Brand Marketers: Listen When the Consumer Says, "Enough is Enough!"

Brand Marketers: Listen When the Consumer Says, "Enough is Enough!" appears in the latest issue of Social Media Marketing magazine. Check it out at http://www.smmmagazine.com/


New research from ExactTarget has proven what we already suspected: too much of a good thing is, well, too much. The study concluded that if marketers use social media to barrage customers with self-serving, non-engaging messages, they're likely to be "unliked" faster than you can say buh-bye.

The conclusions may not be surprising, but what is surprising is the number of brands choosing to simply ignore the data, forging ahead with the great barrage. Sayeth the consumer, "We're talking about YOU!"

According to the study, when a consumer quits following a brand on Facebook, for example, it's because the company posts too much (44 percent), its pages are cluttered with marketing messages (43 percent), the messages are repetitive and uninteresting (38 percent), the messages are overly promotional (24 percent), and the content is irrelevant (19 percent).

Let's talk about frequency of messaging. While I've seen only anecdotal information about the optimum number of posts from a brand—and relevancy will always impact that optimal number anyway—I'm fairly confident that most consumers do not wish to receive brand messages every day. Yet the vast majority of brands that I personally/professionally follow are compelled to post messages five or six days per week.

None of the brands I follow ever posts on Sunday. While I will allow that social media usage is comparatively lower on Sunday—see Mashable's excellent article on Facebook usage—I could argue that the less-cluttered environment might be a good trade for the slightly lower usage. And if a broader audience was the goal, why would brands post on weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., knowing that 65 percent of users access the site when they're not at work or school, typically early morning or evening? According to Mashable's Adam Ostrow, "That means that if you're making social media only a part of a 9-to-5 workday, you might be missing out on connecting with consumers during the times they're likely to be online."

I'm going to pick on Best Buy for a moment, a brand that often uses social media very well, but sometimes makes me crazy. Today, I received nothing fewer than four messages from Best Buy. Message number two was a repost of message number one. I have additionally received six messages from Best Buy over the past two weeks about their buy-back program. This is precisely why I have hidden posts from Best Buy and go to its Facebook page only when I'm seeking specific information.

What is unfortunate about that is that buried in the clutter are some genuinely interesting posts. For instance, while most brands seem compelled to post their latest commercials—what may be the best example of the overt marketing message that survey respondents said they did not want to see—Best Buy has done it right. To create additional interest in its Super Bowl commercial, Best Buy invited Facebook friends to vote between four different endings for the spot. In the second part of its one-two punch, Best Buy auctioned off the autographed costumes worn by Justin Beiber and Ozzy Osbourne in the spot, donating proceeds to charity. Great stuff. But Best Buy, please lighten up!

Many brands still fight the urge to use friend and follower counts as a measure of success. What brands would do well to consider, though, would be the number of friends and followers who decide that enough is enough. Optimum frequency and the value of the posts' content will become clear.

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.

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.