It Feels Good to be Back

So the sites not completely done. Still some IE errors and some other tweaks etc. but I can say I’m back, and thanks to some amazing work by Bob Dunn from Cat’s Eye Marketing I think it looks a lot better as well.
I am coming back to blogging and it feels very good to be back. I miss diving deeper into my thoughts, sharing my opinions in more than 140 characters, and mostly experiencing the relaxation of writing.

I can’t guarantee much in terms of great writing, spelling, grammar, or even content, but I will give what I can. I will listen if you have something to say, and I will try to be consistent with at least two post a week from here on out.

So feel free to come as go as you please, subscribe to the RSS or email, or simply ignore me all together. Really it doesn’t really matter, cause I’m here and don’t plan on going anywhere soon.

Social Media, Philosophy, Tools, or Both?

Social Media Tools or Philosophy?

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

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.