Speaking Sensis

Is traditional media bowing before the online juggernaut? Don’t you believe it.

Well, trounce me with a tablet and tell me I’m a technophobe.

In contrast with the armies of ‘gurus’ claiming an increasingly irrelevant traditional media is on its knees begging for sweet mercy from the digerati, out come the following two reports.

In February, The Nielsen Company’s Australian Internet and Technology Report 2009 – 2010  found that “the continued increase in time spent online amongst Internet users has, overall, not been at the expense of other media.”

Nielsen found that, while, time spent online grew by over an hour in 2009, consumption of traditional media (like TV, radio and newspapers) actually grew as well.

Go figure!

In fact, Nielsen’s results over several years suggest that, while Internet users tend to spend less (but still substantial) time consuming traditional media than non Internet users, the actual time they spend with traditional media has remained pretty well flat for quite a few years now.

In other words, while time spent online has risen massively, time spent offline hasn’t fallen in response.

Then in March, way over the other side of the world, KPMG UK reported a similar kind of trend.

Their Media and Entertainment Barometer for March found that while time spent online grew by 74 minutes in the six months to March, traditional media consumption ALSO grew by 33 minutes.

So what?

I can’t help thinking there’s a really simple, but really important, message in this data.

That traditional and digital together is far more powerful than digital alone.

Digital media is a massive part of our lives today and will play an even bigger role in the future.

But it won’t be alone, because people want choice. They want a paper in their hands and on their mobiles. They want TV in their lounge and on their iPad.

And the more choice people get, the more media they consume.

In short, the future is everywhere, not just online.

Maybe we should put an end to these phoney media wars and start realising we’re all in this together.

Because, clearly, that’s what consumers (and advertisers) want.

The last six months of 2009 was a mixed bag for the Australian media market. While a number of media are experiencing real challenges, the sector as a whole showed slight improvement in the December half, with the Internet and TV (particularly pay TV) being the big winners.

So, do you like a good roller coaster? Well, the ad industry has a pearler for you.

According to the December 2009 CEASA Report – the ‘bible’ of revenue in the Australian main media market – the GFC gave the ad industry a not unexpected whacking in 2009. Advertising expenditure (covering newspapers, magazines, directories, TV, radio, online, outdoor and cinema) fell by 8% during 2009 to about $12.6bn.

Ouch.

Mind you, just like all good roller coasters, just when the slippery slope looks like slamming you into the soil, up you go again. The CEASA report pointed to a slight improvement in the December half. And while things still looked weak, they weren’t quite as bad (in most places) as the June half, suggesting a recovery maybe in play.

To reinforce this trend, the latest SMI report, which came out a few days ago, suggested that the media market gathered the upward force of your average space shuttle in the March quarter, with growth of approximately 10% compared to the same time last year. Mind you, the SMI report doesn’t cover the full market in the way CEASA does, so you can’t directly compare the results.

While this is good news for a media sector that did it tough during 2009, the champagne corks aren’t popping everywhere. In fact, when you look under the hood, you find that the results across different sectors of the ad industry are going up and down like a … well, this is a family blog.

So who were the big winners and losers in 2009?

The Ups

Not surprisingly, online was the only major sector to grow in 2009, although it clearly wasn’t a great year by Internet standards. In fact, the industry looked quite weak in the July and September quarters before staging a strong recovery in December.

And, although it still declined by 6% for the year, TV – that other big screen – was also a winner. That’s because TV did a lot better in December (down 2.9%) than June (down 10.6%). This result was heavily supported by pay TV, which grew by 5% for the year.

In fact, TV revenue did so well compared to other the rest of the market that it actually out-muscled newspapers in 2009 to become Australia’s highest earning media sector, possibly for the first time in history.

The Downs

Of course, what goes up must come down … and there’s a few different media that lost big in 2009.

Newspapers were down almost 16% in 2009, although, like TV, they showed a reasonable overall improvement in the December half. But suburban newspapers defied that trend: the 21% decline they experienced in the December half was actually worse than June.

The other big loser was the magazine sector, which went from a 9% decline in the June half to a 26% decline in December.

But the really big loser has got to be classifieds. All newspaper and magazine revenues tend to be a mix of display advertising and classifieds. And while the display ads didn’t do too badly (national newspaper ads were down 5.6% for the year), classifieds took a bath, with newspaper classifieds down 32% and magazine classifieds down a blood curdling 45% (although they are a small part of the overall magazine revenue base).

Directories down? Well, yes… but not all is as it seems

The other segment that was down in the December half was classified directories, which includes print directories and used to also include The Trading Post print. Although there’s some pretty clear reasons why.

Firstly, the Trading Post print publication was closed during the year. This of course heavily impacts the result.

Secondly, Yellow Pages® and White Pages® print revenues are recognised in our accounts mainly in the half of the year following the sale. So the decline you’re seeing in print directories was actually the decline in sales experienced in the June half, when everyone else also fell.

So that’s it:
•    A media industry that’s coming out of the GFC with what looks like a sudden growth spurt in the first three months of this year;
•    And results across the industry that are so topsy turvy they’ll have your cheeks flopping about like a parachutists’ in no time.

Which leaves me with one final question.

Can someone please pass me that brown paper bag?

Sometimes the numbers just talk for themselves. Take Yellow Pages® Mobile usage data…

As you all become devoted (hopefully) readers of the Crunch! column, you’ll begin to notice that my articles all take on roughly the same formula.

Obviously, there’ll be stats… a no-brainer considering this column is meant to be about stats.

But those stats will be surrounded by witty (hopefully) witticisms and insightful (hopefully) insights as well.

There’s a simple reason for that. To the vast majority of the world (i.e. the majority of people who aren’t bone fide pen-holder-carrying geeks), staring at a bunch of numbers is like watching grass grow.

But, every now and then, you come across a set of stats that just talk for themselves – no frilly additions necessary.

Here’s an example.

1.    In October, the Yellow Pages® Mobile audience hit half a million unique visitors for the first time¹.

2.    All up, it’s taken Yellow Pages® Mobile a touch over 18 months to reach half a million unique visitors¹. By comparison, it took Yellow Pages® Online more than five years to reach that mark².

Still think mobile marketing’s sitting on the runway?

Think again.

1.  Omniture. July to October 2009
2.  RedSheriff 2004/2005 data

So you think office workers sit at their computers writing Word docs all day? Forget that. According to the latest Sensis® eBusiness Report, we’re all going shopping!

There’s something distinctly Escher-like about the Sensis® eBusiness Report.

Okay, so comparing the mind-bending explorations of the impossible created by Dutch artist Maurits Cornelius Escher with an Internet survey might sound a stretch (although the cover of the Sensis® eBusiness Report does have a freaky picture on it).

But, there is method in my madness.

The thing is, the longer you look at the Sensis® eBusiness Report, the more interesting little tidbits pop out at you.

Just like Escher, eh?

Every year around August, the Sensis® eBusiness Report comes out and gets its fair share of headlines – usually focussing on one or two key observations.

This year was no different. The main focus of reporting was on the uptake of mobile data services by Australian consumers.

But some other really interesting findings hit me as I stared at the report recently. They relate to the way eBusiness has evolved in Australia.

The rise and rise of eBusiness
First up, it’s clear that eBusiness has had a real growth spurt over the last two years.

There’s four distinct activities related to eBusiness measured by the Sensis® eBusiness Report: two (research and buy) sit on the ‘buy side’, while two (sell and promote) sit on the ‘sell side’.

And, as the table below shows, all of these activities have really packed on the muscle over the last two years: albeit at different rates. In fact, researching potential purchases has reached the point of near-ubiquity in Australia, with the buying and selling activities not far behind them.

Businesses placing almost a third of their orders online
The second observation is that the SMEs who have cottoned onto online ordering are using the web for an average almost a third (31%) of their orders.

Ponder that for a moment. 78% of Australia’s SMEs are placing, on average, almost a third of their orders online.

That’s staggering and it underpins just how far eBusiness has come in this country.

Having said that, it does look like online’s share of orders may have hit a bit of a ceiling. While the number of SMEs placing orders online has grown rapidly since 2007, the average percentage of orders they’re placing (31%) has remained static.

Around the world? Nup… around the corner
One final observation. Back when the web was a toddler, the talk was of globalisation. If I recall, the thinking went something like ‘anyone could sell anywhere so everyone will sell everywhere’.

And while the web certainly has given birth to a new generation of multinationals, it pans out (perhaps not surprisingly) that the overwhelming bulk of businesses remain focussed on their neighbourhoods.

In fact, it turns out that two thirds of SMEs mainly sell to local customers – in the same city or town. 11% mainly sell elsewhere in the state, 12% interstate and 4% overseas.

So there you have it. A growth spurt in the uptake of eBusiness; a high (although static) share of purchases being placed online and a real focus on the customers just around the corner.

The Internet may not have changed the face of business in the way we once believed, but it sure has changed the way we do business.

Anyway, enough said. I’m off shopping (click, click, click).

Crunch! is a new column looking at the numbers behind advertising and local search. In today’s Crunch!… Defining what a click is. That’s easy. Defining what a click isn’t. That’s harder… but much more important.

In the 12 years I’ve been working in online media, there’s one thing that’s always befuddled me.

It’s the fact that online marketers cite measurement as the biggest barrier to advertising on what is touted as the world’s most measurable medium.

Go figure!

To highlight this, a 2007 McKinsey Quarterly report* found that over 50% of Internet advertisers saw “insufficient metrics to measure impact” as a barrier to using or considering digital advertising.

And there’ve been similar surveys, with similar results, in Australia.

So, what’s going on here? How the hell can measuring such a measurable medium raise so much angst?

I’ve long thought there’s two reasons.

The first is confusion about how we’re measuring – in other words the different public measurement services and their methodologies. For quite a while now, there’s been concern in Australia about the accuracy of online statistics. Naturally, when there’s a lack of faith in the source, there’s going to be a lack of faith in the data as well.

The second is a lack of clarity around what we’re measuring. Just think about the simple issue of online traffic as an example. Over the years, we’ve been stumped by a blinding array of different metrics – hits, page views, sessions, visits, unique users and unique visitors just to start with.

These metrics all mean slightly different things but, despite that, they’re often quoted interchangeably: a recipe for much pulling-of-hair and gnashing-of-teeth if I ever saw one.

This metric malaise is a really big problem, and I wanted to touch on it today with a focus on one particular metric – the humble click.

WHAT’S A CLICK?

The other day, an interesting question was raised at a customer panel session I attended.

On the surface, the question – “what (in advertising terms) is a click?” – would seem pretty straightforward.

Put simply, it’s when a person clicks from a feeder – like a search engine or banner ad – to a particular advertiser’s web site. It’s the action that gives rise to pricing terms like ‘cost per click’ and ‘pay per click’.

Okay, no biggie there.

CLICKS AIN’T LEADS

But the question becomes a lot murkier when you think about what a click isn’t. In particular, whether a click and a lead are the same thing.

Now, this might seem like nit-picking, but it’s a really important question – especially for the numerically-obsessed, like me. It gets to the heart of how you understand, measure and evaluate the contribution of different media to your business.

To start with, let’s think about this in a traditional media context.

Let’s say you send out a DM piece to 1,000 potential customers. As a result, 100 people take a moment to read it and 10 are so enamoured with what you’ve said that they give you a call.

What have you got there? 1,000 leads? 100 leads? 10 leads?

If you’re a media outlet trying to justify your existence, you might say 100. You might even say 1,000 if you’re feeling particularly hairy-chested (and/or deluded).

But if you’re a manager trying to get a handle on your sales pipeline, the answer is unequivocal… 10.

A lead isn’t a passing ship; it’s a real potential customer who has called, emailed, visited or contacted you in some way expressing a real interest.

A lead is a real sales opportunity that – most critically – you have a real chance to close.

Don’t get me wrong. The fact that 100 people read your DM piece (or clicked through to your web site) is great. They now know you and have you in the back of their minds. They’ve interacted with your brand.

But those people don’t qualify as ‘leads’ until they take that next step and get in touch with you.

BRINGING CONVERSION INTO THE MIX

Clearly, you can’t properly equate clicks to leads (which take the form of calls, visits, emails and other forms of enquiry) in the way some try to do these days.

To properly measure the leads generated by online advertising, you need to bring another ratio into play – conversion.

Conversion measures how many people actually took that next step of contacting you.

Most research suggests that online conversion rates are quite low – in the low single digits. That means the actual leads stemming from your online advertising may only be a relatively small fraction of the number of clicks.

THE BOTTOM LINE

So, what’s the bottom line here?

Firstly, comparing clicks with leads ain’t comparing apples with apples. If you want to compare clicks generated by one form of advertising with calls or visits generated by another, you need to think about the conversion as well. How many people actually visited your site and then contacted you?

Secondly, think about how well your web site converts browsers to buyers. Optimising online lead-generation campaigns means not just getting lots of people to your site, but having a site that efficiently converts them to leads as well.

And finally, if someone comes to you offering a mountain of ‘leads’, ask them precisely what they mean by the word ‘leads’.

How many of them will be real leads – enquiries from potential customers that you have a chance to close?

You might just find they’re leading you up the garden path.

* How companies are marketing online: A McKinsey Global Survey. September 2007