tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1779445484739853842024-02-08T08:52:31.726-08:00Emerging MarketingEmerging Marketing comments on the latest trends in technology and marketing, with a focus on entertainment. It goes beyond fads, reportage and links to offer insights on what is happening in the marketplace, and what it means to marketers.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-177944548473985384.post-63750286528988498582008-09-12T17:01:00.000-07:002008-09-12T17:08:42.951-07:00No Easy Answers<em>Scared off by the costs and delays of traditional research, marketers desperately troll the web for consumer feedback. But even with volumes of data, the answers may still elude them. </em><br /><br />There’s a lot of information on the web. There are also a lot of consumers. But information about these consumers? How they feel about your product, and what else they’d like to see from your brand? That’s a little trickier.<br /><br />Since the advent of the message board, the web has provided truckloads of information about how consumers perceive brands, products, and the marketing that surrounds them. But just as often as not, this information can steer marketers down blind alleys. And no matter how much data you glean from traffic reports, message boards, or even surveys, it can only supplement, not replace, a good marketer’s judgment.<br />Here are a few of the most popular online research tactics out there, from the very cheap and very fast to the expensive and elaborate. As always, I opine about what’s worth the cost and how it should (and should not) be used.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><strong>Skim and theorize:</strong>The technique: You (or perhaps an intern) scan the message boards, blogs, and social network sites to understand what consumers are saying about your brand; you may even posit a new product idea, brand extension, or product modification and watch the reaction. Favorite locations are technorati, consumer oriented blogs, Facebook, or your own site’s e-mails and message boards.<br />Advantages/drawbacks: Fast (can be done in a day) and cheap (meaning, free) ; however, in most cases you get what you pay for – a cursory glance at the consumer polity, dominated by the most vocal , involved, and tech savvy (which can be good or bad).<br />Good for: Keeping the pulse, fishing for new ideas, bringing up yellow flags before they turn red. This type of research should be done regularly, but is just not robust enough to form the basis for any big decisions.<br /><br /><strong>Skim and Analyze</strong><br />The technique: see above, but with a high priced agency behind it. Outfits like MotiveQuest will actually monitor millions of online conversations on blogs, message boards, etc. and boil the findings down for you. Mini Cooper recently did this and found that Mini owners were uniquely engaged with each other, pointing to the potential for social network marketing on the brand.<br />Advantages/Drawbacks: much more comprehensive than “skim and theorize”, and more likely to draw generalizable, and actionable insights. However, at this point we are talking about the same type of money and time commitment you might spend on more traditional techniques, like quantitative studies or focus groups.<br />Good for: big brands (like…Mini) with enormous marketing budgets – and who are willing to monitor their audiences online, offline and everywhere else to make sure their spending all those dollars the right way.<br /><br /><strong>The Omniture Omnibus</strong><br />The technique: Deep analysis of traffic reports (which can be provided by Omniture or one of many other providers) can tell you where your consumers are coming from, where they’re going, and where they linger on your site.<br />Advantages/drawbacks: once again, the price is right - most of this information is probably already available via your standard data reporting package. But this technique can quickly become too much of a good thing. So much data is available, you need to be very clear on your objectives before diving in. Fishing expeditions usually yield more questions than answers. And, the answers you do get tell you the what but not the why: OK, so no one stays on your “games” page for more than one minute – but what, exactly, is the wrong with it?<br />Good for: an initial diagnosis of issues and for generation of hypotheses – that should be validated or refuted by more detailed research vs. more traffic reports.<br /><br /><strong>Zoom zoom zoomerang –the online survey</strong><br />The technique: In less than a day and for less than $100, you can build and launch an online survey on just about any topic, and get hundreds, or even thousands of responses.<br />Advantages/disadvantages: the value of a zoomerang depends on the level of resources you’re starting with. If you have an extensive database that you can send the survey to, and a crack researcher that can write the survey (and eliminate bias), Zoomerand and it’s ilk are a good deal. However, if you don’t, these providers can usually provide all that – for a price that can rise into five figures pretty quickly.<br />Good for: companies that have the resources to do this cheaply. If you don’t, Zoomerang is fine for smaller decisions – I once worked for a company who used it to get employee feedback on their new performance evaluation system. But I wouldn’t bang out my next brand positioning from it.<br /><br /><strong>Online Focus Groups</strong><br />The technique: Usually based on chat, these are like big WebEx meetings where many (often hundreds) of users log in and respond to your questions, ads, positioning statements, etc.<br />Advantages/Disadvantages: great for recruiting, especially low incidence populations; faster and cheaper than traditional focus groups. And users are less likely to influence each other. But that’s not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes the interaction that happens in a roomful of eight or ten consumers really does lead to a key insight. And even if it doesn’t, sometime body language tells you a lot more than their words.<br />Good for: marketers that need fast feedback from hard to recruit types – like plastic surgeons, Moms of special needs kids, etc. And those that can’t be bothered with things like body language and subtle consumer signals.<br /><br />So, now that I’ve highlighted at least some of the drawbacks in all of the above, should we all go back to the traditional, expensive, and offline techniques? Of course not. My real point is that consumers will never deliver the answers on a silver platter. Just feedback that experienced, smart marketers can use, along with judgment, business conditions, and a million other variables, to make the big decisions that justify our big paychecks.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-177944548473985384.post-49900703538536834872008-08-27T22:43:00.000-07:002008-08-27T22:52:29.076-07:00Tired and Wired in E-CommerceI recently conducted two online purchases online – booked a trip to Florida, and purchased flowers for my mother on her birthday. What different experiences they were.<br />When booking the trip, I was treated to a variety of services that would help me dodge the many bullets of business travel in 2008 – surprise fees, late arrivals, missed connections, even cramped seats. The flower purchase, conversely, left many mysteries unsolved - like what the bouquet would actually look like, or how long it would last. The experiences could not have been more different – and revealed stark contrasts in how far (or not) some categories have come in the world of e-commerce.<br />For many categories, e-commerce has come along way since the days when buying something on Amazon.com made you a pioneer. But others still seem to be stuck in 1996<br /> <span class="fullpost"><br /><br />. Here’s my round up of which categories offer the latest and greatest features to make shopping fun, or at least painless – and which ones still feel mired in 1990’s era features and service.<br /><br /><strong>Wired:</strong><br /><br />Footwear: They said that people would never buy shoes online – but lately, e-tailers have offered services and features that make it easier to click your way to a purchase than browse the racks at Nordstrom. Timberland (and others) let you design your own shoe. Zappos has a free return policy and has even been known to recommend a competitor’s product. And my favorite innovation comes from Nike+, a brilliant offline/online hybrid that lets geek-jocks track distances run , calories burned and other measurements online, via an embedded communication device on the shoe itself.<br /><br />Fashion: today, even the highest end couture is now available to anyone no matter where they live, via sites like saks.com and emporioarmani.com; and destinations like Bluefly.com make these items (or at least a few of them) available at deeply discounted prices; but new services like Ideeli have made discount shopping into a sport with text and e-mail alerts as soon as a coveted item goes on sale.<br /><br />Travel: it seems like every time the airlines throw a problem at you, a web site pops up to help solve it. Buying the cheapest ticket humanly possible feels easy with discount alerts from all the major travel sites, and farecast.com will even tell you whether fare will rise or fall for your particular route. Seat Guru will help you find the best seat, no matter what the aircraft or airline. And vast review sites like TripAdvisor and Yelp give you access to hundreds of reviews for any given hotel, airline or restaurant.<br /><br /><strong>Tired:</strong><br /><br />Flowers – This category is plagued by the very problem the “wired” group has solved. Flower recipients rarely get an arrangement that matches the one displayed on the site; there are virtually no personalization options (unless you count adding a margin building Vermont Teddy Bear to your flowers “personalization”); and selections feel dated, limited, and homogenous from site to site. No wonder this category has been suffering from long term decline.<br /><br />Real estate – despite the advent of sites that feature listings by geography, home price estimates and foreclosure listings, this category still feels woefully lacking. This is especially surprising given the high level of involvement into this purchase. Zillow, whose home valuations are often laughably inaccurate, still feels more like a fun novelty than a true information resource. For Sale By Owner Listings are still listed separately from those controlled by real estate agents. And there is virtually no site that combines everything you need to make an informed decision: listings, foreclosures, value estimates, and neighborhood information. I’m sure there are hurdles, but this feels like a category where someone can still step in and offer a well differentiated product.<br /><br />Job search - basically, sites like Monster, CareerBuilider, etc. produce too many results, and too many irrelevant results. Things are just as bad for recruiters, who are bombarded with resumes that have no relevance to the position. The result is an ocean of candidates submitting an ocean of resumes to people who don’t have the bandwidth to assess them.<br /><br /><strong>How to go from tired to wired</strong><br />So how does one wire up these “tired” categories? The answer lies in those cutting edge etailers – it just takes a little creativity and (as always) sensitivity to consumer needs. Below are a few suggestions that could help the categories above or similarly tired spaces:<br /><br />Address pain points: how about digitally aging a bouquet to see what it will look like in a week – or even three? Or links to vault.com on job search sites to find out more about a company, warts and all? It’s not so hard to identify consumer pain points, one need only launch a fast survey or troll the blogs and message boards. Solve these mysteries and consumers will reward you.<br /><br />Add some sizzle: feature one hour sales on limited stock items to create a sense of urgency, even competition. And spice up the merchandise: Martha Stewart and Vera Wang make flowers from my Great Aunt. But I know some young women that would appreciate a bouquet by Tom Ford or Muccia Prada. Heavy web shoppers tend to be younger and hipper – so should your product.<br /><br />Introduce personalization: Consider giving users the ability to create their own floral arrangement. Or their own house, with an automatic e-mail that advises when one like it has become available. Personalization has already worked for categories (like travel and footwear) where the product was traditionally dictated by tastemakers. It’s certainly not a stretch to introduce it to the “tired” categories as well.<br /><br />Get to know the consumer – sites like Netflix have continuous feedback loops that let users rate their choices, so suggestions get smarter and smarter. Not perfect by any means, but at least helpful. The same technology can be applied to jobs (or job candidates), flowers, or condos.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Basic message: give consumers the information they want, make the shopping experience as painless as possible, and occasionally intrigue and excite your users – the same stuff that works in the mall or the car dealership can win people over in the digital realm as well.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-177944548473985384.post-10728451470066086382008-08-11T12:07:00.000-07:002008-08-11T12:13:20.072-07:00Top 5 Digital Marketing ClichesOnce upon a time (say, 2002), digital spending was a negligible proportion of total marketing budgets, and we lived in a world where few marketers would dare go “beyond the banner”. Fast forward to 2008 and in some cases we have the opposite problem. Digital spending is still too low - but in the spirit of wanting to appear current, some marketers have rushed to embrace any and every new digital tactic on the horizon.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br />This has resulted in a scenario where some digital tactics are dangerously close to “jumping the shark”. Everyone is doing them, so they’re not original anymore. They generally are not done well (i.e., in a way that builds brand equity, awareness or sales). And they may be so commonplace, they have the opposite effect of making a brand seem current or hip. </span><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Here are my top five:<br /><br /><strong>The Social Network Page:</strong><br />The offense: In 2006 every brand had to have a MySpace page; now they have an equally urgent need for a Facebook page. The result is usually the equivalent of an online ad hidden within the vast reaches of a social network, adding little value to consumers or the brand.<br /><br />The offenders: A look at a few major consumer brands (Sprite, Skippy Peanut Butter, Gatorade) show Facebook pages with little more than a boilerplate brand description and a link to the corporate url. It looks like some marketing departments have been on a friend collection tear, though. These dull profiles mysteriously seem to attract thousands of “friends”, though wall posts number in the low double digits – suggesting very low engagement.<br /><br />They might try: Building a profile that reflects their brands’ unique provenance, personality, or benefits. Brand groups agonize over building and evangelizing the perfect brand persona. Here’s a chance to showcase all that hard work.<br /><br /><strong>The Second Life Storefront </strong><br />The offense: Countless companies have set up storefronts in this media-genic virtual world. But high developments costs ($100k to as much as $5 million), high maintenance and low overall usage (about 30,000 visitors at a given time) have produced lukewarm results. Hence, Second Life’s recent ranking by marketers as the most overhyped trend of 2007.<br /><br />The offenders: Apparel retailers like American Apparel, Nike and Reebok, auto companies (Nissan) and hotels (Starwood/Aloft) have all jumped in. 1.800.Flowers.com even hired a specialized agency to market their storefront, but still garnered fewer than 1000 visitors.<br /><br />They might try: Incorporating their brands into much simpler, mass market digital activities like casual games. Some are played millions of times, and let you measure engagement more specifically than ever.<br /><br /><strong>The Online Ad Contest:</strong><br />The offense: Who needs creatives, or even a creative strategy, when you can crowd source your ads? Aside from the obvious strategy and quality issues, the tactic suffers from ubiquity and anemic entry numbers (rarely more than a hundred or two).<br /><br />The offenders: Budding commercial auteurs must be feeling pretty exhausted these days, after entering videos for Doritos, Chevrolet, The NFL, Country Music Television, Nikon, Malibu Rum, Heinz, Dove, Firefox, Converse, MasterCard, Sunkist and Coors Light- to name a few.<br /><br />They might try: Using those masses to get feedback on a spot that is at least on strategy, regardless of where it came from. Anyone who’s sat through a focus group knows that consumers are much better at responding to marketing than creating it themselves.<br /><br /><strong>The Social Network<br /></strong>The offense: Why have a Facebook page when you can have a Facebook? Marketers attempt to build fanatical followings for their brands by establishing their own social networks around them. Problem is, social networks don’t create brand passion – they can only leverage passion that already exists.<br /><br />The Offenders: Do you have the need to build a profile around your menstrual cycle? Kotex thinks so, and responds with not one but two social networks (one for girls, one for women). You can also build a profile on Neutrogena, Saturn, and watch out LinkedIn: HSBC Bank lets you build a profile to “tap into the expertise of your fellow entrepreneurs”. Even the mega-brands rarely generate more than 1000-2000 profiles (HSBC has about 300), so users should expect to be a part of a pretty tight little clique.<br /><br />They might try: First building passion for the brand through dull, old school tactics like stellar customer service, product innovation and compelling marketing. Then marketers are permitted to build that social network. For a good example, see Mini Cooper. Until then, most brands can make do with simpler tactics like message boards and e-newsletters.<br /><br /><strong>The Online Branded Entertainment Series<br /></strong>The offense: Since 30 second spots haven’t worked for years, marketers have decided to create their own entertainment with online webisodes, series and animated shorts, subtly or not so subtly weaving in their brands. Trouble is, even entertainment made to entertain (e.g., TV shows) more often than not misses the mark - so it’s doubly difficult to create something that will be compelling and sell your brand. As a result, most of this entertainment fails to entertain.<br /><br />The offenders: BudTV decided to pull back after a very costly investment in it’s own branded entertainment portal. Toyota’s iflookscouldkill.com series makes me long for the Toyotathon spots of yesteryear.<br /><br />They might try: I’d suggest either integrating your brand into something already interesting (e.g., Stride Gum’s sponsorship of the Matt Harding dance video) or just giving proven creative types free rein (BMW film series) and see what happens.<br /><br />Here are a few tactics that may seem new today, but are quickly being embraced by marketers…. to the point where they too may soon move into the shark jumper category:<br /><br /><strong>Twitter</strong>: From JetBlue to Whole Foods, companies are signing up to bombard their users with marketing messages using this infectious new service. But they better have something valuable to say (special one hour sale announcement- yes; our new website layout –no), or this could become the latest twist on marketing spam.<br /><br /><strong>The Company Blog</strong>: 10% of the Fortune 500 have their own company blogs, and some, like GM, have as many as eight. Some (GM Fastlane) do provide the latest updates on what people are talking about, but others (coincidentally, GM Next) are little more than a series of gushing press releases with little or no “insider” info.<br /><br /><strong>Mobile marketing</strong>: eventually, marketers will crack this code. But to date, there have been too many banner ads (if users won’t engage on the big screen, why would they bother on their cell phones?) and place based Big-Brother-ish spam tactics.<br /><br />I applaud the spirit of experimentation and no doubt all of the above “offenders” have learned something from their efforts. And there’s really no such thing as a bad marketing tactic – just bad timing, bad execution, or simply a bad brand fit. All good things that marketers might want to think about before plunging into the next digital marketing trend.<br /><span style="font-size:+0;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:+0;"></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-177944548473985384.post-32178412564836343712008-07-18T16:09:00.000-07:002008-07-18T16:22:17.317-07:00Blogger Rates The Blogs<em>Corporate blogs are everywhere - but what are they really saying?</em><br /><br />Seems like everyone’s got a corporate blog these days. In fact, 11% of the Fortune 500 have dedicated bloggers. Many others have official blogs that are updated on a regular basis by numerous contributors (usually employees). But as with so many new media tactics, some are being used to provide true value to the company and its consumers, while others present a clear case of band wagon jumping.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />I took a look at blogs from a very random sample of large, high profile, consumer driven companies, and noted a wide range of approaches to this tactic - in many ways giving insight into the culture of the company itself. Here’s what I found:<br /><br /><strong>Coca-Cola</strong><br /><br /><em>What Is It</em>: Their blog, titled “Coca-Cola Conversations”, is essentially a collection of musings by their company archivist, and focuses on the history of the brand, special editions, collectibles, great moments in Coke history, etc.<br /><br /><em>What I Like</em>: has a specific focus; unlike many other corporate blogs, you pretty quickly know what it’s about. As I would expect from Coke, it’s professionally done and eminently readable. It also focuses on the Coca-Cola heritage, one of Coke’s few strategic advantages vs. Pepsi.<br /><br /><em>What I Don’t</em>: Coca-Cola Conversations is a perfect reflection of the brand: professional, corporate, and of good quality - but not outstanding, and frankly a little bland. Given the fierce soft drink competition in this country , and the need to stand out, I’d say that this blog could, if you’ll pardon the pun, use a little more fizzle. The readership , through its lack of comments, would appear to back me up on this.<br /><br /><em>Suggestions</em>: I know (having worked there), that Coke is a bit of a closed, conservative culture, but it might be interesting to directly tackle some of the consumer perceptions that have driven people from Coke into niche beverages: health concerns (e.g., why not a “why our drinks don’t kill you” post?), environmental issues, or simple variety (Coke is always launching or developing some new product – perhaps they could at least give some insight into these?). There’s nothing terribly wrong or offensive with Coca-Cola Conversations, just a lot of missed opportunities.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Google</strong><br /><br /><em>What Is It</em>: This blog is about “insights from Googlers into our products, technology and culture”. The posts feel quite miscellaneous, ranging from company community efforts to how they create search algorithms.<br /><br /><em>What I Like</em>: posts are frequent, usually every few days. They also provide a nice forum for Google to talk about new products and initiatives, in a way that the obsessive minimalism of their home page would never allow.<br /><br /><em>What I Don’t</em>: the random nature of the posts, which range from updates on their “Developer Days” conference in Yokihama Japan, to a 500 word post about the link to their new privacy policy.<br /><br /><em>Opportunities</em>: The Google forum suffers from an issue common to many blogs. In its desire to cover a broad range of topics, it necessarily includes an awful lot that’s of little interest to anyone. It feels like each post would be absolutely fascinating to a different 5% of their users. Good blogs, like good newspaper columns, are anticipated and pored over by whatever niche they are targeting. I’d like to see a little more focus from this notoriously focused organization.<br /><br /><br /><strong>McDonald’s</strong><br /><br /><em>What Is It</em>: I must say I was eager to look at McDonald’s blog, as it’s been a bit of a lightning rod for criticism since the advent of “Fast Food Nation” and “Supersize me”. Turns out it’s exclusively focused on CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), and is authored by managers involved in CSR efforts, such as a VP of HR and their National Energy Manager (who talks about efforts to reduce franchisees’ energy use).<br /><br /><em>What I Like</em>: unlike Google and other blogs, this one does have a single minded focus. Every post is about some aspect of CSR and is authored with some level of authority by a senior manager in the company. The posts are also quite readable.<br /><br /><em>What I Don’t</em>: it’s good to have a focus, I’m just not quite sure that CSR in general is the right one for McD’s. Let’s face it, with all the flak they’ve been getting, it’s going to take a lot more than a few warm and fuzzy posts to change minds and not come off as simply defensive. Speaking of defensive, I did notice some of the same soundbites we’ve been hearing for years from these guys, like “serving more and more salads” in the face of accusations that beef speeds up global warming and coronary disease.<br /><br /><em>Opportunities</em>: I’d hardly suggest that McDonald’s just throw its hands in the air and accept the mantel of Large Evil Corporation. But I think they’re biting off more than they can chew. How about just tackling a single topic head-on? The focus on reducing energy usage is a good start – it’s believable since it saves them money, and it’s good for the earth, America, etc. Or perhaps they can talk more about how they are trying to squeeze more productivity out of less land in a world facing more food shortages? I just think they have a ways to go before they can author Mother Teresa’s blog, which feels a little like what they’re trying to do here.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Starwood</strong><br /><br /><em>What Is It</em> : “The Lobby” reads like a mini travel zine, with separate sections on restaurant recommendations, places of interest, activities, and events taking place around the world. The only blatantly commercial area is the “Inside” section, which pretty much just touts new Starwood products and specials.<br /><br /><em>What I Like</em>: With topics ranging from the shrines of Kyoto to the Columbus Jazz and Rib Festival, The Lobby positions Starwood as a brand for the world traveler seeking new experiences - vs. a collection of crash pads with cheap room rates and free bagels in the morning.<br /><br /><em>What I Don’t</em>: there’s nothing particularly offensive about “The Lobby”, but that’s the problem. It doesn’t seem to provide any true inside information, or make me gasp, chuckle, or provoke any reaction except perhaps a yawn or two.<br /><br /><em>Opportunities:</em> there’s a lot of competition in the online travel space; Conde Nast’s Traveler, Travel and Leisure, not to mention the New York Times’ weekly travel section, offer more compelling content written by professional writers that’s just as free. Entries in The Lobby could use more of a distinctive voice and POV, vs. the current press release-esque writing style they all too often take on.<br /><br /><br /><strong>General Motors</strong><br /><br />Here’s a company with not one but eight blogs. I took a look at “GM Next”and “GM Fast Lane”, frankly because they came up first in my Google search. I also decided that instead of evaluating each separately, I’d combine the two into one assessment.<br /><em>What Are They</em>: GM FastLane describes itself as is a “forum for GM execs to talk about current and future products”, while GM Next feels more R & D focused, with entries about fuel cells, new engine designs, etc.<br /><br /><em>What I Like</em>: GM Fast Lane- this blog delivered on one criteria that is most important to me: relevance. In one sample page, virtually all of the posts were compelling, even buzzworthy: an update of the highly anticipated Chevy Volt, pictures of the latest Camaro, even an acknowledgement that yes, they may sell or discontinue the Hummer brand. The public seems to agree, with posts regularly receiving upwards of 100-200 comments.<br /><br /><em>What I Don’t</em>: GM Next – in their effort to give readers a glimpse into their technology, with a focus on green efforts, this blog produces nothing but yawns. I couldn’t decide what I cared less about: their participation in a child seat safety program, or an intern gushing about the“remarkable achievement” of the LS9 engine (it still didn’t sound that remarkable to me, even after reading her breathless accolades).<br /><br /><em>Opportunities</em>: I think GM can use some blog pruning. Are eight blogs really necessary? Stick with Fast Lane for the reasons listed above, scratch Next, and take a hard look at destinations like Tuner Source, a blog about racing and drifting events whose posts generated, on average, about zero comments each.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Blogs I’d Like to See</strong><br /><br />Interestingly, there are a few companies out there that don’t yet appear to have blogs, but who I think would be perfect candidates:<br /><br /><em>Starbuck’s</em>: any company that feels the need to have a “rumor response” section on their corporate site might want to think about a blog to share their side of things. Beside, Starbucks still has millions of diehard fans. This is one blog that would get read.<br /><br /><em>Disney</em>: another blog that could build a following pretty quickly. This company has so much to talk about, just a new products focused blog could easily be updated daily without a stretch. Besides, there are already plenty of Disney blogs out there “by and for” Disney fans. Does the Mouse House really want the blog that appears at the top of Google search to be one that announces their latest lawsuit against mom and pop copyright infringers (which it is now)?<br /><br /><br />In conclusion, I’ve seen the usual range of quality for any hot new media tactic. Interestingly, corporate blogs in many ways reflect the culture of the organization authoring them. Sometimes that can result in a fascinating, informative blog that only reinforces a positive brand image. Sometimes that culture is best left within the corporate campus, and a blog can be an exercise in too much information.<br /><br /></span><span class="fullpost"><span style="font-size:+0;"></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-177944548473985384.post-11146811452626277062008-01-28T16:12:00.000-08:002008-01-28T16:28:27.210-08:00The Siren Song of Cheap Marketing Tactics<em>Sometimes, in the world of web marketing, you get what you pay for…</em><br /><br />Their siren song is hard to resist… get big and famous by spending next to nothing on marketing. Just SEO the heck out of your site, for example, and you’ll appear at the top of Google, which is all you’ll need to attract a huge audience. I recently spoke with the CEO of a web based consumer company who ticked off his preferred marketing tactics like a shopping list at the dollar store: Search Engine Optimization, Search Engine Marketing, Partnerships, “Viral” marketing.<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br />And there’s nothing wrong with any of these. In fact, I have utilized them all, sometimes with great results. But all too often, managers stop at these tactics without recognizing their significant limitations. And perhaps more dangerously, they ignore the big potential business drivers that they should be focusing the bulk of their resources on. Here’s a look at these seemingly magical tactics one by one:<br /><br /><br /><strong>SEO – search engine optimization. </strong><br /><em>The promise</em>: Load your site up with enough links, pixels, and key words, and you’ll float to the top of any search engine, including Google, MSN and Yahoo. Search engines are consumers’ first stop when looking for any product online, and SEO costs are minimal –so why wouldn’t this be the cornerstone of your marketing plan?<br /><em>The reality</em>: Many sites do commonly have issues that interfere with search engines’ ability to spider them properly, such as an overabundance of flash content. Removing these hurdles can raise your rankings, so it’s more than worth looking at. But most search engine methodologies are highly propriety, and the first sign of “gaming” the spiders can get you blacklisted from search engine results. And, most search engines factor traffic rankings heavily into their algorithms – so this tactic can only take smaller and newer sites so far.<br /><em>The bottom line</em>: A good baseline tactic, but this should supplement (not replace) your marketing plan.<br /><br /><strong>SEM – Search Engine marketing</strong><br /><em>The promise</em>: You can’t game the search engines so you’ll simply buy your way to success, bidding on keywords like a day trader until you have crafted the perfect acquisition machine.<br /><em>The reality</em>: I have used SEM and it was actually one of my most efficient marketing tactics. But there’s a real natural limit to how much you can devote to this tactic. The more words you buy, the more expensive the “clicks” as you buy out the most efficient keywords and widen the competitor pool. And at some point (often early on), it becomes cost inefficient. Example: I consulted for a company paying $5 per click for keywords, who only made a variable margin of $25 per purchase. Thus, 20% of their “clickers” would need to make a purchase just to break even – and their purchase rate was less than one in ten.<br /><em>The bottom line</em>: a great tactic that suffers from a similar drawback as SEO – it can get very inefficient very quickly.<br /><br /><strong>Viral Marketing</strong><br /><em>The promise</em>: you seed a blog, a UGC, or some other hot 2.0-ish destination with a piece of content promoting your brilliant product. Millions discover it, view it, pass it on and turn it into the next Facebook, Second Life, etc. And, you didn’t spend a dime in media placement.<br /><em>The reality</em>: a good idea if you have the type of product or content that truly inspires buzz. Some good candidates for this technique might be Britney Spears’ agent, the producers of that last indy flick that barely squeaked by with an “R” rating, or the campaign manager for a presidential candidate that has a lot of indiscreet rivals.<br /><em>The bottom line</em>: very difficult to generate without a naturally sexy product or message. One exception is a boring product with something interesting to say: Dove’s campaign for real beauty,for example, which featured a provocative video that received millions of views on YouTube.<br /><br /><strong>Affiliate Marketing</strong><br /><em>The promise</em>: cut a few deals, or a few hundred deals, with more popular ecommerce providers, paying them on a “bounty’ basis for every buyer they send to you. Shell out a few bucks, but only pay when you score a sale.<br /><em>The reality</em>: There are some deals to be had, but this sales channel often tends to be very expensive and even margin busting. And these deals can be a lot more high maintenance than they appear. Contracts must be negotiated, assets delivered, relationships managed to insure productivity. They can be a drain on resources that can be better spent elsewhere (more on that later).<br /><em>The bottom line</em>: Another B+ marketing tactic with as many limits as merits.<br /><br />So what’s a marketer to do if these bargain basement tactics only take you so far? Well, you can focus on the basics, for one thing, like site design, buying process and messaging. Watch for part two of this post for a deeper discussion of these less sexy elements, and how a focus on them can even make the cheapest tactics a lot more efficient.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-177944548473985384.post-26379672298313498272008-01-15T14:33:00.000-08:002008-01-23T17:33:00.201-08:00Branded Ecommerce in the Age of 70% Off<em>How can ecommerce providers drive sales without resorting to free shipping and deep discounts?</em><br /><br />As everyone knows, online retail sales continued their meteoric rise this past holiday season – but at a price. Free shipping was epidemic and discounts more aggressive than ever – some etailer home pages dedicated more space to their “70% off” banners than the merchandise they were trying to sell. But though everyone discounts at least occasionally, there are a few ecommerce providers that dare to differentiate in other ways. As an avid online shopper, I’ve noticed that this differentiation seems to be clustering in a few broad strategies:<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><strong>Become a destination</strong> – have you ever gone into a store just because it looked cool and fun, even though you really never intended to buy anything? And maybe you did indeed end up buying something, or at least coming back later when gifting season hit? Some online stores are trying to stand out by just providing an opportunity to take a break or window shop in a new way. Here are a few I’ve seen:<br />• <em>Brookstone</em> – they have taken the concept of “browsing the shelves” literally with a new interactive feature that lets you view 3D shelves in a virtual store, viewing hundreds or even thousands of items at once.<br />• <em>Trip Advisor </em>– I just wasted 30 minutes on their incredibly fun “World Challenge” game. Other raging time wasters include chatting with other travelers via their social network, or posting on their message boards.<br />• <em>Diesel Denim </em>– has a section called “the cult” with articles and videos about performance artists, cutting edge music festivals in Europe, etc. True, it doesn’t make me instantly shell out 200 bucks for jeans, but does serve to reinforce Deisel’s street cred in an image obsessed category.<br /><br /><strong>Become the ultimate helpful sales clerk</strong> – today’s most advanced ecommerce sites do everything a sales person can do, with the possible exception of telling you how great your butt looks in those jeans. Web 2.0 tactics are especially helpful in achieving the virtual shopgirl effect, as is bonus content from “experts” real or perceived. Some favorites of mine:<br />• <em>New Egg </em>–this lesser known electronics site now includes an “eggspert” forum – basically an wikipedia created by nerds to help simpletons like me differentiate between 1080p and 720i.<br />•<em> Travelocity </em>– like any good travel agent, Travelocity’s recently launched Road Trip Wizard lets you enter your travel interests and preferences, then spits out a complete itinerary, with maps, hotel recommendations, etc.<br />• <em>Barnes and Noble.com </em>- want to get a better feel for a book you’re considering buying? Barnes and Noble now features video interviews with authors to help you go beyond the inside cover.<br />• <em>Lancome</em> just overhauled their site which features beauty tutorials and suggestions for alternatives to discontinued products.<br /><br /><strong>Make it especially for you</strong> – personalization, in some form, has been around since the dawn of ecommerce. But recently, some business have been taking it to the next level, giving users access to products that are truly custom made, even one of a kind:<br />• <em>Threadless.com </em>goes well beyond just letting you create your own T-shirt. In a triumph of 2.0 democracy, they only sell user generated designs. Apparently, some of the more popular user-designers have achieved near “Project Runway” fame for their designs.<br />• <em>Intellifit.com</em>, a recently launched men’s clothing site, has installed body scanners in airports around the country to measure users; clothing recommendations from various well known brands, including Nordstrom, Levi’s and Land’s End, are then sent via e-mail based on your body type.<br />• And though it’s been around for awhile, <em>Nike.com </em>can guarantee that no one will be wearing the exact same shoes as you ; choose your heel color, your swoosh color, your shoelace color – and top it off with your very own written ID on the back of the shoe (as long as it doesn’t say “sweatshop”).<br /><br />Maybe all this is a waste of money and resources. Most people go to an ecommerce site to point, click, buy and get out of there. But the same can be said of offline retailers, and that group has not hesitated to enrich the shopping experience with grand piano players, free beverages, or even (in the case of Home Depot) classes on DIY home improvement. They know that the extras are what bring people back, develop those coveted positive brand associations, and maybe even let them run those 70% off sales just a little less often.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-177944548473985384.post-17690421109721952272007-12-17T09:28:00.000-08:002008-01-23T17:36:35.835-08:00Battle of the Network Webstars: Evaluating the "Big Four's" websites<em>There's a lot of cool stuff on network websites - but does it deliver anything new to the user - or the advertiser</em>?<br /><br />In the past couple of years, the major networks have been sprucing up their web sites, in an effort to keep them, shall we say, new media compliant. When I used to develop sites for TV shows (back in 2005 or so), not much was needed to be seen as relevant and informative. You could create a seemingly "complete" site with sections for cast bios, episode guides and a trailer for “next week’s episode”. Today, full episode streams, blogs, widgets, and even tag clouds are the norm. But has all the 2.0 bling actually improved the user experience and the ever elusive site stickiness? And perhaps more importantly, have all the new gizmos made these destinations better places to market your product? I recently spent some time visiting the web portals for the big four (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) to answer some of these questions for myself.<br />Here's what I found:<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Virtually all the network web sites now contain full episode streams with limited commercial interruptions. But despite the opportunity to own mindshare (at least, for 30 minutes) and truly engage the user, few advertisers actually took advantage of it. Most full episode streams featured the same 30 second spot, shown during each commercial break, with a banner or other ad unit adjacent (rarely with a compelling call to action).<br /><br />As mentioned, network webmasters have clearly been reading all the buzz about web 2.0, and have been feverishly incorporating it into their portals. But some shows are more gizmo friendly than others. For example, I can see placing a widget on my Facebook page with a constant feed of new SNL sketch content . But I’m less excited about one that promises all “the latest dirt” on Jericho (full disclosure: I’m an SNL fan). And I couldn’t quite see the point of those tag clouds for the Amazing Race, though I do like the idea of giving superfans the outlet of an Amazing Race wiki.<br /><br />The most interesting surprise was the web exclusive content. Much was simply repurposed from on air segments, but several of the networks are beginning to produce online only episodic series. And some of them aren’t even that awful. For example, despite the uber-cheesiness of “Coastal Dreams” (an online soap from nbc.com), I did find myself watching it through not just one but three commercial breaks (and cheese or no, isn’t that the point?). And it certainly beat the pants off of any of the original content on Youtube or the hot UGC destinations.<br />Finally, even though the network sites offered many of the same features, they did vary from one another in several key areas. Here’s a summary of what I found in my recent deep dive into the nets of the networks:<br /><br /><strong>ABC.com</strong><br /><br /><em>What makes it special:</em><br />ABC was the first to do full episode streaming, and since then, all the other networks have pretty much embraced their model. But, for my money, their player is still the best: giant picture size, limited clutter, great picture quality.<br />I was also intrigued by “Start Now”: a series of cleverly designed icons, that tell the user where (aside from on TV) each program is available: online, wireless, ipod, etc. More than just convenient, it positions their programming not as TV shows but as episodic content available wherever and however you want it –forseeing exactly where this market is going.<br /><br /><em>Stickiness:</em><br />An objective measure, but that beautiful player does keep me watching, even through some of my less favorite programming like “Samantha Who”. But, I didn’t see much (or any) original content, unlike the other networks<br /><br /><em>Advertiser friendliness:</em><br />Audio/video ad spots automatically played on the home page, which I found a bit annoying – however, I suppose that’s just the intrusiveness advertisers are looking for. But I did see some missed opportunities on the site: Extreme Makeover, which should have been littered with hundreds of “available ats”, merely listed out sponsors' products, with little detail, and no information on how to get them, and all well below the fold.<br />The player ads were also a little disappointing. I’ve seen some really cool interactive ads during ABC’s episode streaming, but here was just the same 30 second ad, over and over again. Even if you don’t want to bother with interactivity, these players seem to offer an ideal venue for a narrative series (“scenes from a scrubbing bubble marriage: a tale in three parts?”) that would engage the viewer in a way TV ads never could.<br /><br /><strong>NBC.com</strong><br /><em>What Makes it Special</em><br />Those web exclusives, mentioned above. I particularly enjoyed Pale Force, the animated series from Conan O’Brian. And as I mentioned, Coastal Dreams was better than I expected and bordered on guilty pleasure status. But this isn’t surprising, as NBC was something of a pioneer web content, a la SNL digital shorts on iTunes.<br />Additionally, overall, NBC.com just seems a little more content rich than the other web sites.<br /><br /><em>Stickiness</em><br />Aside from the wide variety of content, NBC’s reality/game programming lends itself beautifully to the web and can cause a user to waste hours on the site. Particularly insidious is the “Deal or No Deal” online game based on the show’s premise – which I understand is the one of NBC.com’s most popular features.<br /><br /><em>Advertiser Friendliness:</em><br />All that content provides great sponsorship opportunities, but nbc.com’s strength is also a weakness. The home page packs so much in that it feels cluttered, making the ads a little more difficult to find vs., say, abc.com’s.<br />Also, the NBC player gives advertisers a wide berth, plenty of space to include either full screen ads or a video ad with adjacent interactive banners . Of all the networks, however, this is the only one that appeared to include ads from more than one sponsor not only during the show, but within a single break.<br /><br /><strong>CBS.com</strong><br /><em>What Makes It Special:</em><br />Though a little buried, CBS.com actually seemed to have more original web programming than anyone else, ranging from a low budget soap to a redneck cooking show to an “Apprentice” clone reality show. Given the average age of the CBS viewer (which I believe is around 60), this came as quite a surprise. And the CBS webmasters have done their 2.0 homework, with blogs, wikis, and widgets galore – but do those 60 year olds even know what any of those things are? Some explanation would be useful, or maybe even a reason to click on all this stuff.<br /><br /><em>Stickiness:</em><br />No hit game shows to copy on the web, so those addictive little games like “Deal or No Deal” are missing. And the player, with it’s small screen and clutter-y cross –sell, doesn’t make me want to spend an afternoon with it. However, with the writers strike shutting down more shows every day, maybe all that original web programming may keep an audience coming back.<br /><br /><em>Advertiser Friendliness:</em><br />The home page is nicely laid out and only has one primary sponsor, who dominates the page with a gigantic leaderboard that eventually collapses into a thin header. The player, however, leaves a lot to be desired. The video space is small and competes with all that cross sell, and there’s no timer for the commercials- and personally, knowing there are just a few seconds left keeps me watching through these annoying but necessary interruptions.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Fox.com</strong><br /><em>What Makes It Special</em><br />If anything, the Fox site is noteworthy for what it doesn’t have. No web originals, no fancy wikis or widgets – an ironic twist, given how aggressive Fox has been in the new media space, with its many acquisitions, mobisodes, and the like. It does, however, render the site a bit less cluttered and easier to navigate than the other networks’.<br /><br /><em>Stickiness</em><br />As mentioned, gizmos do not necessarily equal stickiness, and the lack of them was not a problem for me. Fox’s clean design equaled easy navigation and an invitation to stay for awhile. Other pluses were its slick media player and addictive “Smarter than a Fifth Grader” game. However, there was little in the way of special content or activities for obsessive fans of say, Family Guy (like myself), which would have kept me there a lot longer.<br /><br /><em>Advertiser Friendliness</em><br />Fox’s uncluttered interface helps the few ads there to stand out even more. However, the Fox site missed the same opportunities – purchase links to iTunes, interactive or narrative player ads , etc. – as the others.<br /><br /><br /><br />Overall, the network sites have evolved dramatically in the last few years. Once merely the go to place for show schedules and cast bios, they now attract and keep viewers with extensive video content, original series, and involving games and 2.0 activities. And there are some great opportunities for aggressive, creative advertisers, even if they’re not all being taken advantage of yet. Maybe someday those ads will be as fun and entertaining as everything else on the sites.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-177944548473985384.post-30982393574719224162007-12-07T09:03:00.000-08:002008-01-23T17:36:57.177-08:00The Brave New World of Facebook Marketing<em>Separating the hype from the help for marketers intrigued by what Facebook might offer them</em><br /><br />Facebook has received so much hype of late, that any digital marketing strategy might be seen as wanting if it doesn’t contain a Facebook plan. And Facebook does offer quite a few options, from what I’ve seen – but some seem a lot more interesting than others. Below is my own, highly subjective assessment of some of the options currently available to marketers –plus a few more services that I’d try out if Facebook would someday offer them:<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><br />The Facebook Page<br />The answer to every brand manager’s question “where’s my brand’s Facebook page?” (formerly “where’s my MySpace page?”), I suppose not having one would seem pretty old school. Thousands of brands are listed on Facebook, both corporate sponsored (“the official Sprite facebook page”) and fan generated “addicted to Coca-Cola)<br />· Positives: you can at least tell your CMO that yes, you do have a Facebook page, and therefore are connected with the youth of today. And, a Facebook page can be a great tool to notify users and fans of special offers, events, promotions, etc.<br />· Drawbacks: some brands seem better suited to a Facebook page than others (e.g., Maroon 5 vs. Tide detergent). And, those fan generated ones seem so much more sincere and effective than the “official” profiles. I’d rather spend my money encouraging fans to create their own profiles about my product.<br /><br />Hypertargeted Ads<br />This most obvious of uses simply looks at users preferences and profiles, and delivers ads based on this information. It’s thought to be superior to say, MySpace’s targeted ads, since anonymous profiles are not permitted and users are therefore thought to be more honest about what they reveal about themselves.<br />· Positives: highly contextual. At least in theory, hyper-targeted ads should be hyer-relevant to the user<br />· Negatives: you can either be too targeted and big brother-ish, or not targeted enough and come off like those TIVO suggestions that don’t make sense. The ideal is a happy medium where users don’t think they’re being tracked, just that Facebook magically knows exactly what they want and when they want it – just like a good friend should.<br /><br /><br />Facebook shopping – users can opt to have their friends alerted when they make an e-commerce purchase; e.g., twenty of your friends have just purchased “Microtrends” on Amazon.<br />· Positives: this is being heavily hyped by Facebook, largely because it leverages user preferences and behavior to facilitate the word of mouth recommendations that all marketers covet.<br />· Negatives: once again, the Big Brother risk: do you really want the world to know about your hemorrhoid medication purchased at Drugstore.com; or your spouse to see the copy of “Your Divorce Advisor” from amazon.com?<br /><br />Brand as widget advertising:<br />Going beyond the Facebook page, marketers can now create widgets built around their brands. For example, Red Bull Roshambull allows users to challenge their friends in a “rock paper scissors” type game. “Sprite Sips” a customizable animated character based on the Sprite brand.<br />· Positives: classic permission marketing, users are only interrupted if they really want it; a really clver and useful app that organically springs from the brand could score big on visibility, engagement, brand values and all those other cool KPIs.<br />· Negatives: the brand based apps that I’ve seen seem to either shoehorn a brand into a traditional game or challenge, or reflect too much brand and not enough utility. I couldn’t help but notice that brands or products have inspired many an app (e..g, Starbuck’s app, Fast Food Fight featuring McDonald’s products, Wedding Crashers app). I’d rather offer tools, like images and information, to the app-o-sphere and let them keep on developing apps around my brands, but with approved content.<br /><br /><br />And here’s a few that aren’t (as far as I know) being offered, but perhaps should:<br />· Facebook Intelligence: Facebook has the raw material to predict and assess market trends, teen/young adult consumption behavior, and slice and dice it by demographic, psychographic and every other criteria a marketer can dream up. All they need is someone to analyze and package the info into actionable bites for today’s data hungry and time starved marketer.<br />· Facebook research: surveys, quizzes, online focus groups with the youth of America (and the world). The recruiting pool alone is enough to launch this service, as no one else has as great an ability to gather a representative sample of marketers’ increasingly specific target audiences.<br />· Facebook evangelists: with all that data, I’m sure that Facebook could easily find, say, 100 teen thought leaders to sample and evangelize anything from new athletic shoes to face cream. Yes, these evangelists can add applications, include brand video on their walls, etc., but there’s no reason marketers can’t send them free samples and ask (or incent) them to promote the products offline as well.<br /><br />My overall assessment? Facebook offers some interesting new opportunities for contextual advertising – I would put a few dollars of my marketing budget towards testing some of these out. However, there are certain risks that could undercut Facebook’s intention to change advertising for the “next hundred years” (as they predict): users may see some of the products as a little too contextual and have privacy concerns; users may not be entirely frank about what they reveal about themselves (I have personally seen quite a few fibs in friends’ profiles); and finally, as Facebook appears to have supplanted MySpace as the social networking site de jour, might another “disruptive” giant be waiting in the wings?<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-177944548473985384.post-33475662723710603112007-12-07T08:55:00.000-08:002008-01-23T17:37:17.035-08:00Attack of the Web Video Destinations<em>I try to make sense of the ever expanding world of web video…</em><br /><br /><br />Last night, I decided to kick back on the lazyboy, fire up the laptop, and enjoy some good old fashioned web video. I quickly got confused. I was soon bombarded by Veoh, Vimeo and Viddler…Metacafe, Megavideo and Motionbox. And those are just the M’s and the V’s. How to differentiate between all these richly VC funded start-ups? An even tougher question if I’m an investor, or worse yet, an advertiser. Just to sort it all out, I created my own rudimentary segmentation model. Here’s what I found:<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><strong>Slick, big media financed entertainment sites</strong>: This is video content for users that want their favorite TV shows online, preferably provided by Big Media. The most famous example is probably iTunes, which first offered full episodes of your favorite shows online. Now Hulu, (co-owned by Newscorp and Fox) is offering a kind of streaming version of iTunes TV, with full episodes of about 100 TV shows from Fox, MGM, and Sony Television. And, you can always hit the major network sites (cbs.com, abc.com, etc.) for a fix of your favorite sitcom –they all offer streams of their most popular shows.<br /><br /><strong>Pure UGC sites:</strong> These are the Wild West of web video, containing mostly random user generated content. Started by YouTube, there are now a great many competitors, such as veoh, metacafe, etc. There’s plenty of illegal copywrited content here, and plenty of unwatchable amateur attempts at entertainment. The main advantage of these guys seems to be quantity vs. quality. For example, you can type in the name of virtually any band into YouTube, and pull up a wide selection of their music videos. Virtually any current movie trailer you can think of will be there too.<br /><br /><strong>Niche oriented video</strong>: somewhere between these two extremes are the equivalent of independent film studios: sites that feature professionally produced content on microscopic budgets, but with a distinct point of view. For example, vbs.tv is 60 minutes for the “Maxim” audience. Ego.tv aspires to be a kind of aspiriational “E” channel, with segments on fashion and celebrity.<br /><br />So who will win in this cacophony of new content? There are, of course, a lot of people thinking about this question, but here’s my point of view: it’s entirely possible to go up against the slick Big Media sites - but your product needs to be supported by a distinct brand and point of view. Cable television was a wasteland of miscellanea until the niche networks finally found their voice, a la FX (edgy, HBO like drama for free), MTV (youth lifestyle and music), or even Spike (mindless entertainment for young men). In addition to giving viewers a specific reason to tune in, cable’s evolution also let advertisers finally figure out who they were reaching, and even gave them a relevant brand with which to associate themselves.<br /><br />That’s why I find the niche trend so interesting. They might not always be successful, but at least the vbs’s and the ego’s of the world are trying to differentiate themselves, to their audience and their sponsors. I’d keep an eye out for this relatively new subcategory.<br /><br />There also seems to be a movement towards more professionally produced content. Sites like Crackle, for example, are offering budgets to budding auteurs to produce their concepts. In this respect, there appears to be some real convergence happening between studio content like “The Office” and the pure UGC chaos of YouTube.<br />Which brings me to my final point: whether it’s generated by a geek with a camcorder or a production team at a major studio, all content is ultimately user generated.<br />And frankly, audiences won’t care – they just want what every consumer wants: something that’s unique, better, and offers an alternative to what’s been available on their 500 TV channels.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-177944548473985384.post-90401995392855650132007-12-04T14:14:00.000-08:002008-01-23T17:44:57.219-08:00YouTube and CNN: Branding in the Age of 2.0<em>What the recent Presidential debates say about YouTube, CNN, and the nature of branding in a changing media world</em><br /><br />As a consultant to many start-ups with limited budgets, I am often asked about how to stretch limited funds to make a big impact. Promotions, traditional and web advertising, “viral” marketing and other tactics are often considered, as are sponsorships .<br />Watching the CNN debates, sponsored by YouTube, I was struck by how much they got out of this deal, considering how little it cost them. For a new media company with an unconventional business model, YouTube sure followed a lot of basic rules about how to make a sponsorship work for you:<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br />• Make sure the audience knows who the sponsor is: NASCAR has so many sponsors, even die-hard fans are hard-pressed to name all but a handful of them. Half of all viewers thought the 1996 Olympics were sponsored by Pepsi (Coke spent hundreds of millions as official sponsor). But no one watching the CNN debates could be similarly confused. The YouTube name was thoroughly integrated into every aspect of the debate, from the name to the format to the permanent screen presence throughout the program’s two hours. As a bonus, the limit of three commercial interruptions virtually guaranteed that no one would come away thinking that for example, Google Video sponsored the event.<br /><br />• The sponsorship should reflect what your brand is all about: YouTube, as its name implies, is all about participation, democratization, and self expression. The 5000 video submissions, the direct contact between constituents and candidates, and the sometimes looney (and sometimes inspired) video creations from both debates reinforced those values in a way that a stadium sign or a corporate suite never could.<br /><br />• Get more bang for your buck, especially compared to more traditional forms of advertising: The Democratic debate drew over 2.5 million users; the Republican debate drew over 4.5 million. But this doesn’t even count the millions of impressions on CNN leading up to the debates, or the mass coverage the following day in traditional media outlets such as the New York Times, and countless political blogs like the Huffington Post. It also happened to extend YouTube’s awareness beyond its core audience of young men to folks as far afield as my parents, septuagenarians that never heard of YouTube before the debates.<br /><br />Finally, by integrating itself so deeply into a centuries old American ritual, YouTube subtly positioned itself as the undisputed leader in the increasingly crowded field of user generated video. Perhaps some of the Republicans jostling for position today could take a page from YouTube’s playbook.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-177944548473985384.post-44324534866119273892007-12-03T12:32:00.000-08:002008-01-23T17:37:30.361-08:00New New Media: Tactics to Watch For in ’08<em><em>Beyond the Second Life storefront and the MySpace page - still more new ways to connect with your consumer</em></em><br /><br />Some have been toyed with for years but are only now coming into their own; others are big in Japan, or Europe, but not the U.S….yet. Others have just been proposed, but virtually no one’s tried them out yet. Below are a few emerging new media marketing tactics that I think show great promise and will be interesting to watch in the coming year:<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><strong>Retail Flash Mobs</strong><br /><em>What is it?</em><br />Got a hot sale going on and you need to generate hype and store traffic? With retail flash mobs, users can sign up for real time notifications the second prices are dropped or a new product hits the shelves.<br /><em>Who’s tried it?</em><br />Adidas did this at the recent NBA All Star game in Las Vegas, notifying users on their cell phones when a limited edition All Star shoe became available. Fans mobbed the adidas performance store, whose sales rose 20 fold for the day.<br /><em>And I like it…why?<br /></em>First of all, who is organized enough to save all those mailers touting “advance notice” sales? This is a great alternative for forgetful folks like myself. Plus, the sense of immediacy and urgency increases the likelihood that I’ll dash to the store as soon as I get the message.<br /><br /><strong>Participative Billboards</strong><br /><em>What is it?<br /></em>These are digital billboards whose message can be altered by users, either by sending a text or e-mail message to an address that feeds directly into the billboard on a real time basis.<br /><em>Who’s tried it?</em><br />BBC for one, who asked users to text their votes on politically charged issues on giant billboards in New York. Opinionated New Yorkers could see their answers in real time tallies appearing prominently on the billboards themselves.<br /><em>And I like it…why?</em><br />Appeals to the exhibitionist in all of us and of course engages the user vastly more than a traditional billboard. Heck, even those who would never spend time texting their opinions to a giant piece of wood would probably at least take a peek at what everyone else saying.<br /><br /><strong>Interactive TV Borders</strong><br /><em>What is it?<br /></em>A graphic overlay on the borders of a TV program containing messages, advertising, and opportunities to interact using your phone (e.g., text to win) or even your remote control.<br /><em>Who’s tried it?</em><br />No one yet, but Bravo TV will test this during their March 2008 “A List” Awards show, where users may be able to enter advertiser sponsored sweeps, receive coupons and special offers, or special web or wireless content.<br /><em>And I like it…why?</em><br />This has to be highly contextual and value added to work (vs. an extra commercial running on the borders of your screen during programming), but it can actually make the viewing experience richer while helping advertisers get their message across at the same time. If done right, you can even train the viewer to pay attention to this border whenever it appears, lest they overlook cool content or freebies. Plus, for the terminally lazy, it is easier to just click on a remote button vs. enter a url or whip out your phone to send a text message.<br /><br /><strong>Facebook’s New Marketing Wonderland</strong><br /><em>What is it?</em><br />Mark Zuckerberg recently announced a whole new set of advertiser opportunities on Facebook that he claims will practical reinvent marketing. Too many to go into here (watch soon for a separate post dedicated to this topic), but they largely leverage the vast amount of information Facebook users reveal voluntarily and through their web behavior<br /><em>Who’s tried it?</em><br />Virtually every brand with an ad budget now has a Facebook page, and I understand that over 60 advertisers have already signed up for some of the new, contextual and recommendation based products.<br /><em>And I like it…why?</em><br />Not everything Facebook is offering is new or even innovative. But there are some interesting opportunities to get users to market your products for you, and the context element, if used properly, can make your message much more relevant. But as I said, watch soon for a more complete evaluation.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Webmaster tools for non-webmasters<br /></strong><em>What is it?</em><br />When I was at Warner Bros., we used to do special “webmaster programs”, giving for example, those with Harry Potter fan sites special content, downloadables, advance news, etc. But today, in the age of Facebook, MySpace, blogs and RSS feeds, everyone is a webmaster with their own customized destination. Hence, some companies are making what was once “webmaster content” available to today’s 2.0 webmasters.<br /><em>Who’s tried it?</em><br />Red Bull is the best example I’ve seen, with fun (read: not overly branded) content available for your RSS feed, your blog, your Facebook profile, etc.<br /><em>And I like it…why?</em><br />Another great way to turn users into marketers using widely available technology. Plus, any idea that entertains or amuses your audience while subtly plugging your brand will, to me, always beat out a direct pitch.<br /><br /><strong>Interactive Taxi Ads</strong><br /><em>What is it?</em><br />Interactive PDA-like screens on the back seats of taxi, which let passengers play games, watch video, and find out more information, all focused around advertisers’ brands.<br /><em>Who’s tried it?<br /></em>P & G, KFC, Volkswagon and many other usual suspects, although most activity had been in China, where passengers tend to be upscale, sophisticated and engaged. According to provider Touchscreen Media, 89% of passengers play with the screens.<br /><em>And I like it…why?</em><br />A captive and engaged audience is a marketers dream. Provided as always that true value (vs. a direct sell) is offered, I can see this working on planes, buses, trains, anywhere with a captive audience looking for something to do (aside from check their Blackberries).<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0