<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<feed version="0.3" xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xml:lang="en">
<title>Nate Elliott</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/" />
<modified>2008-05-13T20:02:34Z</modified>
<tagline></tagline>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13</id>
<generator url="http://www.movabletype.org/" version="3.121">Movable Type</generator>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2008, Nate Elliott</copyright>
<entry>
<title>Speaking in Hamburg this week at Next08</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/05/speaking_in_ham.html" />
<modified>2008-05-13T20:02:34Z</modified>
<issued>2008-05-13T22:56:12Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9823</id>
<created>2008-05-13T22:56:12Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I&apos;ll be in Hamburg to speak at the Next08 conference this Wednesday and Thursday. I&apos;m really looking forward to hearing audience feedback on some of our new research on social marketing best practices -- this will be the first time we&apos;ve presented any of this data to the general public....</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Advertising</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
I&apos;ll be in Hamburg to speak at the Next08 conference this Wednesday and Thursday. I&apos;m really looking forward to hearing audience feedback on some of our new research on social marketing best practices -- this will be the first time we&apos;ve presented any of this data to the general public. I&apos;m also excited about hearing from the other speakers -- it looks like a great lineup.

If anyone will be there and wants to meet up, either stop by my presentation -- Thursday at 3:30pm -- or drop me an email: nelliott *at* jupiter research -dot- com.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Free Search Marketing Survey Data! (In exchange for a few moments of your time)</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/04/free_search_mar.html" />
<modified>2008-04-17T12:37:09Z</modified>
<issued>2008-04-17T18:32:19Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9720</id>
<created>2008-04-17T18:32:19Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I apologize for not being a very active blogger lately -- I&apos;ve been traveling quite a lot, and most of my blogging impulses have been going towards Twitter the last couple of weeks. But I did want to take a moment to announce that Jupiter is conducting its annual Search...</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Search</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
I apologize for not being a very active blogger lately -- I&apos;ve been traveling quite a lot, and most of my blogging impulses have been going towards Twitter the last couple of weeks.
 
But I did want to take a moment to announce that Jupiter is conducting its annual Search Marketing Executive Survey. If you&apos;re a search marketer or search marketing agency based in Europe or the US, and have a few minutes to spare (the survey is approximately 30 questions long), your answers will help us collect great data on the state of the search marketing industry.
 
You can take the survey by clicking here.
 
To thank you for your time and participation, we&apos;ll send you a free copy of the aggregated survey results, and enter you for a chance to win one of three free iPod Shuffles. Please also note that:
- Individual responses are strictly confidential
- Responses are only used in aggregate and anonymous form
 
We will be drawing a winner for the iPods at the close of the survey. If possible, we&apos;d like to receive your completed survey by the middle of next week (April 22, 2008). If you have any questions about the survey, or you have any problems using the form, please let me know: nelliott (at) jupiter research *dot* com.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Video-Related Notes from OMMA Hollywood</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/03/omma_hollywood.html" />
<modified>2008-03-18T11:26:58Z</modified>
<issued>2008-03-18T16:25:15Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9621</id>
<created>2008-03-18T16:25:15Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">No, I&apos;m not there. But Corey Kronengold, of Tremor Media and the Online Video Watch blog, is there. Check out some of his good session reports on Buying Video and Looking Smart Doing It, on Pitch your Niche, and on Pat Keane&apos;s keynote....</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Advertising</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
No, I&apos;m not there. But Corey Kronengold, of Tremor Media and the Online Video Watch blog, is there. Check out some of his good session reports on Buying Video and Looking Smart Doing It, on Pitch your Niche, and on Pat Keane&apos;s keynote. 

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Why Behavioral Targeting is Scary</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/03/why_behavioral.html" />
<modified>2008-03-17T11:03:20Z</modified>
<issued>2008-03-17T15:46:49Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9616</id>
<created>2008-03-17T15:46:49Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Behavioral targeting shouldn&apos;t be scary to consumers -- because every major behavioral targeting system I&apos;ve ever seen (outside of spyware) goes to great lengths to protect user privacy. It&apos;s all completely anonymous! But behavioral targeting is incredibly scary to publishers and advertisers and any other company who wants use anonymous...</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Advertising</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
Behavioral targeting shouldn&apos;t be scary to consumers -- because every major behavioral targeting system I&apos;ve ever seen (outside of spyware) goes to great lengths to protect user privacy. It&apos;s all completely anonymous!

But behavioral targeting is incredibly scary to publishers and advertisers and any other company who wants use anonymous user data to effectively target advertising. Because even some very smart people simply don&apos;t take the time to understand what&apos;s being discussed. I&apos;m sure Sir Berners-Lee is one of the great minds of the digital world -- but either he has never bothered to read up on behavioral targeting, or he doesn&apos;t know the meaning of the word &apos;anonymous,&apos; or he simply doesn&apos;t trust his ISP.

It&apos;s probably the latter: he doesn&apos;t trust his ISP. That&apos;s fair; everyone can decide for themselves who to trust. But it&apos;s also odd, because he presumably already trusts Google to store all his searches -- including personally identifiable data -- for 18 months. Does Berners-Lee really trust Google more with data about exactly who he is and and what he searched for (which is not just the &apos;worst-case scenario&apos; he discusses in the BBC story, but the actual fact of his relationship with Google today) more than he trusts BT or Virgin Media with anonymous data? (After all, who stores more sensitive data about you: your search engine, or your ISP? And who has a worse history of leaking users&apos; behavioral profiles: search engines, or ISPs?)

This is why the ISPs who partnered with Phorm just weeks ago have already gone weak in the knees. It seems it&apos;s simply not possible to have a fair, informed discussion of behavioral targeting -- not in the face of scary stories from the media, and over-reaching, under-informed comments from the type of digerati who should know better.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Twittering</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/03/twittering.html" />
<modified>2008-03-07T19:11:54Z</modified>
<issued>2008-03-08T00:36:53Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9576</id>
<created>2008-03-08T00:36:53Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I&apos;ve always thought Twitter might be a bit pointless -- it certainly looks that way from the outside -- but everyone tells me that once you start doing it, you can&apos;t stop. So I&apos;m about to find out. You can find me at twitter.com/nate_elliott....</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Advertising</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
I&apos;ve always thought Twitter might be a bit pointless -- it certainly looks that way from the outside -- but everyone tells me that once you start doing it, you can&apos;t stop. So I&apos;m about to find out. You can find me at twitter.com/nate_elliott.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>The Social Networking World</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/03/the_social_netw.html" />
<modified>2008-03-03T19:45:48Z</modified>
<issued>2008-03-04T01:35:03Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9562</id>
<created>2008-03-04T01:35:03Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">[Via Greg Verdino] Le Monde printed a cool map a few weeks back covering the social networking world. The map isn&apos;t quite perfect. While there&apos;s some data to support the idea that Bebo are the largest network in the UK, there&apos;s almost no chance they&apos;re bigger than MySpace across all...</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Media</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
[Via Greg Verdino] Le Monde printed a cool map a few weeks back covering the social networking world.

The map isn&apos;t quite perfect. While there&apos;s some data to support the idea that Bebo are the largest network in the UK, there&apos;s almost no chance they&apos;re bigger than MySpace across all of Europe; our 2007 data has MySpace a clear #1 in Western Europe with Facebook and Bebo fighting it out for #2. Also, Skyblog (listed as #1 in France and #3 in Europe) and LiveJournal (listed as #1 in Russia) aren&apos;t social networks, they&apos;re blogging sites. (Yes, it&apos;s getting harder to tell the difference between those two categories. But even with Skyblog&apos;s addition of some networking features last year, these two sites are still, clearly, first and foremost about blogging.) Finally, I&apos;d have thought some of the countries that aren&apos;t labeled would&apos;ve been pretty easy to fill in with a current leader -- among others, it seems clear that StudiVZ is #1 in Germany, and that Facebook is #1 in Sweden.

But despite these flaws, this map is a very useful reminder that social networking is still a relatively fragmented market. English-speaking media types have been completely fixated on Facebook for the last year, forgetting both that MySpace is still bigger globally, and that Facebook until recently had almost no presence outside the English-speaking world. Friendster and Orkut are widely described as also-rans in social networking, despite the fact that they&apos;re each the #1 network in a crucial developing market (Asia and Latin America, respectively). And I guarantee that not a single person who looks at that map will have already heard of every network mentioned. (Had you ever heard of Mixi, or Metroflog, or Yonja?)

The point is, it&apos;s still early days yet in social networking, and there are still no guaranteed winners and losers. As our Web Globalization analyst Zia just said to me -- I wonder what this map will look like five years from now?

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Integrating Images and Video Into Search Results</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/03/integrating_ima.html" />
<modified>2008-03-03T14:21:07Z</modified>
<issued>2008-03-03T20:20:17Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9559</id>
<created>2008-03-03T20:20:17Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I&apos;ve just finished up a report on how Yahoo, MSN, and Ask are competing with Google in Europe. The short answer, of course, is that they&apos;re not competing very well: Google is incredibly dominant in all the key European markets. But there are some ways that the other engines can...</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Search</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
I&apos;ve just finished up a report on how Yahoo, MSN, and Ask are competing with Google in Europe. The short answer, of course, is that they&apos;re not competing very well: Google is incredibly dominant in all the key European markets. But there are some ways that the other engines can start to claw back some share, and our report -- which should be published in the next few weeks -- talks about some of the strategies that we think will work best.

One of the things I focused on in the report was the integration of specialty search (e.g., image or video search, directory search, shopping search, news search) into standards results pages -- what Google calls Universal Search, and what Ask implemented as part of their 3D search results pages. During my research I found a couple of good blog entries on the topic over at Ramblings About SEO. They did the kind of thing I like to do: they tracked each engines&apos; response to a variety of search queries to see what types of multimedia content they&apos;re integrating into their results pages, and how far up the page these multimedia results appear. You can see the results of their image webtrack here, and the results of their video webtrack here.

The bottom line is that it&apos;s early days for integrating specialty search into standard search results, and that different engines do well under different conditions. But the results are complex (and interesting), so you should go read through them yourself.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>&quot;Inside Facebook&quot; Lists Every Single Way to Market on Facebook</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/03/inside_facebook.html" />
<modified>2008-03-03T14:30:04Z</modified>
<issued>2008-03-03T20:12:40Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9560</id>
<created>2008-03-03T20:12:40Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Unfortunately there&apos;s not a lot of detail or analysis -- and nothing along the lines of best practices -- but the blog Inside Facebook has posted a useful list of every possible way companies can use Facebook for marketing. It&apos;d make a good read for executives who want to understand...</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Advertising</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
Unfortunately there&apos;s not a lot of detail or analysis -- and nothing along the lines of best practices -- but the blog Inside Facebook has posted a useful list of every possible way companies can use Facebook for marketing. It&apos;d make a good read for executives who want to understand the breadth of marketing opportunities on social networks, or anyone brainstorming a Facebook campaign.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Hey CNBC, What&apos;s a Widget?</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/02/whats_a_widget.html" />
<modified>2008-02-28T20:40:25Z</modified>
<issued>2008-02-29T01:51:03Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9554</id>
<created>2008-02-29T01:51:03Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Online Video Watch has a clip of some CNBC presenters trying to figure out what a widget is. I&apos;d make fun of them, except... have you ever tried to define &apos;widget&apos;? It&apos;s not that easy a concept to summarize. (But it&apos;s definitely not, as one of the hosts suggests, a...</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Advertising</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
Online Video Watch has a clip of some CNBC presenters trying to figure out what a widget is. I&apos;d make fun of them, except... have you ever tried to define &apos;widget&apos;? It&apos;s not that easy a concept to summarize. (But it&apos;s definitely not, as one of the hosts suggests, a virus.)

Anyway, even if the hosts can&apos;t figure out what a widget is, their tech guys made a cracking one. If you care about the US stock market -- or about good widgets -- head over to Online Video Watch and have a look.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Search Clicks Worth Twice as Much as Contextual Clicks</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/02/search_clicks_w.html" />
<modified>2008-02-25T17:30:20Z</modified>
<issued>2008-02-25T23:21:48Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9523</id>
<created>2008-02-25T23:21:48Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Efficient Frontier is reporting its clients&apos; average cost per click on paid search and contextual advertising across a range of categories. The category splits are interesting (note that EF&apos;s auto clients pay more for contextual clicks than for search clicks), but more interesting to me is the fact there&apos;s still...</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Search</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
Efficient Frontier is reporting its clients&apos; average cost per click on paid search and contextual advertising across a range of categories. The category splits are interesting (note that EF&apos;s auto clients pay more for contextual clicks than for search clicks), but more interesting to me is the fact there&apos;s still a huge difference between search and contextual prices. So while we&apos;ve heard reports that contextual ads are performing better now than they have in the past, keep in mind that search clicks -- to Efficient Frontier&apos;s clients, at least -- are on average still worth twice as much as clicks from contextual ads.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Valentine&apos;s Day Fun</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/02/valentines_day.html" />
<modified>2008-02-14T12:05:42Z</modified>
<issued>2008-02-14T18:02:16Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9508</id>
<created>2008-02-14T18:02:16Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I&apos;ve handed off leadership of our online dating research this year -- you can see David Card&apos;s analysis of the market, and our newest online dating forecasts, in Monday&apos;s press release -- but since it&apos;s Valentine&apos;s Day I couldn&apos;t help posting a link to The Onion&apos;s brutally funny take on...</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Media</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
I&apos;ve handed off leadership of our online dating research this year -- you can see David Card&apos;s analysis of the market, and our newest online dating forecasts, in Monday&apos;s press release -- but since it&apos;s Valentine&apos;s Day I couldn&apos;t help posting a link to The Onion&apos;s brutally funny take on online dating. Enjoy.

(The Onion is a pretty good example of online video advertising best practices, by the way -- a 4-second pre-roll ad, accompanied by an IAB standard companion banner, and then a 30-second post-roll ad after the content ends. While they only have one advertiser right now -- Toyota -- they do rotate through several different 30-second spots. But as with so many other sites, The Onion overwhelms its users with too much frequency, putting a pre-roll and a post-roll on every single piece of content.)

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Special Guest Blogger: Dorothee Vogel on Tchibo&apos;s Efforts to Explore New Markets Online</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/02/special_guest_b_4.html" />
<modified>2008-02-14T10:36:01Z</modified>
<issued>2008-02-14T16:14:38Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9507</id>
<created>2008-02-14T16:14:38Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">I want to offer congratulations to my colleague Dorothee Vogel, who a month ago gave birth to her first child, a son. Reports are that mother and child are both doing well -- and as if to prove it, Dorothee&apos;s already back tracking the online commerce space. Here&apos;s her take...</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Commerce</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
I want to offer congratulations to my colleague Dorothee Vogel, who a month ago gave birth to her first child, a son. Reports are that mother and child are both doing well -- and as if to prove it, Dorothee&apos;s already back tracking the online commerce space. Here&apos;s her take on how German retailer Tchibo keeps exploring new tactics in e-commerce:

Many German retailers still lag far behind their UK counterparts in terms of exploring the online channel. However tchibo.de, who lead the German market in so many ways, continues to set trends.

First, tchibo.de recently introduced its first weekly &apos;wardrobe&apos; (a themed section of featured products) targeted to targeted to older users (follow the link and then click on the box that says &quot;Unter einem Dach&quot;), containing cleaning kits for false teeth, supportive underwear, heating pads and incontinency bed covers. Although older users are a relatively small part of the online population today, they&apos;re growing increasingly important and influential online -- and by 2012, more than 40 percent of European Internet users will be age 45 and over.

Second, Tchibo is also going green. While many airlines have begun to offer carbon offsetting schemes in the last year (mainly in the US and the UK), this year we could see more general online retailers adopting the model. Tchibo.de adds an opt-in &quot;gogreen&quot; box (see below) to the shopping basket during check out, where the customer is asked to donate 10 cents to an environmental project to offset the impact of their delivery. It will be interesting to see whether Germany will in 2008 catch the Green trend that was so apparent in the UK in 2007.

For more of Dorothee&apos;s take on selling to green consumers online, check out her report European Green Consumers: Identifying and Seizing the Opportunity Online.





</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Why 2008 Won&apos;t Be The Breakthrough Year for Mobile Advertising</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/02/why_2008_wont_b.html" />
<modified>2008-02-13T09:29:19Z</modified>
<issued>2008-02-13T15:54:09Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9503</id>
<created>2008-02-13T15:54:09Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Apparently Nokia mobile ad bigwig Jeremy Wright cracked a joke last week about 2008 being the seventh year in a row that mobile advertising is supposed to break through. He&apos;s right: for nearly a decade, mobile has been promoted as the next big thing in advertising. And the sector looks...</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Advertising</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
Apparently Nokia mobile ad bigwig Jeremy Wright cracked a joke last week about 2008 being the seventh year in a row that mobile advertising is supposed to break through. He&apos;s right: for nearly a decade, mobile has been promoted as the next big thing in advertising. And the sector looks like it&apos;s finally gaining some real momentum. We&apos;ve heard news from Barcelona this week that O2 has signed a deal with 4th Screen Advertising to run mobile pre-roll ads, that Yahoo and T-Mobile are partnering for mobile search and other mobile content, and that the big UK mobile operators are teaming up to set standards for mobile ad measurement.

But unfortunately for Nokia, Yahoo, T-Mobile, O2, 4th Screen, and everyone else in the mobile ad game, 2008 is not going to be a breakthrough year in mobile advertising in Europe, and we&apos;re all going to be telling these same jokes in 2009.

As I discuss in my report Mobile Marketing in Europe: Lack of Scale, Standards, and Systems Inhibit Near-Term Growth, European advertisers currently point to five key inhibitors to their use of mobile advertising: 
Difficulty finding budget for mobile advertising
Difficulty finding inventory for mobile advertising
The high cost of mobile ad inventory
Difficulty deciding on mobile advertising tactics (e.g., inexperience with the platform)
Difficulty measuring mobile advertising

This week&apos;s announcements will start to chip away at these inhibitors: the Yahoo/T-Mobile and O2/4th Screen deals will increase available inventory and should over time bring down prices, while the operator working group should make measurement more effective. But nothing we&apos;ve heard about offers a quick fix: it&apos;ll take time for T-Mobile and O2 to generate significant user traffic (and therefore significant ad inventory) from their new offerings, and setting industry standards can take anywhere from months to years. So if any of the initiatives announced this week have an impact in 2008, it probably won&apos;t be until the second half of the year -- and there&apos;s a good chance they won&apos;t have a meaningful impact until 2009.

Meanwhile, we&apos;re still faced with the largest problem for mobile advertising: advertisers simply can&apos;t find much money to buy mobile ads. In our most recent mobile marketing survey, almost three-quarters of European mobile advertisers and agencies said they planned to spend less than &amp;#8356;25,000 (around €35,000) on mobile marketing in the next year.

With mobile advertisers planning to spend that little in 2008 -- and with inventory, prices, tactics and measurement all still unsolved problems -- we simply don&apos;t believe that 2008 will be the breakthrough year for mobile advertising in Europe. Things will definitely get more interesting in 2009 -- but we think the real breakthrough for European mobile advertising will come in 2010.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>BusinessWeek Hammers MySpace on Ad Effectiveness</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/02/businessweek_ha.html" />
<modified>2008-02-13T10:39:33Z</modified>
<issued>2008-02-13T15:22:09Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9504</id>
<created>2008-02-13T15:22:09Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">Catherine Holahan, a young reporter at BusinessWeek, has been venting her spleen on MySpace and other social networks over the past week. First she wrote an article called MySpace Users Build Up Ad Immunity (key quote from former MySpace advertiser: &quot;Users [have become] more or less desensitized to the advertising&quot;)...</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Advertising</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
Catherine Holahan, a young reporter at BusinessWeek, has been venting her spleen on MySpace and other social networks over the past week. First she wrote an article called MySpace Users Build Up Ad Immunity (key quote from former MySpace advertiser: &quot;Users [have become] more or less desensitized to the advertising&quot;) and then she contributed to Generation MySpace Is Getting Fed Up (key quote from current MySpace advertiser: &quot;It&apos;s really hard to make money on that anemic click-through rate&quot;).

Our data -- about to be published -- shows that European users may in fact be cooling to the idea of advertising within social networks. But let&apos;s not get ahead of ourselves: with billions of ad impressions up for grabs on MySpace and Facebook and Bebo (often at very low prices), and with ad targeting getting better all the time, it&apos;s ludicrous to claim that advertisers can&apos;t find cost-effective inventory on the social networks. The real problem isn&apos;t that users aren&apos;t responsive to banners on social networks, but rather that advertisers and their agencies (and, apparently, even Google) just aren&apos;t targeting those ads well enough. The advertisers need to realize that although run-of-site inventory is cheap, it&apos;s not always cost-effective -- and that targeted inventory, while more expensive, usually brings a better ROI. Meanwhile, the social networks need to offer better behavioral targeting and ad optimization solutions to help advertisers target the right users. Once (if?) that happens, I&apos;m sure everyone will be happy again.

</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>My First Take: Can Microsoft + Yahoo Challenge Google in Search?</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/archives/2008/02/my_first_take_c.html" />
<modified>2008-02-01T17:51:23Z</modified>
<issued>2008-02-01T23:44:04Z</issued>
<id>tag:weblogs.jupiterresearch.com,2008:/analysts/elliott//13.9454</id>
<created>2008-02-01T23:44:04Z</created>
<summary type="text/plain">There&apos;s no shortage of comment around the blogosphere today about a possible combination of MSN and Yahoo, and its potential to threaten Google&apos;s dominance. But while it&apos;s useful to keep in mind what impact this will have on music, messaging, or other verticals, I&apos;m going to stick with talking about...</summary>
<author>
<name>Nate Elliott</name>

</author>
<dc:subject>Search</dc:subject>
<content type="text/html" mode="escaped" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/elliott/">
There&apos;s no shortage of comment around the blogosphere today about a possible combination of MSN and Yahoo, and its potential to threaten Google&apos;s dominance. But while it&apos;s useful to keep in mind what impact this will have on music, messaging, or other verticals, I&apos;m going to stick with talking about search -- because that&apos;s the only advertising-related market in which a combined MSN/Yahoo would directly compete with Google (while AdSense is improving, that&apos;s just repurposed search -- and Google is almost a complete non-entity in graphical advertising), and more importantly because that&apos;s where the real money is.

So could a combined MSN/Yahoo search engine compete with Google in Europe? Well, no and yes.

First the no: we&apos;re finishing up a report right now on how European search engines can compete with Google, but the reality is that no one&apos;s going to get near Google&apos;s search share over the next few years. While Google looks pretty dominant in the US -- they claimed 58 percent of all US searches in December 2007, said Comscore -- it appers that a combined MSN/Yahoo search engine would claim around 33 percent of all US searches. That&apos;s real, viable competition. But unfortunately, even if MSN and Yahoo combine, there will be no such strong challenge in Europe. As I&apos;ve previously discussed, Google has between 80 and 90 percent of search share in the key European markets. So whether this deal happens or not, it&apos;ll be incredibly difficult for anyone to compete with Google for European search share.

On the other hand, perhaps yes: a combination of MSN and Yahoo would definitely be better-positioned to compete with Google for paid search revenues than each company is now. I&apos;ve heard a surprising number of Euroean search marketers say that because MSN and Yahoo each command only a few percentage points of search share in Europe, they don&apos;t even bother advertising on any engine but Google. This proposed combination wouldn&apos;t entirely solve that problem, of course -- the combined search entity would still have less than 10 percent search share in the big European markets, according to numbers I&apos;ve seen from various traffic firms -- but it would at least give marketers a reason to run trials beyond Google. And that&apos;s a start in the right direction.

I&apos;ll probably have more to say on this as more details emerge and as it becomes clearer whether or not this deal will really happen -- but in the meantime if you&apos;re a client or press and want to discuss this further, drop a line to presseurope@jupiterresearch.com and we can have a chat.

</content>
</entry>

</feed>