by Steven Ustaris

OwnerIQ’s unique taxonomy tags and catalogues consumers of over 4,000 different products and 5,000 individual brands across 17 different categories. This allows advertisers to create targetable online segments comprised of consumers based on the products and the brands that they own and consume. We classify this unique capability into distinct products: ProductIQ and BrandIQ.

ProductIQ, or product ownership, is powerful tool for defining consumer preferences and priorities because the products we own demonstrate a personal and financial investment in a particular product and in a particular category and a propensity to repeat this buying behavior in the future. Example: If I own a baby stroller there is a high probability that I will be interested in purchasing other baby related items.

BrandIQ, or brand ownership, allows advertisers to target more complex segments centered around audience lifestyles and values. These are typically hard segments to create and target using standard behavioral targeting methods. However, as the brands that we own can carry personal and social meaning and be a reflection of our lifestyles, values, and affiliations, BrandIQ provides a method to now target these more complex segments.

By Steve Tschosik and Steve Ustaris

OwnerIQ was one of the exhibiting sponsors at the i612 Alpha Event. i612 is the premiere marketing organization in Minneapolis and St. Paul specifically focused on servicing the local digital media community. The Alpha Event was held at Graves Hotel in Downtown Minnesota. There were over 200 industry folks in attendance. Most all of the local agencies, as well as client side companies such as 3M, General Mills, Target and Best Buy, were represented.

OwnerIQ premieres new brand segments at i612

OwnerIQ took this opportunity to “soft launch” our latest product evolution: targeting consumers based on the brands they own! We believe that brands are a reflection of consumer values, lifestyle and self-image. Now, in addition to the 4,000 + unique product segments advertisers can target across our network, OwnerIQ enables clients to target consumers of over 5,000 specific manufacturer and/or retailer brands!

The i612 attendees expressed enthusiasm around this new capability. Without a doubt, the most popular question asked by the visitors to our booth was, “Can I target consumers of competitive brands?” To which the answer is “YES.”

Dominant conversation in 2010 is echoed at event

The purpose of the Alpha Event is to showcase leading-edge products and services from some of the top digital media companies in the industry. Over the past 5 years, this focus on “digital” + “leading-edge” usually guaranteed an appearance by the holy trinity of emerging media in some fashion; that is, video, mobile, and social (with social covering many evils). This was not the case at i612. If there was any question that the dominant conversation within the digital media community in 2010 was the advent and proliferation of Ad Exchanges and DSPs, one would only have to look at the Alpha Event roster of presenting companies which featured 2 DSPs, 1 inventory exchange, and 1 data exchange.

Although the presentations were interesting, the actual content was short of ground-breaking and long on product updates. Personally, I think the addition of an ad network and media trading desk to the list of presenters could have rounded out the conversation nicely. Let’s be honest—new tensions undoubtedly exist between the buy and sell side right now. So it would have been interesting to see all the stakeholders represented and to hear their side of the debate. As a person who works at an ad network with its own unique data, powered by its own proprietary DSP (MostIQ ), this not only would have been enlightening but also very entertaining. All in all, though, the Alpha Event was a fun industry showcase.

Special thanks to the i612 team for putting together a great event and allowing OwnerIQ to participate!

Look for more information on OwnerIQ’s Brand Segments in the next few weeks!

Share it! http://tinyurl.com/2wbgl4t

A commentary on Click Thru Rate

by Steve Ustaris

Yes, I was surprised myself. Like me, you may have been under the previously ill-informed assumption that legends like Jordan, Magic and Bird would bear this title. If you are under 25, you might even throw wanna-be’s like Kobe and Lebron into the debate. But as a former colleague of mine once said, “Nothing ends a debate better than DATA.” And I am here to tell you, my ignorant friends, that based on the DATA, Artis Gilmore is the Greatest NBA Player in NBA History. Why? Quite simply, “The A-Train” holds the record for the NBA’s highest Field Goal Percentage of all time! More than 10 percentage points higher than that scrub, Michael Jordan. And since the game of basketball is all about scoring more field goals than the other guy, the title of “Greatest” undoubtedly should be his. Take a look how he stacks up against the conventional candidates:

If this was the roster of an NBA team and I was the General Manager, I’d make the following optimizations:

• I’d reduce the # of Field Goal attempts by Jordan and Bird, and re-allocate them to Gilmore
• Cut my 2 worst-performing players in Lebron James and Kobe Bryant (3.2 and 5.2 points below overall team FG%, respectively)
• If they want to stay on the team, I’d negotiate a reduction in salary to get their CPMFGA* down near The A-Trains’
• AND with the additional dollars, I would sign and test players who have show better performance on past teams; e.g. Kiki Vandeweghe, career FG% of 52.5!

*CPMFGA (Cost per Thousand Field Goal Attempts)

Now, some of my detractors will argue that I have to look at other stats that reflect a player’s contribution, such as assists – (a pass from a player to a teammate in a way that leads to a score). Magic Johnson, for example, averaged over 9 more assists per game than Gilmore, and had a total of 8,364 more assists in his career than The A-Train. Nope, sorry though. I just don’t buy into the whole “assist” stat. Frankly, I think most assists are coincidental. My team strictly works on a “last action taken” accreditation. In this case, the Field Goal is the last action.

Another counter-argument may also ask, “What about total WINS, or even better, CHAMPIONSHIPS?”  Well, statistics like Championships would only matter to someone who is goal driven, but my NBA team would be solely focused on the efficiency by which we deliver field goals. The owner of the team can tell me how we did overall later, if he/she chooses to. Then again, if I don’t get fired I can just assume a job well done.

Of course, any fan of the NBA would find this view completely absurd. The notion of ignoring statistics like total points, assists, steals, rebounds, and ultimately wins/losses and championships would seem ridiculous. Yet, for some reason we see this type of narrow performance view used over and over again in online advertising. Of course I am speaking of continued emphasis placed on the Click Through Rate (CTR). Now, unlike many of my contemporaries, I won’t preach about how the CTR is a completely obsolete performance metric. However, I will say that its significance is increasingly shrinking.

Based on the infamous “Natural Born Clickers” Study of 2009, 16% of the internet audience stills clicks on ads, down from 32% in 2007. This means that media teams that focus solely on CTR as a performance metric have no insight as to the impact of their advertising on 84% of their online consumers. That number could reach 90% by the end of this year.

Just like in basketball, to truly assess the performance of the online channel, individual campaigns and each individual site, it is imperative to consider how to best use all available “statistics” to assess true contribution of their roster. Advertisers cannot completely ignore view-based data; they should rather work to determine to what degree they can use it. They have to move past the “last action taken” measurement standard and use tools to account for advertising “assists,” i.e. what influence each online channel has on the other. Finally, this isn’t the recreational league at the YMCA. There is real money being spent with real jobs on the line. Doesn’t it just makes sense to know whether you are winning or losing (sales)?

But then again, maybe you do believe Artis Gilmore is the greatest NBA player of all time.

By Steve Ustaris

Target recently released a new commercial as part of their “Life is a Moving Target” campaign which I absolutely love. The name of the execution is “Do I wear hats?” In it, a female consumer is pondering the potential purchase of a hat and literally asks herself the very basic question, “Do I wear hats?” We then bear witness to an elaborate alternate reality created in the consumer’s mind as part of this introspection. In this reality her hat-wearing alter ego is strolling down a picturesque orchard as her handsome Baron Von Trapp-like husband hands her an apple fresh off a tree and her perfect kids picnic next to the family dog. Pleased with the results of this introspection, our consumer is able to confidently answer her original question with, “I totally wear hats.”

Psychologists like Maslow or Adler have theorized that after satisfying our basic physiological needs (food, water, sleep, etc.) and safety needs (such as health), human motivation is driven by deeper psychological needs such as of self actualization; or a desire to become more than one is and to become everything that one is capable of becoming.

This is never more clearly demonstrated then in the buying decisions we make as consumers. It is in our “do I wear hats” moments that we examine who we are, who we are becoming and who we want to be. And we force ourselves to do this because our conclusions may have significant cost implications (i.e. – our “hats” cost money).

Own: BMW 550i
Self-introspection: “Have I reached the level of financial status where my car is more than just a utility vehicle?”

Own: Charbroil Four-burner outdoor gas grill
Self-introspection: “Will I host barbeques on beautiful summer days and cook various meats for family and friends?”

Own: $100 ASICS running shoes
Self-introspection: “Do I actually enjoy running long distances. Do I enjoy doing it frequently?”

Own: Apple Macbook or HP Personal Computer
Self-introspection: “Am I creative and trendy, or practical and traditional?”

It is this type of simple, but elaborate consumer introspection at time of purchase, coupled with the belief that products and brands can be an outward reflection of one’s lifestyle and values that makes Ownership Targeting an extremely powerful concept and OwnerIQ a pioneer in the field of online targeting.