As we work with some of the world’s largest advertisers, we are struck by how often we come across this situation…A marketing organization is well aware that they should do a better job at using a naming taxonomy to name their marketing “objects” (i.e., campaigns, ads, creatives, posts, etc.) but for various reasons, they haven’t gotten around to it. They understand the value of consistently naming their objects in a structured manner. They know that it will make it easier for employees to understand the intent of an object, at a detailed level. They realize that reporting will be consistently better since related objects can be easily grouped together.
So why don’t more organizations adopt a naming taxonomy? It’s likely just a matter of organizational inertia. It’s hard to teach an old dog — particularly large ones — new tricks.
The reality is that it is not difficult but it does require an organizational commitment. Here’s a simple example of a naming taxonomy, based on what we have seen used by some of our customers:
It is important for an organization to agree on the different segments that make up a name for an object. The segments should be based on the dimensions that are important to an organization for reporting and analysis purposes. For example, if objective is important, then it should be incorporated into the naming taxonomy.
It is also important to make sure that the different values used for each segment are consistent across an entire organization. For example, if the geographic region is included in the naming taxonomy, you want to make sure that each region is spelled out the same (e.g., you don’t want some teams using “UnitedStates” and some teams using “US”).
While some platforms have areas where you can specify detailed information like described above, there is currently no consistency across all of the platforms. In a Facebook ad set, an objective can be specified but Twitter doesn’t have such an attribute. So until all platforms are consistent, it is best to be diligent and include important details in a naming convention.
On the Origami Logic platform, one important byproduct of using a structured naming taxonomy is the ability for our platform to automatically tag campaign assets by programmatically reading object names. The tags can then be used to report and analyze the performance of marketing activities. The automatic generation of tags relieves the burden of tagging all entities in the execution systems; something that is not always done consistently.
Below is an illustration of an Origami Logic Content Card that displays details about a particular asset — the creative, key metrics, and tags. The tags can be automatically generated if the details are in an object’s name.
If you are interested in learning more about naming best practices and how the Origami Logic platform automatically generates tags, get in touch with us.