Comments on: What has the Internet done to Us? Part II http://www.changeitmarketing.com/2008/06/17/what-has-the-internet-done-to-us-part-ii/ Fri, 16 Jul 2010 02:42:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Club Penguin Cheats http://www.changeitmarketing.com/2008/06/17/what-has-the-internet-done-to-us-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-761 Club Penguin Cheats Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:22:30 +0000 http://www.changeitmarketing.com/?p=27#comment-761 So do great companies. No one wants to be surrounded with insecure people who act as if they are acting all the time and are too polished, same goes with companies. So do great companies. No one wants to be surrounded with insecure people who act as if they are acting all the time and are too polished, same goes with companies.

]]> By: Brian Crouch http://www.changeitmarketing.com/2008/06/17/what-has-the-internet-done-to-us-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Brian Crouch Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:14:22 +0000 http://www.changeitmarketing.com/?p=27#comment-9 Well said. You hit the key point. The public face should not be a false face-- the original meaning of hypocrisy. And since the title of this essay references the internet, I'll add another $0.02 : clearly the marketing message presented by a company via traditional media (TV, radio, collateral) can in many cases be invalidated by an internet search. If the online reputation of a well-advertised business causes internet users to completely discard the former message, credibility is gone. For example, suppose XYZremodeling.com presents a very sharp, memorable, professional image and a warm fuzzy glow about it in TV spots. Then the sales person arrives and is high-pressure and insensitive. Well, the chagrined lost-customer uses the "new media" social tools to become a town crier: their voice is amplified louder than the $1MM campaign. The social proof of their self-represented claims is now out of their hands. Most companies are failing to close this back door. They do not make sure their positive customer experiences are optimized to bring in direct web traffic, instead allowing distaff sites to besmirch with "negative press" sometimes even when unjustified. Pacesetter Windows went out business because of this neglect. They had good marketing, and the attacks on them were unfairly overemphasized in light of their long-term history, however, pacesettersucks.com became the primary search result for "pacesetter" due to the depth of the web presence of the attack site. Too many businesses are going to complaint sites and having staff add positive reviews to counter the negative, forgetting that makes the search engines look at those critique sites even more... judysbook and angieslist come to mind. Not only do negative results abort marketing efforts, they can also lead to cancelled orders, cancelled appointments... increasing marketing costs. If marketing firms want to give comprehensive service they should monitor search engine results for their clients and use social media tools (eg, more site content, optimized press releases, search engine promotion) to overcome the negative results. It takes work, but the ROI is huge. It is also a hedge against losing the value of previous expenditures. Well said. You hit the key point.

The public face should not be a false face– the original meaning of hypocrisy.

And since the title of this essay references the internet, I’ll add another $0.02 : clearly the marketing message presented by a company via traditional media (TV, radio, collateral) can in many cases be invalidated by an internet search. If the online reputation of a well-advertised business causes internet users to completely discard the former message, credibility is gone.

For example, suppose XYZremodeling.com presents a very sharp, memorable, professional image and a warm fuzzy glow about it in TV spots. Then the sales person arrives and is high-pressure and insensitive. Well, the chagrined lost-customer uses the “new media” social tools to become a town crier: their voice is amplified louder than the $1MM campaign. The social proof of their self-represented claims is now out of their hands.

Most companies are failing to close this back door. They do not make sure their positive customer experiences are optimized to bring in direct web traffic, instead allowing distaff sites to besmirch with “negative press” sometimes even when unjustified. Pacesetter Windows went out business because of this neglect. They had good marketing, and the attacks on them were unfairly overemphasized in light of their long-term history, however, pacesettersucks.com became the primary search result for “pacesetter” due to the depth of the web presence of the attack site.

Too many businesses are going to complaint sites and having staff add positive reviews to counter the negative, forgetting that makes the search engines look at those critique sites even more… judysbook and angieslist come to mind. Not only do negative results abort marketing efforts, they can also lead to cancelled orders, cancelled appointments… increasing marketing costs.

If marketing firms want to give comprehensive service they should monitor search engine results for their clients and use social media tools (eg, more site content, optimized press releases, search engine promotion) to overcome the negative results. It takes work, but the ROI is huge. It is also a hedge against losing the value of previous expenditures.

]]>