You know you’re a Marketer if:
10. You have had discussions with co-workers about the four P’s of Marketing.
9. You use the word “brand” as a noun and a verb.
8. You set up a Facebook account as “market research.”
7. You view Happy Hour as a job requirement.
6. You know how to set up a trade show booth while talking to two people on a cell phone and dealing with local Union regulations—all at the same time. (What do you mean, I can’t plug in my own computer?!?)
5. You know the latest possible times to drop off a FedEx package at every local store and drop-box.
4. You know the earliest possible times that FedEx will deliver to any given address.
3. You use “PMS” to describe colors, not your mood.
2. You can—or have at least tried—to calculate CPM, CPC and/or CPA in your head.
And the number one way you know you’re a Marketer is:
1. No one, not even your significant other and certainly not your parents, knows how to explain exactly what it is that you do.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Rise of the 'Webocracy'
If you're like me, you visit TripAdvisor before taking any trip and read all the product reviews on Amazon.com before buying anything online. In fact, I'll even read the online reviews of a product before going to a store to buy it. But who's to say that I should agree with all of the anonymous reviewers? Who are these people, and why should I believe them just because they took a few minutes to write a review?
In business school, I learned that if someone likes your product or service, they may tell one person, but if they hate it, they will be more likely to tell ten. Is this the thought behind online Tweets, comments, blogposts and reviews as well? The strange thing is that many reviews seem to be remarkably accurate and helpful. I have gone back to TripAdvisor reviews after staying at certain hotels and B&Bs and have agreed wholeheartedly with my new reviewer-friends.
Who am I to say that a teenager in Iowa, a sixty-old man in France and a 39-year-old woman in Maryland wouldn't have similar taste in, say, a 42" television--the next big purchase that I will definitely research online? The funny thing is that I often end up putting more stock in these reviews than I do the opinions of relatives, friends, and neighbors, who represent a very small sample of the opinions out there.
However, it's a lot easier to believe online reviews if there is more than one, or even two or three. I often find it more helpful for a site to rank results versus just giving a star rating (Digg.com comes to mind based on their Popular rankings and Upcoming rankings of just about any "news" on the 'Net).
But in the end, it is difficult to decipher the true motive behind any online reviews--good or bad. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that the FTC ruled that bloggers must disclose paid endorsements when discussing products or services. They must even disclose if the product has been given to them for free, a practice that has occurred in all other mediums for years without the same level of scrutiny.
In addition, some groups are starting to fight back against negative reviews. In March 2009, doctors began to fight back against anonymous online reviews. A company called Medical Justice promotes the idea that doctors should require patients to sign confidentiality agreements because of the harm that negative online reviews can do to physicians' practices and the physicians' inability to respond due to patient confidentiality laws. At the other end of the spectrum are the doctors who ask every patient to write a good review online if they had a good experience at their offices--using positive online reviews to attract new patients and build their practices.
All of these online "popularity contests" have led to what I call the rise of the Webocracy--digital media's answer to Democracy. It occurs in everything from AngiesList to RateMyTeachers to iTunes. I know the first thing I do on Twitter is to see how many Followers someone has. Certainly I was embarrassed when I first started out on Facebook and had only 10 friends (you know you worked to get over 100 friends on Facebook as quickly as possible too).
Of course, this makes things difficult for marketers who are constantly trying to appeal to the greatest number of people online and to even generate much-coveted "Online Buzz." The problem is that in giving everyone a voice, it's difficult to know the motives, tastes and personalities of the people giving the reviews.
Even the U.S. Founding Fathers decided that U.S. citizens couldn't handle a true Democracy and instead needed a Representative Democracy, where we vote for those people who will best represent our needs. A Free Press also helped people to be heard, but news and opinions were still filtered through editors, reporters, commentators, and the select few who could gain access to the medium. Now anyone can be heard with virtually no start-up costs (except access to a computer and the Internet) and begin writing blogsposts and reviews from virtually anywhere in the world.
The challenging goal is to cut through the clutter and gain a large following. Some do it through in-depth knowledge of a subject area, and others achieve it through an engaging and informative writing style. Still others look to shock and/or entertain better than anyone else. The sheer number of "participants" in this Webocracy challenges marketers to find new and inventive ways to get people to seek out and follow a particular online "voice," ranging from a singluar person to a large corporate brand.
And that's the latest Holy Grail of the Internet--the ability to gain readers, followers, friends and fans. It is causing a lot of chaos in the world of traditional marketing--the world of GRPs and CPMs. It is also creating a lot of heartache for the press--the people who went to Journalism school, worked their way up the editorial ladder and now find themselves competing with a 17-year-old writing a Blog in her bedroom in Poughkeepsie.
However, as member of the new Internet Webocracy, I enjoy writing the occasional negative review of a bad experience with a hotel or a positive review of a product that I have used and would recommend to others. And for the most part, I have benefited from what others have had to say. There is a certain power in giving everyone a voice, and I think that is the true appeal of this new digital frontier.
In business school, I learned that if someone likes your product or service, they may tell one person, but if they hate it, they will be more likely to tell ten. Is this the thought behind online Tweets, comments, blogposts and reviews as well? The strange thing is that many reviews seem to be remarkably accurate and helpful. I have gone back to TripAdvisor reviews after staying at certain hotels and B&Bs and have agreed wholeheartedly with my new reviewer-friends.
Who am I to say that a teenager in Iowa, a sixty-old man in France and a 39-year-old woman in Maryland wouldn't have similar taste in, say, a 42" television--the next big purchase that I will definitely research online? The funny thing is that I often end up putting more stock in these reviews than I do the opinions of relatives, friends, and neighbors, who represent a very small sample of the opinions out there.
However, it's a lot easier to believe online reviews if there is more than one, or even two or three. I often find it more helpful for a site to rank results versus just giving a star rating (Digg.com comes to mind based on their Popular rankings and Upcoming rankings of just about any "news" on the 'Net).
But in the end, it is difficult to decipher the true motive behind any online reviews--good or bad. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that the FTC ruled that bloggers must disclose paid endorsements when discussing products or services. They must even disclose if the product has been given to them for free, a practice that has occurred in all other mediums for years without the same level of scrutiny.
In addition, some groups are starting to fight back against negative reviews. In March 2009, doctors began to fight back against anonymous online reviews. A company called Medical Justice promotes the idea that doctors should require patients to sign confidentiality agreements because of the harm that negative online reviews can do to physicians' practices and the physicians' inability to respond due to patient confidentiality laws. At the other end of the spectrum are the doctors who ask every patient to write a good review online if they had a good experience at their offices--using positive online reviews to attract new patients and build their practices.
All of these online "popularity contests" have led to what I call the rise of the Webocracy--digital media's answer to Democracy. It occurs in everything from AngiesList to RateMyTeachers to iTunes. I know the first thing I do on Twitter is to see how many Followers someone has. Certainly I was embarrassed when I first started out on Facebook and had only 10 friends (you know you worked to get over 100 friends on Facebook as quickly as possible too).
Of course, this makes things difficult for marketers who are constantly trying to appeal to the greatest number of people online and to even generate much-coveted "Online Buzz." The problem is that in giving everyone a voice, it's difficult to know the motives, tastes and personalities of the people giving the reviews.
Even the U.S. Founding Fathers decided that U.S. citizens couldn't handle a true Democracy and instead needed a Representative Democracy, where we vote for those people who will best represent our needs. A Free Press also helped people to be heard, but news and opinions were still filtered through editors, reporters, commentators, and the select few who could gain access to the medium. Now anyone can be heard with virtually no start-up costs (except access to a computer and the Internet) and begin writing blogsposts and reviews from virtually anywhere in the world.
The challenging goal is to cut through the clutter and gain a large following. Some do it through in-depth knowledge of a subject area, and others achieve it through an engaging and informative writing style. Still others look to shock and/or entertain better than anyone else. The sheer number of "participants" in this Webocracy challenges marketers to find new and inventive ways to get people to seek out and follow a particular online "voice," ranging from a singluar person to a large corporate brand.
And that's the latest Holy Grail of the Internet--the ability to gain readers, followers, friends and fans. It is causing a lot of chaos in the world of traditional marketing--the world of GRPs and CPMs. It is also creating a lot of heartache for the press--the people who went to Journalism school, worked their way up the editorial ladder and now find themselves competing with a 17-year-old writing a Blog in her bedroom in Poughkeepsie.
However, as member of the new Internet Webocracy, I enjoy writing the occasional negative review of a bad experience with a hotel or a positive review of a product that I have used and would recommend to others. And for the most part, I have benefited from what others have had to say. There is a certain power in giving everyone a voice, and I think that is the true appeal of this new digital frontier.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The 10-10-10 Rule
In Reader's Digest, Suzy Welch (a management consultant and wife of GE's former chief executive Jack Welch) recently discussed her new book, "10-10-10." It talks about the decision-making philosophy that people should use to make important decisions in their life. To paraphrase, you need to think about how you feel about your decision in 10 minutes, 10 months and 10 years. This helps to give you the perspective you need to not only look at short-term ramifications but the long-term effects as well. These ideas are particularly timely in the mad dash that many people have succumbed to in the current economic downturn.
The article got me to thinking about how this theory may apply to marketing. Certainly marketers face many decisions every day. How do we make these decisions? Many of us weigh the benefits and the risks of the various options. Others take into account the various stakeholders and what their preferences would be. Some rely heavily on gut instinct to decide the preferred course of action.
Whatever mixture of decision-making tools you may use, the 10-10-10 rule could be helpful as well. However, I would change the time horizon for business decision-making. I would use the 1-6-5 rule, which stands for 1 day, 6 months and 5 years.
How will you feel about the decision in one day? I have to admit that one of my best decision-making tools is to "sleep on it." It is amazing how many decisions may seem good in a two-hour staff meeting or a ten-hour stint in a cubicle or office. However, some fresh air may give new perspective to the problem at hand. I find that most of my best ideas come to me right after I wake up or while I'm in the shower. Because of this, I know leave a notepad next to my bed, which is directly outside my bathroom door. I'd advise that for any major decision, take at least a day to think about it.
The second time horizon is 6 months. Of course this may vary from company to company. I worked for a Fortune 100 company that often defined short-range or near-term as one year out. However, I also worked for an Internet start-up that defined short-term as next week. I think 6 months is a "happy medium" where shorter term business decisions can be weighed. When weighing questions about your marketing mix, you probably plan out at least a year at a time, but it is important to think about what can change in that amount of time. What new competitors may arise? Which newspapers or other mediums may go out of business? What may be the latest and greatest way to reach your target audience after Social Media? What may happen to the economy?
I remember an article with Intel CEO Andy Grove in the mid-nineties that said that paranoia was a key to success. He said, "Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive." Even the current website echoes these thoughts, "Today is so Yesterday."
You can never rest on your laurels and think that your newest product will not only succeed but last forever. I think Apple is the modern equivalent to this thinking. They don't wait for the success of one of their products to wane before introducing the next. They seem to live for innovation, as alluded to in the quote from Steve Jobs, "There's an old Wayne Gretzky quote that I love. 'I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.' And we've always tried to do that at Apple. Since the very very beginning. And we always will."
The final time horizon to think about for decision making is 5 years. Once again, this may vary widely at many companies, but this is a good long-term view. Yes, companies plan out further than that, but will you be in charge of their marketing at that point in time? Will the company have the same mission at that time? And will society have the same priorities that it has today?
A case in point is a marketing client of mine that sent out a press release about Pandemic Influenza last fall. There was some interest from some reporters but nowhere near the interest that the H1N1 virus has now spawned. The trick is to predict whether the Swine Flu will become a major pandemic this fall or whether it will fizzle out with very few cases. Of course, if I knew that, I would be working for the CDC or WHO and not for a marketing organization.
At the same time, the world will be a very different place this fall based on whether a pandemic does or does not occur, and that will have ripple effects for any future decision-making. The economic downturn also caught many marketers off-guard. Yes, there were some signs of impending trouble leading up to last fall, but there are now so many messages coming from so many mediums that it was hard to know what to believe.
That's why I often have clients look at both a 6-month and a five-year (and perhaps a 1- or 2-year) view of where they want to be. Marketers must start with their goals in mind. What kind of a company do they want to be? What do they want to accomplish? What innovations are required for them to meet these goals? What is the competitive landscape and what threats are on the horizon? What opportunities are there for their company to grow organically or by partnering with others?
It would be an interesting exercise to view any long-range marketing plan that was crafted 10 years ago. Bill Clinton was President, September 11 and the Iraq War hadn't happened, the Dot Com Bubble hadn't burst, Tivo and ReplayTV had just launched at the Consumer Electronics Show, and online and email marketing were extending their reach as the hot new marketing mediums. Google didn't even begin selling ad space on their search pages until the following year. What a difference 10 years makes.
The article got me to thinking about how this theory may apply to marketing. Certainly marketers face many decisions every day. How do we make these decisions? Many of us weigh the benefits and the risks of the various options. Others take into account the various stakeholders and what their preferences would be. Some rely heavily on gut instinct to decide the preferred course of action.
Whatever mixture of decision-making tools you may use, the 10-10-10 rule could be helpful as well. However, I would change the time horizon for business decision-making. I would use the 1-6-5 rule, which stands for 1 day, 6 months and 5 years.
How will you feel about the decision in one day? I have to admit that one of my best decision-making tools is to "sleep on it." It is amazing how many decisions may seem good in a two-hour staff meeting or a ten-hour stint in a cubicle or office. However, some fresh air may give new perspective to the problem at hand. I find that most of my best ideas come to me right after I wake up or while I'm in the shower. Because of this, I know leave a notepad next to my bed, which is directly outside my bathroom door. I'd advise that for any major decision, take at least a day to think about it.
The second time horizon is 6 months. Of course this may vary from company to company. I worked for a Fortune 100 company that often defined short-range or near-term as one year out. However, I also worked for an Internet start-up that defined short-term as next week. I think 6 months is a "happy medium" where shorter term business decisions can be weighed. When weighing questions about your marketing mix, you probably plan out at least a year at a time, but it is important to think about what can change in that amount of time. What new competitors may arise? Which newspapers or other mediums may go out of business? What may be the latest and greatest way to reach your target audience after Social Media? What may happen to the economy?
I remember an article with Intel CEO Andy Grove in the mid-nineties that said that paranoia was a key to success. He said, "Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive." Even the current website echoes these thoughts, "Today is so Yesterday."
You can never rest on your laurels and think that your newest product will not only succeed but last forever. I think Apple is the modern equivalent to this thinking. They don't wait for the success of one of their products to wane before introducing the next. They seem to live for innovation, as alluded to in the quote from Steve Jobs, "There's an old Wayne Gretzky quote that I love. 'I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.' And we've always tried to do that at Apple. Since the very very beginning. And we always will."
The final time horizon to think about for decision making is 5 years. Once again, this may vary widely at many companies, but this is a good long-term view. Yes, companies plan out further than that, but will you be in charge of their marketing at that point in time? Will the company have the same mission at that time? And will society have the same priorities that it has today?
A case in point is a marketing client of mine that sent out a press release about Pandemic Influenza last fall. There was some interest from some reporters but nowhere near the interest that the H1N1 virus has now spawned. The trick is to predict whether the Swine Flu will become a major pandemic this fall or whether it will fizzle out with very few cases. Of course, if I knew that, I would be working for the CDC or WHO and not for a marketing organization.
At the same time, the world will be a very different place this fall based on whether a pandemic does or does not occur, and that will have ripple effects for any future decision-making. The economic downturn also caught many marketers off-guard. Yes, there were some signs of impending trouble leading up to last fall, but there are now so many messages coming from so many mediums that it was hard to know what to believe.
That's why I often have clients look at both a 6-month and a five-year (and perhaps a 1- or 2-year) view of where they want to be. Marketers must start with their goals in mind. What kind of a company do they want to be? What do they want to accomplish? What innovations are required for them to meet these goals? What is the competitive landscape and what threats are on the horizon? What opportunities are there for their company to grow organically or by partnering with others?
It would be an interesting exercise to view any long-range marketing plan that was crafted 10 years ago. Bill Clinton was President, September 11 and the Iraq War hadn't happened, the Dot Com Bubble hadn't burst, Tivo and ReplayTV had just launched at the Consumer Electronics Show, and online and email marketing were extending their reach as the hot new marketing mediums. Google didn't even begin selling ad space on their search pages until the following year. What a difference 10 years makes.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The "A List"
It's every marketers dream: to be at the top of the list of companies that a consumer will go to in order to buy a product or interact with a brand. My close friend Patti swears by Amazon. While I like Amazon and have had great experiences with them, I often forget to check them for products beyond books and movies, which goes back to their original brand message when the company was first launched as the world's largest online bookstore.
One of the smartest things that Amazon has done is add customer reviews of products. I will often go to their site to see reviews and then buy on their site or at a brick and mortar location. For Patti, she loves the time-saving convenience of shipping everything; for me, I often like to see a product in person before I buy it (however, free shipping often will entice me to just go ahead and place the order online).
One way of determining who is on your A-list online is to figure out what passwords you have memorized for different websites. Yes, many of us use similar passwords on different sites. However, different security guidelines often prevent people from doing just that (minimum number of characters, letters and numbers, etc.). I started listing the sites for which I remember passwords in order to see where my priorities are online. The few I always remember on the first try are: Yahoo Mail, Facebook, Blogspot and online banking. There's my A-list.
Then there are the sites I remember after a few tries: Amazon, iTunes (I don't always have to log-in), Twitter, Oriental Trading (for craft supplies for my daughter), Evite, Disney Rewards, and Google Analytics. That's my B List.
Finally, there is the bizarre mix that is the remainder of my password accounts. Shopping sites I use once or twice a year, news sites that require log-ins (I love the New York Times, but I have probably had to register 4-5 times over the years...), frequent flyer accounts (these are the worst), and every other site that requires a password that seems memorable at the time and quickly gets lost on the way to long-term memory.
I understand the need for security and for marketers to "monetize" their sites through consumer tracking, but do we really need a log-in and password for every site we visit? Can we have a default password that says "Iwillneverrememberthispassword." What, I should write it down and pin it up next to my computer? There's some good security... Someone may pretend to be on TripAdvisor and write glowing reviews for hotels I don't like.
One of the smartest things that Amazon has done is add customer reviews of products. I will often go to their site to see reviews and then buy on their site or at a brick and mortar location. For Patti, she loves the time-saving convenience of shipping everything; for me, I often like to see a product in person before I buy it (however, free shipping often will entice me to just go ahead and place the order online).
One way of determining who is on your A-list online is to figure out what passwords you have memorized for different websites. Yes, many of us use similar passwords on different sites. However, different security guidelines often prevent people from doing just that (minimum number of characters, letters and numbers, etc.). I started listing the sites for which I remember passwords in order to see where my priorities are online. The few I always remember on the first try are: Yahoo Mail, Facebook, Blogspot and online banking. There's my A-list.
Then there are the sites I remember after a few tries: Amazon, iTunes (I don't always have to log-in), Twitter, Oriental Trading (for craft supplies for my daughter), Evite, Disney Rewards, and Google Analytics. That's my B List.
Finally, there is the bizarre mix that is the remainder of my password accounts. Shopping sites I use once or twice a year, news sites that require log-ins (I love the New York Times, but I have probably had to register 4-5 times over the years...), frequent flyer accounts (these are the worst), and every other site that requires a password that seems memorable at the time and quickly gets lost on the way to long-term memory.
I understand the need for security and for marketers to "monetize" their sites through consumer tracking, but do we really need a log-in and password for every site we visit? Can we have a default password that says "Iwillneverrememberthispassword." What, I should write it down and pin it up next to my computer? There's some good security... Someone may pretend to be on TripAdvisor and write glowing reviews for hotels I don't like.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Losing Control of Your Marketing
At yesterday's MarketingProfs Digital Marketing World virtual conference, David Meerman Scott spoke about the "New Rules of Viral Marketing." He spoke about how marketers need to Lose Control of Your Marketing (title of his free ebook) in order to be effective in today's digital world. This is the second meeting in two weeks where I heard about this loss of control of the marketing message.
On one hand, marketers are excited because their messages can be extended over blogs, RSS feeds, fan pages on Facebook, fan sites, pass-along email and video and so on. As a result, marketing budgets can be extended by spending less and doing more. The messages are also more effective when passed along by peers instead of a large company trying to sell its goods and services (when is the last time you clicked on a banner ad?). In yesterday's blog entry, I talked about how the Obama campaign used these tactics to help win the Presidency. On the other hand, the fear among marketers is that the message will be changed and come out wrong--the online version of a game of telephone.
David started his presentation about viral marketing with a story that mirrored this message. (He's a good viral marketer because storytelling is a great way of passing along a message that people will remember.) The story is about the VP of Marketing at Universal Resorts in Orlando and her goal of launching a new theme park at Universal Studios. She could have spent the typical millions of dollars on TV, print, radio and so forth, but she took a different approach. Instead, she told 7 people. The park is the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and she told 7 of the most popular bloggers about it in a secret midnight webcast. After the webcast, the bloggers were excited to break the news on their sites. The followers of those blogs then started talking about it, and then the mainstream media picked up the story about the theme park. As a result, they estimate that within 24 hours, 350 million people were exposed to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter.
Of course, this was very risky because it goes against traditional marketing model of "buying attention" from TV, print, radio, magazine, websites, search engines and so on. Unfortunately, these risks don't always pay off. As reported in AdWeek and Forbes.com last month, Skittles changed their homepage over to Twitter to see the great buzz about their candy. Unfortunately, the Tweets soon turned from "Skittles taste good" to "Snickers can beat up Skittles " to "Hersey's can #*%! the $#!% out of Skittles any day." Needless to say the campaign was quickly pulled. However, the good news is that Skittles got more press than it has in a long time. It would interesting to see if there is a positive impact on sales over the quarter. Unfortunately, if my 7-year-old had happened to ask me to pull up that site to see if there are any Skittles games and instead glimpsed some new words, you could be sure that I would have been one angry mom.
There are no easy answers. Marketing on social media is a work in progress. However, marketers really don't have a choice because companies and their products and services will be talked about online whether or not the company has its own online presence. The good news is that everyone's opinions can be heard...and the bad news is that everyone's opinions can be heard.
On one hand, marketers are excited because their messages can be extended over blogs, RSS feeds, fan pages on Facebook, fan sites, pass-along email and video and so on. As a result, marketing budgets can be extended by spending less and doing more. The messages are also more effective when passed along by peers instead of a large company trying to sell its goods and services (when is the last time you clicked on a banner ad?). In yesterday's blog entry, I talked about how the Obama campaign used these tactics to help win the Presidency. On the other hand, the fear among marketers is that the message will be changed and come out wrong--the online version of a game of telephone.
David started his presentation about viral marketing with a story that mirrored this message. (He's a good viral marketer because storytelling is a great way of passing along a message that people will remember.) The story is about the VP of Marketing at Universal Resorts in Orlando and her goal of launching a new theme park at Universal Studios. She could have spent the typical millions of dollars on TV, print, radio and so forth, but she took a different approach. Instead, she told 7 people. The park is the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, and she told 7 of the most popular bloggers about it in a secret midnight webcast. After the webcast, the bloggers were excited to break the news on their sites. The followers of those blogs then started talking about it, and then the mainstream media picked up the story about the theme park. As a result, they estimate that within 24 hours, 350 million people were exposed to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter.
Of course, this was very risky because it goes against traditional marketing model of "buying attention" from TV, print, radio, magazine, websites, search engines and so on. Unfortunately, these risks don't always pay off. As reported in AdWeek and Forbes.com last month, Skittles changed their homepage over to Twitter to see the great buzz about their candy. Unfortunately, the Tweets soon turned from "Skittles taste good" to "Snickers can beat up Skittles " to "Hersey's can #*%! the $#!% out of Skittles any day." Needless to say the campaign was quickly pulled. However, the good news is that Skittles got more press than it has in a long time. It would interesting to see if there is a positive impact on sales over the quarter. Unfortunately, if my 7-year-old had happened to ask me to pull up that site to see if there are any Skittles games and instead glimpsed some new words, you could be sure that I would have been one angry mom.
There are no easy answers. Marketing on social media is a work in progress. However, marketers really don't have a choice because companies and their products and services will be talked about online whether or not the company has its own online presence. The good news is that everyone's opinions can be heard...and the bad news is that everyone's opinions can be heard.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The Rise of the Virtual Conference
Today I attended MarketingProf's Digital Marketing World Spring 2009 conference on the Internet. Having attended over 100 traditional trade shows in the U.S. and Europe over the years, I was skeptical that a virtual conference would measure up. However, I was pleasantly surprised at the immersiveness of the experience, the content of the sessions, and the actionable take-aways for everyday marketing.
Yes, virtual conferences have been around for years. I have also attended my share of webinars--some of which have been more useful than others. However, in this age of drastically cutting back budgets, virtual conferences really have their opportunity to shine. Today's conference, for example, had 12,000 registered attendees. The only potential shortcoming may be how easy it is to "blow off" the meeting because there are no sunk costs and no accountability. It would be interesting to see how many people registered versus attended the show.
After logging on this morning, I was greeted by a video of Ann Handley, Chief Content Officer of MarketingProfs (in case you are unfamiliar, they are an online resource for over 300,000 subscribers from the marketing profession). Video elements add a much-needed component to virtual conferences. I then saw a virtual landscape of a conference center. I was able to enter the auditorium and any scheduled presentations. I was also able to jump back and forth between the Trade Show Floor (including exhibitor booths), the Networking Lounge and the Resource Center. All areas had live chats in process and access to files relevant to the talks (I downloaded several White Papers on Social Marketing and a Media Kit from one of the exhibitors that I found to be relevant.)
My only problem was getting to the talks on time; just like in real life, I got caught up on the Trade Show Floor. I was also able to multi-task, sending out emails and even making lunch while listening to the talks. The first session I attended was on Facebook Community Building Success Stories, which included a panel from companies as diverse as Cirque du Soleil and 123greetings.com. A main take-away was that if you are a large marketer, there is an online conversation about you. By using social marketing, you can actually be a part of that conversation. Cirque du Soleil actually has 7 Facebook pages (for each of the shows they have) that are company sponsored, but they also support their top fan sites with any information or help they may need.
The Keynote speech and Q&A session were given by David Plouffe, Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential Campaign Manager. He spoke about Online Branding Strategies and Tactics. Regardless of people's politics, they seem to realize that Obama's marketing strategies greatly helped his campaign. For instance, they grew their email list to 13 million opt-in registrants who not only received up-to-date information about the candidate, but also used this information to influence others. They also used InDemand Media to have a show available to voters during the campaign. They found that video was king for their Internet efforts on mybarackobama.com, as well as files on personal and policy issues as they surfaced. By having the "New Media" department report directly to him (on the same level as Finance or Communications), David was able to better evaluate and use new ideas. When asked about the future, he said that all of these new ideas will seem antiquated by the next election--citing that Twitter didn't even exist when the last election began.
Well, I've been typing this during a break in the conference, so I need to get back to the next session on Viral Marketing...more on that later.
Yes, virtual conferences have been around for years. I have also attended my share of webinars--some of which have been more useful than others. However, in this age of drastically cutting back budgets, virtual conferences really have their opportunity to shine. Today's conference, for example, had 12,000 registered attendees. The only potential shortcoming may be how easy it is to "blow off" the meeting because there are no sunk costs and no accountability. It would be interesting to see how many people registered versus attended the show.
After logging on this morning, I was greeted by a video of Ann Handley, Chief Content Officer of MarketingProfs (in case you are unfamiliar, they are an online resource for over 300,000 subscribers from the marketing profession). Video elements add a much-needed component to virtual conferences. I then saw a virtual landscape of a conference center. I was able to enter the auditorium and any scheduled presentations. I was also able to jump back and forth between the Trade Show Floor (including exhibitor booths), the Networking Lounge and the Resource Center. All areas had live chats in process and access to files relevant to the talks (I downloaded several White Papers on Social Marketing and a Media Kit from one of the exhibitors that I found to be relevant.)
My only problem was getting to the talks on time; just like in real life, I got caught up on the Trade Show Floor. I was also able to multi-task, sending out emails and even making lunch while listening to the talks. The first session I attended was on Facebook Community Building Success Stories, which included a panel from companies as diverse as Cirque du Soleil and 123greetings.com. A main take-away was that if you are a large marketer, there is an online conversation about you. By using social marketing, you can actually be a part of that conversation. Cirque du Soleil actually has 7 Facebook pages (for each of the shows they have) that are company sponsored, but they also support their top fan sites with any information or help they may need.
The Keynote speech and Q&A session were given by David Plouffe, Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential Campaign Manager. He spoke about Online Branding Strategies and Tactics. Regardless of people's politics, they seem to realize that Obama's marketing strategies greatly helped his campaign. For instance, they grew their email list to 13 million opt-in registrants who not only received up-to-date information about the candidate, but also used this information to influence others. They also used InDemand Media to have a show available to voters during the campaign. They found that video was king for their Internet efforts on mybarackobama.com, as well as files on personal and policy issues as they surfaced. By having the "New Media" department report directly to him (on the same level as Finance or Communications), David was able to better evaluate and use new ideas. When asked about the future, he said that all of these new ideas will seem antiquated by the next election--citing that Twitter didn't even exist when the last election began.
Well, I've been typing this during a break in the conference, so I need to get back to the next session on Viral Marketing...more on that later.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Value as a Marketing Strategy
Not every company is doing poorly in this economy. In yesterday's MediaPost Marketing Daily, GameStop reports record sales due to its "value-adding marketing strategies." A main component of these strategies is its game trade-in model. Wednesday's Baltimore Sun also reported strong sales at sports equipment resale retailers such as Play It Again Sports.
Of course, not all perceived bargains need to be in the form of used games and equipment. Perceived value should be at the core of any marketing strategy, whether the country is in the middle of a recession or not. Marketers often spend most of their time on one of the four P's of marketing--Promotion. However, the other three are as important if not more--Product, Price and Place (Distribution Channels).
As GameStop sites in their press release, their financial performance is being driven by, "delivering to consumers what they want: stores in a wide range of locations, knowledgeable associates and most importantly, options that provide value."
At a time when many retailers are suffering, they could learn a thing from GameStop's approach. It makes me think of Circuit City closing operations earlier this year. Yes, they had plenty of locations and competitive prices, but do you know anyone who ever came out of that store thinking they got a truly remarkable value? After several bad experiences in their stores, I vowed never to return--no matter how close their locations or competitive their prices were. Yes, many retailers are blaming their woes on the recession, and that can be partly to blame. However, I feel that these market shifts will bring the focus back on the consumer and their overall experience. As marketers, we must find ways to offer desirable products at fair prices, in a convenient way, and with a compelling message in the marketplace.
Of course, not all perceived bargains need to be in the form of used games and equipment. Perceived value should be at the core of any marketing strategy, whether the country is in the middle of a recession or not. Marketers often spend most of their time on one of the four P's of marketing--Promotion. However, the other three are as important if not more--Product, Price and Place (Distribution Channels).
As GameStop sites in their press release, their financial performance is being driven by, "delivering to consumers what they want: stores in a wide range of locations, knowledgeable associates and most importantly, options that provide value."
At a time when many retailers are suffering, they could learn a thing from GameStop's approach. It makes me think of Circuit City closing operations earlier this year. Yes, they had plenty of locations and competitive prices, but do you know anyone who ever came out of that store thinking they got a truly remarkable value? After several bad experiences in their stores, I vowed never to return--no matter how close their locations or competitive their prices were. Yes, many retailers are blaming their woes on the recession, and that can be partly to blame. However, I feel that these market shifts will bring the focus back on the consumer and their overall experience. As marketers, we must find ways to offer desirable products at fair prices, in a convenient way, and with a compelling message in the marketplace.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Do Advertisers See Social Media as Experimental?
An article published earlier this week in BrandWeek reports that advertisers spend little on social media marketing, despite all of the buzz about sites such as Facebook and Twitter. The article focuses on a new report by Forrester Research that states that marketing on social media has yet to enter the mainstream, with 75% of marketers budgeting less than $100,000 for social media efforts.
I don't think that it is a matter of marketers seeing the value of social media as a way of reaching their target audiences. It is more a result of not knowing what to do. I have had clients come to me and say, "I want to use social media, but I'm not sure how." The problem is that social media is such a departure from traditional media outlets such as tv, print and radio that it is difficult to come up with an integrated strategy that works. Plus the nature of social media is meant to be organic and unfiltered--leading to an anti-establishment, "uncommercial" atmosphere.
The state of social media marketing reminds me of the world of online banner advertising 10 years ago. I remember being at a Direct Marketing Association when everyone was trying to figure out how to add online marketing into their marketing efforts (and this was before Search was even talked about). The element that helped banner advertising was that it could be described in terms of magazine or newspaper advertising. Marketers could place an ad on a site of their choosing with relevant content, and they could pay on a CPM (cost per thousand impressions) basis. It was only later that people said, hey this medium is all about accountability--leading to cost per click (CPC) and cost per action (CPA) ad models.
I have found two relevant ways that Social Media seems to work in a traditional marketing framework. The first is an online brand presence. Marketers can develop their own fan site, post compelling videos that can be shared, and use social media as a permission-based way to communicate with target markets. Barack Obama's campaign did this very well during the 2008 campaign and they continue the efforts with emails to their online constituency.
The second compelling way of advertising through social media is relevant advertising. Frankly, I don't need to see any more ads for "How to Look Younger" on my Facebook page--even though I am probably part of their target demographic. However, I loved seeing a recent ad for a Dane Cook comedy concert that is coming up at the Hippodrome (relevant--I love seeing comedy shows, geographically targeted--showing in Baltimore, and appropriate--when I'm on Facebook, it's more of a social entertainment site for me). The problem is that I didn't actually click on the ad to purchase tickets. However, I think it is definitely a step in the right direction.
I don't think that it is a matter of marketers seeing the value of social media as a way of reaching their target audiences. It is more a result of not knowing what to do. I have had clients come to me and say, "I want to use social media, but I'm not sure how." The problem is that social media is such a departure from traditional media outlets such as tv, print and radio that it is difficult to come up with an integrated strategy that works. Plus the nature of social media is meant to be organic and unfiltered--leading to an anti-establishment, "uncommercial" atmosphere.
The state of social media marketing reminds me of the world of online banner advertising 10 years ago. I remember being at a Direct Marketing Association when everyone was trying to figure out how to add online marketing into their marketing efforts (and this was before Search was even talked about). The element that helped banner advertising was that it could be described in terms of magazine or newspaper advertising. Marketers could place an ad on a site of their choosing with relevant content, and they could pay on a CPM (cost per thousand impressions) basis. It was only later that people said, hey this medium is all about accountability--leading to cost per click (CPC) and cost per action (CPA) ad models.
I have found two relevant ways that Social Media seems to work in a traditional marketing framework. The first is an online brand presence. Marketers can develop their own fan site, post compelling videos that can be shared, and use social media as a permission-based way to communicate with target markets. Barack Obama's campaign did this very well during the 2008 campaign and they continue the efforts with emails to their online constituency.
The second compelling way of advertising through social media is relevant advertising. Frankly, I don't need to see any more ads for "How to Look Younger" on my Facebook page--even though I am probably part of their target demographic. However, I loved seeing a recent ad for a Dane Cook comedy concert that is coming up at the Hippodrome (relevant--I love seeing comedy shows, geographically targeted--showing in Baltimore, and appropriate--when I'm on Facebook, it's more of a social entertainment site for me). The problem is that I didn't actually click on the ad to purchase tickets. However, I think it is definitely a step in the right direction.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Marketing Identity
Identity. In trying to come up with a Blog theme, I began with the theme of identity. As a marketer for the past 15 years, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the identities of companies and their products and services. Call it an identity or call it a brand--it's all about people's perceptions.
Now the idea of online identity has come to the forefront. I attended a conference today sponsored by PR Newswire. It had to do with using social marketing and other emerging media to better position the messages that you want to push out to the world. Newer mediums have changed the old ideas about Push and Pull marketing. Instead of simply pushing a marketing message out to the masses and developing relationships where your target markets will pull the information from you, there is now another step (or 2 or 3). After the push and pull, hopefully those people who are searching, sharing and blogging will continue to push your message out to their networks. Not only do you gain added exposure for a greater period of time, you gain a legitimacy by transferring your message from delivery by a corporation to delivery by a peer--a much more trusted source (in most cases). The downside is that you lose any control over the message. It's like a virtual game of old-school telephone where the people passing the message are all over the world, and you can only hope the message resembles what it was originally meant to convey.
Now the idea of online identity has come to the forefront. I attended a conference today sponsored by PR Newswire. It had to do with using social marketing and other emerging media to better position the messages that you want to push out to the world. Newer mediums have changed the old ideas about Push and Pull marketing. Instead of simply pushing a marketing message out to the masses and developing relationships where your target markets will pull the information from you, there is now another step (or 2 or 3). After the push and pull, hopefully those people who are searching, sharing and blogging will continue to push your message out to their networks. Not only do you gain added exposure for a greater period of time, you gain a legitimacy by transferring your message from delivery by a corporation to delivery by a peer--a much more trusted source (in most cases). The downside is that you lose any control over the message. It's like a virtual game of old-school telephone where the people passing the message are all over the world, and you can only hope the message resembles what it was originally meant to convey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
