Thanks to iMediaConnection For Publishing this First!
I have a pet peeve about the term social media. Social is a marketing style, not a medium. The real value of social is helping people talk about things that matter to them, not informing me that my friend Paul is eating bacon right now.
The power of social becomes evident on sites like consumerist, where shoppers’ problems get solved by both exposure and people power.
It becomes evident on HuffPost when a blog post about an issue creates fiery debate. Debate that extends beyond the pages of HuffPost into communities like FaceBook, into Meebo, and wherever else the message can spread.
It becomes clear when people share their POV on what MP3 player to buy, whether to buy an iPad or wait for the Android, and whether to rush out and see that new Jen Aniston movie. Those discussion can occur on brand pages, or in forums on CNET. Or in both. Or in neither. It occurs where it occurs organically.
In my view, the real winners of social are going to be content sites that use social as a way of driving stickiness, community and passion. THESE are the places where important conversations are most likely to take place. And that’s a good thing because content sites will be able to monetize their socialized environments better.
Every time we say social media, I think we enable a misperception that there is a special class of places and sites for social marketing. When the reality is that we need to think about empowering social everywhere, but especially in places that re most likely to attract passionate thought leaders. And THAT means content sites.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Eight Marketing Blunders to Avoid
History lessons
While the world economy has been bouncing back of late, we are all more than aware that the recovery is fragile -- and so are many of digital's companies, small and large. Thus, it's more important than ever for us to be smarter and learn from our own mistakes, as well as the mistakes of those around us.
The beauty of digital is that there have been so many initiatives in this fragmented arena that history's lessons come fast and furious. And yet, it's human nature to assume that our individual situations are somehow unique. We are, of course, wrong.
I say "we" because I have made such mistakes many times over the years, dashing down the seductive path of feeling my challenges are unique, only to realize some months or years later that, nope, my situation was not at all special -- and that I am at square one just like those who came before me.
There's an adage that says the essence of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. Here's my take on eight things we all need to avoid doing again.
1. Trying to Outcool Apple
Can't be done. There are ways to compete with Apple. But "outcooling" isn't one of them.
2. Shiny Object Syndrome
Oh, where to begin on this one? Remember when every brand and its mother were launching widgets?
Remember when most brands sites were trying to be destinations? When chatrooms were popping up on toilet paper sites? None were bad ideas per se; the problem was that we ran into these shiny spaces willy nilly, without a reason or a strategy.
Are brands still doing this? Sure. But fewer. Let's keep that trend going.
3. Fostering consumer control without guidance
Usually it's not what people want. I once worked at a startup that boasted that its database was so big, consumers could search for something and get 1,200 options in results. Wouldn't they looooove that?
Of course, people don't want 1,200 options. They want the best outcome for them. Most of the time, they want three options or so to choose from, with a big blinking arrow over one of the choices that says, "Best value!"
OK, that was comment bait. But I assure you I don't think consumers are stupid. They are smart. Smart enough to realize that three choices are about all most decisions are worth when you have to decide and run and buy the Dragon Tattoo book for book club and pick up your daughter from Scouts. All in 30 minutes. Most things just don't matter more than three choices' worth. And the human mind can only process so many choices anyway. Heck, ask a realtor about the advisability of showing someone 30houses.
There's more to this point, though. Consumers want control of outcomes, not process. Witness MySpace. MySpace gave people total control of their pages. Here's the result:
And here:
What people wanted were profiles that allowed them to express themselves. Without guidance, they got profiles no one wanted to visit out of fear of visual and audio assault.
The new MySpace profiles address this issue rather well. We'll see if it reverses the slide.
4. Trying to make up for it in volume
Lots of yummy morsels here. Let's start with Kozmo.com, the company that would deliver virtually anything to your house for nothing. What's wrong with this picture?
Or Webvan, the company that -- oh, I'll let Wikipedia tell you:
While Webvan was popular, the money spent on infrastructure far exceeded sales growth, and the company eventually ran out of money. For example: Webvan placed a $1 billion (USD) order with engineering company Bechtel to build its warehouses, bought a fleet of delivery trucks, purchased 30 Sun Microsystems Enterprise 4500 servers, dozens of Compaq ProLiant computers and several Cisco Systems model 7513 and 7507 routers, as well as more than 80 21-inch ViewSonic color monitors, and at least 115 Herman Miller Aeron chairs (at over $800 each).
You've got to sell a lot of Cookie Crisp to make up for those costs.
Or, my personal favorite, Pets.com, which thought it would be good business to ship 40 pound sacks of dog chow by UPS and beat retail prices. During one period, according to Wikipedia, they spent $12.8MM in advertising and sold $600K in pet supplies. And the pet supplies went out the door at 1/3 of the price they went in for.
But on the other hand, consider Amazon. Now the world's largest bookseller, I have the personal satisfaction to tell you that during 2000, I don't think I ever paid more than a nickel for a hardback. I became expert at getting $25 off $25-plus purchases and ringing up totals of $25.05 with shipping.
Now, Amazon survived this largesse -- God knows how -- and in the end I became addicted to receiving daily deliveries of boxes with smiles on them. Since that time, I've spent more than $20,000 with Amazon over the years -- so perhaps that strategy wasn't so dumb after all. Though I'd never say giving me "Nothing Like It in the World" for a nickel was a smart thing. But it was a mistake the company survived, to flourish in the end.
5. Marketing on attributes versus benefits
Much hardware and software promotion focuses on data points indicating attributes that are expected to serve as sufficient inducement to purchase. There are certainly segments of the audience that already understand the benefit of something and find the data valuable as a way of distinguishing between items.
But history shows over and over that benefits and brands can trump attributes in most B2C businesses, including hardware. Which of these two players do you think will make your music sound better?
Player A:
Player B:
In fairness, some of the sharpest big companies in the Valley have figured out how to make attributes into benefits.
It can be effective, but it often costs a ton of money to do it.
6. Thinking "better" is always better
In digital, lots of time and energy gets spent building that better mousetrap. Which is excellent. But by what person's definition is "better" defined? In our industry in 2010, trash bins are full of the stationery of defunct startups that focused on things that people didn't actually care about.
Henry Ford once said, "If I had asked consumers what they wanted, they would have told me a faster horse." So it's important to innovate in areas that aren't necessarily things people are clamoring for. But at the same time, having a rich understanding of the target's problems and tastes is also important.
7. Confusing your needs with target needs
Recently a publisher tried to sell me a heavily male-skewing site as a great place to connect with women. Now, I get it that technology makes it possible for a site to predict gender reasonably well, but do you honestly expect me to say, "Hmm. I could message on sites that attract 90 percent women and have relevant context. Or! I could choose a venue with 15 percent comp that has nothing to do with my category. Hmm. What to choose? What to choose?"
8. Ignoring privacy concerns
Two years ago, two companies called NebuAd and Phorm launched services in conjunction with ISPs that tracked every activity of customers for the purpose of gathering data for ad targeting.
In the U.K., Phorm was partnered with three ISPs -- BT, Virgin, and TalkTalk -- which make up a large portion of total U.K. connectivity. As part of the process, the company quietly worked with BT to test its platform on thousands of consumers who were not informed of the test. Consumer anger and regulatory ire ensued, and all three ISPs have dropped out of the plan. The company has shifted to a consumer content personalization strategy (eventually including ads) and an opt-in versus opt-out model. According to The Register, it has lost more than $100 million, with little possible revenue for the foreseeable future.
Today, consumer groups and the FTC are voicing concerns about cookie-based targeting, especially behavioral targeting. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz has demanded industry action. While our industry has made efforts in the past to address privacy concerns with regard to ad targeting, these measures have been widely viewed as inadequate. Now a cross-industry coalition has proposed a self-regulation program centered on the "Power i," an icon that will appear on ads. Clicking on the icon will offer consumers information about the companies collecting and using data to target, along with choices in how they participate (or don't.)
Our industry would do well to embrace this program and raise its level of vigilance regarding privacy and ad targeting.
Conclusion
People far wiser than me say that if you don't make mistakes in digital, you aren't doing your job right -- because there are no certainties in a medium that changes hourly. And because part of the magic of digital is that innovation requires tons of trial and tons of error.
I once heard a speaker say we should rejoice in our mistakes. I am too much of a boomer to rejoice in anything other than hard work that leads to incremental success. But I do believe that failure should not be a source of shame. The decision to rejoice in errors is entirely yours. But we can all agree that it makes sense to concentrate on making new mistakes rather than repeating old ones.
But should Amazon ever want to repeat its $25 off $25-plus purchases couponing...
While the world economy has been bouncing back of late, we are all more than aware that the recovery is fragile -- and so are many of digital's companies, small and large. Thus, it's more important than ever for us to be smarter and learn from our own mistakes, as well as the mistakes of those around us.
The beauty of digital is that there have been so many initiatives in this fragmented arena that history's lessons come fast and furious. And yet, it's human nature to assume that our individual situations are somehow unique. We are, of course, wrong.
I say "we" because I have made such mistakes many times over the years, dashing down the seductive path of feeling my challenges are unique, only to realize some months or years later that, nope, my situation was not at all special -- and that I am at square one just like those who came before me.
There's an adage that says the essence of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. Here's my take on eight things we all need to avoid doing again.
1. Trying to Outcool Apple
Can't be done. There are ways to compete with Apple. But "outcooling" isn't one of them.
2. Shiny Object Syndrome
Oh, where to begin on this one? Remember when every brand and its mother were launching widgets?
Remember when most brands sites were trying to be destinations? When chatrooms were popping up on toilet paper sites? None were bad ideas per se; the problem was that we ran into these shiny spaces willy nilly, without a reason or a strategy.
Are brands still doing this? Sure. But fewer. Let's keep that trend going.
3. Fostering consumer control without guidance
Usually it's not what people want. I once worked at a startup that boasted that its database was so big, consumers could search for something and get 1,200 options in results. Wouldn't they looooove that?
Of course, people don't want 1,200 options. They want the best outcome for them. Most of the time, they want three options or so to choose from, with a big blinking arrow over one of the choices that says, "Best value!"
OK, that was comment bait. But I assure you I don't think consumers are stupid. They are smart. Smart enough to realize that three choices are about all most decisions are worth when you have to decide and run and buy the Dragon Tattoo book for book club and pick up your daughter from Scouts. All in 30 minutes. Most things just don't matter more than three choices' worth. And the human mind can only process so many choices anyway. Heck, ask a realtor about the advisability of showing someone 30houses.
There's more to this point, though. Consumers want control of outcomes, not process. Witness MySpace. MySpace gave people total control of their pages. Here's the result:
And here:
What people wanted were profiles that allowed them to express themselves. Without guidance, they got profiles no one wanted to visit out of fear of visual and audio assault.
The new MySpace profiles address this issue rather well. We'll see if it reverses the slide.
4. Trying to make up for it in volume
Lots of yummy morsels here. Let's start with Kozmo.com, the company that would deliver virtually anything to your house for nothing. What's wrong with this picture?
Or Webvan, the company that -- oh, I'll let Wikipedia tell you:
While Webvan was popular, the money spent on infrastructure far exceeded sales growth, and the company eventually ran out of money. For example: Webvan placed a $1 billion (USD) order with engineering company Bechtel to build its warehouses, bought a fleet of delivery trucks, purchased 30 Sun Microsystems Enterprise 4500 servers, dozens of Compaq ProLiant computers and several Cisco Systems model 7513 and 7507 routers, as well as more than 80 21-inch ViewSonic color monitors, and at least 115 Herman Miller Aeron chairs (at over $800 each).
You've got to sell a lot of Cookie Crisp to make up for those costs.
Or, my personal favorite, Pets.com, which thought it would be good business to ship 40 pound sacks of dog chow by UPS and beat retail prices. During one period, according to Wikipedia, they spent $12.8MM in advertising and sold $600K in pet supplies. And the pet supplies went out the door at 1/3 of the price they went in for.
But on the other hand, consider Amazon. Now the world's largest bookseller, I have the personal satisfaction to tell you that during 2000, I don't think I ever paid more than a nickel for a hardback. I became expert at getting $25 off $25-plus purchases and ringing up totals of $25.05 with shipping.
Now, Amazon survived this largesse -- God knows how -- and in the end I became addicted to receiving daily deliveries of boxes with smiles on them. Since that time, I've spent more than $20,000 with Amazon over the years -- so perhaps that strategy wasn't so dumb after all. Though I'd never say giving me "Nothing Like It in the World" for a nickel was a smart thing. But it was a mistake the company survived, to flourish in the end.
5. Marketing on attributes versus benefits
Much hardware and software promotion focuses on data points indicating attributes that are expected to serve as sufficient inducement to purchase. There are certainly segments of the audience that already understand the benefit of something and find the data valuable as a way of distinguishing between items.
But history shows over and over that benefits and brands can trump attributes in most B2C businesses, including hardware. Which of these two players do you think will make your music sound better?
Player A:
Player B:
In fairness, some of the sharpest big companies in the Valley have figured out how to make attributes into benefits.
It can be effective, but it often costs a ton of money to do it.
6. Thinking "better" is always better
In digital, lots of time and energy gets spent building that better mousetrap. Which is excellent. But by what person's definition is "better" defined? In our industry in 2010, trash bins are full of the stationery of defunct startups that focused on things that people didn't actually care about.
Henry Ford once said, "If I had asked consumers what they wanted, they would have told me a faster horse." So it's important to innovate in areas that aren't necessarily things people are clamoring for. But at the same time, having a rich understanding of the target's problems and tastes is also important.
7. Confusing your needs with target needs
Recently a publisher tried to sell me a heavily male-skewing site as a great place to connect with women. Now, I get it that technology makes it possible for a site to predict gender reasonably well, but do you honestly expect me to say, "Hmm. I could message on sites that attract 90 percent women and have relevant context. Or! I could choose a venue with 15 percent comp that has nothing to do with my category. Hmm. What to choose? What to choose?"
8. Ignoring privacy concerns
Two years ago, two companies called NebuAd and Phorm launched services in conjunction with ISPs that tracked every activity of customers for the purpose of gathering data for ad targeting.
In the U.K., Phorm was partnered with three ISPs -- BT, Virgin, and TalkTalk -- which make up a large portion of total U.K. connectivity. As part of the process, the company quietly worked with BT to test its platform on thousands of consumers who were not informed of the test. Consumer anger and regulatory ire ensued, and all three ISPs have dropped out of the plan. The company has shifted to a consumer content personalization strategy (eventually including ads) and an opt-in versus opt-out model. According to The Register, it has lost more than $100 million, with little possible revenue for the foreseeable future.
Today, consumer groups and the FTC are voicing concerns about cookie-based targeting, especially behavioral targeting. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz has demanded industry action. While our industry has made efforts in the past to address privacy concerns with regard to ad targeting, these measures have been widely viewed as inadequate. Now a cross-industry coalition has proposed a self-regulation program centered on the "Power i," an icon that will appear on ads. Clicking on the icon will offer consumers information about the companies collecting and using data to target, along with choices in how they participate (or don't.)
Our industry would do well to embrace this program and raise its level of vigilance regarding privacy and ad targeting.
Conclusion
People far wiser than me say that if you don't make mistakes in digital, you aren't doing your job right -- because there are no certainties in a medium that changes hourly. And because part of the magic of digital is that innovation requires tons of trial and tons of error.
I once heard a speaker say we should rejoice in our mistakes. I am too much of a boomer to rejoice in anything other than hard work that leads to incremental success. But I do believe that failure should not be a source of shame. The decision to rejoice in errors is entirely yours. But we can all agree that it makes sense to concentrate on making new mistakes rather than repeating old ones.
But should Amazon ever want to repeat its $25 off $25-plus purchases couponing...
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Social Media: The Next Generation
xxxooo to iMedia for running this piece 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 article 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. A word from the founders:
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 through PeopleConnection. If I like it, I will be happy to follow up with a brief piece about you in the blog section of this site.
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 article 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. A word from the founders:
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 through PeopleConnection. If I like it, I will be happy to follow up with a brief piece about you in the blog section of this site.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Baby U Wanna Go Private?
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?
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)