I thought I'd use a come-on headline simulating the start of a steamy private chat session to catch your attention. Sorry, I know it's a dirty deception. No pun intended. But I did it because I'm on a personal mission to get our industry to care about privacy and to embrace the Cross Industry Coalition's Power i program. At ad:tech SF I jumped up and down on a stage saying "You have to care about this." That's how important I think it is.
Yes, privacy. You hate talking and reading about it. Five will get you ten that you've already stopped reading and found some link on this page to click on to get away from the p word. For ten years our industry has been more or less dodging this issue because it's complicated and makes everyone feel a little dirty.
But the FTC is demanding that we care, especially (but not exclusively) as regards BT. They're doing this in part because about 2/3 of consumers say that a perceived lack of online privacy troubles them.
Here's the ultimatum: care or risk BT and other forms of targeting getting heavily regulated. Or maybe shut down.
BTW, a BT shutdown would decimate more than a few pubs that depend on higher CPMS from BT inventory to keep the lights on. It would also kill off one of the biggest growth engines of digital spending. DR would suffer big time. And branding too, because finding in-market eyeballs for brand messages is pretty darned important in some of our biggest categories.
Our industry gets it. The CBBB, IAB, AAAAs, DMA, and ANA have gotten together to develop the Power i program that notifies consumers when BT is used to deliver an ad to them, gives them information about BT, and gives them choice.
You put a small Power i on your BT ads. And the consumer has the option to click on it and find out about the data and companies used to put the ad in front of her. She can read it, and do nothing. Or click again and read more. Or she can opt out of some or all targeting.
You as a BT advertiser use the i to extend the same level of trust to the consumer that she extends to you when she buys your brand.
By using the Power i, you are saying to her, 'I respect you. I know that your data and interests are yours, not mine. I ask that you allow me to use anonymous information to find you and put things in front of you that you'll probably be interested in. I won't force you to let me do this. Because I value our relationship.'
A CSF client makes this discovery and choice process easy and clear and decidedly unscary. Called Better Advertising (AdAge's analysis here,) it makes the post click experience easy, straightforward and clear. Their technology is also vigilant in ensuring that her wishes are respected. BA even makes sure that your brand gets the credit for this transparency and choice.
I'll take bets that the people who click on the i will like you more for being straight up with them. And that very few people will actually opt out.
Now, there's no law that says you have to use Power i-s. You can trust her and demonstrate your concern for her wishes. Or you can do nothing and give her a reason to question your methods and fundamentally your regard for her dignity as a free person.
Personally, I prefer to do business with people and institutions that treat me with dignity. How about you?
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
5 Fantastic Digital First Campaigns
Muchos besos for running this first, iMediaConnection!
Broadcast vs. digital-first
What is the role of TV in the new media environment? Most brands continue to see TV as a one-way broadcast medium -- a platform by which we can deliver marketing messages that consumers should simply absorb and remember. In this world view, digital is an add-on -- a means of overlaying an interactive element onto what is primarily an old-school sledgehammer-to-consumer-skull effort. Little more than checking a box. You know the drill. Or perhaps I should say mallet. The brand blasts away a nice "strategic ad" over the airwaves, but spends 7 percent of the budget pushing some "viral" or "social" effort that essentially asks consumers to spit back the broadcast message.
Fortunately, a few brands are leading a transition. They understand that TV is no longer a broadcast medium so much as it is a mass distribution channel -- one that establishes awareness for a larger campaign effort that gives consumers a real role in shaping and communicating the brand essence. These are "digital-first" brands. That doesn't mean they necessarily spend a larger proportion of dollars on digital. Not at all. Rather, they use all media -- traditional and digital -- to seek out consumer participation. Participation that is channeled through digital platforms.
It might sound like a nuanced difference, but it really isn't. A good digital-first campaign has participatory experiences that consumers seek out; TV simply grows the awareness for such efforts and uses its unique experiential qualities to make the larger campaign more vivid and impactful.
We all know a little prime-time can blow the doors off awareness and seed an idea to a broad audience. With such a foundation, literally millions of people seek out interactive experiences that make the campaign and brand a vivid part of their lives.
Here are five brands and their efforts that showcase the power of the digital-first model, along with one brand that really needs to embrace this approach.
Axe
Those who read what I write regularly (Hi Mom!) know that I talk about Axe a lot, and it's because the brand is a leader in so many digital areas. And digital-first marketing is no exception. While TV certainly communicates the "get Axed 'n get laid" message, the best bits of Axe marketing always take place online. In part, no doubt, because broadcast standards wouldn't let them do this stuff during the family hour.
Need an example? Oh good Lord. Everything Axe does is digital-first. Check out the Axe Undie Run, proof positive that even dirty birdies can care about their fellow woman:
In short, the people at Axe are geniuses, and part of their wisdom is in always being digital-first.
Pepsi
While charity is a small overlay for Axe, it's a big deal for the new Pepsi.
We knew to expect significant changes in Pepsi's marketing approach when it broke with BBDO after something like 2,000 years of partnership. The old Pepsi sought to create TV epics that associated the brand with the hottest celebs of the moment. It was a subtle-as-a-nail-gun effort to link the brand to the next generation. And it worked like a dream until people became the new brand marketing engine.
Here's the "before" vid:
The new Pepsi connects with youth by relating to one of their deepest held values -- community and social responsibility. Pepsi fronts a portion of the marketing budget to help charities, and asks Pepsi drinkers to choose the recipients of blue largesse.
Extended across all traditional and digital media, the effort puts the brand in service of user desires instead of treating their brains as sponges for "we're young and hip and cool like Britney" messaging.
Kia
Auto advertising is perhaps the biggest creative ghetto on the planet, but the Kia hamster campaign for the entry-level Soul stands out as a shining example of how being different and digital-first can drive big dividends.
Let's face it: Most Kia advertising is pretty much invisible. It's the usual shiny car doing the usual things in the usual places making the usual claims, with a bit of value thrown in for differentiation. Not so with the Soul ads.
There's message in all that fun. About juxtaposing the attractive Kia with its toaster-like competitors. That the brand went digital-first for a car targeted primarily to younger and more venturesome buyers is a natural. What isn't is how well the brand delivered this idea across popular forms of digital and traditional media -- and did it in so many ways that consciously invite consumer participation.
It starts with the 60-second viral bait commercial, but there's also a lot more. From "making of" videos to Facebook apps to dedicated social sites in support of the hamsters, this brand clearly understands that attracting attention through TV advertising is only part of the opportunity for this campaign. Rather, TV was simply the catalyst for getting people to seek out and take ownership of other brand experiences featuring the furry spokesrodents.
The side scroller Go Hamster Go app is an example. The user fires up his or her webcam to enter the hamster world and drop hamsters into the Kia as it rolls by.
Kleenex
I think it was two years ago that Kleenex began its Let It Out campaign with TV ads and interactivities inviting consumers to share their feelings.
Of course, feeling has both physical and metaphorical meaning, so it's a nice way to tie up tangible and emotional benefits.
But this is by no means Kleenex's first digital-first effort. From promotions like Choose Your Mom to an interactive application that lets you upload photos and design your own Kleenex box, this brand is way ahead in interactive and marketing evolution in general.
Bing and Yahoo
One of the most interesting things to watch is how digital companies approach traditional media campaigns. Portals can be fascinating on this score because their offerings are, by their very nature, participatory.
Let's start with Yahoo. Forgive me, my fair purple sweet, I have used these pages to confess my love for you before. And I am well aware you have replaced this effort recently with something far better. But your old effort was a good example of what not to do.
Here goes.
You and Yahoo was a classic broadcast-style effort. It had some other layers. But ultimately, it was about delivering a message for us to remember and regurgitate. Me: individual. Yahoo: for individuals. Ergo. Me likey Yahoo. C'mon. I don't even know where to begin. Oh, yes I do. How about with what Yahoo called its anthem spot?
The campaign seems to have evolved into something a little less ether-y with new efforts titled "It feels good to feel." A combination of TV, print, and online is seeding the idea, but the centerpiece appears to be a host a ways that consumers can share their own feelings and memories.
Not "new" ways. "You" ways. Get it?
Yahoo -- Je t'adore. Let me say that again. Je t'adore. But good grief! It strikes me that this was an ideal time to let people experience how Yahoo can be the center of their online lives. Or to let people like me tell the world how Yahoo is the center of our lives. Je t'adore, Yahoo, but those jeans did make your butt look big.
Meanwhile, in Redmond...
Now, obviously Bing's challenge was different. The company needed to make people try a new search engine, not communicate the site as the center of an online life. But Bing could have done the broadcast thing and promised us the most unbelievably unbelievable search experience. Ever!
And oh my god, can you imagine the 60-second spots packed with vignettes of Sydney Opera House and Tuvan yurts and tea parties in the Sahara and people on Melrose just being in-di-vi-du-als that Bing could have served up? And a sort of whitewashed anthem, "If search is your thing, now try Bing (brand search engine)."
Instead, Bing's campaign really hinged on a variety of placements that made it easy to try Bing and see how the results are different.
I can look up words in in-text ads. I see Bing's stab at search results as a supplement to site search. I get to start the process of using Farecast in an ad unit.
Oh, and there was broadcast as well. But these TV ads made you ache to try Bing and see if it was really different. Cuz you've been there. We all have. Wanna see what it's like to be somewhere else?
Conclusion: Is digital-first best?
It's tough to imagine a brand that wouldn't be well served by inviting its users in -- as a central part of its marketing efforts. But perhaps even more than choosing such a campaign idea is inviting the consumer into all aspects of a brand.
Digital companies have unique opportunities to do this. That they sometimes don't makes me wonder if they understand that so much of their brand power comes from the minds and hearts and mouths and typing fingers of consumers -- not 1-inch tape or however TV ads get distributed these days.
Now, there's nothing like TV and those tapes to get the word out. Nothing. But brands that decide to use their TV to invite consumer to participate are going to fare better. It's time that we drop our sledgehammers and start sending out engraved invitations to join us in our brands.
Broadcast vs. digital-first
What is the role of TV in the new media environment? Most brands continue to see TV as a one-way broadcast medium -- a platform by which we can deliver marketing messages that consumers should simply absorb and remember. In this world view, digital is an add-on -- a means of overlaying an interactive element onto what is primarily an old-school sledgehammer-to-consumer-skull effort. Little more than checking a box. You know the drill. Or perhaps I should say mallet. The brand blasts away a nice "strategic ad" over the airwaves, but spends 7 percent of the budget pushing some "viral" or "social" effort that essentially asks consumers to spit back the broadcast message.
Fortunately, a few brands are leading a transition. They understand that TV is no longer a broadcast medium so much as it is a mass distribution channel -- one that establishes awareness for a larger campaign effort that gives consumers a real role in shaping and communicating the brand essence. These are "digital-first" brands. That doesn't mean they necessarily spend a larger proportion of dollars on digital. Not at all. Rather, they use all media -- traditional and digital -- to seek out consumer participation. Participation that is channeled through digital platforms.
It might sound like a nuanced difference, but it really isn't. A good digital-first campaign has participatory experiences that consumers seek out; TV simply grows the awareness for such efforts and uses its unique experiential qualities to make the larger campaign more vivid and impactful.
We all know a little prime-time can blow the doors off awareness and seed an idea to a broad audience. With such a foundation, literally millions of people seek out interactive experiences that make the campaign and brand a vivid part of their lives.
Here are five brands and their efforts that showcase the power of the digital-first model, along with one brand that really needs to embrace this approach.
Axe
Those who read what I write regularly (Hi Mom!) know that I talk about Axe a lot, and it's because the brand is a leader in so many digital areas. And digital-first marketing is no exception. While TV certainly communicates the "get Axed 'n get laid" message, the best bits of Axe marketing always take place online. In part, no doubt, because broadcast standards wouldn't let them do this stuff during the family hour.
Need an example? Oh good Lord. Everything Axe does is digital-first. Check out the Axe Undie Run, proof positive that even dirty birdies can care about their fellow woman:
In short, the people at Axe are geniuses, and part of their wisdom is in always being digital-first.
Pepsi
While charity is a small overlay for Axe, it's a big deal for the new Pepsi.
We knew to expect significant changes in Pepsi's marketing approach when it broke with BBDO after something like 2,000 years of partnership. The old Pepsi sought to create TV epics that associated the brand with the hottest celebs of the moment. It was a subtle-as-a-nail-gun effort to link the brand to the next generation. And it worked like a dream until people became the new brand marketing engine.
Here's the "before" vid:
The new Pepsi connects with youth by relating to one of their deepest held values -- community and social responsibility. Pepsi fronts a portion of the marketing budget to help charities, and asks Pepsi drinkers to choose the recipients of blue largesse.
Extended across all traditional and digital media, the effort puts the brand in service of user desires instead of treating their brains as sponges for "we're young and hip and cool like Britney" messaging.
Kia
Auto advertising is perhaps the biggest creative ghetto on the planet, but the Kia hamster campaign for the entry-level Soul stands out as a shining example of how being different and digital-first can drive big dividends.
Let's face it: Most Kia advertising is pretty much invisible. It's the usual shiny car doing the usual things in the usual places making the usual claims, with a bit of value thrown in for differentiation. Not so with the Soul ads.
There's message in all that fun. About juxtaposing the attractive Kia with its toaster-like competitors. That the brand went digital-first for a car targeted primarily to younger and more venturesome buyers is a natural. What isn't is how well the brand delivered this idea across popular forms of digital and traditional media -- and did it in so many ways that consciously invite consumer participation.
It starts with the 60-second viral bait commercial, but there's also a lot more. From "making of" videos to Facebook apps to dedicated social sites in support of the hamsters, this brand clearly understands that attracting attention through TV advertising is only part of the opportunity for this campaign. Rather, TV was simply the catalyst for getting people to seek out and take ownership of other brand experiences featuring the furry spokesrodents.
The side scroller Go Hamster Go app is an example. The user fires up his or her webcam to enter the hamster world and drop hamsters into the Kia as it rolls by.
Kleenex
I think it was two years ago that Kleenex began its Let It Out campaign with TV ads and interactivities inviting consumers to share their feelings.
Of course, feeling has both physical and metaphorical meaning, so it's a nice way to tie up tangible and emotional benefits.
But this is by no means Kleenex's first digital-first effort. From promotions like Choose Your Mom to an interactive application that lets you upload photos and design your own Kleenex box, this brand is way ahead in interactive and marketing evolution in general.
Bing and Yahoo
One of the most interesting things to watch is how digital companies approach traditional media campaigns. Portals can be fascinating on this score because their offerings are, by their very nature, participatory.
Let's start with Yahoo. Forgive me, my fair purple sweet, I have used these pages to confess my love for you before. And I am well aware you have replaced this effort recently with something far better. But your old effort was a good example of what not to do.
Here goes.
You and Yahoo was a classic broadcast-style effort. It had some other layers. But ultimately, it was about delivering a message for us to remember and regurgitate. Me: individual. Yahoo: for individuals. Ergo. Me likey Yahoo. C'mon. I don't even know where to begin. Oh, yes I do. How about with what Yahoo called its anthem spot?
The campaign seems to have evolved into something a little less ether-y with new efforts titled "It feels good to feel." A combination of TV, print, and online is seeding the idea, but the centerpiece appears to be a host a ways that consumers can share their own feelings and memories.
Not "new" ways. "You" ways. Get it?
Yahoo -- Je t'adore. Let me say that again. Je t'adore. But good grief! It strikes me that this was an ideal time to let people experience how Yahoo can be the center of their online lives. Or to let people like me tell the world how Yahoo is the center of our lives. Je t'adore, Yahoo, but those jeans did make your butt look big.
Meanwhile, in Redmond...
Now, obviously Bing's challenge was different. The company needed to make people try a new search engine, not communicate the site as the center of an online life. But Bing could have done the broadcast thing and promised us the most unbelievably unbelievable search experience. Ever!
And oh my god, can you imagine the 60-second spots packed with vignettes of Sydney Opera House and Tuvan yurts and tea parties in the Sahara and people on Melrose just being in-di-vi-du-als that Bing could have served up? And a sort of whitewashed anthem, "If search is your thing, now try Bing (brand search engine)."
Instead, Bing's campaign really hinged on a variety of placements that made it easy to try Bing and see how the results are different.
I can look up words in in-text ads. I see Bing's stab at search results as a supplement to site search. I get to start the process of using Farecast in an ad unit.
Oh, and there was broadcast as well. But these TV ads made you ache to try Bing and see if it was really different. Cuz you've been there. We all have. Wanna see what it's like to be somewhere else?
Conclusion: Is digital-first best?
It's tough to imagine a brand that wouldn't be well served by inviting its users in -- as a central part of its marketing efforts. But perhaps even more than choosing such a campaign idea is inviting the consumer into all aspects of a brand.
Digital companies have unique opportunities to do this. That they sometimes don't makes me wonder if they understand that so much of their brand power comes from the minds and hearts and mouths and typing fingers of consumers -- not 1-inch tape or however TV ads get distributed these days.
Now, there's nothing like TV and those tapes to get the word out. Nothing. But brands that decide to use their TV to invite consumer to participate are going to fare better. It's time that we drop our sledgehammers and start sending out engraved invitations to join us in our brands.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
It Depends Upon What The Meaning of the Word Campaign Is
Thanks to MediaBizBloggers for publishing this on their site first:
The second most misused word in our industry, after strategy, has to be campaign. When I started in the biz, it meant the planned and coordinated totality of a selling idea and an executional approach for a brand. Campaigns rarely lasted less than a year. Some lasted 20 years or more.
Things are sure different now. It can be rather challenging to work in a segment of the business where one banner ad executed in four sizes is considered a campaign. Or where all of the messages and media of a finite period, regardless of their look, feel, or message, are called a campaign.
Google says those 25 results you punch into AdSense are a campaign. Heck, I’ve heard one ad on the front page of Yahoo for one day called a campaign.
That loose usage of the term “campaign” contributes to the creativity ghetto that is digital marketing. Too often, we spend millions delivering messages devoid of creative ideas. That may be what selling can be about, but not marketing.
We’re here to create value by imbuing brands with enduring meaning. That’s an impossible challenge for a handful of SEM results or one banner “concept” executed in four different sizes. And don’t even get me started on what digital people think a concept is.
Campaigns begin with a central idea. Just Do It. The Ultimate Driving Machine. Keep Walking. Not Save 20% today. Or Download a White Paper. Offers are critical, but to actually do marketing you have to begin with a thought that helps consumers file away pleasing brand information.
The definition of “campaign” used to be quite narrow. It often combined a selling idea with a litany of “executional mandatories” like font and colors and ad style. Good campaigns these days are a
lot more freeform.
Digital surely has helped drive the need for this sort of executional freedom. We are barraged with more and more messages everyday; if you want to reinforce an idea, you need to constantly surprise and delight consumers with the ways that you deliver that message. Can’t do that when all the ads look and sound the same.
Digital agencies tend to suck at delivering real campaign ideas. Yes, there are exceptions. But in general. I think there are three reasons for this:
• Most digital people grew up in digital, where campaign ideas were at best secondary considerations.
• Lots of digital people don’t know what campaigns are.
• We ache for constant change in everything. There’s always another shiny object we want to serve up.
As a result, we don’t make brand progress. We’re great at selling stuff. But the reason why so many big brands continue to “short” digital media relative to its share of total consumer media time is that our “campaigns” aren’t campaigns.
Campaign ideas have always been the bread and butter of traditional agencies. But as they help their brands do more in interactive, many struggle with injecting enough executional freedom under the idea. Not all, but many. Everything comes out lockstep. I think there are three reasons for this:
• It’s the way it has been done for ages. And with plenty of success.
• Traditional agencies tend to prefer tightly defined ideas because you make more money on them.Creative development costs a great deal more than making “pool outs” of the same bloody thing.
• Some traditional agencies approach advertising with the view that their way is the best way and therefore no deviation from their approach is appropriate.
The challenge there is that the nature of branding has changed. Consumers now give as much as they get in terms of brand definition. And to the extent that some traditional agencies are closed to consumer participation, they are doing a disservice to the very brands they are purporting to protect.
So which kind of agency is going to change the way it thinks first? One requires a change in reasoning. The other a change in feeling.
The second most misused word in our industry, after strategy, has to be campaign. When I started in the biz, it meant the planned and coordinated totality of a selling idea and an executional approach for a brand. Campaigns rarely lasted less than a year. Some lasted 20 years or more.
Things are sure different now. It can be rather challenging to work in a segment of the business where one banner ad executed in four sizes is considered a campaign. Or where all of the messages and media of a finite period, regardless of their look, feel, or message, are called a campaign.
Google says those 25 results you punch into AdSense are a campaign. Heck, I’ve heard one ad on the front page of Yahoo for one day called a campaign.
That loose usage of the term “campaign” contributes to the creativity ghetto that is digital marketing. Too often, we spend millions delivering messages devoid of creative ideas. That may be what selling can be about, but not marketing.
We’re here to create value by imbuing brands with enduring meaning. That’s an impossible challenge for a handful of SEM results or one banner “concept” executed in four different sizes. And don’t even get me started on what digital people think a concept is.
Campaigns begin with a central idea. Just Do It. The Ultimate Driving Machine. Keep Walking. Not Save 20% today. Or Download a White Paper. Offers are critical, but to actually do marketing you have to begin with a thought that helps consumers file away pleasing brand information.
The definition of “campaign” used to be quite narrow. It often combined a selling idea with a litany of “executional mandatories” like font and colors and ad style. Good campaigns these days are a
lot more freeform.
Digital surely has helped drive the need for this sort of executional freedom. We are barraged with more and more messages everyday; if you want to reinforce an idea, you need to constantly surprise and delight consumers with the ways that you deliver that message. Can’t do that when all the ads look and sound the same.
Digital agencies tend to suck at delivering real campaign ideas. Yes, there are exceptions. But in general. I think there are three reasons for this:
• Most digital people grew up in digital, where campaign ideas were at best secondary considerations.
• Lots of digital people don’t know what campaigns are.
• We ache for constant change in everything. There’s always another shiny object we want to serve up.
As a result, we don’t make brand progress. We’re great at selling stuff. But the reason why so many big brands continue to “short” digital media relative to its share of total consumer media time is that our “campaigns” aren’t campaigns.
Campaign ideas have always been the bread and butter of traditional agencies. But as they help their brands do more in interactive, many struggle with injecting enough executional freedom under the idea. Not all, but many. Everything comes out lockstep. I think there are three reasons for this:
• It’s the way it has been done for ages. And with plenty of success.
• Traditional agencies tend to prefer tightly defined ideas because you make more money on them.Creative development costs a great deal more than making “pool outs” of the same bloody thing.
• Some traditional agencies approach advertising with the view that their way is the best way and therefore no deviation from their approach is appropriate.
The challenge there is that the nature of branding has changed. Consumers now give as much as they get in terms of brand definition. And to the extent that some traditional agencies are closed to consumer participation, they are doing a disservice to the very brands they are purporting to protect.
So which kind of agency is going to change the way it thinks first? One requires a change in reasoning. The other a change in feeling.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Final Solution Fail: I WIll Survive!
For the first few seconds I was horrified. By the end I loved the spirit of this. And besides, who am I to judge the actions of an Auschwitz survivor?
Thursday, July 8, 2010
When Did Manners Die?
It seems like there are a lot of stories out these days -- about clients dumping agencies without warning, and agencies dumping clients for bigger clients without warning. It indicates to me that any notions of professional manners, respect, etc. have been willingly jettisoned from the ad biz. Oh, make all the jokes you want about ethics in our business. But when I started in this business 24 years ago, things like this didn't happen. Or if they did, people were shocked that anyone could do such a thing. Have we lost any shred of the concept of respectful relationships in this business? And does anyone else give a spit?
Friday, July 2, 2010
The Mind and The Heart
First published on iMediaConnection.com
Working at the intersection of marketing and technology makes for a dynamic and exciting time most every day. But one of the unfortunate consequences of living in a technical age is that most people in the industry try to fact their brands into leadership and differentiation. Facts are great, and can be (but are not always) necessary for long term differentiation. But where are the digital brands? And by brands I mean the offerings that make you feel as much as they make you think.
The thought came to me as I was developing a presentation about social networks and how the business has changed over the years. And as I made my slides, I got to thinking that perhaps part of the reason why so many once mega colossal digital properties have died quick deaths is that they have focused all their efforts on communicating attributes. Now, I don’t dispute that attributes can and should help govern who wins and who bites it. But surely there is a place for both reason and feeling.
Why did Friendster fall from grace so quickly? Well, the rational answer was that it took like 20 minutes to load a page. But perhaps there was more. Perhaps part of it was because Friendster never touched us emotionally. MySpace brought so many of us into the world of social media, but many people shifted away just as soon as there were other options. Again, there were rational reasons. Like trying to load a page and being greeted with glitter and a slow loading song and garish graphics and and and. But again, I suspect there was an emotional void where the brand essence was supposed to be. And hey, they still have more than 200 million users, so they may yet return as a dominant player. It’ll take some product changes. But I believe it’ll take kindling some brand love as well.
The premise works far beyond social networks. Why is it that Yahoo has endured where Excite and Lycos and Netscape and all the rest declined precipitously? Of course there were rational reasons, notleast their email dominance. But Yahoo also gave and gives you something to like. You aren’t a user, you’re a Yahoo. Your kid isn’t a user, she is a Yahooligan. I believe that kind of personality and emotional connection is a key to why Yahoo is the 900(0) pound gorilla while other sites ebb.
Sample size of one, I LOVE Yahoo. I stick with them in part because I feel a part of a movement or a club with Yahoo. I once wrote a love letter to Yahoo and meant every word. I make no money from them. They are not a client. I am not an investor. But I friggin’ love that brand. My suspicion is that the younger set may not have that same feeling for the brand. Perhaps it’s time for some emotional marketing again. But in the meantime, I stick with them even when other sites develop whizbang new features. I have faith that Yahoo will get around to those same innovations quickly, and in the meantime, I can still think of myself as a Yahoo.
My brilliant coworker Nirali has a deep bond with Google. Like any good analyst, she explains her love in rational terms. By I see the twinkle in her eye when she talks about the big G and I know it’s also about what the brand stands for – consumer first, respect, accuracy, and a geeky sense of humor. Like the day they swapped out their logo with the word Topeka to celebrate their alliance with that city. That was pure class, and hits you in the heart instead of the mind.
What other brands have that kind of emotional side? Not many. Twitter flirts with it, with their funny little bird and their dedication to honesty and user empowerment. And that emotional side may have helped them weather the 9 million service outages that plagued their meteoric growth.
Apple has it.
Bing has some emotional oomph too. Emotional branding is a particular struggle for a software company. I think that the Bing people need to ask themselves, “In 12 months, what should people feel when they use Bing?” Are they rebels fighting Google hegemony? Are they the bold new upstart spirit of a new MSFT? Does using Bing make them feel brilliant? Cool? Confident? Inspired?"
That kind of emotional bond builds loyalty, and helps brands weather stormlike periods when new companies and arch competitors come up with things first. It also helps hold the eyeballs when they make a mistake. Because we forgive the errors of the ones we love. But when rational machines screw up, we scrap them and buy something new.
So I ask you, what does your brand make people feel? Ten years from now, will you have users writing your brand love letters?
Working at the intersection of marketing and technology makes for a dynamic and exciting time most every day. But one of the unfortunate consequences of living in a technical age is that most people in the industry try to fact their brands into leadership and differentiation. Facts are great, and can be (but are not always) necessary for long term differentiation. But where are the digital brands? And by brands I mean the offerings that make you feel as much as they make you think.
The thought came to me as I was developing a presentation about social networks and how the business has changed over the years. And as I made my slides, I got to thinking that perhaps part of the reason why so many once mega colossal digital properties have died quick deaths is that they have focused all their efforts on communicating attributes. Now, I don’t dispute that attributes can and should help govern who wins and who bites it. But surely there is a place for both reason and feeling.
Why did Friendster fall from grace so quickly? Well, the rational answer was that it took like 20 minutes to load a page. But perhaps there was more. Perhaps part of it was because Friendster never touched us emotionally. MySpace brought so many of us into the world of social media, but many people shifted away just as soon as there were other options. Again, there were rational reasons. Like trying to load a page and being greeted with glitter and a slow loading song and garish graphics and and and. But again, I suspect there was an emotional void where the brand essence was supposed to be. And hey, they still have more than 200 million users, so they may yet return as a dominant player. It’ll take some product changes. But I believe it’ll take kindling some brand love as well.
The premise works far beyond social networks. Why is it that Yahoo has endured where Excite and Lycos and Netscape and all the rest declined precipitously? Of course there were rational reasons, notleast their email dominance. But Yahoo also gave and gives you something to like. You aren’t a user, you’re a Yahoo. Your kid isn’t a user, she is a Yahooligan. I believe that kind of personality and emotional connection is a key to why Yahoo is the 900(0) pound gorilla while other sites ebb.
Sample size of one, I LOVE Yahoo. I stick with them in part because I feel a part of a movement or a club with Yahoo. I once wrote a love letter to Yahoo and meant every word. I make no money from them. They are not a client. I am not an investor. But I friggin’ love that brand. My suspicion is that the younger set may not have that same feeling for the brand. Perhaps it’s time for some emotional marketing again. But in the meantime, I stick with them even when other sites develop whizbang new features. I have faith that Yahoo will get around to those same innovations quickly, and in the meantime, I can still think of myself as a Yahoo.
My brilliant coworker Nirali has a deep bond with Google. Like any good analyst, she explains her love in rational terms. By I see the twinkle in her eye when she talks about the big G and I know it’s also about what the brand stands for – consumer first, respect, accuracy, and a geeky sense of humor. Like the day they swapped out their logo with the word Topeka to celebrate their alliance with that city. That was pure class, and hits you in the heart instead of the mind.
What other brands have that kind of emotional side? Not many. Twitter flirts with it, with their funny little bird and their dedication to honesty and user empowerment. And that emotional side may have helped them weather the 9 million service outages that plagued their meteoric growth.
Apple has it.
Bing has some emotional oomph too. Emotional branding is a particular struggle for a software company. I think that the Bing people need to ask themselves, “In 12 months, what should people feel when they use Bing?” Are they rebels fighting Google hegemony? Are they the bold new upstart spirit of a new MSFT? Does using Bing make them feel brilliant? Cool? Confident? Inspired?"
That kind of emotional bond builds loyalty, and helps brands weather stormlike periods when new companies and arch competitors come up with things first. It also helps hold the eyeballs when they make a mistake. Because we forgive the errors of the ones we love. But when rational machines screw up, we scrap them and buy something new.
So I ask you, what does your brand make people feel? Ten years from now, will you have users writing your brand love letters?
Friday, June 25, 2010
14 of the stupidest things ever said in sales meetings
VentureBeat was kind enough to publish this first.
-------
Saying the wrong thing can totally screw up a pitch. And sometimes even the best salesman find something utterly moronic coming out of his or her mouth. Trust me, I’ve heard plenty.
I asked a wide number of buyers and sellers about the stupidest things they’ve heard in meetings. Here are the top 14 (I’ve deleted the names to protect the guilty). Heard something as stupid – or worse? Sound off in the comments below.
1. From a Seller: “We flew to a client, and the head of the department came to the lobby to tell us that our key contact died during the night. And my boss said, ‘Well, who’s her replacement? We flew up here and expect to present to someone.”
2. From a Seller: “I fell asleep. While the client was talking. They had to poke me to rouse me.”
3. From a Buyer: “I was working for Dr. Pepper. A vendor catered lunch at headquarters. With Coke products.”
4. From a Seller: “A seller said, ‘What’s your title? We usually present to someone higher up than you.”
5. From a Buyer: “I always make a point to say hello when vendors visited my team. One day, I did my drive by hello, and when I left the room the rep said, “Your boss is smokin’. Is she single?”
6. From a Buyer: “Spelling my name wrong on slide one. It’s Smith.”
7. From a Buyer: “We had a salesman that visited monthly and told me stories of his drunken escapades. After six months, I told him I’m Mormon and didn’t care for it. So he apologized, and then joked ‘So, how many wives you got?’”
8. From a Seller: “How many times do people have to see it in sitcoms before they stop saying ‘when is your baby due?’ to an obese woman.”
9. From a Buyer: “Our consumers are predominantly Latino – as am I and some of my team. A couple years ago an ingredient supplier came in and referred to all Hispanics as Mexicans, and called our language Mexican. Throughout the meeting, we looked at each other thinking, ‘Did he really say that? There! He did it again!’ We still joke about it. And we don’t work with them anymore.”
10. From a Seller: “Our rep resigned while presenting. Just stopped and said, ‘I don’t really think I want to be in this business.’ Picked up her bag, and left.”
11. From a Buyer: The salesperson hadn’t even handed me the proposal and said he’d give 25 percent less than the quote because they had a rough quarter. Like, ‘here are the fish in the barrel, and here is your shotgun.’”
12. From a Buyer: “The all male ad agency team telling my female marketing team that they understood tampons better than us.”
13. From a Buyer: “People have certain stereotypes of Southerners. Once a rep said, ‘When I hear your accent, I start deducting IQ points.’”
Hopefully you got a chuckle from those. But I’ve saved the best for last. Not because it’s funny, but rather because of how often it happens:
From Everyone: “The rep comes, does their pitch, and doesn’t have next steps. We all file out with no progress and no deal.”
-------
Saying the wrong thing can totally screw up a pitch. And sometimes even the best salesman find something utterly moronic coming out of his or her mouth. Trust me, I’ve heard plenty.
I asked a wide number of buyers and sellers about the stupidest things they’ve heard in meetings. Here are the top 14 (I’ve deleted the names to protect the guilty). Heard something as stupid – or worse? Sound off in the comments below.
1. From a Seller: “We flew to a client, and the head of the department came to the lobby to tell us that our key contact died during the night. And my boss said, ‘Well, who’s her replacement? We flew up here and expect to present to someone.”
2. From a Seller: “I fell asleep. While the client was talking. They had to poke me to rouse me.”
3. From a Buyer: “I was working for Dr. Pepper. A vendor catered lunch at headquarters. With Coke products.”
4. From a Seller: “A seller said, ‘What’s your title? We usually present to someone higher up than you.”
5. From a Buyer: “I always make a point to say hello when vendors visited my team. One day, I did my drive by hello, and when I left the room the rep said, “Your boss is smokin’. Is she single?”
6. From a Buyer: “Spelling my name wrong on slide one. It’s Smith.”
7. From a Buyer: “We had a salesman that visited monthly and told me stories of his drunken escapades. After six months, I told him I’m Mormon and didn’t care for it. So he apologized, and then joked ‘So, how many wives you got?’”
8. From a Seller: “How many times do people have to see it in sitcoms before they stop saying ‘when is your baby due?’ to an obese woman.”
9. From a Buyer: “Our consumers are predominantly Latino – as am I and some of my team. A couple years ago an ingredient supplier came in and referred to all Hispanics as Mexicans, and called our language Mexican. Throughout the meeting, we looked at each other thinking, ‘Did he really say that? There! He did it again!’ We still joke about it. And we don’t work with them anymore.”
10. From a Seller: “Our rep resigned while presenting. Just stopped and said, ‘I don’t really think I want to be in this business.’ Picked up her bag, and left.”
11. From a Buyer: The salesperson hadn’t even handed me the proposal and said he’d give 25 percent less than the quote because they had a rough quarter. Like, ‘here are the fish in the barrel, and here is your shotgun.’”
12. From a Buyer: “The all male ad agency team telling my female marketing team that they understood tampons better than us.”
13. From a Buyer: “People have certain stereotypes of Southerners. Once a rep said, ‘When I hear your accent, I start deducting IQ points.’”
Hopefully you got a chuckle from those. But I’ve saved the best for last. Not because it’s funny, but rather because of how often it happens:
From Everyone: “The rep comes, does their pitch, and doesn’t have next steps. We all file out with no progress and no deal.”
What's NEW in Social
Much love for iMedia Connection for printin' this puppy first.
-------
If you said "social media" to a marketer 18 months ago, chances are they'd have thought exclusively of social networks. No more. We're seeing social capabilities incorporated into virtually every digital experience. This has brought opportunities and dilemmas for marketers. I say dilemmas because lots of brands got online by pounding to fit a broadcast-shaped peg into an interactive-shaped hole. They developed one-way websites, banners, and search programs. Social media analytics tools are showing us that this model had many flaws.
But as more and more brands embrace social for the two-way offering it is, it's important that we keep abreast of major news in the segment.
This post is designed to give marketers some highlights of what new initiatives, offerings, and companies appear to have traction. It's not for the social "expert." Rather it's geared to the generalist who wants a survey of some of the more important and interesting developments.
Without further ado, check out this summary of social developments divided into four "buckets":
Facebook Open Graph and the socializing of content sites
Facebook's new Open Graph (OG) initiative is a means of adding value for its members across the web while simultaneously enabling content publishers to offer social features. In OG's launch week, more than 50,000 sites incorporated OG components. Many of those implementations were small, such as adding a "like" button embedded in content. But here are some of the ways it's being used on a grander scale:
Pandora is leveraging Open Graph to facilitate the sharing of music and discoveries between friends. Capabilities include:
•See a list of friends who use Pandora
•See which artists and songs are "liked" by friends
•Import Facebook pic into your Pandora profile
•Listen to friends' stations
•Get music suggestions based upon music you "liked"
The Huffington Post has socialized its content by offering a "Hot on Facebook" module, a "what your friends are reading" module, and a "like" button on most stories.
Newspaper sites are incorporating a sort of "your news" box that lists the latest "news" you have received on Facebook. Yes, Facebook's hit some roadblocks and hurdles over privacy. Assuming it gets past those, Open Graph will make profound changes in how we consume content.
Promoted Tweets debut
The big news on Twitter is Promoted Tweets. These are sponsored tweets that appear in the Twitter Search results.
Twitter announced Sponsored Tweets and its charter sponsor list (Best Buy, Bravo, Red Bull, Sony Pictures, Starbucks, and Virgin America) in April. More recently, Twitter altered its terms of service to ban the Twitter platforms and third parties from embedding sponsored tweets into users' tweet streams. Twitter shared this rationale:
First, third party ad networks are not necessarily looking to preserve the unique user experience Twitter has created. They may optimize for either market share or short-term revenue at the expense of the long-term health of the Twitter platform. For example, a third party ad network may seek to maximize ad impressions and click through rates even if it leads to a net decrease in Twitter use due to user dissatisfaction. Secondly, the basis for building a lasting advertising network that benefits users should be innovation, not near-term monetization.
UnFacebooks and user control
Partly as a response to concerns about Facebook's privacy missteps, a number of alternative social networks are attracting attention. From tech blogs to Elle.com, the UnFacebooks are a popular story. Of course Orkut, MySpace, and Friendster are also trying to capitalize on Facebook's stumbles. But here are some new sites getting play:
Diaspora: Billing itself as "an open source personal web service that will put individuals in control of their data," Diaspora is the brainchild of four NYU students and has raised more than 20 times its initial funding goal. The idea behind Diaspora is essentially opt-in, versus the major social sites' opt-out approach. It is working feverishly to get everything going this summer.
Pip.io lets users define different "rooms" of people that they want to share information with. Users can also define if they want one- or two-way communications with their rooms.
A self-described "social operating system," Pip.io is clearly trying to be more than a social net. When you visit, make sure you are using Firefox or Chrome, not MSIE.
Story of My Life is a new platform enabling members to tell stories in a variety of media and make them private or public. I love the idea of letting more people tell the stories of their lives. And not just in words.
Does it sound like a blog platform to you? Yes, but the community features make it more than that. And it's really more about defined stories than a stream of consciousness.
Social search
The biggest proportion of online dollars goes to search, so let's take a look at some of the "new" social search offerings:
Mahalo bills itself as a human-powered search engine that combines machine results with expert and consumer recommendations. From its beginnings as a search-focused entity, it has now added a lively Mahalo Answers section and Mahalo How To, where experts help users accomplish tasks.
Wowd (disclosure: a Catalyst:SF client) helps users understand what content is popular now and what content users like best. Users download the application, and conduct searches that reveal:
•The most popular pages related to the search query
•The freshest content available on a topic, whether just created or just viewed by other Wowd users
•Real-time content from most sites, not just a select few
•Pages that other users have rated as most valuable
Wowd is for people who are interested in the latest information on a topic -- in the things that are happening now and the content that has just been created or updated.
By combining a sophisticated search algorithm with consumer behavior and ratings, it provides a unique perspective.
Delver is a social shopping community that helps people find the best products and make the best buying choices with the help of friends, family, and the community at large. The idea behind this offering is to create a community around shopping and help people learn from each other about interesting products and the best places to buy them.
The bigness of this concept is that the site is out to make online shopping fun, rather than a utilitarian experience.
The portals (and Meebo)
The social strategies of the major portals are very different from one another. At one end of the spectrum, Yahoo is leveraging social content from its own sources as well as third parties like Facebook. Apparently, Yahoo has concluded that trying to create a new social media entity won't work. Instead it blends the information available from existing platforms to enrich Yahoo channels.
On the other end of the spectrum, Google is still trying to create a homegrown social platform to help it become a leader in providing social content. One of the more interesting integrations is its flavor of social search. By linking your Google profile to social platforms, you get search results that include comments and content from connections.
Google Buzz is a social sharing service integrated into Gmail that lets you share statuses, text, photos, and videos easily. Public and private sharing are offered.
Google Wave is a collaboration platform that creates a shared space for teams. Participants can add text, photos, and videos in real time. The vision for Wave is to replace a variety of other applications with a single environment.
Microsoft's strategy sits between these two poles, though it's closer to Yahoo's. Bing is leveraging existing third-party communities to socialize search results. Now tweets, blog posts, and shared links are incorporated in results.
But Bing is also striving to create unique social-centered experiences. One example is how it integrated social into Bing Shopping. According to its blog, "With a single click you can ask for advice from your friends on Facebook and followers on Twitter for their take on a product you saw on Bing Shopping."
Meebo's strategy is to focus on its strength in instantaneous sharing to carve out social territory. Its new "Meebo Bar" offers publishers an easy way to socialize content and promote virality. This ad-supported bar appears when a Meebo user visits a bar-enabled site. Users can send pages and content via IM of course, but also through email, Facebook, Twitter, Google Buzz, and Yahoo.
Conclusion
Sharing content and opinions is something consumers seem to want in many of their web experiences, not just on specific social sites. How some of these companies and platforms will work with marketers, or indeed if they will work with marketers, remains to be seen. But consumers show a marked unwillingness to pay for content, so my guess is that many of these companies will be a-knockin' on our doors before long. That doesn't mean that they will work with us using the classic advertising model, though.
I would be remiss not to mention blogs as the "sleeper" of social. It seems that these high-quality, high-passion, high-depth environments often get overlooked by marketers. While social nets and Twitter can offer us enormous reach, so can blogs, many of which offer the added benefit of expert perspective and depth of content. They may not be the shiniest of the social objects, but in my view brands would do well to spend more time and attention on them.
An article like this omits other good companies and developments. If you are working on something that is more real than vapor and want me to talk about it as a follow-up, send me an email. If I like it, I will be happy to follow up with a brief piece about you.
-------
If you said "social media" to a marketer 18 months ago, chances are they'd have thought exclusively of social networks. No more. We're seeing social capabilities incorporated into virtually every digital experience. This has brought opportunities and dilemmas for marketers. I say dilemmas because lots of brands got online by pounding to fit a broadcast-shaped peg into an interactive-shaped hole. They developed one-way websites, banners, and search programs. Social media analytics tools are showing us that this model had many flaws.
But as more and more brands embrace social for the two-way offering it is, it's important that we keep abreast of major news in the segment.
This post is designed to give marketers some highlights of what new initiatives, offerings, and companies appear to have traction. It's not for the social "expert." Rather it's geared to the generalist who wants a survey of some of the more important and interesting developments.
Without further ado, check out this summary of social developments divided into four "buckets":
Facebook Open Graph and the socializing of content sites
Facebook's new Open Graph (OG) initiative is a means of adding value for its members across the web while simultaneously enabling content publishers to offer social features. In OG's launch week, more than 50,000 sites incorporated OG components. Many of those implementations were small, such as adding a "like" button embedded in content. But here are some of the ways it's being used on a grander scale:
Pandora is leveraging Open Graph to facilitate the sharing of music and discoveries between friends. Capabilities include:
•See a list of friends who use Pandora
•See which artists and songs are "liked" by friends
•Import Facebook pic into your Pandora profile
•Listen to friends' stations
•Get music suggestions based upon music you "liked"
The Huffington Post has socialized its content by offering a "Hot on Facebook" module, a "what your friends are reading" module, and a "like" button on most stories.
Newspaper sites are incorporating a sort of "your news" box that lists the latest "news" you have received on Facebook. Yes, Facebook's hit some roadblocks and hurdles over privacy. Assuming it gets past those, Open Graph will make profound changes in how we consume content.
Promoted Tweets debut
The big news on Twitter is Promoted Tweets. These are sponsored tweets that appear in the Twitter Search results.
Twitter announced Sponsored Tweets and its charter sponsor list (Best Buy, Bravo, Red Bull, Sony Pictures, Starbucks, and Virgin America) in April. More recently, Twitter altered its terms of service to ban the Twitter platforms and third parties from embedding sponsored tweets into users' tweet streams. Twitter shared this rationale:
First, third party ad networks are not necessarily looking to preserve the unique user experience Twitter has created. They may optimize for either market share or short-term revenue at the expense of the long-term health of the Twitter platform. For example, a third party ad network may seek to maximize ad impressions and click through rates even if it leads to a net decrease in Twitter use due to user dissatisfaction. Secondly, the basis for building a lasting advertising network that benefits users should be innovation, not near-term monetization.
UnFacebooks and user control
Partly as a response to concerns about Facebook's privacy missteps, a number of alternative social networks are attracting attention. From tech blogs to Elle.com, the UnFacebooks are a popular story. Of course Orkut, MySpace, and Friendster are also trying to capitalize on Facebook's stumbles. But here are some new sites getting play:
Diaspora: Billing itself as "an open source personal web service that will put individuals in control of their data," Diaspora is the brainchild of four NYU students and has raised more than 20 times its initial funding goal. The idea behind Diaspora is essentially opt-in, versus the major social sites' opt-out approach. It is working feverishly to get everything going this summer.
Pip.io lets users define different "rooms" of people that they want to share information with. Users can also define if they want one- or two-way communications with their rooms.
A self-described "social operating system," Pip.io is clearly trying to be more than a social net. When you visit, make sure you are using Firefox or Chrome, not MSIE.
Story of My Life is a new platform enabling members to tell stories in a variety of media and make them private or public. I love the idea of letting more people tell the stories of their lives. And not just in words.
Does it sound like a blog platform to you? Yes, but the community features make it more than that. And it's really more about defined stories than a stream of consciousness.
Social search
The biggest proportion of online dollars goes to search, so let's take a look at some of the "new" social search offerings:
Mahalo bills itself as a human-powered search engine that combines machine results with expert and consumer recommendations. From its beginnings as a search-focused entity, it has now added a lively Mahalo Answers section and Mahalo How To, where experts help users accomplish tasks.
Wowd (disclosure: a Catalyst:SF client) helps users understand what content is popular now and what content users like best. Users download the application, and conduct searches that reveal:
•The most popular pages related to the search query
•The freshest content available on a topic, whether just created or just viewed by other Wowd users
•Real-time content from most sites, not just a select few
•Pages that other users have rated as most valuable
Wowd is for people who are interested in the latest information on a topic -- in the things that are happening now and the content that has just been created or updated.
By combining a sophisticated search algorithm with consumer behavior and ratings, it provides a unique perspective.
Delver is a social shopping community that helps people find the best products and make the best buying choices with the help of friends, family, and the community at large. The idea behind this offering is to create a community around shopping and help people learn from each other about interesting products and the best places to buy them.
The bigness of this concept is that the site is out to make online shopping fun, rather than a utilitarian experience.
The portals (and Meebo)
The social strategies of the major portals are very different from one another. At one end of the spectrum, Yahoo is leveraging social content from its own sources as well as third parties like Facebook. Apparently, Yahoo has concluded that trying to create a new social media entity won't work. Instead it blends the information available from existing platforms to enrich Yahoo channels.
On the other end of the spectrum, Google is still trying to create a homegrown social platform to help it become a leader in providing social content. One of the more interesting integrations is its flavor of social search. By linking your Google profile to social platforms, you get search results that include comments and content from connections.
Google Buzz is a social sharing service integrated into Gmail that lets you share statuses, text, photos, and videos easily. Public and private sharing are offered.
Google Wave is a collaboration platform that creates a shared space for teams. Participants can add text, photos, and videos in real time. The vision for Wave is to replace a variety of other applications with a single environment.
Microsoft's strategy sits between these two poles, though it's closer to Yahoo's. Bing is leveraging existing third-party communities to socialize search results. Now tweets, blog posts, and shared links are incorporated in results.
But Bing is also striving to create unique social-centered experiences. One example is how it integrated social into Bing Shopping. According to its blog, "With a single click you can ask for advice from your friends on Facebook and followers on Twitter for their take on a product you saw on Bing Shopping."
Meebo's strategy is to focus on its strength in instantaneous sharing to carve out social territory. Its new "Meebo Bar" offers publishers an easy way to socialize content and promote virality. This ad-supported bar appears when a Meebo user visits a bar-enabled site. Users can send pages and content via IM of course, but also through email, Facebook, Twitter, Google Buzz, and Yahoo.
Conclusion
Sharing content and opinions is something consumers seem to want in many of their web experiences, not just on specific social sites. How some of these companies and platforms will work with marketers, or indeed if they will work with marketers, remains to be seen. But consumers show a marked unwillingness to pay for content, so my guess is that many of these companies will be a-knockin' on our doors before long. That doesn't mean that they will work with us using the classic advertising model, though.
I would be remiss not to mention blogs as the "sleeper" of social. It seems that these high-quality, high-passion, high-depth environments often get overlooked by marketers. While social nets and Twitter can offer us enormous reach, so can blogs, many of which offer the added benefit of expert perspective and depth of content. They may not be the shiniest of the social objects, but in my view brands would do well to spend more time and attention on them.
An article like this omits other good companies and developments. If you are working on something that is more real than vapor and want me to talk about it as a follow-up, send me an email. If I like it, I will be happy to follow up with a brief piece about you.
Getting Past The No-s
The fine people at VentureBeat were kind enough to publish this first.
Buyers are generally not too keen on changing what they are doing. While a few are geared toward innovative solutions, most veer toward the tried and true. (Actually, most have an inclination to stick with exactly what they have now.) For entrepreneurs, one of the biggest challenges is shaking the complacency out of their prospects.
Whether they realize it or not, prospects tend to ask a few loaded questions to eliminate a new offering from consideration. Answer ‘em wrong and you’ll give the prospect a reason to say no immediately. Here are four of the most common, and some thoughts on ways around them.
How much? This is every buyer’s favorite. If you simply state a typical price directly, they can say “that’s more than I have” regardless of the amount. If you refuse to give a price, they assume its high and shut down. Instead, try stating your price in the context of competitor pricing – or in terms of how many months it takes to pay back.
Why would I want to switch from brand X? The “I’m happy with brand X” excuse is a bit tough to navigate. The best salespeople are really good at asking about least favorite aspects of brand X, and touting their superiority on those dimensions. “Well, brand X is a good product. Have you had any challenges or pain points with it?”
This gives you an invaluable look into how you might be able to provide a better solution. Recognizing the quality of competitor items can underscore your honesty and industry understanding. Now, they may say “No problems.” But a good follow is: ”Really? Some other companies have told me…” If you get another no, it’s probably best to move on.
Have you worked my competitors? Many companies are followers, preferring to deal with service providers that already understand their categories. If you have worked with competitors, name drop. If not, it’s tougher.
The best answer anyone has ever given me was “We don’t pretend to understand your industry as well as you do. But our team is set up to leverage your knowledge and desires into the service.” Notice how that answer says no in a flattering/collaborative way – which speaks well to how they would be to work with.
In any circumstance, do not lie. Most industries are too small a world to get away with it.
How long does it take to get running? Whether it’s software or a metal stamper, there’s usually some run-in time before a product or service is delivering full value. For complex systems or equipment, it often works to give two times, a time-to-first-use and a time-to-100 percent.
This reduces the psychological window and makes it harder to reject an option out of hand. It’s best to be sunny in your estimates (you hopefully are anyway,) but not so optimistic that 99 percent of users will be disappointed.
I should add a disclaimer that I’m no selling genius. These thoughts come from someone on the buying side. But as great sellers know, most of us actually want to be sold something better. We say no out of busyness or fear of the unknown.
But there are few among us who don’t have a need for better partners. To become one, you need to get us past our inertia and into imagining what things could be like.
Buyers are generally not too keen on changing what they are doing. While a few are geared toward innovative solutions, most veer toward the tried and true. (Actually, most have an inclination to stick with exactly what they have now.) For entrepreneurs, one of the biggest challenges is shaking the complacency out of their prospects.
Whether they realize it or not, prospects tend to ask a few loaded questions to eliminate a new offering from consideration. Answer ‘em wrong and you’ll give the prospect a reason to say no immediately. Here are four of the most common, and some thoughts on ways around them.
How much? This is every buyer’s favorite. If you simply state a typical price directly, they can say “that’s more than I have” regardless of the amount. If you refuse to give a price, they assume its high and shut down. Instead, try stating your price in the context of competitor pricing – or in terms of how many months it takes to pay back.
Why would I want to switch from brand X? The “I’m happy with brand X” excuse is a bit tough to navigate. The best salespeople are really good at asking about least favorite aspects of brand X, and touting their superiority on those dimensions. “Well, brand X is a good product. Have you had any challenges or pain points with it?”
This gives you an invaluable look into how you might be able to provide a better solution. Recognizing the quality of competitor items can underscore your honesty and industry understanding. Now, they may say “No problems.” But a good follow is: ”Really? Some other companies have told me…” If you get another no, it’s probably best to move on.
Have you worked my competitors? Many companies are followers, preferring to deal with service providers that already understand their categories. If you have worked with competitors, name drop. If not, it’s tougher.
The best answer anyone has ever given me was “We don’t pretend to understand your industry as well as you do. But our team is set up to leverage your knowledge and desires into the service.” Notice how that answer says no in a flattering/collaborative way – which speaks well to how they would be to work with.
In any circumstance, do not lie. Most industries are too small a world to get away with it.
How long does it take to get running? Whether it’s software or a metal stamper, there’s usually some run-in time before a product or service is delivering full value. For complex systems or equipment, it often works to give two times, a time-to-first-use and a time-to-100 percent.
This reduces the psychological window and makes it harder to reject an option out of hand. It’s best to be sunny in your estimates (you hopefully are anyway,) but not so optimistic that 99 percent of users will be disappointed.
I should add a disclaimer that I’m no selling genius. These thoughts come from someone on the buying side. But as great sellers know, most of us actually want to be sold something better. We say no out of busyness or fear of the unknown.
But there are few among us who don’t have a need for better partners. To become one, you need to get us past our inertia and into imagining what things could be like.
H1 2010 - Half Year in Review!
Special thanks to my BFFs at iMedia Connection for publishing this there first!
----------
What a difference a year makes. Twelve months ago was a wholly different kettle of fish for most of us -- a kettle that had been left out to fester in the sun. But the optimism is back, baby! We saw it in the packed conference and expo aisles at ad:tech San Francisco in April, and in the double-digit growth figures for ad revenue in the first quarter of the year. I think this pic sums up the spirit well:
The can-do mood has returned. Memories of 2009 have been thrown into the ash heap of history. The digibiz again smells as sweet as gardenias in springtime.
But let's leave odor to the side for a bit. There's been more to the first half of 2010 than just better business results. Here are some of the most important happenings this year:
Jobs well done
Not since Moses and the 10 Commandments have a man and a tablet so captured world attention.
Being a dyed-in-the-wool "PC," I confess I didn't expect the iPad to make an impact this quick. I figured iPad 2 or iPad 3 would be "the one." But then I went to the April Ad Age Digital Conference. When I saw the audience bathed in the eerie blue glow of dozens of iPad screens during the less-scintillating sessions, it was clear that Apple had redefined human existence again.
It's been said that the magazine and newspaper industries have the most to gain from iPad success. Whether or not it restores the luster to paginated content, I'm sure the bazillion Amazon Kindle print ads are providing a nice shot in the arm.
Alas, I am a PC. Before I can suckle at the device convergence teat, I will have to wait until a less attractive, crash-prone, heavier tablet is launched. But the little x to close a window will be on the right instead of the left, and that's the main thing.
You are watching the DSP network
DSPs are certainly making an impact this year. People say it's about getting a better price, but I am certain it's more about value. Too many networks offer me-too technology, take too long to respond to requests, and aren't bringing ideas to their clients. Those that focus on being partners instead of talking about being partners are doing just fine. I can't imagine many people are sad to see a little consolidation; I mean, do we really need 11 iPhone app ad networks?
The shakeout might help some players wake up to the fact that that virtually all of them say exactly the same things:
•Reach of 100-and-fill-in-the-blank million
•18,972 high-quality sites (plus access to 380,000,000 more high-quality sites through the exchanges)
•Full transparency asterisk
In short, I think DSPs are going to force the good networks to be better, and the weak ones to toughen up or disappear.
The year of mobile
Is it just me, or is it starting to feel like this is the year? Real brands are spending real money and getting real reach. Yay! And that's only part of the good news: We've also witnessed the arrival of a workaround to Apple's App Approval Church Lady.
It's Zip, the revolutionary advance in personal software that lets you unzip your iPhone's virtual apparel. With Zip, the user uploads the reveal photo -- sort of a "just add Satan" solution.
On a slightly more serious note, have you noticed that Apple has become exactly what it purported to shatter in 1984? The brand:
•Controls all the outlets
•Holds a virtual monopoly on music devices
•Defines what is and isn't acceptable to buy
•Requires that everything be purchased through it
Will Apple soon declare iWar on Oceania in a glorious alliance with Eastasia? Oh, I make fun of the brand, but it is miles ahead of the competition when it comes to making cool stuff.
The best news for all of us is that after only -- what was it? 100 years? -- other companies are finally making smartphones that almost rival Apple's iPhone. Android phone sales are taking off, which is good news whether or not you worship at the Apple altar. A horse race will make all the devices better over time.
I guess I'd buy it, if I had a coupon
Ah, the focus group attendee's favorite adage. And boy oh Boyardee do Chris and Carol Consumer have lots of opportunities to get coupons these days.
Online distribution has exploded. Coupons.com, the big papa of the printable coupon business, distributed more than $1 billion in savings in 2009. Holy Toledo! It's now a top 50 web property, and it's enough to make everyone really excited about savings.
Of course, it's not just PC-delivered coupons that are rockin'. Mobile couponing trends are skyrocketing as well -- with place-based mobile platforms poised to remake brick and mortar retailing.
Privacy, please
Everyone's least-favorite topic has definitely come to the fore in the past several months.
The good news is that a group of trade associations that resembles alphabet soup (AAAA, IAB, BBB, DMA, ANA) has put forth a self-regulatory solution that appears to be right on.
The Power i is a notification system that lets consumers click an icon, read about the data collection, and choose whether or not to continue receiving BT messages. It's time for real choices and real information sharing with consumers.
But not all is as sweet as fresh-cut hay in Privacyland. Consumer ire with Facebook, Google, and others is on the rise.
My introduction to the export of Facebook data to outside publishers came on The Huffington Post, when I suddenly started seeing my friends' photos along with reports that they had read certain stories on the site.
It was momentarily intriguing. But then I got to thinking, "if I can see their reading choices, then they can see mine."
Gentle reader, I take no issue with folks knowing I've read a thoughtful analysis of immigration policy. But my penchant for the HuffPost's photo collections of celebrity cellulite, unintentionally pornographic toys, and botched Botox? That's another matter entirely.
I don't know whom to be angrier with, Mark Zuckerberg or Arianna Huffington. How dare they! Butt on to less weighty matters.
Good Lord, we as an industry have to be less ham-fisted about changes to privacy policies. Must every revision be followed by two weeks of apologies? And must every revision effectively jettison the entire concept of having a private life?
Out-of-home gets some love
Ah, digital out-of-home. I am often accused of giving short shrift to DOOH when I write on these pages. These accusations come in angry emails sent through iMedia's People Connection. Let's turn those OOH industry frowns upside down, shall we? And at the same time, take the opportunity to point out the rather impressive growth trends in the sector. A great white paper from the fine people at Adcentricity offers the following stats and projections for digital OOH:
A huge portion of this segment is in captive venues, making programs in the channel powerful inducements to purchase. In the first half of 2010, more and more retailers realized the revenue potential from allowing such media outlets in their stores.
There, OOH people. I expect all those who have ever attacked me to send me a lovely thank you note. And make sure you keep doing what you're doing, because you seem to be making all the right moves.
No one on the corner got badges like us
Onward to social gaming. From Foursquare to FarmVille to Mafia Wars, the social gaming sphere has become one hot commodity.
Add buying virtual goods with real money, and you get a tremendously successful business. Great game design and virtual goods are turning into a tasty recipe for consumer obsession. Just look at this fawning rap video dedicated to Foursquare:
Best of all, there are virtual games to suit virtually any taste and interest. The research firm Inside Network is projecting more than $800 million in sales of virtual goods this year.
Smarter, savvier, better
So there it is, dear reader -- a rundown of the first half of the year. Predictably deep, profoundly satisfying, gardenia scented.
This is a time of optimism, new devices, new technologies, and lots of discounts. As varied and fascinating as, well, every other six-month period in this magnificently crazy industry.
Each year I am struck by the intelligence and ingenuity of the people who populate digital marketing. They (you) are why I really do treasure working in this business. In all seriousness, I don't think a more clever and creative and entertaining bunch of people has ever been assembled. Well, maybe in Renaissance Florence. But other than that, you are a really wonderful group of friends, coworkers, and competitors, and for each of you I feel truly grateful.
And it is this ragtag fugitive fleet of individuals who has made 2010 such a dynamic, exciting, occasionally hilarious epoch. Now take my advice and go found a Foursquare-based ad network. Might I suggest the name BenderBillionz? Just imagine the PowerPoint template: "Mayorz by the millionz, profitz by the billionz."
----------
What a difference a year makes. Twelve months ago was a wholly different kettle of fish for most of us -- a kettle that had been left out to fester in the sun. But the optimism is back, baby! We saw it in the packed conference and expo aisles at ad:tech San Francisco in April, and in the double-digit growth figures for ad revenue in the first quarter of the year. I think this pic sums up the spirit well:
The can-do mood has returned. Memories of 2009 have been thrown into the ash heap of history. The digibiz again smells as sweet as gardenias in springtime.
But let's leave odor to the side for a bit. There's been more to the first half of 2010 than just better business results. Here are some of the most important happenings this year:
Jobs well done
Not since Moses and the 10 Commandments have a man and a tablet so captured world attention.
Being a dyed-in-the-wool "PC," I confess I didn't expect the iPad to make an impact this quick. I figured iPad 2 or iPad 3 would be "the one." But then I went to the April Ad Age Digital Conference. When I saw the audience bathed in the eerie blue glow of dozens of iPad screens during the less-scintillating sessions, it was clear that Apple had redefined human existence again.
It's been said that the magazine and newspaper industries have the most to gain from iPad success. Whether or not it restores the luster to paginated content, I'm sure the bazillion Amazon Kindle print ads are providing a nice shot in the arm.
Alas, I am a PC. Before I can suckle at the device convergence teat, I will have to wait until a less attractive, crash-prone, heavier tablet is launched. But the little x to close a window will be on the right instead of the left, and that's the main thing.
You are watching the DSP network
DSPs are certainly making an impact this year. People say it's about getting a better price, but I am certain it's more about value. Too many networks offer me-too technology, take too long to respond to requests, and aren't bringing ideas to their clients. Those that focus on being partners instead of talking about being partners are doing just fine. I can't imagine many people are sad to see a little consolidation; I mean, do we really need 11 iPhone app ad networks?
The shakeout might help some players wake up to the fact that that virtually all of them say exactly the same things:
•Reach of 100-and-fill-in-the-blank million
•18,972 high-quality sites (plus access to 380,000,000 more high-quality sites through the exchanges)
•Full transparency asterisk
In short, I think DSPs are going to force the good networks to be better, and the weak ones to toughen up or disappear.
The year of mobile
Is it just me, or is it starting to feel like this is the year? Real brands are spending real money and getting real reach. Yay! And that's only part of the good news: We've also witnessed the arrival of a workaround to Apple's App Approval Church Lady.
It's Zip, the revolutionary advance in personal software that lets you unzip your iPhone's virtual apparel. With Zip, the user uploads the reveal photo -- sort of a "just add Satan" solution.
On a slightly more serious note, have you noticed that Apple has become exactly what it purported to shatter in 1984? The brand:
•Controls all the outlets
•Holds a virtual monopoly on music devices
•Defines what is and isn't acceptable to buy
•Requires that everything be purchased through it
Will Apple soon declare iWar on Oceania in a glorious alliance with Eastasia? Oh, I make fun of the brand, but it is miles ahead of the competition when it comes to making cool stuff.
The best news for all of us is that after only -- what was it? 100 years? -- other companies are finally making smartphones that almost rival Apple's iPhone. Android phone sales are taking off, which is good news whether or not you worship at the Apple altar. A horse race will make all the devices better over time.
I guess I'd buy it, if I had a coupon
Ah, the focus group attendee's favorite adage. And boy oh Boyardee do Chris and Carol Consumer have lots of opportunities to get coupons these days.
Online distribution has exploded. Coupons.com, the big papa of the printable coupon business, distributed more than $1 billion in savings in 2009. Holy Toledo! It's now a top 50 web property, and it's enough to make everyone really excited about savings.
Of course, it's not just PC-delivered coupons that are rockin'. Mobile couponing trends are skyrocketing as well -- with place-based mobile platforms poised to remake brick and mortar retailing.
Privacy, please
Everyone's least-favorite topic has definitely come to the fore in the past several months.
The good news is that a group of trade associations that resembles alphabet soup (AAAA, IAB, BBB, DMA, ANA) has put forth a self-regulatory solution that appears to be right on.
The Power i is a notification system that lets consumers click an icon, read about the data collection, and choose whether or not to continue receiving BT messages. It's time for real choices and real information sharing with consumers.
But not all is as sweet as fresh-cut hay in Privacyland. Consumer ire with Facebook, Google, and others is on the rise.
My introduction to the export of Facebook data to outside publishers came on The Huffington Post, when I suddenly started seeing my friends' photos along with reports that they had read certain stories on the site.
It was momentarily intriguing. But then I got to thinking, "if I can see their reading choices, then they can see mine."
Gentle reader, I take no issue with folks knowing I've read a thoughtful analysis of immigration policy. But my penchant for the HuffPost's photo collections of celebrity cellulite, unintentionally pornographic toys, and botched Botox? That's another matter entirely.
I don't know whom to be angrier with, Mark Zuckerberg or Arianna Huffington. How dare they! Butt on to less weighty matters.
Good Lord, we as an industry have to be less ham-fisted about changes to privacy policies. Must every revision be followed by two weeks of apologies? And must every revision effectively jettison the entire concept of having a private life?
Out-of-home gets some love
Ah, digital out-of-home. I am often accused of giving short shrift to DOOH when I write on these pages. These accusations come in angry emails sent through iMedia's People Connection. Let's turn those OOH industry frowns upside down, shall we? And at the same time, take the opportunity to point out the rather impressive growth trends in the sector. A great white paper from the fine people at Adcentricity offers the following stats and projections for digital OOH:
A huge portion of this segment is in captive venues, making programs in the channel powerful inducements to purchase. In the first half of 2010, more and more retailers realized the revenue potential from allowing such media outlets in their stores.
There, OOH people. I expect all those who have ever attacked me to send me a lovely thank you note. And make sure you keep doing what you're doing, because you seem to be making all the right moves.
No one on the corner got badges like us
Onward to social gaming. From Foursquare to FarmVille to Mafia Wars, the social gaming sphere has become one hot commodity.
Add buying virtual goods with real money, and you get a tremendously successful business. Great game design and virtual goods are turning into a tasty recipe for consumer obsession. Just look at this fawning rap video dedicated to Foursquare:
Best of all, there are virtual games to suit virtually any taste and interest. The research firm Inside Network is projecting more than $800 million in sales of virtual goods this year.
Smarter, savvier, better
So there it is, dear reader -- a rundown of the first half of the year. Predictably deep, profoundly satisfying, gardenia scented.
This is a time of optimism, new devices, new technologies, and lots of discounts. As varied and fascinating as, well, every other six-month period in this magnificently crazy industry.
Each year I am struck by the intelligence and ingenuity of the people who populate digital marketing. They (you) are why I really do treasure working in this business. In all seriousness, I don't think a more clever and creative and entertaining bunch of people has ever been assembled. Well, maybe in Renaissance Florence. But other than that, you are a really wonderful group of friends, coworkers, and competitors, and for each of you I feel truly grateful.
And it is this ragtag fugitive fleet of individuals who has made 2010 such a dynamic, exciting, occasionally hilarious epoch. Now take my advice and go found a Foursquare-based ad network. Might I suggest the name BenderBillionz? Just imagine the PowerPoint template: "Mayorz by the millionz, profitz by the billionz."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)