It’s always amusing to read articles in which people who have no discernible experience are quoted as experts.
- For Pandora, more ads to irritated users makes for a risky strategy (San Francisco Business Times, Nov. 20)
In this item, the professor of marketing at Cal State San Marcos stumbles rather mightily when he says: “I don’t know if it’s necessarily that much worse than what we normally get.” The truth is exactly as he claims: He doesn’t know. More than 90 percent of commercial radio stations have strict separation protocols preventing the same advertiser from running even similar copy twice during any hour. So in real radio you won’t hear the same advertiser more than once per hour, or once every 14-to-18 songs, depending upon the music format of the station.
What I find peculiar about Pandora running six-to-seven ads an hour, and repeating the same ads multiple times an hour, is: Where are the other advertisers? Do they have only two or three advertisers, or does Pandora need coaching in how to traffic commercial content so as to not drive away users?
Even more fun is to bear witness to the gyrations of trying to connect many points of big data into a cohesive, relevant marketing strategy for advertisers, when all they want is to connect to the right consumer with the right message. I can tell you this: There isn’t any service out there, Krux or not, that is capable of accurately connecting those dots making campaigns sing the way Pandora sells it, or its advertisers want it. If they’re selling perfection, I suggest they get off that line of thinking and instead try a humbler approach – something along the lines “Pandora for Progress … we offer better targeting than ever before, and we strive to make it better every day. But we’re not perfect.”
On second thought, who’d buy that? The truth never works because it isn’t flashy enough, especially when compared with a competitor’s gold-plated fairy tale. Right?