April 30th, 2009

Marketing in High Definition

LihdLogoBlack In the past, I've always tried to give readers (of the blog) and listeners (to the podcast) a look under the covers of some of the marketing programs I've had the pleasure of working on. None have been as prevalent and exciting as Living in High Definition - Panasonic's community that celebrates the concept of High Definition (not just literally from a product standpoint, but also as an experience/way of life)

Recently we gave the community a new look (form and function); launched a community manager; a new podcast; a series of expert solution videos; and the list continues...

Now it's time to talk about it...and give you a chance to ask questions and talk back.

So mark your calendars for next Thursday, May 7th at 1.30pm EST for a live call-in episode of Jaffe Juice - the New Marketing Podcast. Joining me will be Panasonic's CMO and VP, Brand Strategy, LiHD's Community Manager, the host of the LiHD Podcast and last - but definitely not least - of of the participating families in the program (real life consumers!)

I'll be doing this via Talkshoe and here's what you'll need if you want to join:

  • At 1.30pm EST on Thursday, May 7th, click on this link and join the call. Bonus points if you register. You'll be able to listen and chat live
  • If you want to call in to the show, you'll need to dial +1 724 444-7444 Call ID: 25133 and I'll bring you into the conversation

It's going to be a pretty intriguing and illuminating call. Hope you can make it.

April 30th, 2009

JJTV #8a and #8b – Weathering Twitterstorms

I recently sat down with Ad Age's Digital Editor, Abbey Klaasen and discussed an article she wrote called "How to weather a Twitterstorm"

  1. Listen to the what -- and to the who
  2. It's OK to say, "We don't know."
  3. Address the crowd where it's gathered.
  4. Tone matters.
  5. Explain how you'll address the future.
  6. Invest now to prepare for accidents later.

There are 2 versions:

  • ...the short version for all those who have A.D.D. and/or feel web video needs to be short
  • ...the long version with the full conversation

Take your pick.

Short

 

Long

  • You can now subscribe to this show directly from its new iTunes page
  • Retweet this why don't you: I figured out how to weather a Twitterstorm, now thanks to JJTV so can you: http://bit.ly/c0zga
  • Spread the word
  • Send in a video response
  • April 29th, 2009

    LiHD Podcast – Episode 2: It’s all about the community

    The second episode of the Living in HD Podcast is up. In it, we welcome Kate, LiHD's Community manager. Debates continue as to whether brands should have individual(s) names and faces; when it comes to community however, we think the answer is an affirmative. 

    If you haven't visited the community yet...and more importantly, become a member...what are you waiting for?

    fyi: You can follow the show's host, Laura and community manager, Kate on Twitter.

    April 29th, 2009

    Help me Opr@h-wan-kanobi, you’re my only hope

    Looks like the Ponzi scheme has already begun to unravel. Mediaweek reports that up to 60% of Twitter's "rapidly growing audience" doesn't come back to the service.

    Oops.

    In other words, even with all the hype from both mainstream media and celebrity central, the message coming back from Main Street America is "huh?" or "I don't get it"....at least not yet.

    It's eerily reminiscent of the good old Second Life days, despite many of the Twitter-boosters who make a clear distinction between the two "services" based on ease of use (set-up; initiation; operation) - whereas Second Life was ridiculously cumbersome, Twitter is pretty simple to use.

    Perhaps someone needs to send a memo...'er, DM to Ev and Biz with an 9-character message: SELL NOW! (who needs 140 chars?) or perhaps this is just a reality check restoring growth curves to "regularly scheduled programming".

    Perhaps this is also particularly good news for geeks everywhere...that they are not being overthrown by the likes of Ashton, Larry or Oprah.

    Oprah incidentally, has been on Opr@h W@tch for about a week now. I'm still waiting for her to respond to me (because that's what Twitter allows you do i.e. connect friends, fans and Dr Phil) She also hasn't updated her profile in 5 days.

    You can view my attempts at becoming Oprah's Dr Phil of Conversation here

    So is this a good thing? Is Twitter becoming cool again for people who like to say things like FAIL, WOOT and PWND? Or on the flipside, does Twitter have a bit of Secondlifeapnia - especially when it comes to retention?

    And while we're at it, what would you do if you were running Twitter to stem this tsunami of attrition? Personally I'd just get @oprah to tweet more, but that's just me...

    RT away.

    April 28th, 2009

    The problem with paid media isn’t the “paid”

    This morning I searched Google for blog posts about two seemingly related phrases. 

    Pins_attention The first search -- for "earned media" -- delivered nearly 7,000 results and every link on the first page pointed to a marketing blogger writing about the concept of unpaid media mentions, impressions or coverage (with media, in this case, including consumer generated content on social sites and elsewhere.)  Every one of the top 10 results represents a blog post written within the past 30 days, including an Ad Age Digital Next article citing a speech by the well-respected NYC venture capitalist Fred Wilson in which he advises marketers to focus more on earned media than on paid media.  Sage advice, kinda...

    My second search -- for the similar phrase "earned attention" -- delivered fewer than 500 results and displayed not a single marketing blog post within the first page of links.  Digging deeper, I did find a post by Max Kalehoff in which he wrote of the central role of "earned attention" in the integrated marketing mix.  He published this particular post in 2007.

    "Earned media" even has its own Wikipedia entry.  Alas, "earned attention" doesn't.

    Earned media isn't a new concept, of course.  If you need a definition, it refers to any effort by which a marketer gains unpaid publicity through either mainstream outlets like television, radio or print, digital outlets like traditional web publishers, or social media outlets like blogs, communities, forums or podcasts.  These media mentions might be earned through PR or just by doing something that garners positive word-of-mouth -- but the distinguishing characteristic is that your brand appears in the media without your company writing a check to media sellers.  This stands in marked contrast to paid media marketing approaches like advertising, sponsorships and product placements.

    Much of the current conversation (7,000 blog posts and one high profile speech by Fred Wilson) ponders whether the rises in social media and consumer-to-consumer influence, along with the corresponding faltering of mass advertising's effectiveness, have ushered in an age where earned media reigns supreme over paid media.

    This is a fair question and one worth considering, but it also misses the mark by a mile.  Why?  Because whether you earn your media or buy it, the very concept of media (as we use it in marketing, at least) puts corporations -- rather than consumers -- at the center of the value equation.  Really, the only meaningful distinction between paid media and earned media is whether or not the marketer (or it's agency) is writing a check for the privilege of bleating its message out.  They are different ways of saying what you want to say, but they are both still ways of saying -- when what you really want is to be heardYou don't just want to get in front of people; you actually want to get their attention.

    Soooooo... marketers really need to focus not on earned media but on "earned attention." 

    Although it may seem like it, I am not arguing about semantics.  Media conveys -- it delivers impressions, reach and share of voice.  If you said that media (paid, earned or otherwise) provides the means of garnering attention, I probably wouldn't argue (assuming your definition of media was broad enough to include consumer generated content.)  But even a means of gaining attention doesn't guarantee you've actually got someone's attention.

    The brutal fact is that, whether your company's message found its way into media by purchase or by persuasion, it has never been easier for consumers to get the content they want without really paying attention to the corporate messages they don't.  We all TiVo past 30-second spots, flip by print ads without a glance and contract an acute case of banner blindness whenever we surf the web.  We also casually skim news stories, picking out the highlights without digesting the details -- or glaze over when the hosts of Good Morning America prattle on about some uninteresting topic or another.  In all of these instances, the media themselves (never mind the companies who have paid or earned their way into those media) have flat-out failed to earn our attention.

    Attention is a scarce resource.
      Far scarcer these days than media inventory or marketing budgets.  And with scarcity comes value.  Speaking as a consumer (because, of course, we are all consumers before we're marketers): if you want my attention -- even a teeny tiny slice of it, even only for a few moments -- you have got to earn it.  Period.

    Does the fact that you have enough money to name a stadium or advertise during prime time get my attention?  If I'm Adweek, yes.  If I'm Joe America, probably not.  Does the fact that your PR person worked hard to get some reporter or another to sit through a briefing that resulted in a newspaper puff piece get my attention?  Not a chance.  So much for earned media.  Right? 

    Earned attention isn't about paid vs unpaid. 
    It isn't even necessarily about where your messages appear or who served as the mouthpiece to deliver those messages.  That debate amounts to little more than sibling rivalry between ad brothers and PR sisters.  In fact, (as a consumer) I probably don't care if you buy advertising or earn coverage to reach me, provided that whatever I see or hear is meaningful and relevant to me. 

    And therein lies the bottomline - I don't care...  Not "me" per se -- of course I care (about you, more than about anyone else) but normal people really and truly don't.  They are living busy, complicated lives and your marketing and communications matter very, very little in the grand scheme of things.

    You earn attention by making people care -- by giving them a reason to stop what they're doing and take notice.  And you make people care by giving them something they can care about.  This could be a great product, a stand-out customer experience, a noteworthy new approach or something to talk about.  You make people care by making it all about them, by demonstrating that you cared first.

    This isn't easy.  In fact, it's damn hard.  Certainly much harder than buying or earning media impressions.  But it's absolutely central to the success of your marketing efforts, because until you've earned your consumers' attention there's little chance they'll reward you with their interest, loyalty and hard earned money.

    So -- ummm -- can someone explain to me why nobody seems to be talking about how marketers can earn attention instead of debating the different ways of gaining media placements?

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


    April 27th, 2009

    JJTV #7: Do you really need a social media marketer?

    Well, do ya? Pepsi has Bonin Bough. Ford has W. Scott Monty. Coke has Adam Brown. Wells Fargo has another dude. This is in response to a Brandweek article. Warning: gratuitous human quote gestures ahead. Also do enjoy me getting really mad at around the 2m45 mark in respnse to this.

    April 23rd, 2009

    Are you a ‘middle finger marketer’?

    Middlefinger If there's a corollary to the maxim, "there's no sound sweeter than the sound of your own name," it's probably, "there's no sight sweeter to a brand marketer than the sight of her own logo."

    Earlier this week, I was traveling for business and it was the typical airline experience.  Oversold flight, not enough pillows or blankets, insufficient overhead baggage space (probably caused, at least in part, by the fear of mishandled luggage and incremental fees for checked bags) and not even a free package of peanuts for those of us crammed into coach.  But I travel enough so I'm used to it -- what can you do?  In fact, as far as travel days go, this flight was by no means atypical and I might even say the experience was better than others I've suffered through.  You with me?  OK...

    So we land and I grab a cab downtown for the first meeting of the trip.  My route took me past one of the city's pro sports stadiums -- and atop the stadium's upper tier, erected in humongous light-up letters, I see the logo of this very same airline.

    So I'm thinking, naming rights for a stadium probably costs somewhere in the neighborhood of a zillion dollars, all for the privilege of creating an impression with (or just impressing?) local sports fans and random drivers-by.  How is it possible that the airline can justify an advertising (sorry - sports marketing) spend of this magnitude but can't justify spending that same budget to make the customer experience better?

    Seriously -- think about all the things this airline might have done for customers if they hadn't already sunk their money into stadium naming rights.  Lower fares?  Lower (or no) fees for the first checked bag?  A few more pillows?  A coach-class snack?  There are probably a dozen or more ways they might have (even ever so slightly) delivered a superior consumer experience that could get flyers talking in positive ways -- rather than griping about giant logos perched atop the cheap seats.

    You've no doubt noticed that I haven't named the airline.  This post isn't even really about the airline.  It's about all of us.  If we work as client-side marketers, we've no doubt been lured at one time or another to invest a six- or seven-figure sum in a splashy sponsorship, flashy web temple or major media event.  If we're agency guys, we've no doubt recommended one (or many) of these things and ensured our clients that there is clear ROI in flushing money down the toilet.

    Cuz clearly there's no ROI in spending money on the very people who spend money with you, is there?  (sarcasm intended)

    Sorry people, but this is "middle finger marketing."  It's marketing at, rather than marketing for.  It's investing in the promise of new business rather than in the reality of your current clients.  It has more to do with your ego than it does with your customers.  And to your customers, it probably amounts to something akin to a tacit "screw you" -- so don't be surprised when your customers reply with, "no, screw YOU."

    Am I saying that all traditional marketing is bad?  Nope.  But I am saying that, as marketers, we all need to make sure we have our priorities straight.  If times are tough for your company, they're just as tough (if not more so) for the people who do business with your company.  Instead of flipping customers the bird, you should be reaching out your hand, patting them on the back and letting them know that you're doing what you can to help

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


    April 23rd, 2009

    Twitter is a giant Ponzi Scheme (there’s a Twucker born every minute)

    I fear many of us are falling victim to a giant, well-orchestrated Ponzi-type scheme involving the hyping of Twitter. It's actually nothing more than a simple traffic driving ruse, involving tweeting and retweeting links back to the various mainstream media and social media websites and blogs.

    Here's the dupe: all of these articles are about Twitter. 15 best uses of.... 12 top brands on.... 7 smartest brand marketers etc,

    So it's articles and posts about Twitter being promoted, distributed and amplified via Twitter and in doing so, driving traffic back to the same sites and blogs that set the ball rolling in the first place. And it's all thanks to the A.D.D.-like 140 character limit that basically lets you say Jack Squat except for a codified bit.ly slurl whatever that pushes you to go back to the scene of the crime.

    And as this continues to escalate, the medias (Ali G) and internetz increase their coverage, attention and "air time" because they know they're getting rich quick in the process.

    Am I wrong? I'm not sure I am. I'm not trying to be skeptical and all, but come on....there are bigger fish to fry and takes more than 140 characters to fry 'em.

    Oh and just in case you forgot...I'm @jaffejuice on Twitter and feel free to RT the crap out of this post and remember, drinks on me when I get to 10,000 followers (tweet-up venue to follow soon)

    April 23rd, 2009

    JJTV #6: I heart Charmin

    I'm a two-ply guy myself...especially when it comes to marketing.

    Hats off to Charmin. This is the kind of stuff we need to be focusing on, not 30-second spots, newspaper ads, banners and buttons and interns to manage our twitter accounts.

    April 21st, 2009

    @oprah w@tch: Day 2

    Oprah's on Twitter. Follow her @oprah.

    Oprah is a media maven second to none. She's conquered every single medium, with the possible exceptions of digital and "virtual" (I believe "social" fits between 3 planes: physical, digital and virtual), but she'll do that soon enough.

    It's inevitable.

    I'm actually wondering if she should purchase www.twitter.com/o from Oliver Thylmann in Cologne.

    Anyway, I'm testing my theory that Oprah is awesome by tweeting her every weekday to see when she'll respond (not IF but WHEN) and more importantly, what she'll say. Right now Oprah is only interacting with a small personal network and celebs, but of course that's not what Twitter is about...and nor is it what Oprah's about.

    I actually have a few show ideas for Oprah (one of them is what I call "weight loss by community") and the more I think about it, the more I'd like to invest some of my time with more ideas for her. She's done amazing things for the world...and for my home country, South Africa. I should return the favor.

    Think she'll respond? I do. Let's see what happens.