Actual Quotes From My Career

On age:

“You are the youngest (job title) we’ve ever had. That should be reward in itself.” -Higher Up

“I can’t justify paying you what you’re saying is industry standard for (job title) because you’re only (age).” – Higher Up

“Well, aren’t you eager?” – Higher Up

“Why are you so worried about starting a 401k at your age?” -HR

“I’m sorry I didn’t tell you that you’ve been eligible for a 401k for the past six months, but honestly, you’ve got plenty of time to save, I don’t know what the big deal is.” – HR (These were at different companies.)

“I don’t know why you don’t want to make a lateral move to join our company. A lot of people your age have (job title).” – Higher Up

“I don’t like agencies. I don’t buy their job titles. They make 25-year-olds directors and they’re unqualified. I know you came from agencies; I’m just not buying that someone your age is at this level.” – Higher Up

“I’m fighting for you to get a promotion, but honestly, HR feels it would annoy people to see someone young get promoted to (job title). Just know that in our eyes, you are (the higher job title). Doesn’t that count for something? Sorry, it’s politics.” – Higher Up

“I don’t think you’re going to get a raise unless you have an offer to leverage. You’re extremely valued here, but everyone knows how young you are and most (age) people make less than what you already do. It’s a good-old-boys club, here, and they just feel certain ways about things.” – Higher Up

 

On gender:

“That lipstick looks hot on you.” – Higher Up

“You should wear that shirt more often.” – Higher Up

“You look good in heels. You’ve got great legs.” – Higher Up

(To client, laughing, referring to my coworker) “(Woman) right here would do anything for your business. She’s a real go-getter. I mean anything.” – Very High Up

“I know it leaked that (my male counterpart) makes (the equivalent of 157% of my salary), but he has a family to support.” – Higher Up

“Did you decide to ‘go freelance’ because you’re pregnant?” – Friend

“How is pregnancy now that you’re not working?” – Friend (I work full-time as a contractor)

“(Your boss) is pregnant now, so I need you on your A game. Women lose their minds when they’re pregnant, forget everything. Useless. So you’re going to need to do both your job and hers for a while.” -Higher Up (who is a woman)

“We’re going to send (your boss) on new business pitches; maybe she’ll put out. Actually, that might not be the best approach – who knows what’s going on down there; she’s had two kids now. -Higher Up, joking (who is a woman)

The Dark Side of Last-Touch Attribution

There are two  primary schools of thought when it comes to assigning “credit” to revenue driven in a digital advertising campaign: last-touch (the media receiving the last interaction, whether a view or a click, receives “credit” for any resulting conversions) and multi-touch (multiple media touchpoints are considered when assigning “credit” for a sale – usually with first and last touch receiving a lion’s share of credit, and everything in the middle receiving a split percentage of credit).

Standard, industry-accepted ROI attribution remains last-touch. This is a relic of standard ad serving; a technological inability to measure beyond that model and an analytical conundrum to sort out as a client: how much credit should the second-to-last ad seen, for example, receive?

There are now many vendors, including the standard third party ad servers, who allow for multi-touch attribution, but the industry continues to shy away from any non-standard model. As someone who’s worked on both the agency and the vendor side, I can confirm firsthand that for all the tough talk agencies speak to clients about multi-touch attribution, last-touch is still the strong norm. In my experience, less than 1% of digital campaigns include a multi-touch model. That’s unacceptable. And if you’re a client, that should be questioned.

We know the reasons behind this: the expense of an additional tracking vendor, the complication of determining the model, the shake-up it might bring to an agency’s best partners and, thus, their reputation (because of course your retargeting campaigns aren’t driving all that ROI, they’re jumping in front of a conversion), the nontraditional nature of a new model and how those outside of the industry might react (or have difficulty understanding). However, using the “same old” model is killing campaigns, vendors, and strategies that actually work.

Imagine this scenario:

PetCo is seeing sales for their dog food decline online. Their theory is that their largest competitor is pushing dog food sales via banners and pre-roll video. PetCo needs a campaign that will bring sales back to its website, and they have a couple of great brands on board for co-branded media.

20% of the budget goes to retargeting tactics (finding people who’ve previously visited the website and serving them an ad)

40% of the budget goes to CPA and agency-led programmatic tactics (primarily loosely-targeted “spray and pray” – get as many cheap impressions out there, viewable or not, in front of customers in an effort to win that last touch, as the client will only pay for a conversion made under that model)

30% of the budget goes to awareness tactics (pre-roll video targeting people watching animal-related shows, banners served on content about dogs and pet supplies, purchase-based targeting, etc)

10% of the budget remains for testing/optimization

The awareness budget is immediately set up to fail. Although the strategy of awareness tactics is arguably more relevant than the CPA or even retargeting in driving an incremental sale, it will almost certainly be pulled from the plan if ROI is the main KPI and last-touch is the model being used. That remaining 10% of the budget will be shoved into CPA or retargeting, the 30% for awareness will be sliced more thinly, and PetCo will end up churning its same old audience rather than actually stealing any sales from its competitor. Although the ROI might look incredible, the incremental ROI is basically nil.

I’m not saying anything marketers don’t already know – but it’s time to take action. A few leading agencies need to take attribution on as a pet project, much like they did last year with viewability, and force the conversation to happen with their clients. Otherwise, we’re playing a game of constant cannibalization and wasting hundreds of millions of dollars each year on worthless impressions.

It’s time for smarter marketing and smarter attribution. Analysts, force the topic in meetings. Media teams, rely on your smarts and superior strategies to drive the conversations that must be had with clients – don’t fall back on bad habits. Because if we’re not making a real difference with our marketing, what are we in it for?

The Ethical Marketer’s Manifesto

Digital marketing is, by nature, a grey world. 

Nearly everyone in the developed world is aware an exchange must take place when someone uses the internet: ads pay for the sites and apps you use. If ads aren’t paying for them, someone has to – and that someone would otherwise be you.

There is a silent contract between advertisers and consumers; that contract is progressively granular, increasingly targeted, and further trackable than ever before.

As a marketer, I struggle with this contract. Where is the line between a consumer’s right to privacy and the silent, unwritten legislation they commit to when they turn on their phones? The laws have trouble keeping up with the technology. Consumers are unaware of all the tools marketers have at their disposal to find and track them. Marketers are out-sneaking each other, plunging deeper into ad fraud and viewability challenges. So I’ve devised my own personal code of conduct that I’ll try to adhere by in my career. It’s where the human in me meets the data miner.

 

1. When you buy advertising based on impressions, someone should see it.

100% viewability in any capacity is a myth – of course. We as an industry need to work toward changing so the inventory serving ads is always viewable. This must start with websites first, then ad exchanges. It will mean the marketplace of ad buying will get tighter and ads will be more expensive. However, even as someone who recognizes the current impossibility of 100% viewability (or even, often, >70% viewability), the industry should pivot toward higher CPMs to ensure that impressions are only paid for when truly seen.

2. Frequency is not a default lever to pull to spend a budget.

There are people on the end of the ads you’re blasting at them – or at least, according to item 1, there should be. Let’s stop flushing money down the toilet by jacking up frequency to spend a budget. This is doing no one any good, and it’s pissing off your consumers. If I have to see one more bowling ad on Hulu, I may scream.

3. Incremental Return > ROAS.

Anyone can drive ROI. Just stick a retargeting pixel on a website or run some FBX ads and show off all the money you’ve made.

Incremental return is another story. To the degree that it’s possible, as an industry, we need to develop better exposed v. unexposed testing, because driving ROAS at all costs is leading to an explosion (and sometimes implosion) of companies that capitalize on churning an existing pool of customers. Let’s take our collective heads out of our collective butts and recognize this isn’t strategic.

4. Banners are not the devil.

I’ve heard throughout my career that “nobody looks at banners.” As humans, I’m sure we’d all like to believe that. Nobody I know, even those in marketing, see a banner and say, “Wow! I would like to buy that right now.” It’s not a direct response tool unless you’re finding someone already very down-funnel and close to the point of purchase.

But I love banners. As a consumer, I appreciate that I have a plethora of internet content to consume, for free, as a result of banners being served to me. I don’t want them to be invasive. I don’t want them to stalk me. I don’t want to punch the monkey. But I don’t mind having the seed planted that yes, I have been meaning to book that trip to San Antonio and I should get on that soon.

My whole career, I have seen the influence banners have on consumers. Nobody likes to think advertising influences them, but it does – we’ve proved it. However, we need to appreciate as marketers that there is a deep value to highly targeted brand awareness, which is something a billboard on the side of the road or a TV ad simply can’t offer. We need to stop disparaging banners and, as strategic marketers, recognize where they fall in the marketing mix.

5. Worthless budgets have to stop.

That’s harsh terminology, of course. I recognize that companies and agencies have six markets that give them $100k each for a month and one baby market that only has $5k to scrape together. You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both, and there you have – one totally worthless budget.

Honestly, most of the time, vendors push back on these budgets not because they aren’t making money – it’s because it’s genuinely not strategic. When your budget ends up with 500 people served all in the same 5 minutes and then turns off until the next day, you’re not really impacting anything. You just can’t. The ethical thing for those of us making recommendations to do is to either reject these budgets or recommend they be spent over much smaller periods of time. I hate seeing people just waste their money – especially when there is so little of it to spread around.

 

There are many more ethical conundrums we marketers encounter daily, but these are the top 5 I wanted to highlight today. Do you agree with my assessment? What are your ethical challenges when it comes to marketing plans?

Programmatic #FOMO

An article on AdExchanger the other day announced yet another company is entering the DSP game – SAP has introduced SAP XM, touting privacy and transparency as key differentiators to the already-cluttered market.

Let’s be honest: DSPs aren’t cheap. Of course, you can get access to low-cost inventory, but utilizing a plethora of DSPs for access to, in all likelihood, most of the same exchanges, is driving up your bottom line. Each DSP requires some sort of monthly spend commitment and means doubled or triple campaign set-up and management time. The ultimate cost of onboarding a new DSP is often inefficient unless you truly have a need to add another to your mix.

Look, this is a case in which one size generally fits all. There is a reason even large DSPs like Turn are struggling to grow revenue. The programmatic market is cluttered and cannibalization is rampant. Agencies are creating their own DSPs to bring costs in-house and create a customized solution for themselves, but they further add to the crowded market, with limited added value.

As a marketer, I suggest you pick your horse and ride it. I have a preferred DSP and so should you. Don’t feel the need to be swayed to try new players to the market because they are offering one extra shiny object – in all likelihood, your lead guy will buy them up, add that special product to their mix, or get bought by someone else as the industry is forced to consolidate.

In a nutshell – cut the programmatic FOMO and stick with what you know works.

It’s Okay to Work at Starbucks

I wish I had some more creative title for this; some twee picture to pair with it. But I don’t. And it is what it is. And that’s okay.

And that’s what this post is about: being okay. Being okay with things as they are, accepting that having everything isn’t everything, and doing everything isn’t everything.

Being a grown-up sucks sometimes. Being a Millennial sucks at times, too, because we’re all at once trying to live up to an impossible standard (the one we’ve set for ourselves) and too disenchanted to appreciate what we’ve achieved.

I know: how emo. How hipster. How Millennial of me.

But I’m also bringing a ray of light to this odd post, telling my fellow aimless Millennial wanderers–seekers–that it’s okay to not know where you’re going. And it’s okay to choose life over vocation. And it’s okay to choose passion over money. And it’s okay to choose money over love. It’s okay with the world as long as it’s okay with you.

And as much as this is a hippy-dippy post about doing what fulfills you, it’s also not. Because the world needs people who work at McDonald’s and don’t have other work-based ambitions. The world needs people who work at Starbucks and didn’t get college degrees, but take their natural leadership skills and have killer careers. The world needs people who understand digital marketing and make good money helping sell things on social media. The world needs people who teach guitar, sing, act, dance. The world needs people who are doctors. Nurses. Lawyers. Construction workers. Plumbers. Principals. Teachers.

We Millennials sometimes have this curse over our heads; the curse of Expected Success. We will not only be successful, we will be The Best. We will be forever happy, forever in love, forever successful, forever at The Top. Well, it’s a myth. It can’t be anything but a myth for most of us, because by definition, we can’t all be special. In fact – most of us must be average.

The challenge is how we accept that fact, and the reality we accept.

Will we be the Pinterest-perfect stay-at-home mom?

Will we be the career woman?

Will we be the artist? The gardener? The volunteer?

The answer is no. The answer is most certainly NOT all of the above. And in all likelihood – NONE of the above.

But that’s okay. It’s okay to work at Starbucks. It’s okay to simply be. It’s okay to live in the middle, because these days, being in the middle is, in itself, a special and unexpected place to be.

So dually give yourself a break and your ego a kick in the groin. And drink your venti coconut milk latte.

 

#Upsourcing Is the new #Outsourcing

Outsourcing.

That word strikes fear into companies and employees alike. Something about it says you’ve failed. There is an implication that the work is moving overseas (although that’s not always the case). It indicates that something wasn’t working, so we are finding someone who knows how to fix it, usually for cheaper.

So many questions spring to mind when outsourcing is discussed. Whose jobs are on the line? Who are the people who will be doing the work? What is the cost savings? Can they do it better than we can?

However, I’d like to flip the scenario on its head and suggest that outsourcing work doesn’t exclusively need to be a grab for financial efficiency or a structural course correction. Here’s where #upsourcing comes into play.

Upsourcing is a term for employing high level contract talent to gap-fill for your team. It’s beyond a consultant; it’s a third party contract employee that is adept, nimble, and flexible to your needs. Upsourcing means finding a pinch-hitter for the manager who is going on maternity leave so your company doesn’t miss a step. Upsourcing is employing temporary talent with an existing skillset to keep the annual plan moving when your turnover is higher than normal. Upsourcing is all about seeing seamlessness and improvement and then saying goodbye when the contract concludes – it means keeping your work in-house, where it should be, but leveraging skilled hands as needed to move you to the next phase.

An upsourced need can help with course correction if it’s needed because they are bringing fresh eyes to the picture, but they are also there to fill in where there are production gaps. And if you find a reliable upsourcing resource you can call in at a moment’s notice, you can rely on that person to know your company and team without having to pay for a full-time, permanent player (or get an approval for anything beyond a freelancer).

Upsourced talent is not a cost-cutting plan (although it could work out that way depending on the efficiencies they introduce). Upsourcing resources are paid a premium for their work. However, when you are stuck in a bind and under debate about the next step to take–or you need high level talent but don’t want to settle for the first person that walks in the door with a decent resume–upsourcing can be exactly the resource you need to keep truck moving, the revenue growing, and the stakeholders happy.

Upsourcing is the new Outsourcing – it’s a premium product for a short-term need that lets you keep your team intact but offers that little extra boost when you need it most.

Unprivileged v. Impoverished

Recently, a 25-year-old Millennial was both publicly exalted and shamed when she was fired from Yelp for emailing the CEO about her financial troubles and the company’s refusal to pay what she considered a living wage in San Francisco.

I won’t contribute to this woman’s drama by including her name or linking to an article, as no matter what I think of her actions, I pity that she was born in a time in which her missteps and career fumbles will forever haunt her on social media. I’ve made some seriously dumb choices that I’m grateful haven’t been a public tombstone for my career.

However, I think it’s important to talk about context here, because the raging debate about her letter centers on the entitlement of the Millennial generation, and whether she was justified in her complaint.

This isn’t just an issue of entitlement. It is an issue of the sore misunderstanding we have as a society and, at many times, a generation, about the difference between a lack of privilege and true poverty. We are wearing the glasses of our middle-class upbringings and it’s time for a dose of reality.

According to the U.S. Census, nearly 15% of the country was living in poverty in 2014. For context, the poverty threshold is a family of four making $24,230 per year (gross).

This is, of course, not taking geo into account. Even in San Francisco, where this debate is based, 13.8% of people live below the federal poverty line.

What can true poverty mean?

• Literally not being able to afford enough food to live
• Homelessness
• An inability to afford childcare and, thus, an inability to work
• Living in a food desert – meaning access to transportation is such that a family literally cannot go to a grocery store on a regular basis and must eat at whatever is in walking distance
• Not being able to afford basic utilities like electricity
• Debt

The first years out of college are difficult for everyone, and Millennials in particular have endured a pretty hard slap in the Real World, graduating into a difficult job market and unreasonably, cripplingly large mountains of student loans. Everything about life feels unfair when you’re forced to do menial work for minimal pay, forced to live with roommates when you might otherwise prefer to live on your own, commute long distances to work in order to stay in a chosen city or industry. There are lots of days when you eat eggs or Ramen, cut off your cable, work at Red Lobster on the weekends, or forgo heat as long as possible because dammit, gas is expensive.

But because most of us have, fortunately, never walked in the shoes of the truly destitute, our perspective on fairness is skewed.

Unprivileged is struggling to make ends meet to achieve the lifestyle you hope to one day have. It is a daily sacrifice and decision process about where your money goes, and it is a series of choices that aren’t always favorable in order to live a life of reasonable quality.

Impoverished is not being able to afford those choices. Poverty means living without basic, everyday needs. There is nothing to sacrifice because the choice is forced. For whatever reason someone is in poverty, it means they do not have the luxury of making a choice about their quality of life. It means they struggle daily simply to live at all.

Fellow Millennials, it isn’t my intention to judge you too harshly. Life as a new grad can be unfair and unpleasant, and you are justified in being annoyed when a company isn’t treating you the way you’d expect. You have a choice to stay or to leave a place you don’t like.

But let’s also keep in the backs of our minds that we only have the perspective of the shoes in which we have walked. Before we publicly complain about our situations, remember that there are plenty of people who have no shoes at all.

Millennials Aren’t Who You Think They Are

I was in a round table discussion the other day, discussing the most appropriate audience targeting for an upcoming media buy with a fast food client.

“Add in Millennials,” someone suggested. “Heavy bar trips, low cash, mall-type purchases.”

“Yeah,” someone else added. “Heavy quick-serve behaviors. Taco Bell, Wendy’s. Different from the Moms category.”

Wait just a second. I’m a Millennial. I’m not doing those things. Am I just a weirdo in my generation or is the generation shifting in its behavior?

As marketers, we are used to using the term “Millennial” interchangeably with “youth.” Teens, college students, early 20’s – in our field, this is a great audience to hook on brands, while they are still forming their purchase behaviors and establishing loyalty. But remember: people age. Generations grow older. But your audiences may be forever young.

This means the people you’ve been thinking of as Millennials aren’t actually Millennials anymore.

Although the definitions vary, many age brackets place Millennials, the largest generation in existence, as having birth years 1984-1996. This means that (gasp) the oldest members of Gen Z–the NEXT generation–are turning 20 this year.

A further punch in the gut? Millennials, those children stumbling out into their first jobs a few years ago, are now having their own children. They are parents. With families. And steady incomes. And growing career ladders. And money. And certain established brand loyalties. And a modicum of maturity. (And possibly the same sense of entitlement.)

This may seem like a semantic debate, but it’s an important one. Now, your Mom target and your Millennial target may largely be one and the same. This enormous generation full of thumb-suckers is developing into a generation of decision makers and leaders. And Generation Z, with all of its social awareness, smartphone fingers, and health consciousness, is entering the market once occupied by Millennials. So, marketers – you need to speak to them differently in your messaging. Is it really Millennials you’re after? Or is it the young?

Remember, Millennials are defined by never having lived in a world without modern technology.

But Generation Z is defined by never having lived in a world without social media.

Pretty big difference.

Test, Test, Test – No, But Really.

Retargeting has been working and CPA has driven your ROI sky-high. For the past several years, you’ve been optimizing and refining your marketing strategy to make each trusted partner perform at its absolute best. You are crushing your numbers this year and the boss is thrilled.

But you could be setting yourself up for a failure next year. Why?

You’re not testing anything new.

The hundreds of clients I’ve worked with at agencies and tech companies have all worked to stay ahead of the curve with marketing, interested in results and working hard for their Wildly Important Goals. But the most successful clients, the ones awarded at conferences and set the stage for their peers, are the ones who were unafraid to test new tactics: especially when business was booming.

I worked with a client at my last agency who ran one of the most successful resorts in the brand’s portfolio. Month after month we would hear great news of year-over-year numbers continuing to climb. Sure, we continued to run all of the tried-and-true media we knew worked well. But a unique aspect of her approach to marketing was to devote at least 20% of her budget to testing new opportunities. As a result, we explored native advertising, rich media and video banners, a really creative landing page, completely new media partners, programmatic deep-dives, and search retargeting – all in the same year. Some tactics worked better than others. But those that worked well worked great: she was regularly ahead of the game, saw her fellow resorts imitating her approach, and continued to see her numbers grow. To date, the resort is so wildly popular that rooms often fetch nearly double what they did five years ago, and booking volume has increased. It’s not all due to her testing plans (there are many other factors at play), but clearly it hasn’t hurt.

On the reverse side, one of my client’s colleagues was frozen by her fear. Everyone wants to say they encourage testing and experimentation, but as soon as the financials were discussed, we were met with a million reasons various stakeholders wouldn’t go for it. I understand fear of failure. But to do more than just meet expectations each year, it’s important to swallow the naysayers in your head and be okay with the unknown.

Each quarterly meeting, my first client would open the floor by saying, “If something’s not working, let’s fix it or end it. If something is working, let’s do more of it. If there’s something new worth discussing, I’m all ears. And today, we’ll spend 20% of our time focusing on the past and 80% focusing on the future. Because we have to learn from our failures but live in how we’ll adjust our vision.”

Be mindful in your marketing plans, and don’t be afraid to be wrong. Because if 4 out of 5 tests fail but that fifth is a groundbreaking success, you’ve still ultimately won, and you have a plan for the future. Just make sure the team you create around you is as invested in success as you are. Together, you can leverage your tests into personal growth and success for you all.

Staff for the team you want, not the team you have

Your account supervisor just put in her notice. In two weeks, you’ll be down a man on an already understaffed team. You can only imagine what you’re going to begin to tell clients, or how you’ll disperse the workload while you look for her replacement.

Day one, you discuss transition plans and how you’ll inform the team. HR is contacted and a recruiter is called in. Candidate resumes begin to slowly filter into your inbox. You’re looking for someone just like her.

Stop.

Panic gets the best of all of us when staff changes happen, especially when we’re looking down a road of unknowns. But taking a shift in personnel as a moment of reaction versus an opportunity for proactive growth can hurt companies in the long run. Remember the following before you move to act quickly in an effort to staff for the team you have instead of the team you want.

• Consider the cost/benefit ratio of ranking. The person who is leaving grew into their current role. Chances are, your account sup came in as a mid-level employee (or even more junior) and evolved into a higher-level role. There was a learning curve you won’t be able to immediately replicate. In addition, you’ll likely be paying a premium to bring in someone at the level they are leaving.
  • Truly think about the skill set you want to bring to the team versus the experience you want them to have. What made the person leave in the first place? How will your approach to replacing them solve for those challenges? Can you afford to bring in a more junior employee and train them up again? Or is there a benefit in hiring at a higher level to cut the learning curve as much as possible?
• Staff for the interim. Contract consultants are great resources to keep plans afloat while you devote time to finding the right candidate. Seasonality, your HR department, industry, salary, company name recognition, and position can all have an effect on how many candidates are getting in the door. If you receive 3 resumes during the 2 weeks’ notice your employee gave, don’t feel like you have to pick one if you’re not finding the perfect fit.
  • Take this unsavory moment as an opportunity to find exactly who you want, and stop the bleeding with a pinch hitter. They can come in to finish out the Q4 media bookings, project manage the website relaunch, or keep the team functioning. No, they won’t know everything about your industry – but use them to fill the gaps internally that would otherwise force you to make a drastic permanent decision.
• Don’t take it personally. We all know that staff turnover is part of marketing, particularly at agencies. It’s much easier said than done to not take an employee’s departure personally.
  • Remember that bridges are much better kept than burned, and in all likelihood, they are leaving in an effort to better themselves – not out of malice toward your company. And if you help them leave on good terms, you never know who they might be able to refer your way as their replacement.

Above all, don’t act too quickly when a staff member leaves. Take a step back and truly assess what your term needs and how you can use this opportunity to optimize the skill sets you already have in house. Behind every departure is a chance to make things better. You just need to find the perfect next person to introduce a new kind of awesome.