First off, banners are a means to an end.  Most of the time they are drivers to a site experience.  Banners should not be the center point of your campaign, they are more like the icing you would put on a cake.  If the cake tastes like s%*# then there is little the icing can do.  This is why we need to think about bypassing the banner.

Think of bypassing the banner as a 100 to 5 to 1 ratio.  Recently at Team Detroit, we worked on an online optimization strategy for Ford, where we analyzed potential integration efforts into third party sites like KBB, Edmunds, and MSN Autos.  We quickly realized the potential was based on this simple ratio:

• 100: If we integrated an experience into the page, we could affect 100% of thepage  visitors on the third party site.
• 5: If we created a contextually relevant experience within the banner, we could potentially affect 5% of the page visitors.
• 1: If we created a strong, contextual call to action within the banner, we could potentially affect 1% of the page visitors.

This is a logical (and hardly novel) approach to online media.  The problem is many times we usually execute “.1″s.  That’s right one-tenth of a percent click-through rates.  We create a banner and efficiently pepper the banner throughout the internet through high-indexed sites, portal sites, and ad networks.   We are satisfied with micro-percents as campaign success goals.   The reality is we need to quit trying to drive people to our brand experience and bring the brand experience to them.

Start with 100%
Many industries have a natural path they can intercept people.  Many food products can integrate into recipe sites.  Many high-consideration purchases have sites dedicated to educating shoppers about their product (e.g. CNET for appliances and tech, KBB for vehicles, and many vertical pubs like MountainBike.com, EngagementRingAdvice.com or  PamperedPuppy.com).  Sometimes there are opportunities to integrate directly into the site — sometimes there is not.  Which mean we use banners — right?  Not so fast.

You need to begin with your target consumer’s mindset.  There are three levels to consider:

• Mind Elsewhere: Person is immersed in a passion point or in an online task like email, updating their social status, or reading the latest new story.  They are not thinking about your product or service.
• Product Interest: The person is interested in your product (or the competition) and is seeking out information to become more knowledgeable. 
• Shopping for Product: The person is actively shopping for your product (or the competition).

The latter two levels are easy to intercept if the person researches the product online.  This may be the case for high-consideration purchases, but is minimal or non existent for low consideration purchases.  The challenge for low consideration product marketers is their consumer targets are primarily in a mind elsewhere mindset.   These marketers need to find a way to connect with consumers — most likely through a brand connection than a product connection.

The natural brand path
The majority of people fall into the first mindset, which partly explains why click-through-rates are abysmal.  To bypass the banner we need to generate experience or content within their natural path.  This can be accomplished in many different ways, however one factor will be in common — a relevant brand experience.  The relevant brand experience intersects a brand truth and a consumer interest or insight.  This is where the brand can live, and where the consumer will accept the brand on their terms.

There are many examples across the internet.  Some are wonderful brand synergies.  Some not so much.  One of my perennial favorites is Mountain Dew and extreme sports.  The Mountain Dew Brand is about action — about a caffienated  buzz — about teenagers playing xBox all night drinking their gaming juice.   And Mountain Dew is about extreme sports.  The brand is integrated seemlessly with extreme sports with their own tour: Dew Tour.  Online you can find the Dew Tour on facebook, YouTube, Fuel TV, and the tour is referenced on many sports sites like SkiChannel.com, SnowBoard Mag.com, and ESPN.   Offline you can find the tour at ski resorts, in the press, and on television.  Not a bad way to bypass the banner.

Coca-Cola’s Expedition 206 Campaign is about to send a team of three people on a year-long global tour to 206 countries.  Per Reuters article Coke hopes to take advantage of the ubiquitous-ness of social media and ”deliver a year-long reality TV series without the TV.” 

For the people who do not get selected, they can live vicariously through the winning team.  They can follow the team on social platforms like facebook, YouTube or Twitter.  People can also offer suggestions to the team like activities to do or places to see within each country. 

The campaign made me contemplate if this was the best way to engage coke fans globally.  Sure the winning team gets a once-in-a-lifetime experience, but how enriching is the brand experience to the billion of global coke drinkers?  Or the 3.7 million fans on facebook?  What’s in it for them? Why should they care?  Is there a better experience to engage more people in Coke’s Happiness campaign?

Look, Coke isn’t the first marketer to generate a vicarious global brand experience.  Last year the Smirnoff 10 got the opportunity to go bar hopping world wide, and hang out with musicians, celebrities and the beautiful people.  And again, you wonder what the pay-off is for the people not on the trip.

4 Levels of Brand Experiences
Based on these initiatives I contemplated what are the different levels of brand experience engagements, and the overall value to a social network.  My objective in delineating different levels of brand experience engagement is not to say there is a “right” answer.  Rather, it can be used more as a brainstorming tool to explore more personal brand experiences that are more impactful to a larger portion of your fan base or target audience. 

The four levels I identified are:

1. Viewing the brand experience vicariously through someone you never met (or a celebrity) 
2. Viewing the brand experience vicariously through a friend
3. Sharing a brand experience virtually with your friends.
4. Sharing a brand experience physically (in the real world) with your friends.

The first level is like the current Coke campaign — people you never meet go on a trip, and you can follow their experiences.  The level of value and entertainment will be directly correlated to the attractiveness of the participants.  This is no different than any reality shows success.  The more interesting or provocative the participants, the more likely people will tune in and follow.  For this reason, a brand may use a celebrity instead of an unknown, because the celebrity is immediately identifiable, and you can forego character introductions or character building.

The second level is following a friend while they participate in a brand experience.  The friends social group may be more engaged in their experience, at least to a point.  Think of the last time someone shared their vacation pictures to Europe, Asia or any exotic destination.  Somewhat interesting to a point (depending on the stories), but lacks memorable or impact because you did not partake in the experience.

The third level is a distributed experience.  With social networks, wi-fi, and mobile tethering it is not a stretch for people to share the same experience in multiple geographic locations.  Imagine sharing New Years Eve with multiple friends across the country, tweeting about Super Bowl commercials, or star watching in the Academy Awards Show through a facebook chat.  

Some experiences already exist in a distributed manner.  For example, last August a group of friends participated in a virtual Fantasy Football draft.  About five people attended a draft party at my house, while three people participated remotely through chat, cell, and texting.  I found it interesting that the group dynamics didn’t change much for people who weren’t there. 

The final level is a an experience in the physical world.  These brand experiences are somewhat common.  Companies like House Party organize brand parties in homes across the country.   Brand parties are an excuse to get together with friends (like a Fantasy Football Draft parties are like a male Hallmark Holiday).  And unlike a jewelry, make-up or Tupperware party, there is no coercion to purchase items from the host at a brand party. 

Party Host, Wallflower or Party Crasher?
At all levels, brand integration is a challenge.  For example, how is the brand experience amplifying aspect of the brand?  Is the experience a reflection of the brand DNA or could any brand be inserted into the experience.  Integration is a key to memorability.  You don’t want the brand to be a wallflower within the experience.  The brand should be the ambiance.  The brand should be the experiential catalyst.  The brand should be the unforgettable reason why the experience exists.  The worst case scenario for a brans is there is no cognitive right to be in the experience — in this situation the brand would be seen as a party crasher.

An example of experiential synergy is Mountain Dew and gaming.  Imagine Mountain Dew hosting an all night gaming party across the country for the release of Madden 2010.  This is easy for Mountian Dew because the have spent years integrating their brand DNA with gaming (just think about gaming juice). 

Also, the more personal and shared the experience, the more the memorability will be amplified.  The closer a brand gets to a level 4 experience the more the experience will be amplified.  Past experience tells us there is a big difference between viewing pictures of a friend’s trip to Europe versus reminiscing with the same friend on a trip taken together. 

So is there a Level 4 Coke idea?
Most brands don’t have the luxury of a brand integration into a brand passion point like Mountain Dew.   Think about Coke.  I get the following equation: Global Brand = Global Trip.  Most people get it.  Executing a global social campaign makes sense for the brand.  So the current campaign is definitely on strategy, but is there a bigger global experiential idea that could get more people involved — that could show the global diversity of the coke lover — that was part of the Coke Brand DNA (e.g. spread Happiness which is the Coke tagline).

A step toward this would be to build on the current idea and increase the number of teams from one to 206.  Hey why not?  206 countries would equate to 206 teams.  Each team would cycle through each country sequentially, building upon the previous teams activities.  The breadth of diversity would increase.  The amount of friends would increase.  The social footprint would increase by over 200 percent.  The obvious drawback is funding.  But hey, Coke is a global brand with a global budget right?  In all seriousness, it would be expensive, but at the same time the bold action will bring more attention to the campaign and increase local relevance within each country. 

The global 206 still is primarily a Level 1 idea, maybe a borderline Level 2 idea.  So is there something deeper — in Level 3 or 4. This would require switching the emphasis to distributed experiences, and focus on single experiences that happen globally.  The challenge with a global experience is what experience is shared globally?  Maybe New Years?  Maybe the Olympics?  I don’t know the answer, but I feel there is a stronger Level 4 experience out there Coke create.

My recommendation is always strive to the more personal experience.  It may not make the headlines (or make a good viral video), but in the long-term brand health it will have a bigger impact on the bottom line.