The plight of branded apps and the future of social marketing

[Editor's note: So it turns out branded apps are a bust -- even if you're Nike or Coca-Cola. Below, Keith Rabois, vice president of strategy and business development at app maker Slide, explains why and gives big-name advertisers some much-needed advice.]

Procter & Gamble spent $2.4 billion on television advertising last year — but they didn’t spend it on the “I Love Pringles” show. When it comes to TV, brands understand that it’s smarter to integrate ads with existing, engaging content than to try to build their own from scratch. Why then, do these same companies sink so much money into branded applications on the web?

Many have opted to launch their own social media micro-sites and social applications with brand names featured front and center, or with functions somehow relevant to the products they’re pushing. But in doing so, they’re choosing to compete directly with far more popular sites and widgets that already have traction sans the marketing angle.

A prime example is Bud.tv, an Anheuser-Busch-built portal to original entertainment aimed at beer drinkers. The company spent $30 million with the expectation that the site would draw between 2 and 3 million unique visitors a month. Instead, it gets about 10 percent of that figure, according to Advertising Age (subscription required).

It’s not the only one feeling the hurt. There is now substantial data from big names showing that built-for-brand apps provide little return on major investments. Consider this: Verizon, Blockbuster, Nike and the New York Times (all marquee brands) have launched their own custom apps on Facebook. Their combined active userbase (see chart) is just shy of 10,000. So if you were to turn all four into a single application, it wouldn’t even rank in the top thousand apps on the site.

We know this isn’t due to a lack of brand awareness. The apps in question just don’t offer enough value to attract and retain an active audience. Companies like American Airlines and Ford have run tests indicating that initial users ditch their apps soon after downloading them. And much of the time it’s a matter of who gets there first. Take Blockbuster’s Movie Clique, a Facebook app that lets users list movies they’ve seen, suggest films to their friends and share reviews. Launched in November 2007, it reports roughly 2,000 active monthly users today. Its rival app, Flixster (launched just 5 months prior), boasts more than 6.5 million active monthly users — even though its not a regular household brand. This doesn’t bode well for companies just starting to formulate app-based strategies.

Sometimes, the weak apps introduced by these companies actually hurt the brands they are meant to promote. As we’ve seen, sites and apps are viewed by customers as an extension of a brand’s promise — so when they don’t deliver, that’s bad news all around. Just think, if Nike’s app can only drive 3,000 users out of 140 million, what does that say about their “Just Do It” attitude?

When it comes to television, advertisers capitalize on popular programs by advertising within them via 30-second spots and product placement. Likewise on the web, the most successful ads are seamlessly integrated with well-known, useful applications — some of which give brands the opportunity to reach users in the tens of millions.

Again, Flixster is a great example. Many big studios have opted to run their movie campaigns through the app. Right now, its Facebook site includes a prominent display ad for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Horton Hears a Who as the rateable “Featured DVD,” and promos for Valkyrie and Last Chance Harvey under “Hot Movie Trailers” — all in one place, ready to be tapped by a total userbase of 15 million.

This past spring, Fox Home Entertainment struck a deal with my company, Slide, to promote the DVD release of Juno through our SuperPoke! app. So we added several themed actions to our repertoire, including “throw a blue Slurpee on” and “throw an orange tic-tac at.” In just three weeks, more than 3 million of these actions were exchanged. Compare that to the independent “Adopt a Juno or Bleecker” app that launched in April, which has attracted no more than 710 daily users.

To quote a knowledgable source on the topic, Andrew Frank, vice president of research at tech insight firm Gartner, says “In terms of social media advertising, brands can either fish where the fish are, or try to build their own ponds.” To extend the metaphor, in order for building a pond to prove effective, each branded app user would have to buy a hundred of that brand’s products. That’s not going to happen any time soon.

And that’s just from the brand perspective; there’s also the user to think about. The core of any well-loved social app is a great user experience. It needs to provide relevant, engaging content — or address a specific need. Developers who keep the end-user top of mind leverage experience data to hone their products and maximize value (with monetization a distant or ulterior motive). But if you set out to build an app around a brand from the start, you make what should be a side goal your main objective, and it’s difficult not to sacrifice that critical emphasis on user experience. We see this with Coca-Cola’s “Sprite Sips” app — a hastily-conceived avatar/pet concept that offers little and claims only 45 monthly active users.

Advertisers need to wake up and realize that an optimal environment already exists on the social web just waiting to be monetized in subtler, more intuitive ways. Not only will these strategies extend their reach by orders of magnitude and save development costs, but will ultimately be more appreciated by their prospective customers.

Keith Rabois is vice president of strategy and business development at Slide, the company known for Facebook’s notorious SuperPoke! app. Before that, he served in similar roles at LinkedIn and PayPal, and as entrepreneur-in-residence at Clarium Capital Management. He also sits on the board of directors for Yelp, Vendio, Xoom and FanIQ, and is an early investor in YouTube.

Next Story: iPhone fart app pulls in nearly $10,000 a day
Previous Story: Last-minute shoppers spending more money online

Bookmark and Share

Tags: ,

Photo of Keith Rabois

About the Author, Keith Rabois

  • >>"Proctor & Gamble spent $2.4 billion on television advertising last year — but they didn’t spend it on the 'I Love Pringles' show."

    obviously keith you've never seen the "VitaMeataVegaMin" episode of I Love Lucy:
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZlRRQ81ZRJs

    (srsly, nice post ;)
  • Keith
    Dave:

    LOL!

    Thanks, Keith
  • This article writes of too like. And I love you very much!
    The author was to have too much just.
    Thank author sharing.At this is once!
    UGG boots sale
    UGG boots
    Authentic Products uggsline.co.uk provides all kinds of UGG Boots
    classic short in high quality but lowest prices possible from UK.
  • This article writes of too like. And I love you very much!
    The author was to have too much just.
    Thank author sharing.At this is once!
    UGG boots sale
    UGG boots
    Authentic Products uggsline.co.uk provides all kinds of UGG Boots
    classic short in high quality but lowest prices possible from UK.
    christian louboutin
    christian louboutin shoes
    christian louboutin sale
    christian louboutin uk
  • Are branded apps awesome? Do they suck? There's plenty of data to support both sides.

    Saying branded apps don't work is like saying banners, emails, direct marketing, PPC and other forms are digital marketing don't work. Some campaigns work. Some don't, just like all types of digital marketing. All of the data used above is from campaigns that are no longer supported by media. And none of the apps mentioned were built by the leading app-vertising companies (Keith, feel free to share some of Slide's worst performing campaigns).

    Consumers engage with branded apps more than any display media. And then the consumer moves on. My question for Keith would be how many users still engage with Slide's banners, buttons and other ad inventory months after the campaign ended? The obvious answer is a big ZERO, or close to it! So judging branded apps by the engagement months after is disengenous, to say the least.

    What's better for a marketer? Getting 10M branded impressions to drive 100K engaged users into a branded experience that they use for 6 minutes on average? Or getting 10M branded impressions with no engagement that the user ignores.

    For more about braned apps, check out this post of mine:

    http://www.buddymedia.com/buddyblog/Branded-App...

    For some case studies of branded apps that worked really well, check out my slides from Web 2.0 Expo:

    http://www.slideshare.net/lazerow/social-brand-...

    Happy holidays to all! Go VentureBeat! Love you guys. A lot. You too Dave! And deep down, Keith, I have some love for you as well despite your constant trashing of the branded apps space without a front-row seat!

    Best,

    Michael Lazerow
    CEO, Buddy Media (the leading developer of killer app-vertising programs for brands like Anheuser Busch, New Balance, Amex, Starwood, Reebok and many others!!!!)
  • shakes
    Eeek! Let's start by spelling the name of the world's largest brand advertiser correctly: it's Procter & Gamble not Proctor & Gamble.

    : 0

    Then we can debate the relative merits of branded apps versus embedded social advertising.

    Thanks Keith for kicking off a great conversation.

    Happy Holidays

    -Seth
  • Thanks for catching that error, it has been fixed!
  • I dont think its an issue that companies are building their own microsites and trying to create a total brand experience around themselves. The bigger issue is why are they spending so much money to build these experiences.

    Seriously, take the $30 million that Keith says Bud spent on bud.tv and that is just rediculous. Sounds like these firms are paying HUGE inflated consulting prices to their ad firms which are directly building these out, or contracting out to high priced outside firms.

    Bud could have invested that money into 30 tech startups. These companies that think they really want to embrace online, social, etc need some strong in-house talent to lead these initiatives.
  • Guy Malachi
    Great post!
    The way I see it, an excellent way for brands to bridge this gap and offer their own branded app while still offering enough added value to attract and and retain an active audience is by offering their own branded toolbar.
    A good toolbar offers value to end users from domains that are outside of the brand’s core business (by offering additional tools like a rich search box, RSS feeds, gadgets, etc…) which can resolve this problem, if the toolbar is implemented properly (with the right mix of the brand’s content and third party content).

    (disclaimer: I do work for Conduit and this is something we see over and over with brands of all sizes)
  • Fantastic post Keith. Thanks for getting the discussion started.

    While I agree that branded apps can be a tough sell, I do think there is room for the right kinds of apps. Look at Parking Wars from A&E which has over 300k monthly active users and is generally pointed to as being very successful. I think the key is that the app has to be able to stand on it's own and can't rely solely on the brand to drive users. Parking Wars does that through a fun and engaging game.

    Also, while branded apps are generally more engaging than display ads, they're not the only way to drive user engagement. At Watercooler, we've had success driving user engagement by integrating advertisers into key pieces of the product such as trivia. This includes custom questions as well as helpful features like lifelines and hints. By making the brand relevant to users within the normal application experience, we're able to achieve a much higher level of engagement than with standard display ads. We have some case studies on our blogs if anyone is interested.

    Bryan Bennett
    Sr. Director of Marketing
    Watercooler
  • MattVoerman
    The catalyst for this article is based on Brian Morrissey's article over at AdWeek. As I commented on his article - both you (and Morrissey) are mixing your metaphors by lumping ALL branded applications into the same (social networking) bucket.

    There's no denying that Facebook has been a huge success on many fronts. Having said that, Facebook shouldn't serve as the benchmark for success for ALL branded applications as you seem to allude to. Believe it or not, branded applications have existed for a number of years prior to their appearance in Facebook. Desktop widgets, rich internet applications, and mobile applications all fall into the broad 'rich branded application' category which is now only starting to gain traction within the advertising community.

    The bottom line is that most advertisers have yet to fully understand how to translate their offline advertising concepts into an online medium (in the form of rich branded applications). Until they do, there is going to be numerous failures (Facebook included) along the way. I've followed this (and Morrissey's) post up with my post "Branded Applications - Why Traditional Advertising Agencies Will Never Get Them" on my blog (http://blog.schematic.com.au/?p=93)

    Matt Voerman (Adobe Systems)
  • I think (I hope you'll correct me if you think I'm wrong) it boils down to this:

    If a marketer is looking for a quick, easy to buy, one-off campaign that will produce results quickly and predictably -- Branded Apps are to complex and not predictable enough to suit the advertisers needs ( although, apps can accomplish this, for the exception that proves the rule see: http://is.gd/e99j ).

    If a marketer is looking for a new way to engage and connect with an audience in a cost effective manner, and is open to investing time to truly create something unique and be a part of the campaign long-term, branded apps may offer the perfect solution. Nothing in marketing history has ever empowered your audience to help you like an application can, and that makes it a very valid tool in the marketers toolkit.
  • Yes...would like to see some "iphone" stats included as well. Branded apps *can* be utilitarian as well, and, as such, might have slower adoption but better overall stick rates. Further, branded apps are still immature, IMO, as the big DR shops have yet to step up. Trust me, we will. And, things may look quite differently. We are all just now figuring out how to properly monetize the SN space with banners, learning the differences between this audience's behavior and how they used to consume the Internet (portals). Eventually, we will understand their desires on applications--that might, no offense, encompass something more than just a super "Poke". That said, sell me some ad space, and let's get some stats up here...:-)
  • edhardy622
    UGGs became ubiquitous among Southern California surfers and Southern California downhill skiers, and from there, Uggs, which name comes from the Australian
    http://www.uggboots365.co.uk
  • This article writes of too like. And I love you very much!
    The author was to have too much just.
    Thank author sharing.At this is once!
    UGG boots sale
    UGG boots
    Authentic Products uggsline.co.uk provides all kinds of UGG Boots
    classic short in high quality but lowest prices possible from UK.
    christian louboutin
    christian louboutin shoes
    christian louboutin sale
    christian louboutin uk