Your consumer may choose one site or the other, but the advertising opportunities offered by each are just as diverse as that example on how you reach the consumer. If all you are doing is display advertising, it's a simple media buy for you and then it's gone. But both offer advanced targeting to hone in on. The difference? On Facebook, it's the widget world that gives you the best way to get viral adoption and blow the doors off a program. The "trusted friend" distribution and open API give it the advantage.
But MySpace is different. It is a media content juggernaut. It is a category unto itself, and your consumers are all over it. It's just that our perception of who they are is warped. MySpace was the kid's site, and Facebook was the college/post-college site, and many of us hang onto that perception. But this is not your kid's MySpace anymore. The site produces original episodic content like Roommates and Quarterlife, with more shows on the way. There is a MySpace Secret Concert series, similar to the old Miller Blind Date, if anyone is old enough to remember that. It exists almost in the real world, and if you want entertainment and lifestyle content, it's off the charts. Many people did a "Huh?" when Fox bought it, but now I am starting to see the wisdom of that partnership: content.
MySpace understands that its video content is not TV in the lean-back world but in the lean-forward world of online. And it is adapting vast archives as well as producing original programming. Snippets and flits of content need to be delivered -- not 30-minute episodes -- and MySpace gets that. Brands become people and profiles on MySpace, and the site works with those brands to manage the experience.
But how can this help you as the brand or the agency? Almost every brand produces personas of their consumer -- who they are, their likes, dislikes -- usually all based on a combination of ethnographic research, product usage, etc.
We all use these personas when we talk about our brand to other people, and they are very useful when you are buying in offline media verticals that are tighter in print and TV. On TV, you don't buy a station, you buy a show, and you can align those personas to shows. But online it becomes a lot more difficult, if near impossible, to translate. You tend to buy sites, and there are very few sites large enough to have the deep verticals within them.
And then there's MySpace, which takes your personas, and due to the vastness of data it has, can align your persona and enable ad targeting at a persona level by combining the various interests into a plan. How about all of those people who input that they are 25 instead of their real age of 35? You know what, maybe you should treat them like they ARE 25. That is, who they see themselves as, and that is the point. We are who we represent ourselves to be online, so stop concentrating on tight demo targeting and start using who your persona is from an attitudinal level, an interest level, and reach consumers that way.
There are only a handful of sites that have that capability. For a long time, it was AOL with its Time-Warner relationship and walled garden of who could control that type of experience and bring that type of value to the buyer. But the experience was controlled, locked in, and it came with an enormous price premium. The difference now? Unlike the chained login of the old AOL world, the MySpace garden is one that consumers visit by choice, and it is lush.
Sean X Cummings is director of marketing for Ask.com.