This week, we receive a stern warning about marketers’ common approaches to leveraging Augmented Reality, we’re given some advice regarding contextual digital ad targeting, and we take what we want from an enlightened point of view regarding pitching marketing investments to company executives. “Multiple perspectives are better than one” is the mantra This Week in Aducation.
- Augmented Reality is Overhyped and Abused – This article is not nearly as contrarian as it sounds. The columnist’s perspective is that a trend toward leveraging AR that ignores the technology’s utility threatens to destroy it before it gains any traction with audiences. This article is fantastic, because its author not only expresses his alarm, but justifies it with some fascinating examples of utilitarian AR in action. Additionally, it reflects the mentality our team has brought to the table regarding leveraging the technology, so positive reinforcement abounds. I am especially impressed with the application the author designed for Fashionista.
- Location Matters: How Ad Environments Affect Performance – This offers a great point of view (the culmination of apparently extensive research conducted by the author’s company) regarding the optimal way to marry medium with creative execution online. I find this article especially helpful, because the author describes digital media in terms of classes of web experiences (focuses on visitor mindset), rather than types of sites (focuses on company goals). It reads a bit strangely, so I highly recommend visiting the author’s hyperlinked illustrations for the clearest possible idea of his meaning.
- Making the ‘Best’ Business Cases for Marketing Investments – In light of the recent discussions surrounding the case for an ad-centric analytics tool, this point of view makes for an interesting addition to this week’s post. Particularly interesting is the section the author includes which warns against tendencies which are meant to de-bias a presentation. Instead, these tendencies usually end up weakening/undermining the business case, according to the author. Is the point he makes a valid/legitimate/good one?
