Blogger Rates The Blogs

Corporate blogs are everywhere - but what are they really saying?

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.

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:

Coca-Cola

What Is It: 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.

What I Like: 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.

What I Don’t: 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.

Suggestions: 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.


Google

What Is It: 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.

What I Like: 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.

What I Don’t: 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.

Opportunities: 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.


McDonald’s

What Is It: 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).

What I Like: 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.

What I Don’t: 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.

Opportunities: 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.


Starwood

What Is It : “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.

What I Like: 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.

What I Don’t: 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.

Opportunities: 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.


General Motors

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.
What Are They: 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.

What I Like: 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.

What I Don’t: 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).

Opportunities: 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.


Blogs I’d Like to See

Interestingly, there are a few companies out there that don’t yet appear to have blogs, but who I think would be perfect candidates:

Starbuck’s: 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.

Disney: 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)?


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.

Read more...

The Siren Song of Cheap Marketing Tactics

Sometimes, in the world of web marketing, you get what you pay for…

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.



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:


SEO – search engine optimization.
The promise: 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?
The reality: 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.
The bottom line: A good baseline tactic, but this should supplement (not replace) your marketing plan.

SEM – Search Engine marketing
The promise: 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.
The reality: 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.
The bottom line: a great tactic that suffers from a similar drawback as SEO – it can get very inefficient very quickly.

Viral Marketing
The promise: 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.
The reality: 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.
The bottom line: 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.

Affiliate Marketing
The promise: 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.
The reality: 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).
The bottom line: Another B+ marketing tactic with as many limits as merits.

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.
Read more...

Branded Ecommerce in the Age of 70% Off

How can ecommerce providers drive sales without resorting to free shipping and deep discounts?

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:



Become a destination – 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:
• Brookstone – 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.
• Trip Advisor – 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.
• Diesel Denim – 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.

Become the ultimate helpful sales clerk – 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:
• New Egg –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.
• Travelocity – 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.
• Barnes and Noble.com - 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.
• Lancome just overhauled their site which features beauty tutorials and suggestions for alternatives to discontinued products.

Make it especially for you – 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:
• Threadless.com 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.
• Intellifit.com, 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.
• And though it’s been around for awhile, Nike.com 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”).

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.
Read more...

Battle of the Network Webstars: Evaluating the "Big Four's" websites

There's a lot of cool stuff on network websites - but does it deliver anything new to the user - or the advertiser?

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.
Here's what I found:


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).

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.

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.
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:

ABC.com

What makes it special:
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.
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.

Stickiness:
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

Advertiser friendliness:
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.
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.

NBC.com
What Makes it Special
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.
Additionally, overall, NBC.com just seems a little more content rich than the other web sites.

Stickiness
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.

Advertiser Friendliness:
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.
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.

CBS.com
What Makes It Special:
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.

Stickiness:
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.

Advertiser Friendliness:
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.


Fox.com
What Makes It Special
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’.

Stickiness
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.

Advertiser Friendliness
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.



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.
Read more...

The Brave New World of Facebook Marketing

Separating the hype from the help for marketers intrigued by what Facebook might offer them

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:



The Facebook Page
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)
· 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.
· 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.

Hypertargeted Ads
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.
· Positives: highly contextual. At least in theory, hyper-targeted ads should be hyer-relevant to the user
· 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.


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.
· 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.
· 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?

Brand as widget advertising:
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.
· 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.
· 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.


And here’s a few that aren’t (as far as I know) being offered, but perhaps should:
· 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.
· 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.
· 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.

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?
Read more...

Attack of the Web Video Destinations

I try to make sense of the ever expanding world of web video…


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:


Slick, big media financed entertainment sites: 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.

Pure UGC sites: 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.

Niche oriented video: 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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
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.
Read more...