publishers to scale.
Where programmatic and native are most likely to intersect is through programmatic premium, where publishers and marketers may be able to combine each of their strengths, instead of separating the two, and offer high quality content, enhanced relevancy and unobtrusive advertisements at scale.
Just in the last few months, we’ve seen announcements from ad tech companies (OpenX, Nativo, TripleLift) that offer products and technologies aimed at bringing together native and programmatic. Similarly, one of the first agency trading desks, Vivaki, has introduced “Audience on Demand Native,” which focuses on buying native ads in a more efficient and scalable way.
On the publisher front, if you haven’t incorporated programmatic into your inventory, you are already behind. Time Inc. recently announced expanding its private ad exchange, while Forbes CRO Mark Howard shared that programmatic buying and native advertising from BrandVoice will be key growth areas.
Other large publishers that have claimed to make changes include The Washington Post and Meredith, both of which have hired specific executives to lead programmatic efforts.
There is evidence that premium publishers are starting to place a larger emphasis on programmatic buying, which will begin to bridge that gap between custom units, such as native advertising, and and real-time, data-driven advertising. Even though these two trends can co-exist, I do think it will be some time before native takes on the characteristics of programmatic buying.
Programmatic Vs. Native
While some may argue that programmatic represents a better strategy for marketers to understand and engage their target audiences, others favor more content-related marketing approaches such as native advertising.
The answer is that there should be room and budget for both. Whichever strategy you choose, you should make sure to leverage data and ad targeting alongside any custom advertising strategy or you may find your brand lacking scale, and therefore, not reaching audiences and selling enough products.
21 April 2014
ROME: Although Italy lags behind the UK and Scandinavian countries in terms of smartphone user penetration, recent research suggests a significant proportion of Italians use their devices to visit social networks while watching TV and to view ads.
According to analysis from eMarketer, based on a study conducted by comScore MobiLens in March 2014, almost half (46.3%) of smartphone users in Italy who use their device for any TV-related activity also access social networks.
With smartphone penetration in Italy estimated to account for 41.8% of the population in 2014, or 25.8m people, this means that more than 12m users are likely to visit social networks while watching TV this year.
Furthermore, a high proportion then go on to click through to ads if prompted by a TV programme to visit social networks.
Under these circumstances, if prompted, more than half (54%) say they then click on an ad – an impressive click-through rate (CTR) because it equates to 6m people.
Other social networking activities performed by smartphone users in Italy include reading posts from organisations, brands or events, which 69.4% of those prompted by a TV programme to visit a social network take part in.
Over two-thirds (71.5%) say they follow a posted link to a website, 65.2% read posts from public figures and celebrities while almost exactly half (50.2%) receive coupons and discount offers.
Smartphone penetration is also forecast to rise in Italy, as in every other Western European country, over the next three years although Italy is still expected to remain below the regional average.
By 2017, eMarketer expects 57.8% of Italians to own at least one smartphone compared to a Western European average of 65.1%, which will include rates of 65.8% in the UK, 79.3% in the Netherlands and as much as 83.2% in Denmark.
Data sourced from eMarketer; additional content by Warc staff