Google Analytics Demographic Info Now Available, But Do We Care?

So, in case you haven't navigated to your 'Audience' report section in Google Analytics recently, I'm here to let you know that they have added a new 'Demographics' tab, as well as an 'Interests' tab.  You have seen the word "demographics" off the the left before, but it used to just have information like geo location in it, while now it contains true demo information, like age and gender, with some caveats.

Caveat 1:  It doesn't work by default.  You have to go in and tweak your javascript to allow your GA account to utilize DoubleClick display data, and the other way around, by making a slight change to the protocol information the tag is checking.

Caveat 1a:  This only works with ga.js tracking, so it won't work with that new Universal Analytics tracking profile you have been working so hard on

Caveat 1b:  You are supposed to update your site's privacy policy since this type of display tracking is used for remarketing and is extra cookie data, but I am not sure how many people are doing that.  Often, if you have done any remarketing or GDN advertising in the past, your policy might already be ok.

Caveat 2:  This data is likely to only be sort of accurate, even in aggregate.  The issue is in how they are determining the age/gender of your visitors ('Interests,' though more difficult to pin down in real life, is, paradoxically, more likely to be accurate in browser data), which is basically by taking a hodge-podge or "whatever we've got" approach.

Basically, to figure out information on the particular "user" (in this case anyone who shares the same browser on a device), Google is using one of the following: entered data in a Google profile (if they are signed in to Google properties), data pulled from an associated social media platform that they log into while in the same browser that logged the site visit, or demographic data based on visits to other sites (most common).

That last one is the one that we want to look at a little bit.  What is happening here, is that Google is using aggregated demographic estimates of other sites to assume demographic of a single individual for your site.  This is really bad for the reason that I will illustrate below.

Let's say, that based on comScore information (which is already panel-based and aggregated, so to be taken with a grain of salt), Google knows that ESPN.com is mainly viewed by men, say, 70% or more (made up).

Now let's pretend that a lady who loves the Red Sox goes to ESPN to read up on the latest rumors regarding Mike Napoli, then comes to my site, where I just implemented the new demographic tracking in GA.  Analytics looks at her browsing history during the session, and labels her a man.

That's not an aggregate, that is a single user, marked incorrectly, which will be combined with many others to later form an aggregate.  For visits, which you probably have thousands of, it's not the end of the world.  But what if she purchases something?  That sample size is smaller, so each error (which is based on assumptions now by several different sites and data aggregation sources) is compounded.

Sometimes I look stuff up for my girlfriend on my devices.  God knows, Netflix has no idea what I like, since I let her use my account.  Sometimes we both use the same device for things.  Sometimes, other sites don't have a good grasp on their user demographics, and those assumptions underlie everything GA is using to determine your users.  See how many places this can go wrong?

So basically, I wouldn't use this demographic data to make too many actual decisions about my site's users, at least in terms of age or gender.  Just don't do it.

There is good news though, and it is the 'Interest' category.  Now, while you will still have issues regarding multiple users on the same browser/device, you eliminate all of the (often wrong) assumptions about the kinds of people that consume kinds of content (which can't help but fall prey to bias around sexism, agism, and racism).  If someone visits ESPN.com, they probably like sports.  Someone who goes to Amazon.com probably does some online shopping, and someone who goes to Stack Overflow is probably pretty tech savvy.  We (and Google Analytics) don't need to make many assumptions here that aren't on stable footing.

With all of that said, why would I bother going to the trouble of getting this working, if it has the potential to be so misleading?  Well, for one thing, it is almost always better to have some information rather than none, as long as you are careful with what you do with it.  As long as you just want general impressions, or to confirm something you already have a pretty good idea of, assumptions and aggregations are ok for that, if not ideal. 

The real benefit though, to both us as Analytics users, and to Google (thus the real reason for this feature), is that it can tie this information directly to your AdWords account through the DoubleClick tag, and use the data that you are collecting to automatically adjust the targeting of your GDN advertising.  For you, you get hands-free optimization of what has traditionally been a very blind and inefficient channel, and Google gets a way to encourage huge numbers of customers to invest more money in their display network.

For the effort that you have to put into it, it's worth doing, though it's hard to think that this is anything but a short-term fix as Google is desperate to increase revenues in the face of falling CPCs and the shift to mobile search.  Look for an update when I see if there is any notable change in performance of our GDN campaigns.

McDonalds Is On the Right Track, But Should Go Further

McDonald's and their creative agency have done a good job in responding to criticism, and seizing an opportunity to benefit their brand image by doing something beneficial for customers, in particular children.

You can read about it here, but the gist of the story is that McDonald's and Leo Burnett (a Publicis agency) are going to be putting books instead of toys into Happy Meals for a few weeks in November.  The books are original content, created by Leo Burnett specifically for this campaign, and they are children's books designed to teach them lessons about healthy eating.  This goes along with a continuing effort to improve the nutritional quality of the Happy Meal, and in doing so address the well-published opinion that they are basically terrible for their own customers (a model that tobacco companies have been making money with for generations).

You throw a kid a couple of apple slices and a book about how a dinosaur eats veggies, and you are good to go.  I don't think that anyone will object to giving kids healthier food, or books about eating right, even if those books are essentially promotional materials created by an advertising agency.  It's still better than nothing.

It's worth noticing that this is a two-pronged effort, though, aimed not only at nutritional learning/obesity, but also literacy.  The program is timed to coincide with National Literacy Day (Nov. 1), and McDonald's is teaming up with the non-profit group 'Reading Is Fundamental' to distribute more of these books outside of Happy Meals.  Great news, great aims.  There is nothing wrong with motivated self-interest when it brings corporations to the table to help combat the social ills that they at least in part might contribute to.  Consumers aren't all saints, and we shouldn't expect companies to be either.

But let's take this idea for a walk, shall we?  First, let's take a look at some issues surrounding McDonald's (and we will use them as metonymous for fast food in general), venturing into a little more depth than the usual conversation.

First, you can't talk about the issues of McDonald's and nutrition without branching into notions about poverty and urban development, and how they create food desserts.  So let's stipulate a few things:

- McDonald's, based on locations, offerings, and prices, caters primarily to the lower end of the economic scale (which isn't to say that rich people never have it)

- McDonald's did not create these food desserts, but they have certainly profited from them, and from socio-economic factors that make their food appealing to people who don't have the access or resources to eat fresh, healthy food often

There might not be anything explicitly wrong with a company exploiting a market that they didn't create, it's what companies do.  McDonald's dominates rest stops, oases, and highway pull-offs as well, and they are great at identifying a captive audience and offering them something that is tempting given a particular situation.

Stuck on the road and don't have anything else to eat?  Have McDonald's.

Get home late from a long day of work, and don't have the money or time to prepare a healthy meal for your family?  Have McDonald's.

They don't create niches, they fill them.  However, that doesn't absolve them of any responsibility, or mean that they don't stand to benefit from a symbiotic relationship with their customers.

So if we acknowledge that McDonald's has a large number of customers who are members of lower income brackets, living in areas that are often under-supplied with fresh healthy foods, then we can assume that many of those same customers, in this case children, also lack access to books.  Now, this isn't a good time to delve into the nuances of early education, but I think that everyone can agree that access to age-appropriate books is critical to the development of young minds.

By contributing to the learning experience of young people in the communities where their franchises exist, McDonald's can do something that not only improves the immediate quality of life for a young child who gets a book, but also improves the long-term prospects of the neighborhood by helping the cognitive abilities of its youngest inhabitants.

Why only do this for a few weeks?  There is no shortage of tiny, junky plastic toys in the world, but books are another story.  Make this switch permanent.  Additionally, don't just have an advertising firm create content around nutritious choices.  Provide real books that kids might actually enjoy reading, rather than a pamphlet just designed to get activist groups off your back.

This doesn't have to be pure altruism, as I said before.  By making a strategic, foundational shift in the Happy Meal offering, McDonald's would be creating a new value proposition for the real customers here, the parents.  Instead of bad food and a crappy toy, that is still attractive because of the convenience/price, they could offer decent food and a book, still at an attractive price.  Right now, a lot of people have to weigh the pros and cons of giving their kids McDonald's, but that doesn't have to be the case.

If they want to go a step further in terms of making a business case for this, publish the books in longer story formats, and run them as serials.  Have several different characters/story lines that the child can choose from, and put out the new volume each month.  This will help encourage repeat business, but is infrequent enough to avoid accusations of exploitation or encouraging unhealthy eating habits.

In doing so, McDonald's can create the elusive "virtuous cycle" in marketing, encouraging customers to return regularly while giving back something of value and building brand loyalty.

Think about it this way: if your kid recently finished volume 2 of a space adventure, and is really enjoying the story and reading it him/herself, are you going to hit the Burger King just because it is on the way home, or go five minutes out of your way to McDonald's to get similar food AND a book that will educate and entertain your child?  Probably going to buy you a few minutes of quiet time when you get home, too (reading is a quiet activity, so the more your kid reads, the quieter he/she will be).

McDonald's is uniquely positioned to be a really powerful force for positive change in a lot of neighborhoods that suffer from systemic problems of poverty and urban blight.  By providing healthier food and reading material to underprivileged children they can combat two of the biggest issues that their neighbors face, all while building brand loyalty.

Now if they can just do something about their wages...

This Government Shutdown Actually Affects Normal People?

So by now you may have heard about the government shutting down.  Like most people, you probably think that it isn't going to really affect you, that this is just another example of a distant, ineffectual body politic squabbling with itself.  Life will go on as normal, and no one who isn't being directly furloughed will even notice.  That's the general feeling, anyhow.

We are now solidly a week into this problem, and for the most part, the world continues to turn as it did before.  Take a walk down Main Street, USA and you will still see people walking dogs, eating at restaurants, and shopping.  Nothing has changed, right?

Well, actually, wrong.  While the gears of the economy have not ground to a halt, this shut down is contributing to a pretty substantial slow down.  Let's think on a few things.

About 800,000 federal workers and contractors have been straight up shelved, told not to come to work because they can't get paid.

Assuming a very modest average salary for these people (let's say about $40,000 per year, to be very conservative), regular taxation and bi-weekly pay schedules, that would give us about a $1,250 paycheck.

So off the bat, that is a billion (with a 'B') dollars that won't be going into the economy next week.

But the much, much bigger issue comes from a general disconnect in terms of how the average American thinks about the budget and government spending.  We hear a lot about deficits and huge numbers that make it sound like those fat cats in Washington are literally just burning piles of freshly printed currency to keep warm.  The reality though, is that the deficit in Washington is money in the pockets of Americans.

Over $3.5 Trillion.  That was the 2012 budget.  Now, a bit of that went to paying the interest on government debt (a good thing), and a very small portion of it went to foreign aid of various types (questionable), but the majority of it goes to domestic programs, in agriculture, energy, education, infrastructure, etc..

Now, you can argue, correctly, that there is a lot of waste in government spending, but again, how we talk about "waste" is a big part of the problem.  You can say that the inefficiency in government contract sourcing means that they pay above-market rates for projects, and often be right, but that money doesn't disappear because it wasn't used in the most cost-effective way.  Here is an example:

Government spends $22.5 million for bridge repairs that should have only cost $18 million.  So where does that extra $4.5 million dollars go?  Based on the general conversation around budgets, it is "wasted."

Reality:

Extra $4k in overtime and holiday pay for construction workers who normally aren't supposed to put in for over 40 hrs a week to keep costs down for their employer, Dave's construction
     - They spend this money on shoes for their kids, a mortgage, gas, and maybe a few dinners out

Extra $800k for John's Concrete, who normally has to low-ball material costs in a tough market just to get contracts, hurting his margin
     - Not having to give a bottom-dollar quote allows Dave to also pay a fair price for his lime, stone, etc., sharing that money with his suppliers, who again spend that money down the line

Extra $20k for Steve the architect, who is going to finally get to put those new cabinets and floors into his kitchen
     - Meaning a bunch of that money is going to pay the woodworkers and wholesalers who fix
       kitchens...

You get the point.  Senators aren't just keeping all that money, it doesn't get shot into space or disappeared in an accounting trick.  That "waste" becomes walking around money for the average American.  Think of the government as a rich drunken sailor on a port call; it may not spend its money wisely, but when that ship pulls in, everyone in town knows that it's going to be a good week for business.

Too abstract?  How about this:

My company, like a lot of small businesses, relies on government contracts for a large portion of our revenue. 

Because of the shut down, contracts that were due to be renewed the first week of October, or new contracts that were about to be signed and processed, could not be finalized.  Our customer contacts in the government don't have the freedom to spend their budgets now.

This hurts our bottom line.  We are making less money as a company because of the shutdown, directly.

Moreover, we as employees, get compensated in large part based on the performance of the company, in the form of bonuses.  When the company does well. we get paid well.  When the company doesn't do well, our paychecks shrink.

This government shutdown is costing not just the collective taxpayers money, or costing just corporations money, it is costing regular people, who don't work for the government.


I don't work for the government, but the shutdown is affecting my paycheck.  In turn, I am not going out to eat as much, I am not buying the things I normally would, and I am not going to the movies.  In short, I, and millions like me, are not 'paying it forward,' as it were.  Consumer spending is still what drives the economy, and government spending is still a very large part of the liquidity that allows consumers to prosper.

Let's get this government open again, shall we?  I want to go back to supporting the economy.
 

Ballmer Doesn't Get Microsoft/Bing's Problem

So, outgoing (as in leaving, not friendly) Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer fired off some parting shots while unveiling the new Bing logo and design during the company's financial analysts meeting, aimed primarily at Google.  Unfortunately, despite the fact that he was addressing a very pertinent topic with a lot of room for discussion, he came off as simply bitter and out of ideas.

[edit: I didn't get around to finishing this post in time, so I am going to focus on some of the less time-sensitive aspects]

Basically, the problem boils down to a lack of identity and direction.  On one hand,  Microsoft is asking people to switch from their default search engine, without realizing what a big thing that is.  In terms of customer loyalty, most CPG, QSR, or durable goods manufacturers would KILL to get the kind of consumer loyalty that Google has.  So saying, "come on, just switch search engines" isn't such a casual request.  Thus, in order to tempt those users and get them to break away from a product that has served them well, you would think that Microsoft would work hard to differentiate themselves from the competition, and hammer their USP (unique selling proposition).

Does Microsoft do that?  No!  They consistently, including in this recent rant by Ballmer, point out that their algorithms are pretty similar to Googles, and can usually return almost the same results. 

Okay, and... 

Oh, you were done?

So their big pitch to break entrenched consumers out of their searching habits boils down to, "We're pretty much as good as the one you are using now."  Very compelling.  Maybe you want to try that again?

Remember the recent commercials (part of a huge (and largely unsuccessful) advertising blitz over the last few years by Microsoft to steal market share from Google), during which a catchy song plays while comparing the boring Google homepage skin to the awesome, 'picture-a-day' element of the Bing homepage?  Yeah, that's better.  Use Bing for reasons that have nothing to do with the service it provides, but because it has a better background.  Fail.

What else ya got?

Perhaps the most absurd thing about Ballmer's recent comments was his attack against Google for having a monopoly, and suggesting that anti-trust action should be taken against them by the government.  For one thing, Microsoft accusing anyone else of using monopolistic business practices, or having effective control of too large a portion of any market, is just ridiculous on its face, given their own past in that respect.

But it also speaks again to the company's, and Ballmer's, complete 'forest-for-the-trees' lack of understanding of the environment they are in.  Google doesn't control the end-to-end supply chain the way that Microsoft did, nor have they forced adoption of their service by setting up harmful deals with all of the hardware suppliers, or abused foreign markets.  Google separated themselves early on in a crowded marketplace and have given users a reason to stay with them along the way.

Google has given us a search engine, e-mail service, cloud storage and collaboration capacities, blogging platform (this one), video hosting service, maps, calendars, site analytics, and so much more, all free to the user (depending on how you value things like user data and captivity).  Microsoft has given us Bing, and then a bunch of products that they want to sell us (operating systems, phones, etc.), all while doing very little to actually entice me to spend time on their platform. 

Instead of improving their product though, Microsoft has decided to just stamp their feet and declare the whole system to be unfair.  Now, as a marketer, I have had my problems with Google (especially as they hide organic search keywords), but as a user and observer, I wouldn't say that fairness is the issue in terms of the search product.  Maybe their marketing practices are heading in that direction, but as a search business they have been pretty heavily scrutinized by governments in North America and Europe, and haven't been hit too hard yet.

Microsoft assumed that just being their huge selves would be enough to climb into the search market and succeed, and they have done nothing but miscalculate at every juncture. 

Since they are facing a leadership vacuum right now, here is a little free advice (consider this my application for Steve's position):

- Offer something of value to the consumers you want to court.

- Being an alternative is not, in isolation, a value proposition.

- Understand that a single platform isn't enough anymore, you aren't competing with Google as a search engine, you are competing with Google as a service provider.

- Provide a range of free services, even if you have to buy them.

- Along those lines, buy Intuit and link Bing to Mint.  Or buy Twitter, and expand your partnership with Facebook.  Or buy Hulu, and make it free (get rid of premium) to signed in Bing users.  Or buy LinkedIn.  Get the picture?

- If you are going to compete for marketing dollars, you need reach across platforms, and a broader range of ad formats that you can bundle.

Maybe not all of those are feasible, but you have to do something, since your current strategy of doing nothing isn't working, and whining about it turns people off.

You know that when Google releases their OS (and it's a 'when,' not an 'if'), it's going to be free.  Think about that the next time you try to give my computer what is basically a virus and charge me $499 for it.

Chipotle Takes a Stand, And No One Saw it Coming

So first, here is the video that I will be talking about:  "The Scarecrow"

Here is a reaction to it: MediaPost Blog

Now, I'm sure that opinions will be mixed with regards to the question of the tone of the video, and whether it make the viewer think more highly of Chipotle or not.  You can argue that the video is overly aggressive, ominous, or preachy, but you can't say that it is refusing to take sides.

Here are a few things to keep in mind that set this video apart though, while you think about it.  This video has over five million views, but it is hardly an advertisement.  It's over three minutes long, which means that it can't really be run as an ad in any traditional format (not tv, not pre-roll, not any standard OLV inventory), and it isn't written in a way that would allow a short version for distribution through these channels. 

It doesn't really try to sell the product, other than by contrast and innuendo.  The only tangible thing it really seems to promote is a game that I have never heard of, and that I don't think they really need to support the business case for this video  The Chipotle branding/logo doesn't even appear until the "credits" at the very end, except for one second where they imply it with an image of pepper that requires a previous familiarity with the brand.


For all of the things this creative isn't doing though, there is no question about the statement that they are making, or how they are looking to differentiate the brand.  The thing that is so stunning about this piece is that in a single stroke, they are not only creating a new brand identity, but cementing it.  Normally it takes a company years of subtle branding to get consumers to identify them with a concept, movement, ideology, or ephemeral 'value.'  After this though, can you name another corporation that will be more identified with the "real food" movement?

To put this in context, we also need to look at what other brands have done along these lines.  Think about Walmart's recent campaign, in which they show customers reacting to what they think is farm stand produce, only to find out that it is Walmart produce, or when they do the same thing with steaks at a steakhouse.  The implication is that you can get high quality, fresh food from a mega-mart at low prices, but it is being compared to food of equally questionable provenance when it comes to the evils of large scale agri-business practices and quality.  They are just saying, "our food isn't WORSE" than that.

Also relevant would be the McDonalds commercials that show multi-generational farmers lovingly caressing potatoes in a bucolic, perfectly imagined setting.  Father and son, real salt-of-the-earth types, marveling at this (implicitly) natural and organic creation they have raised.  Then letting you know that they only put the very best things into their french fries.  You can close your eyes and imagine that some McDonalds truck is driving around the heartland, going to different farms, interacting with gnarled old farmers, and finally paying them a good price for their perfect free-range potatoes.  You certainly don't want to close your eyes and think about chicken nuggets, and whatever goes on behind THAT scene.

The point is that these other companies are trying to make a similar point by omission, rather than addressing the issue directly, because they don't really have a leg to stand on.  Walmart can't go trashing Monsanto, and McDonalds can't complain about livestock conditions, because it just wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.  These companies have long, well-known histories of PR problems in their supply chains, and it is going to take a long time to subtly shift that perception without being blatantly disingenuous.

This leaves a big opportunity for a company like Chipotle to step in and position themselves as a fast food company with a soul, an option in a marketplace crowded with villains that you can feel good about.  This video makes me think hard about eating there, and I am normally a Qdoba guy from way back.

Of course, this opportunity is also fraught with peril, because they are writing an awfully big check with this video.  All of the goodwill this might generate will be countered two-fold if it turns out that they source their food in roughly the same way as everyone else.  By throwing this gauntlet down and shifting the conversation in the competitive QSR arena to the ingredients, they are begging for more scrutiny into where their food is coming from, so I really hope that their house is in order.

Baseball is Almost Back!

So, the first Vegas lines for the baseball season are out, from the Atlantis.  Obviously, it's a long season and probably the hardest sport to predict in terms of wins losses, but here are some obvious stand-outs at this point (wins over/under):

Nationals: 90 wins.  I would take the over, hard.  This team won 98 last year and improved, and while the Braves should be better, the rest of that division stood still or got worse.  Leading to...

Marlins: 64 wins.  It might be close, but under is a better bet.  They won 69 last year, and while bad chemistry might have hurt them, that team had a half year of Reyes, Hanley, Buehrle, and Johnson.  Now they have Stanton and...  Seriously, name other players on this team.

Red Sox: 79.5 wins.  I admit to being biased, but I say over.  Now, I know this team was awful last year, but that was a perfect storm of such epic proportions that I don't think that the 10-win bump this opening line is giving them is enough.  This should be at least a .500 team on paper, so you are basically getting 3 wins on the house here.

Royals and Pirates: 79 wins.  Tempted by the over?  People have been predicting youth movements on both of these teams to propel them to big leaps forward for several years now, only to see them disappoint each year.  This could be the year, right?  Eventually, it has to be for one of them.  The AL central, outside of Detroit, is going to have a lot of winnable games with Cleveland, and the White Sox in limbo, and the Twins in full rebuilding mode.  The NL Central will be more competitive, with the Cubs improved and no more Astros to beat up on, but Pittsburgh can't fade so badly in the second half again, can they?