Sharing Secrets with Friends
"Sharing secrets with friends" appears in the latest issue of Social Media Marketing magazine. Check it out at http://www.smmmagazine.com/
One thing friends just love to do: share secrets. But what if you've got a million friends? All the better. For many consumer marketers, sharing secret behind-the-scenes videos, short films on the making of commercials, and exclusive interviews with celebrity spokesmen has become a great way to engage customers in the social media space.
Hollywood has been doing this for years, since long before the advent of social media. Celebrity interviews and behind-the-scenes videos are de rigeur in the pre-release marketing of any film. Check out the YouTube video on the making of Avatar to see a great example. Film producers understand that engaging moviegoers with the actors and filmmakers creates a more personal relationship that ultimately helps to generate buzz and ticket sales.
Some retailers have borrowed a page from Hollywood's book. For example, for its holiday television shoot, Victoria's Secret spawned no fewer than three separate, behind-the-scenes videos, plus a digital greeting card with the lingeried beauties expressing their holiday wishes exclusively to Facebook fans. The Victoria's Secret strategy is clearly working: their Facebook page has amassed two-and-a-half million fans.
It's a bit of a surprise, actually, that more television advertisers are not sharing behind-the-scenes videos from the making of their commercials. What many are doing, ineffectively, is inviting consumers to "preview our new commercial." Not particularly exclusive or viral-worthy, unless it's a banned commercial—like the PETA spots banished from last year's Super Bowl or its more recent Thanksgiving effort—or one that's just plain steamy, like the Kim Kardashian spot for Carl's Jr.
Even if the finished commercial is too self serving to have genuine viral potential, outtakes versions often do. Consider the huge success of E*TRADE's hilarious outtakes video of their well-known "Babies" spot: more than five million views, with a five-star rating. And Sears generated several hundred thousand views of its Brett Favre spot outtakes pitching big-screen TVs.
While movies and TV commercials provide an easy transition to behind-the-scenes videos, some marketers have had to think more creatively. Book publisher Simon & Schuster invites readers to get "the story behind the story" on BookVideos.tv, housed on YouTube. Authors talk about their lives, their inspirations, and the challenges they faced in writing their books, an opportunity previously available only to the precious few who landed a talk show appearance.
Hallmark, another consumer retailer playing almost exclusively in the world of print, had a unique idea in the development of its 100th anniversary blog, designed to give consumers a peek under the tent at corporate headquarters. However, instead of posting interesting features about how cards are developed, facts about card giving, the most popular cards ever (and the like), the site disappoints with videos of talking-head executives and photos of the anniversary cake. One entry, "High-Tech Hallmark," comes the closest to having real consumer appeal, but it leaves viewers wanting more.
Which brings us to the Golden Rule for marketers who wish to share behind-the-scenes secrets in social media: share material that consumers find interesting. As simplistic as that sounds, a sizeable number of consumer marketers seem to think that we're intrigued to know that they are running out for a latte or are keen on viewing the CEO's speech. Avoid the mundane; the best secrets are juicy ones.
And a final thought. Sharing behind-the-scenes material can be highly effective, but be sure to give fans and followers an opportunity to comment, question, and respond. Remember that there is a social part of the social media equation.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Have you tried our soup today?
"Have you tried our soup today?" appears in the inaugural issue of Social Media Marketing magazine. Check it out at http://www.smmmagazine.com/
The scene: two strangers sitting on a park bench. One turns to the other and tentatively says, “Hello…” The other spins around, grabs the first by the shoulders and bellows, “HI, THERE! HAVE YOU TRIED OUR NEW SOUP TODAY?!?”
A little off-putting, to say the least.
Yet this is the scene played by far too many consumer marketers as they seek to establish themselves in social media today. The traditional marketing playbook – seek (or build) a sizeable audience of potential customers, then pummel them with “sell” messages until they buy – doesn’t work here. In fact, it can be downright damaging to the brand.
While consumer marketing in social media is no longer in its infancy, it’s not much beyond toddlerhood. A number of marketers, however, have grown up quickly and learned to execute well…in a variety of ways, but always consistent with the brand personality. Newcomers, as well as established players, would do well to learn from them.
These marketers probably didn’t start with the questions, “Who will we have tweet for us?” or “Should we manage our fan page internally, or outsource it?” For them, the real question was, “”What’s the appropriate voice for our brand?” While much has been written about the hugely-successful efforts of several marketers, like Whole Foods, Jet Blue, Best Buy and Starbucks, what they share in their approaches, each unique, is a relentless adherence to the voice of their brands.
Take a closer look at just one of them, Whole Foods. What comes to your mind when you think of the brand? It might be a passion for good food, a fresh-market of specialty purveyors, experts in all that is organic and natural, an accessible boutique of gourmet items. If those characteristics capture the essence of the brand, we certainly wouldn’t expect messages like, “One week only! Two-for-one frozen peas!” What we’d expect -- and get -- from Whole Foods, is expert advice, like insights on cheeses from Whole Foods Fromagerie on Facebook or from Cathy Strange, @WFMCheese on Twitter. Like a visit to your local farmers market, through Whole Foods’ social media channels, you can establish a relationship with the cheese monger, the vintner, the butcher.
Which is not to say that price-point messages don’t work in social media. Old Navy, for example, does an excellent job of sharing “exclusive” offers with their fans and followers, like their Deal of the Week. But the Old Navy brand is about deals, right down to their warehouse-like store décor. Do we really want a relationship with Old Navy, or are we looking for a heads-up on jeans at half price? The “value” voice plays to the brand.
The recent Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas provided social media fodder to a plethora of players, many of whom did it very well. Let’s look at one…Sony Electronics. Sony clearly knows what its customers want: news about the latest-and-greatest technology, a firm grasp of what’s hot, a peek under the tent. Sony delivered access for its fans and followers, with a virtual booth tour before the show, a live stream of their press conference (featuring Taylor Swift) by way of a button on their Facebook page, an opportunity for camera buffs to ask questions of celebrity photographer Nigel Barker on Twitter. The Sony brand spoke with the voice of authority, experience and expertise.
Small businesses can establish a social media brand voice, as well. When “meet us on Facebook” popped up on the sign at my local dry cleaners, I visited their fan page, and found not just coupons (though those were welcomed), but also advice on how to treat holiday party stains, what types of clothing to store professionally, how to recycle hangers and laundry bags. With all of the dry-cleaning options I have, Best Cleaners has become the voice of the expert in my little world.
Recently, I came across a colorful analogy that social media has become something akin to trying to take a sip of water from a fire hose. While our social media journey in recent times has been largely focused on amassing friends, fans and followers, for most of us, the fire-hose stream of messaging has become downright overwhelming. As a result, 2010 is likely to become a year of constriction and selectivity, as consumers begin to pare their streams to those marketers who are most meaningful to them, and most consistent with the consumer vision of the brand. Those marketers who can’t update the old playbook will quickly learn the power of unfollow.
Establishing a social media brand voice, then, is more than just a way to begin in social media – it’s an imperative for survival there.
To make friends on a park bench, you need some social skills…and you need to use the right voice.
The scene: two strangers sitting on a park bench. One turns to the other and tentatively says, “Hello…” The other spins around, grabs the first by the shoulders and bellows, “HI, THERE! HAVE YOU TRIED OUR NEW SOUP TODAY?!?”
A little off-putting, to say the least.
Yet this is the scene played by far too many consumer marketers as they seek to establish themselves in social media today. The traditional marketing playbook – seek (or build) a sizeable audience of potential customers, then pummel them with “sell” messages until they buy – doesn’t work here. In fact, it can be downright damaging to the brand.
While consumer marketing in social media is no longer in its infancy, it’s not much beyond toddlerhood. A number of marketers, however, have grown up quickly and learned to execute well…in a variety of ways, but always consistent with the brand personality. Newcomers, as well as established players, would do well to learn from them.
These marketers probably didn’t start with the questions, “Who will we have tweet for us?” or “Should we manage our fan page internally, or outsource it?” For them, the real question was, “”What’s the appropriate voice for our brand?” While much has been written about the hugely-successful efforts of several marketers, like Whole Foods, Jet Blue, Best Buy and Starbucks, what they share in their approaches, each unique, is a relentless adherence to the voice of their brands.
Take a closer look at just one of them, Whole Foods. What comes to your mind when you think of the brand? It might be a passion for good food, a fresh-market of specialty purveyors, experts in all that is organic and natural, an accessible boutique of gourmet items. If those characteristics capture the essence of the brand, we certainly wouldn’t expect messages like, “One week only! Two-for-one frozen peas!” What we’d expect -- and get -- from Whole Foods, is expert advice, like insights on cheeses from Whole Foods Fromagerie on Facebook or from Cathy Strange, @WFMCheese on Twitter. Like a visit to your local farmers market, through Whole Foods’ social media channels, you can establish a relationship with the cheese monger, the vintner, the butcher.
Which is not to say that price-point messages don’t work in social media. Old Navy, for example, does an excellent job of sharing “exclusive” offers with their fans and followers, like their Deal of the Week. But the Old Navy brand is about deals, right down to their warehouse-like store décor. Do we really want a relationship with Old Navy, or are we looking for a heads-up on jeans at half price? The “value” voice plays to the brand.
The recent Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas provided social media fodder to a plethora of players, many of whom did it very well. Let’s look at one…Sony Electronics. Sony clearly knows what its customers want: news about the latest-and-greatest technology, a firm grasp of what’s hot, a peek under the tent. Sony delivered access for its fans and followers, with a virtual booth tour before the show, a live stream of their press conference (featuring Taylor Swift) by way of a button on their Facebook page, an opportunity for camera buffs to ask questions of celebrity photographer Nigel Barker on Twitter. The Sony brand spoke with the voice of authority, experience and expertise.
Small businesses can establish a social media brand voice, as well. When “meet us on Facebook” popped up on the sign at my local dry cleaners, I visited their fan page, and found not just coupons (though those were welcomed), but also advice on how to treat holiday party stains, what types of clothing to store professionally, how to recycle hangers and laundry bags. With all of the dry-cleaning options I have, Best Cleaners has become the voice of the expert in my little world.
Recently, I came across a colorful analogy that social media has become something akin to trying to take a sip of water from a fire hose. While our social media journey in recent times has been largely focused on amassing friends, fans and followers, for most of us, the fire-hose stream of messaging has become downright overwhelming. As a result, 2010 is likely to become a year of constriction and selectivity, as consumers begin to pare their streams to those marketers who are most meaningful to them, and most consistent with the consumer vision of the brand. Those marketers who can’t update the old playbook will quickly learn the power of unfollow.
Establishing a social media brand voice, then, is more than just a way to begin in social media – it’s an imperative for survival there.
To make friends on a park bench, you need some social skills…and you need to use the right voice.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
A marketer’s personal dilemma: targeting versus privacy
In the Mad Men-days of advertising, targeting usually meant little more than selecting a TV show (from among three networks) that the “ladies” were inclined to watch. My, how we’ve focused.
As a marketer today, armed with the necessary data, I can find you, my potential customer, with microscopic precision. I know where you live, how much the houses in your neighborhood cost. I know your age, your sex. I know the websites you visit, the products you buy. This makes my job ever so much more efficient, and my marketing dollars more effective.
If I weren’t a marketer, the chances are still good that I could ferret-out a great deal of information about you. I could probably ascertain not just your age demo, but your exact birth date. I could determine whether or not you are married, the names and ages of your children, your cell phone number, your email address, your street address, and where (and when) you are going on vacation.
How? You told me. You probably didn’t mean to, but there it is…right there on the Internet. And armed with what I know – as a marketer or not – I can invade your email, your mailbox, your Facebook, your home, your bank account, your privacy.
Two things happened this week that gave me pause…should give ALL of us pause.
The first is the much-anticipated draft of a Congressional bill that would provide privacy protection both on the Internet and offline. The draft made no one happy. Advertising industry groups issued ominous predictions about the certain death of direct marketing, and the inability for consumers to be served valuable, relevant messages. Privacy advocates argued that the bill did little more than tell consumers to read the digital fine-print.
The New York Times describes the legislation this way. “The proposed bill would greatly extend what information should be considered sensitive. It would require companies to post clear and understandable privacy notices when they collect information ranging from health or financial information all the way to Internet Protocol address (which many companies are using to target now as a way of getting around privacy concerns), name, any unique identifier including a customer identification number, race or ethnicity, precise location or any preference profile the customer has filled out.”
“Essentially, whenever any information can identify a single person — or a single computer or device — companies would need to alert consumers about that with a notice.”
According to the bill, once that information is provided, the user has the opportunity to opt-in or opt-out of allowing the data to be used or shared.
Industry groups argue that the process will interfere with the user experience, and that a free Internet depends on sophisticated targeting models. They suggest a better approach would be to follow their recently put forth self-governing principles. Hmmmm, to all of that.
The second thing that gave me pause this week was the release of a new Consumer Reports study that suggests a majority of people seem unconcerned with online privacy – or safety – as they post risky information on their social-network profiles. Fifty-two percent of American adults have posted personal information, like their full birth date (38 percent), photos of children (21 percent), their children’s names (13 percent), street address (8 percent) and mention details about being away from home (3 percent).
The study says that one in four households with a Facebook account have users who aren’t aware of, or don’t choose to use, Facebook’s built-in privacy controls.
Are we really unconcerned about online privacy, or are we simply unaware of how exposed we are? I suspect it’s the latter. As a professional marketer, I am keenly aware of how precisely I can find you – and people quite like you – in order to serve up my product messaging. As an Internet user, however, I resent being targeted, and find it to be enormously intrusive. I’m a “mature female” consumer, and thus I am barraged with wrinkle-cream advertising. It makes me mad.
Unlike many of my fellow Internet users – and the majority of the 300+ million Facebook users – I’m pretty careful about maintaining my privacy online, although I could probably be even more vigilant than I am. I look for, and share, articles that provide privacy tips, like 7 Things to Stop Doing on Facebook, and Mashable’s recently-released guide to disabling Facebook’s insipid "Instant Personalization" feature. I repost warnings from friends and colleagues about the newest privacy attacks, such as the creepy website spokeo.com. It bills itself as an online phone book, but offers photos of your house, your credit score, profession, age, income level, horoscope, how many people live in the house…most of it erroneous, but available nonetheless. Astoundingly, you must provide them with your email address in order to opt-out through their privacy program!
Our collective tolerance for such matters may be running out. In a recent SmartBrief poll regarding legislation that gives consumers more control over their personal information online, nearly 62% said it's about time Congress took action. According to SmartBrief blogger Jesse Stanchak, "It's not every day you get 60% of a group to advocate federal intervention in private industry."
Marketer or not, I’m going to support any legislation that takes steps towards allowing ME to decide what information about me is shared, and what information is private. The industry will get over it. Remember how the email industry was going to be obliterated with the introduction of the Unsubscribe button? We’ll live.
As a marketer today, armed with the necessary data, I can find you, my potential customer, with microscopic precision. I know where you live, how much the houses in your neighborhood cost. I know your age, your sex. I know the websites you visit, the products you buy. This makes my job ever so much more efficient, and my marketing dollars more effective.
If I weren’t a marketer, the chances are still good that I could ferret-out a great deal of information about you. I could probably ascertain not just your age demo, but your exact birth date. I could determine whether or not you are married, the names and ages of your children, your cell phone number, your email address, your street address, and where (and when) you are going on vacation.
How? You told me. You probably didn’t mean to, but there it is…right there on the Internet. And armed with what I know – as a marketer or not – I can invade your email, your mailbox, your Facebook, your home, your bank account, your privacy.
Two things happened this week that gave me pause…should give ALL of us pause.
The first is the much-anticipated draft of a Congressional bill that would provide privacy protection both on the Internet and offline. The draft made no one happy. Advertising industry groups issued ominous predictions about the certain death of direct marketing, and the inability for consumers to be served valuable, relevant messages. Privacy advocates argued that the bill did little more than tell consumers to read the digital fine-print.
The New York Times describes the legislation this way. “The proposed bill would greatly extend what information should be considered sensitive. It would require companies to post clear and understandable privacy notices when they collect information ranging from health or financial information all the way to Internet Protocol address (which many companies are using to target now as a way of getting around privacy concerns), name, any unique identifier including a customer identification number, race or ethnicity, precise location or any preference profile the customer has filled out.”
“Essentially, whenever any information can identify a single person — or a single computer or device — companies would need to alert consumers about that with a notice.”
According to the bill, once that information is provided, the user has the opportunity to opt-in or opt-out of allowing the data to be used or shared.
Industry groups argue that the process will interfere with the user experience, and that a free Internet depends on sophisticated targeting models. They suggest a better approach would be to follow their recently put forth self-governing principles. Hmmmm, to all of that.
The second thing that gave me pause this week was the release of a new Consumer Reports study that suggests a majority of people seem unconcerned with online privacy – or safety – as they post risky information on their social-network profiles. Fifty-two percent of American adults have posted personal information, like their full birth date (38 percent), photos of children (21 percent), their children’s names (13 percent), street address (8 percent) and mention details about being away from home (3 percent).
The study says that one in four households with a Facebook account have users who aren’t aware of, or don’t choose to use, Facebook’s built-in privacy controls.
Are we really unconcerned about online privacy, or are we simply unaware of how exposed we are? I suspect it’s the latter. As a professional marketer, I am keenly aware of how precisely I can find you – and people quite like you – in order to serve up my product messaging. As an Internet user, however, I resent being targeted, and find it to be enormously intrusive. I’m a “mature female” consumer, and thus I am barraged with wrinkle-cream advertising. It makes me mad.
Unlike many of my fellow Internet users – and the majority of the 300+ million Facebook users – I’m pretty careful about maintaining my privacy online, although I could probably be even more vigilant than I am. I look for, and share, articles that provide privacy tips, like 7 Things to Stop Doing on Facebook, and Mashable’s recently-released guide to disabling Facebook’s insipid "Instant Personalization" feature. I repost warnings from friends and colleagues about the newest privacy attacks, such as the creepy website spokeo.com. It bills itself as an online phone book, but offers photos of your house, your credit score, profession, age, income level, horoscope, how many people live in the house…most of it erroneous, but available nonetheless. Astoundingly, you must provide them with your email address in order to opt-out through their privacy program!
Our collective tolerance for such matters may be running out. In a recent SmartBrief poll regarding legislation that gives consumers more control over their personal information online, nearly 62% said it's about time Congress took action. According to SmartBrief blogger Jesse Stanchak, "It's not every day you get 60% of a group to advocate federal intervention in private industry."
Marketer or not, I’m going to support any legislation that takes steps towards allowing ME to decide what information about me is shared, and what information is private. The industry will get over it. Remember how the email industry was going to be obliterated with the introduction of the Unsubscribe button? We’ll live.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Super Bowl ad circus
.
The marketing mavens at GoDaddy.com had their work cut out for them. It’s getting harder and harder to achieve the real Super Bowl prize: having the network reject your ad.
But CBS handed them their touchdown this year, rejecting Lola. In a press release quickly posted on their website, GoDaddy CEO and Founder Bob Parsons said, “Of the five commercial concepts we submitted for approval this year, this never would’ve been my pick for the one that would not be approved. This is about a guy who starts an online business and hits the jackpot. I just don’t think ‘Lola’ is offensive, in fact we didn’t see this one coming –were absolutely blindsided!”
Here’s some insight: national marketers do not produce five commercials in the hopes that the network will approve one of them. They would only shoot five commercials hoping the network would REJECT one of them.
GoDaddy became the second Super Bowl ad declined this year, and the third to stir public debate.
ManCrunch, a dating site catering to gay men, was also rejected. Evidently, the CBS sales department additionally questioned the company’s ability to pay for the ad time, calling into question whether it was ever considered a viable option to air, or if the folks at ManCrunch were hoping for the wave of publicity that accompanies rejection, and the viral activity that follows. Rejection-pioneer PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) enjoyed a viral bonanza when their 2009 spot, Veggie Love, was given a pass by NBC. Other rejects from the class of 2009 included Airborn's entry, featuring a gratuitous shot of Mickey Rooney’s butt, and a particularly repugnant effort from AshleyMadison.com, a website aimed at promoting extramarital affairs.
This year, many observers were stunned when Focus on the Family, a conservative religious organization that opposes abortion – as well as homosexuality, gambling (including church bingo) and premarital sex – got a green light from CBS for their Super Bowl ad entry, featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow. The spot reportedly tells the story of Tebow’s mother, Pam, whose doctors recommended that she have an abortion while serving as a missionary in the Philippines. Experts have questioned the veracity of the story, pointing to the fact that physicians and midwives who perform abortions in the Philippines face six years in prison, and may have their licenses suspended or revoked, and that women who receive abortions - no matter the reason - may be punished with imprisonment for two to six years. A coalition of more than 30 women’s and advocacy groups have called on CBS to pull the ad.
Why all the hoopla about commercials in the big game? It may be because the commercials are bigger than the game.
According to recent research from Nielsen on trends and effectiveness of paid Super Bowl advertising, more than half of those who tune in are watching for the commercials, not the game itself. Add in those who are watching primarily for the on-field action, but admit to an interest in the commercials as well, and you’ve got the attention of a significant percentage of the nearly 100 million Super Bowl viewers.
And with Super Bowl ads, viewership translates directly to consumer action. Super Bowl ads can boost the web traffic of the companies that run them, especially in the short term. Among all Super Bowl XLIII advertisers in 2009, overnight web traffic as measured by unique audience grew an average of 63%. Growth in unique audience from January to February 2009 grew an average of 6%.
It’s ironic, though, that the ads that are deemed the most offensive are the ones that generate the most buzz and drive the most web traffic. These are the spots that do the best job of demeaning, insulting, stereotyping and shocking. These are the spots you don’t want your kids to see.
The “Catch-22” for the networks is that by rejecting the ads (and foregoing the $2.5–3 million revenue that each spot generates), they contribute to the viral value. Online news articles and blogs that link to rejected ads generate unparalleled click-through.
The proof point? How many ads did you watch here? I know…me too.
The marketing mavens at GoDaddy.com had their work cut out for them. It’s getting harder and harder to achieve the real Super Bowl prize: having the network reject your ad.
But CBS handed them their touchdown this year, rejecting Lola. In a press release quickly posted on their website, GoDaddy CEO and Founder Bob Parsons said, “Of the five commercial concepts we submitted for approval this year, this never would’ve been my pick for the one that would not be approved. This is about a guy who starts an online business and hits the jackpot. I just don’t think ‘Lola’ is offensive, in fact we didn’t see this one coming –were absolutely blindsided!”
Here’s some insight: national marketers do not produce five commercials in the hopes that the network will approve one of them. They would only shoot five commercials hoping the network would REJECT one of them.
GoDaddy became the second Super Bowl ad declined this year, and the third to stir public debate.
ManCrunch, a dating site catering to gay men, was also rejected. Evidently, the CBS sales department additionally questioned the company’s ability to pay for the ad time, calling into question whether it was ever considered a viable option to air, or if the folks at ManCrunch were hoping for the wave of publicity that accompanies rejection, and the viral activity that follows. Rejection-pioneer PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) enjoyed a viral bonanza when their 2009 spot, Veggie Love, was given a pass by NBC. Other rejects from the class of 2009 included Airborn's entry, featuring a gratuitous shot of Mickey Rooney’s butt, and a particularly repugnant effort from AshleyMadison.com, a website aimed at promoting extramarital affairs.
This year, many observers were stunned when Focus on the Family, a conservative religious organization that opposes abortion – as well as homosexuality, gambling (including church bingo) and premarital sex – got a green light from CBS for their Super Bowl ad entry, featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow. The spot reportedly tells the story of Tebow’s mother, Pam, whose doctors recommended that she have an abortion while serving as a missionary in the Philippines. Experts have questioned the veracity of the story, pointing to the fact that physicians and midwives who perform abortions in the Philippines face six years in prison, and may have their licenses suspended or revoked, and that women who receive abortions - no matter the reason - may be punished with imprisonment for two to six years. A coalition of more than 30 women’s and advocacy groups have called on CBS to pull the ad.
Why all the hoopla about commercials in the big game? It may be because the commercials are bigger than the game.
According to recent research from Nielsen on trends and effectiveness of paid Super Bowl advertising, more than half of those who tune in are watching for the commercials, not the game itself. Add in those who are watching primarily for the on-field action, but admit to an interest in the commercials as well, and you’ve got the attention of a significant percentage of the nearly 100 million Super Bowl viewers.
And with Super Bowl ads, viewership translates directly to consumer action. Super Bowl ads can boost the web traffic of the companies that run them, especially in the short term. Among all Super Bowl XLIII advertisers in 2009, overnight web traffic as measured by unique audience grew an average of 63%. Growth in unique audience from January to February 2009 grew an average of 6%.
It’s ironic, though, that the ads that are deemed the most offensive are the ones that generate the most buzz and drive the most web traffic. These are the spots that do the best job of demeaning, insulting, stereotyping and shocking. These are the spots you don’t want your kids to see.
The “Catch-22” for the networks is that by rejecting the ads (and foregoing the $2.5–3 million revenue that each spot generates), they contribute to the viral value. Online news articles and blogs that link to rejected ads generate unparalleled click-through.
The proof point? How many ads did you watch here? I know…me too.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Blah, blah, blah
A funny thing happened over the holiday break. I became less social.
I’m not talking about traditional social activities…I spent plenty of time with family and friends, doing my part in the annual eat-drink-and-be-merry season. What I didn’t do was make a whole lot of effort to keep up with social media.
Ordinarily, I’m all over it. I scan more than a dozen newsletters each day, both for my own personal edification and to spot interesting articles to share with friends and followers. I review my Google Reader feed, where I track around 60 news feeds and blogs. I keep up with the twitterverse in TweetDeck – at least with the people and keywords in which I’m most interested – and in HootSuite, where I manage multiple accounts. I link, I friend, I digg, I blog. Every day. All of that, plus my “real” job.
Over the break, when I did check in, I found myself punching the Mark As Read button, rather than actually reading. My updates were fewer, and further in between. I actually unfollowed a couple of hundred tweeters, finding myself tired of sifting through that which is mundane, self-serving or duplicative. I hid a bunch of Facebook fan pages that barraged me with updates that bordered on spam.
I trimmed the “blah, blah, blah.”
What I noticed along the way was that others seemed to be doing the same thing. Twitter seems to have flat-lined since mid-November, according to Quantcast, and in my non-scientific observation, even my closely-followed tweeters have become notably less prolific. As January begins to roll towards February, the post-holiday uptick I expected just hasn’t occurred.
Perhaps in this season of resolutions and reevaluation, we’re taking a closer look at the value of all this effort. We’re feeling overwhelmed by it all, calling to mind one of my favorite social media management analogies: it’s like trying to take a sip of water from a fire hose. How many are admitting, as my friend Barry did in a recent post, “I still don’t know what I’m doing, or why.”
I’m not deluded, though. Social media is here to stay. It has changed, and will continue to change, the way we communicate and the way we go to market. But I’m wondering if we have come to – or are nearing -- a turning point in social media…a period of constriction and selectivity as the novelty of social media begins to wear off and each of us begins to establish personal “value screens” for messaging we’ll allow in.
Ironically, social media itself is predicting this. With frequency now, the ubiquitous “10 Steps to Success in Social Media” posts now include advice to quit the relentless counting of fans, followers and subscribers. For marketers, that means worrying less about how many people are listening, and more about whether the RIGHT people are listening. For the rest of us, we’ll keep that which enlightens, enriches, entertains and educates, and get rid of the blah, blah, blah.
I’m not talking about traditional social activities…I spent plenty of time with family and friends, doing my part in the annual eat-drink-and-be-merry season. What I didn’t do was make a whole lot of effort to keep up with social media.
Ordinarily, I’m all over it. I scan more than a dozen newsletters each day, both for my own personal edification and to spot interesting articles to share with friends and followers. I review my Google Reader feed, where I track around 60 news feeds and blogs. I keep up with the twitterverse in TweetDeck – at least with the people and keywords in which I’m most interested – and in HootSuite, where I manage multiple accounts. I link, I friend, I digg, I blog. Every day. All of that, plus my “real” job.
Over the break, when I did check in, I found myself punching the Mark As Read button, rather than actually reading. My updates were fewer, and further in between. I actually unfollowed a couple of hundred tweeters, finding myself tired of sifting through that which is mundane, self-serving or duplicative. I hid a bunch of Facebook fan pages that barraged me with updates that bordered on spam.
I trimmed the “blah, blah, blah.”
What I noticed along the way was that others seemed to be doing the same thing. Twitter seems to have flat-lined since mid-November, according to Quantcast, and in my non-scientific observation, even my closely-followed tweeters have become notably less prolific. As January begins to roll towards February, the post-holiday uptick I expected just hasn’t occurred.
Perhaps in this season of resolutions and reevaluation, we’re taking a closer look at the value of all this effort. We’re feeling overwhelmed by it all, calling to mind one of my favorite social media management analogies: it’s like trying to take a sip of water from a fire hose. How many are admitting, as my friend Barry did in a recent post, “I still don’t know what I’m doing, or why.”
I’m not deluded, though. Social media is here to stay. It has changed, and will continue to change, the way we communicate and the way we go to market. But I’m wondering if we have come to – or are nearing -- a turning point in social media…a period of constriction and selectivity as the novelty of social media begins to wear off and each of us begins to establish personal “value screens” for messaging we’ll allow in.
Ironically, social media itself is predicting this. With frequency now, the ubiquitous “10 Steps to Success in Social Media” posts now include advice to quit the relentless counting of fans, followers and subscribers. For marketers, that means worrying less about how many people are listening, and more about whether the RIGHT people are listening. For the rest of us, we’ll keep that which enlightens, enriches, entertains and educates, and get rid of the blah, blah, blah.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Awww, Tiger...
The news this week about Tiger Woods’ transgressions – and I think it’s safe to assume we are looking at something beyond the point of mere allegation – left me surprised and disappointed. And I should know better.
Athletes and celebrities have been a big part of my professional life for many years. I’ve signed dozens of them to endorsement deals for my brands…deals that include TV and radio commercials, print ads, packaging, appearances. With athletes, as the contract is inked, I hope for three things: one, that my guy stays healthy and on top of his or her game; two, that he motivates my customer to buy more of my stuff; and three, that he keeps his nose clean. Mostly so that my customer will buy more of my stuff.
Before an athlete enters the stratosphere of endorsement deals, he’s got the top-of-the-game part down pat. In most cases, he’s been training since he was single-digits-old, carefully steered and groomed by coaches, team managers, trainers, athletic directors. It’s all about performance…on the field, on the court, in the pool. The off-the-field rules are as clear – and as strictly enforced – as the on-the-field rules.
But here’s the rub. When his performance becomes so good that endorsement deals begin to appear, he enters a game for which he has absolutely no training, and the odds are decidedly stacked against him.
He’s now playing the celebrity game.
You’ve got a taste for some champagne? Snap your fingers. Done. Table at a five-star restaurant, right now? Done. A little something to take the edge off? Done. That cute little brunette over there? Done. You can have what you want, whenever you want it. For many young athletes, the world becomes a blur of insiders and outsiders trying to satisfy their every whim and curry their favor. And always, always, there are throngs of women who draw no lines in the quest to bask in the halo of celebrity.
Why are we surprised when our athlete-heroes can no longer distinguish between that which is acceptable and that which is not?
But back to that pesky contract, and the keeping clean of one’s nose. Those of us who see what could sometimes be called the filthy underbelly of celebrity are, thankfully, a precious few. The athlete’s public face is what’s real to millions of consumers and fans. What’s it worth? According to mediaedge:cia, a whopping 25% of consumers report their purchase was influenced – either positively or negatively – by a celebrity endorser. Among Millennials, 30% of 18-34-year-olds said they would try a product promoted by an admired celebrity. “Admired” is the operative word…and as a marketer, that’s what I’m buying when I trade my corporate cash for a celebrity endorsement.
I do have some appreciation for the argument that star athletes pay a hefty price for their celebrity, in terms of relinquishing privacy and being held to a role-model standard while they are still, at the end of the day, only human. That’s why the Tiger Woods debacle is such a disappointment – I can no longer point to him as a great example of how it can be done.
Worse still – at least worse for Tiger’s corporate partners – we’re not talking about simply shelving a commercial until the dust settles, as Subway did with their Michael Phelps spots after the notorious bong incident. Pulling a spot, or postponing a media tour, may be aggravating and expensive, but probably wouldn’t have permanent impact on the brand. The Tiger endorsement machine, on the other hand, is unrivalled in sports from a financial perspective, and arguably in a category of just two (Michael Jordan in his hey-day being the other). He has endorsement deals with Nike, Gillette, Accenture, AT&T and American Express, among others, that total $100 million annually, according to Forbes. But we’re not talking just commercials here…we’re talking whole product lines. Try to fathom the number of zeroes in the cost to Gatorade to pull the Tiger drink off the shelves. Imagine the gnashing of teeth at Nike’s offices as they contemplate the impact on The Tiger Woods Collection of apparel at thousands of retailers…and right at the beginning of the holiday shopping season, no less. "Nike supports Tiger and his family. Our relationship remains unchanged," said Nike Golf spokeswoman Beth Gast. "Tiger and his family have our support as they work through this private matter," said Gatorade.
I’d be saying the same thing. At least for now.
"A lot of the brands have built their entire positioning platforms around him," said Rick Burton, professor of sport management at Syracuse University, to the New York Daily News. What does that mean in dollars and cents? To Tiger, 87% of his one billion dollars in earnings – yes, that’s billion, with a b – have come from endorsement income. To the brands that bear his name, the value may be incalculable.
Might the whole thing blow over in time? History would suggest it will. Kobe Bryant today is one of the top athlete endorsers in professional sports, even after he was accused (though not convicted) of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old hotel worker, and admitting to cheating on his wife. Michael Phelps lost only his Kellogg deal after being photographed with a bong. Michael Vick, after serving jail time for federal dog fighting charges, was welcomed in Philadelphia.
But the pedestal on which Tiger stood was very high. And that could make the fall more damaging.
Athletes and celebrities have been a big part of my professional life for many years. I’ve signed dozens of them to endorsement deals for my brands…deals that include TV and radio commercials, print ads, packaging, appearances. With athletes, as the contract is inked, I hope for three things: one, that my guy stays healthy and on top of his or her game; two, that he motivates my customer to buy more of my stuff; and three, that he keeps his nose clean. Mostly so that my customer will buy more of my stuff.
Before an athlete enters the stratosphere of endorsement deals, he’s got the top-of-the-game part down pat. In most cases, he’s been training since he was single-digits-old, carefully steered and groomed by coaches, team managers, trainers, athletic directors. It’s all about performance…on the field, on the court, in the pool. The off-the-field rules are as clear – and as strictly enforced – as the on-the-field rules.
But here’s the rub. When his performance becomes so good that endorsement deals begin to appear, he enters a game for which he has absolutely no training, and the odds are decidedly stacked against him.
He’s now playing the celebrity game.
You’ve got a taste for some champagne? Snap your fingers. Done. Table at a five-star restaurant, right now? Done. A little something to take the edge off? Done. That cute little brunette over there? Done. You can have what you want, whenever you want it. For many young athletes, the world becomes a blur of insiders and outsiders trying to satisfy their every whim and curry their favor. And always, always, there are throngs of women who draw no lines in the quest to bask in the halo of celebrity.
Why are we surprised when our athlete-heroes can no longer distinguish between that which is acceptable and that which is not?
But back to that pesky contract, and the keeping clean of one’s nose. Those of us who see what could sometimes be called the filthy underbelly of celebrity are, thankfully, a precious few. The athlete’s public face is what’s real to millions of consumers and fans. What’s it worth? According to mediaedge:cia, a whopping 25% of consumers report their purchase was influenced – either positively or negatively – by a celebrity endorser. Among Millennials, 30% of 18-34-year-olds said they would try a product promoted by an admired celebrity. “Admired” is the operative word…and as a marketer, that’s what I’m buying when I trade my corporate cash for a celebrity endorsement.
I do have some appreciation for the argument that star athletes pay a hefty price for their celebrity, in terms of relinquishing privacy and being held to a role-model standard while they are still, at the end of the day, only human. That’s why the Tiger Woods debacle is such a disappointment – I can no longer point to him as a great example of how it can be done.
Worse still – at least worse for Tiger’s corporate partners – we’re not talking about simply shelving a commercial until the dust settles, as Subway did with their Michael Phelps spots after the notorious bong incident. Pulling a spot, or postponing a media tour, may be aggravating and expensive, but probably wouldn’t have permanent impact on the brand. The Tiger endorsement machine, on the other hand, is unrivalled in sports from a financial perspective, and arguably in a category of just two (Michael Jordan in his hey-day being the other). He has endorsement deals with Nike, Gillette, Accenture, AT&T and American Express, among others, that total $100 million annually, according to Forbes. But we’re not talking just commercials here…we’re talking whole product lines. Try to fathom the number of zeroes in the cost to Gatorade to pull the Tiger drink off the shelves. Imagine the gnashing of teeth at Nike’s offices as they contemplate the impact on The Tiger Woods Collection of apparel at thousands of retailers…and right at the beginning of the holiday shopping season, no less. "Nike supports Tiger and his family. Our relationship remains unchanged," said Nike Golf spokeswoman Beth Gast. "Tiger and his family have our support as they work through this private matter," said Gatorade.
I’d be saying the same thing. At least for now.
"A lot of the brands have built their entire positioning platforms around him," said Rick Burton, professor of sport management at Syracuse University, to the New York Daily News. What does that mean in dollars and cents? To Tiger, 87% of his one billion dollars in earnings – yes, that’s billion, with a b – have come from endorsement income. To the brands that bear his name, the value may be incalculable.
Might the whole thing blow over in time? History would suggest it will. Kobe Bryant today is one of the top athlete endorsers in professional sports, even after he was accused (though not convicted) of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old hotel worker, and admitting to cheating on his wife. Michael Phelps lost only his Kellogg deal after being photographed with a bong. Michael Vick, after serving jail time for federal dog fighting charges, was welcomed in Philadelphia.
But the pedestal on which Tiger stood was very high. And that could make the fall more damaging.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Crackberry redux
Long, long ago – around 2005 or 2006, I think – it came to pass that a significant number of my friends and colleagues had suddenly acquired Blackberry devices. Most kept them in a pocket, a purse or a briefcase, and would refer to them every now and then…between meetings, for example, or while waiting to board a plane at the airport. There were others who became instantly hooked, personifying the phenomenon that became known as “crackberry addict”. I recall joking with one colleague that he probably took it to the bathroom with him – the sheepish look told me that he actually did.
Now there are Blackberries, iPhones, Palms (again) and a whole host of PDAs or handheld computers, and the word “crackberry” has vanished from our lexicon. But brand proliferation is not the reason the word is no longer in fashion…it’s because we’re ALL doing it.
In my line of work, I often do presentations for large groups of people. I used to gauge the audience response by watching their faces. Today, I present to the tops of heads. Their eyes are on their Blackberries, held discretely on their laps.
We talk on the phone and text at the same time. We hurtle down the interstate, checking our email. We tell our dinner partners, “I just need to take this call real quick.” Car horns blast at us in the middle of the intersection…while we were typing, the light changed.
Boundaries have vanished. We text in church, from our vacations, from the boardroom and the classroom. We check our email on dates, at the beach, in the bathroom. A few weeks ago, I saw a man checking his Blackberry while riding a bicycle – at full speed.
We just can’t seem to stop.
Remember the way it used to be? In a previous work life, I managed crises at a large, multinational corporation. Over those years, I handled hostage situations, employee murders, product tampering that made national news…true emergencies. As those occurred, I got calls at home. If I was on a beach in the Caribbean, someone else got the call. It worked pretty well, as archaic as that sounds. But today, we can be instantly connected, and in many, many ways, that’s a wonderful thing. Especially in a true emergency.
Problem is, most of all the instant communication that occurs today is nothing at all like an emergency. It’s not even urgent. Hell, it’s not even important. “I’d like an answer right now” does not constitute emergency, urgency, or import. But we have talked ourselves into believing that accessibility – all day, all night, all year – is practically a sign of character. A year or so ago, a colleague was in the hospital, in the process of giving birth. She was actually responding to email from the labor room. While most of us were horrified at her inability to draw the line, I will tell you that there were those in our office who said, “Wow, now that’s real dedication.”
We live our lives in shades of gray…but THAT, my friends, is just wrong.
Please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t long for the days when there were no cell phones and handheld computers. I love them. I do not miss searching for a pay phone, or worrying where my kids were, or racing back to the office to pull an important document off my computer. Good riddance to all of that.
But can’t we agree on the boundary thing?
My friend, Bill, is the CMO of another large, multinational corporation. He’s a very, very important guy, and he’s my Blackberry hero. He does not bring his Blackberry on vacation (or if he does, he’s just peeking and not responding). He uses that time to recharge his OWN batteries, which in the long run, is better for both him and the people with whom he works. When I have dinner with Bill, his Blackberry is nowhere in sight. If I send him a message while he’s in a meeting, I’ll be sure to hear back from him…when the meeting is over.
And you know what? That large, multinational corporation gets along just fine.
Now there are Blackberries, iPhones, Palms (again) and a whole host of PDAs or handheld computers, and the word “crackberry” has vanished from our lexicon. But brand proliferation is not the reason the word is no longer in fashion…it’s because we’re ALL doing it.
In my line of work, I often do presentations for large groups of people. I used to gauge the audience response by watching their faces. Today, I present to the tops of heads. Their eyes are on their Blackberries, held discretely on their laps.
We talk on the phone and text at the same time. We hurtle down the interstate, checking our email. We tell our dinner partners, “I just need to take this call real quick.” Car horns blast at us in the middle of the intersection…while we were typing, the light changed.
Boundaries have vanished. We text in church, from our vacations, from the boardroom and the classroom. We check our email on dates, at the beach, in the bathroom. A few weeks ago, I saw a man checking his Blackberry while riding a bicycle – at full speed.
We just can’t seem to stop.
Remember the way it used to be? In a previous work life, I managed crises at a large, multinational corporation. Over those years, I handled hostage situations, employee murders, product tampering that made national news…true emergencies. As those occurred, I got calls at home. If I was on a beach in the Caribbean, someone else got the call. It worked pretty well, as archaic as that sounds. But today, we can be instantly connected, and in many, many ways, that’s a wonderful thing. Especially in a true emergency.
Problem is, most of all the instant communication that occurs today is nothing at all like an emergency. It’s not even urgent. Hell, it’s not even important. “I’d like an answer right now” does not constitute emergency, urgency, or import. But we have talked ourselves into believing that accessibility – all day, all night, all year – is practically a sign of character. A year or so ago, a colleague was in the hospital, in the process of giving birth. She was actually responding to email from the labor room. While most of us were horrified at her inability to draw the line, I will tell you that there were those in our office who said, “Wow, now that’s real dedication.”
We live our lives in shades of gray…but THAT, my friends, is just wrong.
Please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t long for the days when there were no cell phones and handheld computers. I love them. I do not miss searching for a pay phone, or worrying where my kids were, or racing back to the office to pull an important document off my computer. Good riddance to all of that.
But can’t we agree on the boundary thing?
My friend, Bill, is the CMO of another large, multinational corporation. He’s a very, very important guy, and he’s my Blackberry hero. He does not bring his Blackberry on vacation (or if he does, he’s just peeking and not responding). He uses that time to recharge his OWN batteries, which in the long run, is better for both him and the people with whom he works. When I have dinner with Bill, his Blackberry is nowhere in sight. If I send him a message while he’s in a meeting, I’ll be sure to hear back from him…when the meeting is over.
And you know what? That large, multinational corporation gets along just fine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
