Epsilon's Symposium addressed email fraud head on, since its data breach accessed email data. Quinn Jalli, Epsilon's VP of Deliverability and ISP Relations, recommends that managing email fraud is not something to leave just to your email service provider. The wakeup call from this data breach: Brands must partner with email vendors and ISPs to protect their email send addresses, email brand assets, and in educating recipients about data usage and email fraud. Specifically:
Show ISPs your legitimate emails. Historically, marketers and ISPs haven't had much of a relationship because they were working toward different goals. Marketers want to get their emails into user inboxes, while ISPs want to manage email data volumes by blocking as many messages as possible. Well, phished emails — copies of your real thing — can be so good that neither consumers nor ISPs can tell real from fraud. Preempt this by showing ISPs the identifying characteristics of the emails that you create. And of course any examples you have of phished messages if you have suffered this. Your email service provider can facilitate this ISP connection.
By now, you've all heard about Epsilon's April 1 data breach — an unauthorized party accessed a subset of Epsilon's email clients' data. My colleague Dave Frankland outlines the circumstances of the incident and its implications on Customer Intelligence and data security in his blog post immediately following the incident.
I attended Epsilon's Customer Symposium in Naples, Fla., last week, and I wanted to pipe in with some commentary based on what was addressed directly by Epsilon at the event.
Marketers: The way I would look at this is "if a data breach can happen to Epsilon — a firm which specializes in data and data management — it can definitely happen to me." We learned from Bryan Sartin, director of investigative services, Verizon Business Security Solutions, and Mick Walsh, supervisor, Miami Electronic Crime Task Force, US Secret Service, that electronic crime is a huge and growing business, due in part to the ease of access to consumer information online and the ease of access to the data black market through online search engines. Three-quarters of cases of electronic crimes executed through malware come from data disclosed through Facebook.
I had breakfast yesterday with John Nicoletti, head of agency operations, and Dave Tan, head of SEM development for Google. They manage Google's relationships with search marketing agencies — updating them on what Google is working on and supporting the paid search business they manage with on behalf of marketers.
We chatted a bit about the findings from my recent Search Marketing Agency Wave, and John and Dave shared with me trends and differentiators they observe from their work with agencies. Here are our collective observations:
Technology doesn't differentiate agencies; how agencies use technology does. My wave does include automation as a point of differentiation in a lot of critiera. But to be clear, I don't think automation for the sake of automation is what makes an agency good. Nor does the technology enabling the automation need to be a proprietary tool developed by the agency. I'm agnostic when it comes to what tools an agency uses. What I care about is if the agency uses technology to improve processes, scalability, efficiency, and effectiveness of marketer search programs.
John and Dave pointed out — and I agree — that the features and functionality of search management technologies are universally very similar. The value to the marketer comes in how these tools are used to improve their overall performance and visibility.
Brand marketers don’t spend much online. It’s been a long-time frustration for me, but it’s undeniably true: According to our most recent interactive marketing forecast, marketers in brand categories spend less than half as much of their marketing budgets online as marketers in direct response categories. Brand marketers also continue to spend a huge portion of their marketing budgets on TV.
I’ll be honest: Five or 10 years ago, this made sense. Although lot of us were shouting from the rooftops back in 2000 about the scale and power of the Internet, the truth is back then its scale and power were relatively limited. The majority of the population still wasn’t online, Internet usage averaged only a few hours per week, and the brand stories we could tell online were constrained by both tiny banner ads (anyone remember "half banners"?) and tiny bandwidth (broadband access, and with it online video and other rich creative, was years away from the mainstream).
In that environment, it made sense that TV was by far marketers’ most important channel for building brand. After all, it offered brand marketers by far the largest media opportunity (more total users, and way more total hours, than any other media channel) and by far the richest brand impact of any platform. Marketers would have had little choice even if they wanted it: 30-second TV spots were the be-all and end-all of how they explained the meaning of the brands, and all other channels — online, radio, print, outdoor, and everything else — were simply a chance to reinforce the messaging in the TV spots.
But the conditions that made TV the de facto heart of our brand messaging no longer exist. Today, interactive marketing is ready to lead your brand campaigns, for four key reasons:
I’ve just come from RIM’s launch event for the BlackBerry PlayBook tablet. The tablet has evolved since CES, but my impressions of it remain the same. In short, it’s a racecar that’s missing a wheel. The PlayBook is a powerful device with solid hardware, lighter and more compact than the iPad. But by requiring a Bluetooth connection to a BlackBerry phone for basic applications like email, calendar, and IM, RIM has sacrificed consumer-friendliness for CIO peace-of-mind. As Walt Mossberg notes in his review, other apps users would expect like video-chat are also noticeably absent but will be provided via software updates in the near future.
Why, then, would RIM risk lukewarm reviews to launch a v1 product? My view is that the PlayBook is more of a proof point of what's coming for RIM than it is an iPad competitor. The PlayBook demonstrates the power of RIM's recently-acquired QNX operating system. It's an engine revving to go, and the PlayBook's 7-inch screen gives it room to make some noise. For example, the PlayBook browser handles Flash flawlessly, and the ability to switch apps and keep a video or game running in the background is truly impressive.
In 2007, Forrester called "Engagement" marketing's new key metric. We defined it as "the level of involvement, interaction, intimacy, and influence an individual has with a brand over time." Since then the term has taken on a life of its own (a Google search for "marketing engagement" returns more than 47 million entries) and has come dangerously close to becoming an industry platitude bandied about with little to no meaning. How did this happen? Well, due to overwhelming clutter and the need to connect with customers in a world in which people created 500 billion online word-of-mouth impressions through social media, marketers needed a new term to describe the interaction they were having with customers and "engagement" fit the bill. Yet the term is now mostly used to describe the first half of our definition: "involvement and interaction." But any good marketer knows just getting a customer to be involved or to interact with an application or campaign is typically not enough to drive results — even basic awareness. In fact, there are two types of failed marketing campaigns on the Internet. The first is the ghost town of shiny objects that are littered across the Internet (see Second Life just to start). One marketer aptly described these as "the ones where we had great expectations and heard nothing but crickets." The second type is even more common but not always deemed a failure. These are the ones in which the marketer, and more often the agency, spin the program with a variety of metrics like clicks, visits, time spent, downloads, etc. — yet are never able to tie them back to real business
You may have already noticed a new theme on the lips of Forrester's Interactive Marketing role analysts. Tomorrow morning, I will be inviting the Forrester Marketing Forum audience to accept a new mission called CORE. CORE is a four part mission that challenges marketers to embrace interactivity. To compete in the next digital decade, the CORE mission states that you must customize, optimize, respond, and empower. CORE is also the theme of the Interactive Marketing track session at the forum, as Joanna O'Connell mentioned in her blog. Not only that, we recently published The Future Of Interactive Marketing, which lays out the CORE mission in detail. In it, we offer a survey for you to take that will show you how far along you and your organization are at accomplishing the CORE mission. I also encourage you to check out Ad Age's CMO Strategy Profile for a glimpse of how CMOs are affected by interactivity and how the CORE mission is relevant for their future success.
What does all of this mean for interactive marketers? It means that today we are at a pivotal moment, one where the customer has gained enormous power and where technology advances have surged out of our control. Interactive marketers can either be courageous and lead their organizations into the future of interactivity or remain in a digital ghetto and quickly become irrelevant. I encourage you to reach out to IM analysts to talk about how the CORE mission applies to your business. It's a long road ahead and there is a lot of work to be done.