Social Media, Philosophy, Tools, or Both?

When I talk with people about social media, I talk about it more as a philosophy than a tool.  So what is it?

Is social media anything that uses social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.? Or is it a company or personal philosophy about having and valuing two way conversations with people? Or is it both?

My contention is that social media is a set of tools that should be used to implement a communications philosophy. The problem is that if your communication philosophy or strategy is flawed, the tools will not help you and may harm you.

As I sit here and watch Top Gear, it makes me think of an analogy. Implementing social media without the right philosophy is like driving and F1 car without the proper training. You have the best tools in the world, but without the proper strategy and training, you’re either gonna sit their trying to figure out how to start it, or you won’t be able to control the power and you may kill yourself.

So instead of talking about tools, lets talk about the philosophy. Let’s figure out ways to show companies the value of two way communications with both customers and employees. Make them crave and desire those conversations. Once that is accomplished they will seek out the tools on their own.

Social media tools will come and go. If we concentrate on teaching how to use Facebook and Twitter, and those go the way of Friendster what are we accomplishing in the long term? Plus can you really get someone to use these tools correctly, if they don’t buy into the premise behind them in the first place?

Goal number one needs to be to get the philosophy understood and bought into. Goal number two should be to teach them how to use the tools to implement their communication strategy.

I’ve seen enough Skittles.com social media implementations, these tools are better than that.

Communication 2.0 needs to come before Web 2.0.

Kevin

Should We Launch Online Campaigns via Traditional Media?

Does Jack in the Box have the right formula?

Ever since Jack in The Box “Hang in there Jack” launched, I’ve wondered if launching an online social network, or viral campaign via TV is efficient. (Ok, truthfully I missed the spot all together when watching the Super Bowl, but that doesn’t help prove my point.)

I know several successful online “viral” campaigns have launched via TV, but it’s time to move on to a different strategy. BMW was very successful with their BMW films campaign, but it’s a much different time now, and I don’t know if that was “viral” in the first place. (I hate how viral is used in reference to online campaigns, so I feel better when I put it in quotes.  Don’t ask me why.)

Why not launch the campaign online first, and use social media to promote it? This is not only cheaper, but increases the chances influencers online will adopt the campaign as their own and help promote it. Using mass media to promote something online is almost shunned by this group, and it will be hard to get their acceptance once you do.

Another benefit to launching online is that the company or agency behind the program can test the campaign and see if it works before spending millions of dollars promoting it with traditional media. You could even refine the campaign to see what works before launching it on a larger scale.

Best case scenario would be if the campaign went “viral” without mass media at all. You could reach millions of people for a fraction of the cost of a Super Bowl ad, and you would get a sense of ownership from those participating, that you don’t get using mass media.

One of the reasons something goes “viral” is that it seems special to the viewer. So special or unique that those who see it want to share it with their friends.

If a campaign launches during the Super Bowl, how special is it? Do you think, “wow I bet my friends have not seen this and would enjoy it”? Probably not.

Maybe I’m wrong. By the looks of the numbers to the site, the Twitter account, Facebook group etc. Jack in the Box seems to be getting a lot of participation. I think that has more to do with the fact that they are one of the first to have a truly integrated social media campaign, not because of a brilliant execution strategy.

What do you think?

Denny’s did you think about an ROI?

From Arbyreed's Photostream

Everyone is all a buzz about the Denny’s Super Bowl Grand Slam Giveaway.  Adweek calls it a “Hit” in this article. But if it was such a hit, why doesn’t everyone simply give away their product in promotions?

Heck, anyone could giveaway stuff for free to millions of people, the key is doing it and making money. The main question Denny’s and anyone that does a giveaway needs to be asking is, “am I creating new customers by doing this”, or “does it get my current customers to increase their spend”?

Is Denny’s ever going to get a positive return on the $5 million they spent (according to Adweek) on this promotion? For the sake of easy math, let’s look at some easy numbers and calculate their break even point.

At best Denny’s makes $5 on each Grand Slam they sell (according to Adweek).  That means they need to sell an additional one million of them, to make this promotion break even. (They could sell higher margin product etc. but is it really gonna make that big of a difference? They’re not a steakhouse)

Does anyone believe the people receiving these free Denny’s meals were so happy with them, that they are going to come back for more? Let alone one million of them? Was the experience so gratifying or outside their expectations they had for Denny’s that they said, “dang I need to go to Denny’s more often”?

I don’t think that many people were convinced of that, nor do I think Denny’s believes it.  That is why they gave away coupons to try to get these new customers to come back.  So again they result to discounting their product to get rid of it.

The only way a company is going to make a giveaway like Denny’s work, is to exceed the customers expectations in some way. Everyone knows what a Grad Slam taste like, why didn’t Denny’s introduce a new product and give that away? At least that way customers might find a new product they love, and it would give them a reason to come back.

Or better yet, why not use this giveaway to introduce a lower price for the Grand Slam meal? Use the economy angle to promote it. Obviously they feel their product is not worth the $5.99 they charge, because they are giving  it away for free and couponing it. Why not start charging $3.99 everyday for a Grand Slam and say they are celebrating by giving them away for free for the first half of Feb 2nd?

It’s gonna take longer to get a return, but at least some people might actually come back. And by doing this it benefits everyone, not just the few who took advantage of the free breakfast.  At the very least some people might remember that Denny’s has a complete breakfast for only $3.99, right now all they remember now is that Denny’s gave away some free food.

What can I edit in a Twitter Re-Tweet?

Did, he go to jail for bad Twitter RT Etiquette?

What’s the deal with the Twitter Re-Tweet (RT)? Talking about getting more RT’s seems to be all the rage lately, but what rules are their around the RT? 

What room do we have to edit a RT?  Can I merely RT the link with credit and then post my own comments around that?  Or do I need to keep the original tweet as close to the original as possible and then try to add my comments at the end if possible? Switching as many of the you’s to U, and two’s to 2, etc.

Shouldn’t we as Twitters be able to simply RT the link and post our own comments? If we can, how would we show this? Take the below example of something I RT’d the other night.

“RT @mitchjoel: By the looks of this, Social Media is just getting started. Where do u think it’s going? Add ur side here: http://is.gd/ijlm”

Can I change this to,..

“RT @mitchjoel http://is.gd/ijlm ;(The changing demo of social media and what’s gonna happen next?)”

Or am I not giving the originator of the Tweet his proper credit? Or maybe, because I added new content to the tweet do I even need to give credit to the original tweeter at all for the link?

What if I read the post by Mitch, but then saw his tweet afterwards?  Do I need to RT him, or can I simply do my own Tweet?  Same question can be asked for other content on Twitter as well.  Before I post a link should I scan everyone I subscribe to in order to see if they have already Tweeted the link?

Please free me from this Twitter RT jail, and let me know what you think.

How to be an Expert in Everything

My goal is to be an expert at my job, but in today’s ever changing marketing world it’s impossible. That’s why having a strong network of marketing connections is more important than ever.

How is someone supposed to be an expert in all the aspects of just the online marketing world, let alone traditional media? Staying on top of all the changes in SEO, Paid Search, Display and Social Media is impossible. Just staying on top of one area like SEO or Social Media is extremely hard and time consuming.

Then add on top of that, traditional marketing such as TV, Radio, Print, and Outdoor, and how they all work together with online advertising, and you have a lost cause. That is unless you find a way to add more hours to the day. (if you do let me know)

So what are you to do, because aren’t we supposed to offer our clients or company the best marketing advice around?

The only way to do that is to surround yourself with the best people. Have a great network around you of brilliant people in each industry that you can lean on when needed.

Sometimes the best thing to know, is to know when to bring someone else in for help.  That’s the difference between knowing enough to be dangourous, and knowing enough to helpful.

Why Social Media?

Ever since I started relaunching Social Media Club Seattle, my friends and co-workers keep asking me, why social media?  Ok, so sometimes that question comes after the what is social media question?  But at any rate, not everyone gets why I would want to be involved in a group about social media.

They see social media as a way to connect to friends, but what else could it do, and why would an advertising guy be interested?

Well, I am interested, (ok a little obsessed) with social media, because I have seen the power it has. I have seen social media transform the reputation of brands, raise thousands of dollars for a good cause, and change the marketing direction of large companies in a matter of days.

Comcast, a brand with a horrible reputation among tech geeks needed to improve their customer service reputation.  What did they do?  They turned to social media, and it’s well documented in this NY Times Article

So by monitoring online conversations, and participating in online networks such as Twitter with @comcastcares, Comcast has started to change their brands image.  They have turned a community of people who were actively disparaging the brand online 2 years ago, into brand fanatics that actively promote Comcast.  I follow around 300 people on Twitter, and I can barely go a week without one of them raving about @comcastcares. That kind of word of mouth outreach does a lot to help a reputation of a company. This is something traditional advertising could not accomplish, especially not this fast, or so inexpensively.

The main reason @comcastcares was a success was people view their online connections positively. We are looking to learn and share with those we are connected with online, so we are less skeptical about what they are telling us. That can not be said about what we see on TV, hear on the radio, or see in a banner ad.

Zappos CEO gets it.  He buys into social media and blogs and tweets. This has led to a culture at Zappos that is focused around the customer.  What other CEO of a company with over $1 billion in sales would respond to random bloggers on Twitter, or respond to others blog post? Here are two great articles about Zappos, one from Adweek, and one from ReadWriteWeb.

Do a search for Zappos and you’ll see the results. It seems almost every blogger has interviewed Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh.  What amazing PR, and a way to make a one to one connection with their customers. These aren’t just any customers promoting Zappos either, they are influencers that will then communicate this message to many others online and off.

You may be saying sure social media can increase brand awareness and perception, but how do we place a value on it? The best example I have of the potential is a recent plea for help from David Armano. His plea for $5,000 for a family in need was taken to heart by his followers. Within 12 hours of his original post he already had raised over double what he was hoping. A truly amazing and heart warming story of the power of a network and relationships.

There are many questions we can ask about this example, and things that must be quantified, but I have two that come to mind first as a marketer. How was David able to “influence” his online following to give? Or more importantly, what has David given his followers that they feel the need to give back?

I could go on with stories like this, both positive and negative. I could talk about the influence of a small Twitter group over a huge brand like J&J, in the Motrin Mom fiasco. Or talk about how H&R Block used social media and a fake persona to connect with consumers.

It seems everyday there is another case study or example of the power of social media. That alone is exciting, but the reason I am involved is the unknown of social media. How do we quantify why some social media marketing campaings work, and some don’t? What are the best practices of social media, or the best implementation for a given brand? That is why I have connected both online and offline to others exploring these same questions.

Social media is growing and changing faster than anyone can keep up. We are at the infancy of something will change not only the way companies interact with consumers, but also the way they do business internally.

I have encouraged many of my friends to start participating in the social media space, and its great to see their excitement once the light switches on and they see the potential. It’s hard to quantify what that potential is in a blog post like this, but trust me, spend a month participating in the conversation online and you’ll see it too.

What Blogging Will do for You

I went into blogging with certain goals in mind, but after 6 months I have gotten more from it then I would have ever imagined, and so can you.

When I started my blog, there were three reasons behind it.
1. To improve my writing skills
2. Get my opinionated ideas on paper, in an effort to free up my co-workers time.
3. So I could have two-way conversations with people about marketing ideas (Twitter does this now)

Here is a link to the first post that explains it a little more.

What I did not plan on getting out of blogging was the ability to refine my thoughts and communicate them more clearly, not only in writing but also in conversation. I don’t know why I did not expect this to happen, but it has been the biggest benefit I received from blogging, and I think you would as well.

We all have thousands of ideas storming around our heads all day (and sometimes night) long. We like to think we can recall them when needed, but we can’t always do that.

If we can recall those ideas they are not always well fleshed out or thought through. Certainly nothing you could use in a meeting with a client, unless you put a lot more time into developing them. By writing your ideas down, it helps you develop them materialize them and put them in a part of cognitive memory you can actually use.

Of course this is nothing new.  People have been saying to journal thoughts for thousands of years.  What’s great about a blog however, is that you have other people reading those thoughts, and improving upon them.  You also have somewhat of an accountability network to keep you going.

So if you don’t blog, give it a try for a few days.  Just go to http://posterous.com or http://wordpress.com/ and set one up.  Or if you already blog, do it more often.  (trying to take my own advice)

You will be amazed how when in meetings, or in talking with friends, you will all of a sudden start quoting your blog post.  It’s like having a support group of ideas ready to help you when needed.  Best of all they’re your ideas!

For 2009, Predict and then Plan…

I know everyone will be talking about this today, but then again maybe there’s a reason for that. On New Years people like to reflect on the past, and look forward to the future.

Something is different this New Years eve however, with all the doom and gloom we hear in the media about the economy most people are not excited for what’s in store in 2009.

All we hear is that 09 is going to be bad economically, with higher unemployment rates and more companies needing to be bailed out. So what should we do during this time of reflection and projection, as we leave a mediocre 2008 and head into what looks to be a turbulent 2009?

Well, we must all keep our heads down (or up?) and move forward. We must use this as an opportunity to push new ideas that would have never been accepted when things were going well. Now is a great opportunity, because nothing opens up a CEO’s ear more to new ideas than a few turbulent quarters.  Now;s your turn to capitalize on it.

With that in mind here is my hopes and dreams of things that will happen in 2009 in the marketing world.

1.It will get worse before it gets better, but in 09 companies will beat themselves up with so many sales and discounts that they won’t work anymore (if they still are) and they will eventually understand they need to be listening and interacting with their customers.
2.Traditional media (TV, Radio, Paper, etc.) will continue to hop on the online bandwagon, the only difference is some of them will get it right. We will see more products like Hulu, and some big newspaper company will hire a big online exec and go 100% online. The line between traditional media and new media will merge.
3.Use of social media will continue to rise, and companies will find it impossible to ignore the online conversations going on about their companies.
4.Online video advertising will continue to rise as TV ad budgets are cut, and companies still want that rich visual connection with the public.
5.By the end of 2009 companies will stop acting scared and will start investing in things like marketing, R&D, and employees. (Smart companies never stopped)

Now I will take this list, and others I have, and will make plans for 2009 based on it. These plans will be both for me personally and for my clients and company. I encourage you to make your own list of projections and then figure out ways to capitalize on them.

Make 2009 a great year!

BTW, my 2009 goals for this blog are to write more, continue to improve my writing skills (or lack thereof), and finally update the theme.

Who should control Social Media? PR, Marketing, Customer Service?

For some reason the question of where to place of social media on a company org chart is a thing of much debate. I have read post about how it should be in PR and I have also read people blog that it should be in customer service. I haven’t seen any post about it going under marketing, but then again, using social media for marketing is something that is done, but no one likes to talk about.

Let’s step back and reevaluate this for a moment however, why are we trying to fit the square peg that is social media, into a round whole that is PR, marketing, and customer service? Sure social media can be used to accomplish all three, but aren’t we constraining the benefits if we put aPR, marketing, or customer service in charge of it?

Or even worse, some larger companies put all three departments in charge of it. I was at a panel discussion the other week, and heard about how Microsoft does this. They have social media people in all three groups. They have enough money to start a separate social media department. Why don’t they?

How do companies benefit from having one person/department monitor and interact with people in a customer service realm, and then a different person/department on the PR side? How are meaningful relationships going to be made when the people doing these interactions only have them when discussing certain topics?

Sure some companies don’t have the funds to develop their own social media department with a C level exec etc., but they do need to give control to someone.

This person may report to a Marketing or PR Exec, but this social media guru must have control and knowledge of all three areas online. If not relationships will not be made, and certain areas of opportunities in social media will be missed.

Only by seeing all the opportunities in social media, and taking part in all of them, will social media then benefit companies in the way they are hoping.

Let’s look to Newspapers for the future of Display Ads

In order to stop display ads from withering on the vine publishers and advertisers must get more creative with online ads, and one good place to look for ideas is traditional media.

As Mitch talked about in his blog post, display ads are in trouble.

Are they going to go away?  No, banner ads are the primary vehicle to obtain reach online, and can carry a brand message to millions online.  Yet no matter what we do creatively, or how we push the limits of behaviorally targeting, display ads still seem incomplete.

Why is that?  Why do we as marketers feel like we are missing something with a banner ad, that we get with a TV ad?

Some of it has to do with advertisers giving way to much credit to TV ads. Are they all that much more effective than a well done roadblock or pre-roll ad online?  Maybe a little, but  TV advertising has had over 50 years to perfect it’s approach.

So what must be done to evolve display ads so they are more effective? First we need to think outside the current IAB box for display ads.  Publishers also need to work in tandem with advertisers to find the best placements.  They can no longer say, we place banners here, skyscrapers here, and big boxes here.

I know some publishers are offering this, and pretty much anyone would for the right price, but it needs to be easier.  Why not open up the entire page to ads, and charge different rates for different areas of the page?  Then publishers could make the content fit around that? Obviously their needs to be some limitations to this, but this same approach has been done for years in print.

A newspaper advertiser can choose pretty much any placement for an ad, as long as they stay to within basic column and row heighth specifications.  This gives the advertiser much more flexibility to create ads that grab attention.  Plus it makes it harder for readers to train themselves to ignore certain sections of a page where an the ad is always placed.

Sure to deploy this on websites would involve customized site layouts for each approach, but how hard would it be to come up with 30 different layout options for each placement? Again, the papers do it.

And this is just one option.  Other creative ideas such as unique shapes and sizes of creative need to be developed as well.  What about instead of a box or rectangle we use a circle, or even the shape of a logo? Sure that would not work for everyone, but over the years we have trained viewers to stop paying attention to colored boxes and rectangles online.  How do we break this pattern?

Only by getting creative, and thinking about new implementation ideas beyond IAB standards, are publishers going to be able to differentiate and take control back from the ad networks.

Too much inventory, too many sites, too many options.  Yes, that is a problem, but if can increase demand by using more effective placements and creative some of those problems will go away.