iPhone 3G crashes the O2 website

Although the iphone was not universally adored when it was released at the tail end of last year I remember there being a lot of people who said "I'm waiting for the next generation version before I stump up the money".

Well it seems they have waited, and collectively they've crashed the O2 website who have run a special online-only period for the new iphone 3G and their site can't process all the orders.

The combination of it being a hot product and only making this offer available to users through the website (you can get it instore from Friday) has meant that O2 will have lots of unhappy customers at the moment. Here's hoping that if you order your iphone today your order gets processed...

here's what it looks like when you try to order:

Useful, Relevant In-Game Ecommerce in GTA IV

GTA IV... an acroynm I'm familiar with but not obsessed about. Yes, Grand Theft Auto IV is the latest blockbuster game from uber-successful game developer Rockstar North (who are just up the road from our bigmouth offices), and is one of the biggest computer game releases of the year.

I'm not a huge gamer, and this post is not about me waxing lyrical about the antics you can get up to in Liberty City, but my colleague Chris Cathcart (who writes on finance blog Wonga World) made me aware of very relevant in game tool which the latest Grand Theft Auto supports.

The premise is very simple and something everyone can relate to. Ever been in the car and you've heard a great song on the radio and you don't know the name of it? Missed the DJ call the name of a brand new song that's immediately catchy? Or an old classic comes on that you heard in that club that you're desperate to have on your ipod but you just don't know who sings it... arggghhhh!

Well Rockstar North are very clever people, because in their GTA IV game, if you're driving around in your (stolen) car and you like the song on the radio, you can easily find out the name of the song.

It's called Zit: We'll Spot The Song For You. And here's how it works:

When playing Grand Theft Auto IV, if you hear a song that you are interested in buying as an MP3, all you have to do is dial ZiT-555-0100 on your in-game mobile phone and a text message will be sent to you with the name of the artist and the title of the track. The next time you log in at the Rockstar Games Social Club, you will find 30-second previews of all the songs you have ZiT'ed while playing the game. You can add them to your basket there and click to purchase at Amazon MP3, or you can find them all here.

So not only can you find and buy the song you're looking for seamlessly between the game world and the real world, but it entices you into the Rockstar North GTA gamer community too. Clever, eh?

Amazon.com have profiles of the radio stations you hear in the game, and below is an example of the K109 radio station branded page (note this radio station only exists in the game).


I'm told that the radio coming on in the car you're driving is one of the key redeeming features of the Grand Theft Auto franchise and there are loads of virtual radio stations in the game which will be playing different styles of music constantly all over the world right now (wikipedia tells me it sold 3.6m units in its first DAY).

Overall I'm very impressed with how well Rockstar North have partnered with Zit and Amazon to enable the game's main character to help you find music (new and old) for your MP3 player in real life. It's a great example of in-game ecommerce functionality which has the wow/cool factor and usefulness in equal proportions.

So if you're not a gamer, forget what preconceptions you may have about the Grand Theft Auto games (it IS violent and crime DOES pay in the game - but come on, it's got a certificate 18 rating) and look at the pure ecommerce opportunity here. Even if you're never going to play the game it's worth noting the ways in which online retailers are beginning to tap into this growing number of gamers (with their high disposable incomes and endless hours of gaming each week) who will happily use their in-game persona to help them get their ipod updated with that song that they just can't get out of their head.

PriceGrabber Partners with CNET & ZDNet

Today PriceGrabber.co.uk, the online shopping comparison site owned by Experian, have announced a deal to deliver its comparison shopping tool on two of the most respected consumer review sites for tech products - CNET and ZDNet.

The official press release states that PriceGrabber will provide a mechanism for getting the best price on the products reviewed on CNET.co.uk and ZDNet.net, with the system offering features such as merchant ratings to push conversion.

Under the new partnership, short-form product reviews produced by the expert reviewers at CNET.co.uk and ZDNet.co.uk will also appear on the PriceGrabber.co.uk Web site, offering users a concise opinion on each product. Users will also have the opportunity to gain a more in-depth assessment for each product by clicking through to the full reviews published on the CNET.co.uk and ZDNet.co.uk Web sites.

This deal makes total sense for both parties. PriceGrabber are looking for new ways to push their comparison shopping engine, as the sector itself is not growing at a fast pace. For CNET and ZDNet, they will stand to make money if users go ahead and convert having read one of their authoritative reviews.

I think this is particularly relevant for the markets CNET and ZDNet operate in. The readers of these sites tend to be savvy online players and the electricals/gadgets market is extremely price sensitive. So CNET and ZDNet have found a new way to monetize their good content, and their users will benefit as they have an on-site tool to get a broad spectrum of retailers to shop from.

In my view these types of relationships are the future for comparison shopping engines. By tapping into the audiences that already exist on these type of review sites PriceGrabber will be able to attract new advertisers to its programme and in the long run charge higher CPCs for appearing on its site.

At the moment, when Google are experiencing a backlash from advertisers for their trademark changes, allocating more budgets to side projects like Shopping Comparison Engines can seem like a good strategy. I would argue that the CSE market is mature and that the best ones out there will prosper if they keep innovating and adding value - and this announcement today is one such example of that happening. If I was selling gadgets or electricals, I would probably take a closer look at PriceGrabber bearing in mind the type consumer that reads CNET or ZDNet.

Cashing In On Nostalgia

Everywhere I look these days I see something retro or nostalgic which is making me feel slightly old as I remember the product vividly first time round... Fashion retailers have been first to catch on to this trend, brands like Urban Outfitters have had a very stylish retro range for a while now, and even the likes of NEXT are catering for nostalgia by having their range of Mister Men t shirts displayed prominently in store.

It's not been lost on the big players in the FMCG market either, with Cadburys riding a wave of positive public opinion by bringing back the Wispa last year following a high profile Facebook campaign. Coca-Cola cans have also gone back to a classic design too... suggesting that retro is very much in vogue right now for all retailers.

Mars are now moving in on the act, having just re-registered the name Marathon as a UK trademark, almost two decades after the brand was renamed Snickers. The move comes just weeks after Mars announced plans to bring back another former favorite, Opal Fruits.

What's the merit of rebranding like this?

It's hard to detect if this is a sound strategy. If Masterfoods (parent company) do change the Snickers brand back to Marathon, does that mean that the recent Snickers advertising campaign around "Get Some Nuts" (you know the ones with Mr T) is now completely obsolete? Surely the gains the Snickers brand has made recently on the back of this campaign (I think sales figures are much improved) are enough to compete against the theory of "more people will buy it because it's now called the old name".

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think cashing in on nostalgia is a short term strategy. I can see the merits of bringing back a brand that has been discontinued (like Wispa) if there is enough support, or bringing back a classic design (like Coke) but completely rebranding a product on the basis of nostalgia seems a bit extreme. Fashion is temporary, and risking long term brand strategies to cash in on extra sales generated by a retro product name seems ludricous... I mean it will taste just like a snickers which is on sale now... so where's the value-add?!

When Wispa came back last year I bought one for old times sake, then went back to having my usual chocolate bar the next time I went in to the shop. I guess I'm the type of person the rebranding dept are afraid of, the people who maybe shout loud for brands to be reinstated, but then fall short of buying regularly...

I think there are many people like me out there, so I'll be interested to see if Mars throw away everything they've done on Snickers to cash in on nostalgia like this.

What's the fall out from the Google Trademark Change?

So we're 4 days into the change from Google to allow bidding on trademarked terms and industry commentators are trying to determine what the fall out has been. I've been watching this closely for many of our clients this week, and it's been interesting to see the lack of activity from big brands trying to encroach on others traffic. Econsultancy expressed surprise at this in the retail industry today, but I think we can look at a few reasons why the big players aren't going all out against each other.

Firstly, many big brands have fairly substantial budgets dedicated to activities which can be grouped under the term "brand building". Bidding on another competitors brand is a negative form of advertising and whilst there are sometimes occassions when this is the right course of action, right now I think we're seeing the big brands acknowledge that this isn't something they'd want to be associated with.

There's also the second argument which is "how deep are our pockets?". There is a risk that if a brand start bidding on a direct competitors trademarked term, they could stand to lose out if there is retaliation... which could be worse for your business in the long term if you haven't got endless budgets.

Looking at retail in particular, we know that the high street is suffering at the moment and despite one or two exceptions we know that marketers are looking even harder at where the best ROI is coming from.

Although all these points are certainly valid, I think the main reason why brands aren't going hell for leather bidding on each other's terms at the moment - is that it simply isn't the best use of the money.

When an advertiser bids on another brand's trademarked term they're having to pay more for that keyword, because they have no history for that keyword, their advert won't contain the keywords in the search query and their landing page isn't relevant. This leads to high CPCs. These factors make it a tricky for the paid search manager to go up to his/her CEO and explain why the PPC budget hasn't brought in a great return this month (conversions won't be great on these terms). If i'm looking for Tesco I'm not really likely to suddenly change my mind and go to Asda on the basis of a text ad... and this is why retailers aren't going in all guns blazing on this issue - the market is advanced enough to know that this isn't a good tactic.

So is bidding on trademarked terms a damp squid in general?

Not really, and as my colleague Andrew Girdwood pointed out in his response to that econsultancy article, there is definitely an area where it can be useful in retail, and that's product trademarks.

Apple have the trademark on ipod. Sony have the trademark on bravia. But both of these are now open to the masses and we are seeing lots of advertiser activity on these types of keywords because it's someone who has a clear intention to buy an individual product (as opposed to shop in one destination).

So if we look at the screenshots for these two terms right now we can see that the big brands are bidding on these type of keywords, with the likes of John Lewis, Amazon and Pixmania going after the term 'Bravia' and Currys, Dixons and Argos all going after 'ipod'.

Bravia



ipod



So the big brands on the high street are going after trademarked terms, but they're being clever about it, focusing on the products users are looking for and not the destinations they're looking to shop from. This strategy makes complete sense and will be forcing the owners of the original trademarks to stump up higher max bids on their own terms if they're wanting to own as much 'real estate' on the page as possible.

Good for users? Probably (on product trademarks).
Good for Google? Definitely.

Sales at ASOS Soar by 90%

Headline says it all really. Despite the looming economic downturn and the pinch on the high street, ASOS have just announced that not only had they outperformed city expectations, but they expected to maintain the same growth rate this year.

Sales were up in the last year to £81m, which is up 90%, and sales in the first four weeks of this financial year (to April 27th) were also running at 80% up on last year's figures.

Nick Robertson, ASOS Chief Exec, has ensured the business can cope with all the extra orders they're getting online: "We've got a new warehouse which is now capable of sales up to £350m and we have invested heavily in new management, getting people from a variety of high street brands including Top Shop, New Look and River Island".

Confidence is clearly high at ASOS, and they have every right to be, as they're one of the pure plays which consistently delivers a strong online retail experience.

I shop with them regularly and here are the things I think they get right:

* abundant sale content all the time
* excellent coverage of brands
* very clear if products are available in your size
* numerous product images
* order tracking service which lets you know when to expect your goods
* distinctive delivery packaging
* simple checkout
* creative blog which encourages stickyness on the site
* good cross selling of products (always seem to be relevant)
* good amount of product info (washing instructions always sway me - I hate dry cleaning bills!)

Overall, a very good example of an online retailer getting it right and experiencing exceptional growth on having an excellent pure play offering.

Google Change Trademark Policy - Big Change for UK Retailers

Apologies for not posting in a little while but I hope this uber-post will make up for it. Google have announced today that they will be making a direct change to their trademark policy, which will have a significant impact on paid search (PPC) campaigns for many retailers.

As of 5th May, Google will be allowing open keyword bidding on all terms in the UK and Ireland, abolishing the previous system where you could protect competitors from bidding on your registered trademarks. In simple terms, on that date all of your competitors will be able to rank alongside a Google search for your brand name, running adverts designed to steal clicks away from searchers looking for your site.

This change only affects keyword bidding. In the past competitors could use broad match to bid on a trademarked term if a user had searched with that keyword as part of a two, three or four word query. This has not been affected, and a search on "Tesco TV" or "Topshop jeans" will bring up relevant 'tv' or 'jeans' ads because other advertisers are bidding on these keywords using broadmatch.

Importantly, competitors will still not be able to use trademarked terms (i.e. your brand name) in their ad text. There is the possibility that they could use your slogans or misspells of your brand name if these are not trademarked.

Google have said that this change brings the UK in line with the USA and Canada where this policy has been in operation since 2004, but it is still likely to result in abundant backlash from advertisers that this is simply another way of Google to get more money from AdWords. Notably, the rest of Europe will not be affected by this change.

What does this mean for online retailers?

This is an extremely significant change, and Google have given agencies / Adwords users a month to adjust campaigns in preparation. Google have said that trademark owners are still likely to have the edge over those non-trademark owners because you will still be able to use your trademarks in your own PPC ads, which should result in higher click through rates. Having spoken to them this morning, they didn't sound overly confident when quizzed on whether the change would apply to campaigns who use dynamic keyword insertion to their ads (they said it would but that they'd be looking into it). Many retailers with large product inventory use dynamic keyword insertion with their PPC campaigns so I hope they have a policy for this come early May.

However, the main change is that it's not guaranteed that you will have the number one PPC ad for your own brand term from the 5th May onwards. CPCs are set to rise as there will no longer be a minimum bid that brands have relied on in the past. Similarly, the quality score of the ads themselves is bound to change as click through rates (CTRs) become lower.

Many brands will need to reassign PPC budgets in order to fully protect their own brand and I would expect to see a host of new comparison sites crop up to try and steal clicks away from brands claiming to compare the market prices.

Although most retailers will still rank number one in the natural search space, this change makes it even more necessary to be in both spaces if your competitors can show their ads on your most cherished traffic-driving keyword(s).

This could be a good thing and a bad thing for many brands. Huge retailers like Tesco will be able to bid on keywords like 'Dyson', 'Sony' and 'Apple' and they can stand to gain from this as they will be selling Dyson vacuums, Sony TVs or Apple iPods. They could lose out with competitors such as Asda claiming they have lower prices or environmental groups showing ads which slate their green policy.

Brand campaigns will propbably need to be re-jigged to ensure that brands make sure that searchers know that their ad represents the 'official destination' for the brand they are looking for.

It is also hugely important for the affiliates industry. All of sudden the goal posts have moved dramatically, and many retailers may deem that it is now relevant to allow affiliates to bid on brand terms in the PPC space. This has always been a contentious issue for retailers, but it would seem logical to pay your affiliates a commission for a sale rather than lose it altogether to a competitor. This "lesser of two evils" approach will no doubt make many affiliates very happy indeed.

Importantly, if you are a retailer still going through the drawn-out process of trademarking your brand terms, I wouldn't give up with this news. You still need to trademark your brand keywords so that your competitors can't use it in their ad copy.

Overall, it's a massive change and has long-lasting implications for the search industry. Since it's been like this in the States since 2004, our American bigmouthmedia office have had experience of managing this change for retailers before, so I'll be speaking to my colleagues over the pond so I can tell retailers what they can expecting come May.