You would think that after over 40 years from when the below was first published by DDB, that it would not be necessary anymore. Yet these below statements are the very thing social media enthusiast continue to preach.
Maybe social media will give consumers the leverage to make sure companies follow the below recommendations.
I don’t know how I slipped into it, why I started thinking this way, but I lost one of the key principles of social media, speaking in a human voice. Somehow I started thinking and telling clients that the human voice thing can be left for the blog, Twitter, Facebook, etc, the rest of your website and marketing material can be marketing crap. (Ok, I didn’t use the word crap)
As part of the Destination Marketing book club I’m leading everyone in the office through the “Cluetrain Manifesto” and while reading it for the first time in years, I realized I went off track somewhere. It especially hit me in reading chapter three “Talk is Cheap” by Rick Levine. The below excerpt is what made it painfully clear.
Hart Scientific, Inc. (www.hartscientific.com) posted a convenient comparison of conversational versus traditional writing on their Web site. They have two versions of their Y2K compliance page. You can tell them apart:
Noncompliance issues could arise if Hart Scientific manufactured products are combined with other manufacturer’s products. Hart cannot test all possible system configurations in which Hart manufactured products could be incorporated. Our products currently test as being compliant and will continue to operate correctly after January 1, 2000. However, customers must test integrated systems to see if components work with Hart Scientific manufactured products. Hart makes no representation or warranty concerning non-Hart manufactured products.
And…
If you’re using our equipment with someone else’s gear, who the hell knows what’s going to happen. We sure don’t, so how can we promise you something specific, or even vague for that matter? We can’t, so we won’t. However, we love our customers and like always we’ll do whatever is reasonable to solve whatever problems come up, if there are any.
Which one would you rather read? Which one connects you to the brand, and gives you a sense of working with people, instead of a corporation?
I used to preach this and then lost it, and I think social media is to blame partly. It’s easy to put social media in a silo. For some reason in all the talk about Twitter, Blogs, Facebook, etc. I forgot that the principles that work with those social tools, work with all forms of media.
Heck I even warned against thinking social media are tools in a blog post “Social Media, Philosophy, Tools, or Both?” Maybe I should take my own advice!
Well people get off track. I was there, but now I’m back. It’s not going to be an easy battle, but that has never stopped me before.
I encourage you to join me (if you aren’t there already) and to not relegate human voices to a blog, Twitter, or Facebook. Lets push companies and ourselves in talking with a natural voice in all mediums of communication.
Who wants to read, listen, or even do business with a bunch of marketing crap anyway?
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?
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.