Forum Moderators: buckworks & skibum

Message Too Old, No Replies

Advertising Unique Styles Of Common Items

         

Planet13

3:18 pm on Jan 8, 2015 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Looking for advice / best practices for advertising a common item but in a style that would appeal to a niche audience.

Everybody has and uses these items on a daily basis. Our items would appeal primarily to a smaller group of people.


Basically, the items LOOK different than the mainstream version of the items.

Although they are not one of a kind, they don't have any universal product codes (UPC) or widely recognized SKUs.

My "gut feeling" is that people would be a lot more interested by seeing a photo of the item than they would by reading text about the item.

When thinking of the target demographic, I would say that they are visually oriented and would respond to emotional appeal rather than logical appeal.

The target demographic would also probably have a common mindset; they would probably, as a group, be interested in similar activities and cultural events.

Any suggestions?

I have heard that display network ads are generally harder to get a good ROI than other forms of advertising, but for our types of products would display network advertising be possibly better?

~~~~~~

One last thing: Our competitors WOULD steal our photos at the drop of a hat, so I am pretty insistent that our images have a very legible watermark on them. Will that be a barrier to advertising in certain channels?

RhinoFish

5:39 pm on Jan 8, 2015 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Let's say it's an Elvis Toothbrush, people won't know to Search for it, use Display. Hand pick sites where you niche would be hanging out, Elvis Collectible pages.

Display is harder, because the targeting is more complicated - so enter the auction narrowly, by hand picking pages (Managed Placements).

You're going to have to get over the watermark thing, you are imagining the benefit without considering the harm. Make the banners look great, and this means no watermark. If you sell in public places, they will steal them anyhow - Photoshop can be used these days to remove watermarks. It's my opinion, the false sense of security you're imagining, will harm your CTR, reach and Conv Rate.

Planet13

4:03 am on Jan 9, 2015 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Thank you, RhinoFish:

Thanks for the input.

As for the watermark, I understand your point. And yes, I could imagine competitors using PS to erase the watermark.

But is there no branding benefit to using a watermark on images?

I know there are so many sites that scrape / hotlink images, and there is hardly a way to stop them (whether it is Pinterst or a 13-year-old kid in Ukraine). So shouldn't we at least get some branding out of it?

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

RhinoFish

5:28 pm on Jan 9, 2015 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Your banners should definitely be branded, but obscuring the product image with a watermark, nope. To stop what you fear, you need to cover the image, that is not what the consumer wants to see.

Planet13

9:29 pm on Jan 9, 2015 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Thanks for the clarification, RF.

minnapple

4:30 am on Jan 11, 2015 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



It would be a nice feature if you could upload a image to google and google would map the image and make you the author.

Of course google would need to have their software on your image capture device. They could come out with a line of cameras above the droids targeting the higher end users.

You could release other users/sites to use the images. Forgive me if they are already doing this. They must of at least thought of it.

RhinoFish

7:46 pm on Jan 11, 2015 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Like one can't trust people to not steal their images, G can't trust people to not fake ownership of other's images.

For content, here was everyone excited about having a way to verify with Google that you owned your conent (and would be annotated in Search as the Author):
[blog.bufferapp.com...]

See everyone saying how cool and important it is...

Well, make that was. Google killed it, to a degree.
[searchengineland.com...]

Maybe if you post your pics to your G+ profile for that store, G can figure out that they are your pictures... but this to even matter, it assumes they'd be prepared to punish others for using your pics... problem here, how does G know who you have granted permission to, leased use of, sold rights to... they don't. They cannot unilaterally determine ownership and the boundaries of its excusive use rights.

That all said, it would be nice if they let you mark images as "I claim sole ownership and use rights to this image" or something similar. :-)

Did you ready about the flap over at Flickr?
[thomashawk.com...]