Author Archive

  • Aug 08
  • 11

Social Media Marketing is a Means, Not an End

A couple of weeks ago I hired a contractor to build my new house. I was very excited because this will be my first house and I have the luxury of building from scratch. I interviewed numerous contractors, determined to find the right one for this job. After all, building my house is just about the most important thing to me right now. I want it to be perfect.

After weeks of interviews, I settled on the contractor that I trusted to build the house I want. About a week after I hired him, the contractor called me at work and asked me to meet him at the build site on my way home. So, at around 6:30, tired from a long day, I arrived at the plot of land on which my new home would soon stand.

There was stuff everywhere: Lumber, bags of concrete mix, tools of every kind, two large Caterpillar back-hoes, a cement truck, and a small battalion of workmen. The contractor met me at my car, a broad smile beaming and a firm handshake.

“Well, Mr. Peters,” he began, “We’ve got everything we need. All the lumber has just come in. We’ve got the cement and equipment for the foundation. I’ve got brand new tools all ready and my best team. I’ve even got an electrician and plumber with all their equipment set up as well. Yes, Mr. Peters, I seems to me that we’re pretty much finished here.”

image

Okay, so clearly this story is made up. I am not building a house, there was no contractor, and therefore the contractor never uttered that ridiculous statement.

Think about this: If you hire someone to build you a house, and they claim to be done after getting together all the tools to build that house, you would likely pitch an absolute fit. Why then is this sort of behavior tolerated in the field of new media marketing? As I say in the title of this post, social media marketing is a means to an end, not the end itself. In other words, social media is the tools, not the house.

Unfortunately, the sort of ridiculousness seen in my little story seems to be taking place in the marketing world when dealing with the new, nebulous, and daunting field of social media. I see it happening in two separate scenarios.

Scenario #1

Scenario #1 takes place in a medium to large company. One of the higher-ups in the company decides that they are too far behind the competition and they simply must get a social media strategy right away. They pass the directive down to either their internal marketing team or their marketing/advertising agency. The marketers who are tasked with developing a social media marketing strategy launch into furious brainstorming sessions. “What’s best for us?” they ask. “Do we get a YouTube channel? Do we launch a blog? Do we let people upload pictures of themselves using our product to a special website?”

In this example, our marketing team settles on a company blog as the foundation of their social media strategy. The deadline approaches and the marketing team nervously makes their presentation to the aforementioned Higher-Up.

“What do you have?” the Higher-Up asks sternly.

The marketing team turns on the large computer screen and proudly shows the brand new www.company.com/blog. “We have a blog,” they say.

The Higher-Up peruses the blog for a few moments, scrolling down and clicking on a few links. He then sighs and leans back in his chair. “Well at least now we’ve got that social media thing handled,” he says.

Scenario #2

Scenario two takes place in companies of all sizes, though I have observed it most in smaller start-ups who look to forms of online marketing as a way to financially fit within their tightly cinched belts. Someone within the company begins searching for social media marketing and they find one of the countless “social media consultants” sprinkled throughout the internet. They contact one of these “consultants,” and the “consultant” enumerates the services he offers. They often look something like this:

  1. Teach clients how to use social networks like Facebook and MySpace
  2. Teach clients how to optimize their blog (often showing how to write catchier titles and add more pictures for easy readability)
  3. Strategize with clients about how to add more interactivity to their website

The person at the company is now sufficiently convinced of the expertise of the “consultant” and brings him on to help navigate the murky waters of social media marketing.

Analysis

Both of these scenarios are ridiculous, but more unfortunate is that both of them actually happen. These scenarios also share a common problem. In both cases, when the client wants a marketing solution they are given tools. The client wants an end, but they are presented with the means as if those means are the end. When this happens, it more often than not leads to failure (or at least unfulfilled expectations.) This failure is then blamed on social media as a whole, and, over time, these repeated failures leave a deep-set stain on the field of social media marketing. This all then leads to established marketers viewing social media marketing as digital tomfoolery, and new media marketers as 21st century snake oil salesmen.

In the first example, a blog might indeed have been an excellent choice for the social media foundation of the company’s overall marketing strategy. But it is not the existence of the blog that is important, it is the marketing role that blog plays and the results it achieves that are important. If our hypothetical company from scenario #1 sells cardboard sunglasses, then the purpose of their blog should likely be, either directly or indirectly, to sell more cardboard sunglasses. The purpose of the blog is not simply to exist. The blog should be considered and treated as a means to and end (sales).

I have spoken with people from numerous companies who are frustrated with the failure of their company blog. “There is just no ROI,” they say. The first question I ask is, “Why do you use the blog?” They stare at me for a second and respond, “Because we knew we needed a blog.”

A blog, like any other marketing component needs to serve a purpose. Blogs happen to be flexible and their purpose can be anything from customer service to traffic generation to branding the company as a thought leader to an outright sales venue. (Note: there are certainly many more roles a blog could fill). Once the blog has a purpose, once it fills a marketing role, goals can be set for it. Those goals could be sales, or increased page rank of the company’s website, or even increased brand recognition. Once those goals are set, the blog can then be used as an effective marketing tool (means) helping to achieve your company’s goal (end).

In the second scenario we see the all-too-common problem of answering the wrong question. Our hypothetical company in that scenario wants to pursue a social media marketing strategy. The “consultant” that they hire teaches them what social networks are and how to use Facebook and MySpace. The consultant also shows them how to write snappy blog titles that tend to fare better on social news sites. What doesn’t happen, however, is the company and the “consultant” deciding what the goals are. As such, the company now knows how to use Facebook (i.e. make a profile, update it, try to find friends, etc…) but they have no idea why they are using Facebook. Or, perhaps more accurate: they know how to use Facebook, but they do not know how to use Facebook to fulfill their marketing needs. After all, the way a B2B company uses Facebook is likely very different from the way a new music-focused e-commerce site does.

I think of this problem with the following analogy. I want to learn to drive a car. I hire someone to teach me how to drive. They show up and show me how to put the key in the ignition and start the car. They then take my money and walk away. I have no more of an idea how to drive than I did before. In fact, I am now more likely to get in a wreck than I was before I knew how to start the car. In this example, I had a goal, an end: to learn to drive. I was presented with a means to that end: how to start the car. But, the means was treated like the whole enchilada. Now I’m screwed. I still cant’ drive, I have wasted money, and I was told that I should be able to drive now, so I am angry and blame the whole thing on the car.

Conclusion

I suppose I should now conclude what has turned into quite a long post. The conclusion is simple really…it’s in the title. Social media marketing is a means to an end, not an end. When approaching a social media strategy, make sure you treat it as you do your other marketing initiatives. Determine first what your needs are. Are sales all that matters? Or do you want to better engage current users of your product to increase repeat purchases in the long run? Your needs inform your marketing, and social media marketing is no different. Don’t let someone sell you the means when you really want the end. If you want a house, make sure you work with a social media marketing agency that wont just give you the lumber.

11 Comments
  • Aug 08
  • 7

Social Marketing and Social Media Marketing, Continued…

Introduction

On August 5th I wrote a post about the confusion surrounding the traditional meaning of the term “social marketing” and the varying ways that it is currently being used in many circles. The idea for the post came from Mike Kujawski’s post entitled, “The Difference Between Social Marketing and Social Media Marketing,” so here again I give him a proverbial shout out. (NOTE: for any who want to read a fantastic post on the traditional meaning of social marketing, check this out.)

image

The reactions to my post were astounding, not because of their number, but because of their quality. I feel honored to be a part of this discussion, and even though it appears that I have angered some people, I think the discussion is something that should be taking place.

There were many great points made in the comments, and I have spent a good bit of time on the blogs/sites of those who commented. So that you all don’t have to go back and filter through the comments, I will list some of those sites here:

I have decided to write this post as a follow-up because it really is just too long to be a comment on the last post. There were many great points made in the discussion of the previous post. and also I think my initial post could use some further clarification. I would like to clarify my point here, and continue the discussion with all involved.

My point in the last post was that the term “social marketing” is starting to be used by some to refer to marketing that uses social methods like social media, events, street teams, and even 24/7 customer assistance to achieve its goals. Meant only as examples, certainly not proof, the following two sites appear in the top 11 results for “social marketing” on Google:

Of course Google search results are not proof of taxonomic change, I merely point to these sites as examples that “social marketing” has (rightly or wrongly) started to be used to mean something other than what it has in the past.

The problem here is that the term “social marketing” already refers to something else…and it has been around for quite some time. As Craig Lefebvre notes in his comment:

When one of the most respected academic marketers-Phillip Kotler-decided that we needed to think about applying marketing concepts to social problems in the early 1970s, he coined the term [social marketing] to describe a BIG idea. Thirty years later social marketing is being used around the world to address major health and social issues.”

Before moving on, let me be crystal clear about one thing. I understand that the term “social marketing” has been in use for nearly four decades and I also understand and support the work that has been done in the field since that time. I am in no way indicting or minimizing the field of work which “social marketing” traditionally refers to. It is well established both academically and professionally, and I myself, have worked on social marketing efforts with non-profits in Boston. For any who thought I was saying that field of “marketing for social good” does not exist, I apologize. That is certainly not what I meant.

Clarification

Now we come to the areas of confusion where I either did not adequately make my point or my point was misunderstood. Let’s look at some of the comments:

Bill Smith:

Listen social marketing is a exactly what it used to be. I’m sorry we got there 40 years before you did – actually I’m not really all that sorry – but there’s books, a peer reviewed journal, an Institute and yes a Wikipedia definition. There are also thousands of caring men and women in countries all over the world who know that social marketing means using the technology of marketing to make a positive difference in the world. They are marketing condoms to prevent HIV in Africa, helping kids wash their hands to avoid diarrhea, promoting breastfeeding, fighting against the environmental footprint of bottled water and helping families in America deal with early on-set diabetes. They don’t deserve to be treated as though they never existed because you think social marketing “isn’t what it used to be”. And they sure don’t care about your linguistic games.“

Jim Mintz:

I have taught social marketing in the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia/New Zealand and through out Europe since the mid eighties. It is an established field of marketing study. Along comes web 2.0 and thinks it can steal the name of a legitimate field. Now that is chutzpa .. Oh yes after close to 40 years we in the field of social marketing should change our name. Fat chance that will happen.”

First, I would make clear that if people begin using the term “social marketing” to refer to marketing using social methods, it would certainly not “treat [thousands of caring men and women] as though they never existed” as Bill describes. The crucial work he describes in his comment would have the exact same benefit regardless of how people referred to it. Furthermore, I did not say that “social marketing isn’t what it used to be.” I was very careful to be clear that I was talking about the term, not the field of work. I said, “I’m not so sure social marketing means what it used to.” I fear that there is confusion entering this discussion because I am talking about nomenclature and labels while others are talking about the fields those labels apply to. If one renames a folder on their computer, they do not change, diminish, or otherwise affect the files contained in that folder. I reiterate that this is a taxonomy issue.

On that note, I want to discuss Jim’s statement that, “Along comes web 2.0 and thinks it can steal the name of a legitimate field.” That makes it sound like there is a person or group of people that are making the conscious choice to hijack a term. However, language change is an organic process, often with little or no active input. Sure there are people who make the mistake — they say “social” when they really mean “social media” — but there are also people for whom “social marketing” means something different. They are not making a mistake, nor did they actively and purposefully sit down and decide to steal a name from another field.

I have had numerous discussions with other marketers and representatives of companies who use the term “social marketing” as an umbrella term to refer to marketing using social methods, not simply as a shortened stand-in for “social media marketing.” If one uses the term that way in a group of five other people and everyone understands it to mean the same thing, are they all wrong? I cannot correct them and say that they mean “social media marketing” because that is not what they mean. They are speaking of a larger marketing ideology of which “social media marketing” is only a component (albeit a large and popular one). These people use the term (rightly or wrongly) to encompass the branch of their marketing plan that focuses on consumer interaction and conversation, both online and offline. These “social methods” can be anything from blogs and other social media, to sponsored events and street teams.

Lexicons change all the time, and there is always the interesting problem of when a new change stops being wrong and starts being the right use of the new meaning. No one is ever sure where to draw the line. “Fast” is now both an adjective and adverb. But a couple hundred years ago “Fastly” was the adverb form of the word. One would “run fastly” just as they would “walk slowly.” When did the change happen? It’s hard to say. Was it when 51% of the population stared using “fast” as an adverb that it finally became right?

While not perfectly analogous to our current taxonomical discussion, I feel that the “fastly” example presents an interesting way of viewing this discussion. For the purposes of this example, I am using the idea of a “traditional meaning” and a “new meaning.” If, let’s say, 10% of the population uses the term “social marketing” in its new meaning, we could likely all say that they are making a mistake. But what if it takes off and in a year 30% of the population uses the term “social marketing” in its new meaning. Are they all still wrong? What if 80% of the population used “social marketing” in its new meaning? Are they all wrong? Do they all need to be corrected? Or has the meaning of the term changed? Obviously we can’t measure word usage with this sort of accuracy, but lexicographical shift can happen in this way.

Conclusion

Please note that I am not advocating a change in meaning. I am not taking a side, nor am I actively trying to change the meaning of the term. I am commenting on an organic shift that I am observing which may or may not pan out. As M4CHANGE put it, “Ultimately, the marketplace will decide this debate.” I couldn’t agree more. It will sort it self out organically and there is very little we can do to affect the outcome. Perhaps a new term will be coined soon that encompasses the idea of “marketing using social methods.” Perhaps not. Perhaps (for better or worse) the masses will re-adopt the term “social marketing” under their new definition and it will take off like wildfire. Perhaps not.

I would also argue that those who have taken to using the term “social marketing” as an umbrella term for “marketing using social methods” are not thumbing their noses at the field traditionally referred to by that label. There is no malice nor disrespect.

Last but not least, I reiterate that not everyone who uses the term “social marketing” means “social media marketing.” There seems to be a belief that people are talking about one or the other. But, the term has taken on a new meaning (what I keep referring to as the umbrella meaning) and I see it used in many circles.

In conclusion, I say that as a marketer and a man with an interest in linguistics, I watch the current taxonomic and folksonomic environment with great interest. To my knowledge there has has never been a time before where the maelstrom of new terms was so chaotic and moved so fast. I do not have an answer, nor can I even come close to predicting the way it will shake out. I can only watch and opine.

Again, I thank all those who commented on the last post. I invite you all to subscribe to our RSS feed so that you can catch further updates. Perhaps we will even be able to secure a guest post on this topic from one of our commentors.

3 Comments
  • Aug 08
  • 5

Social Marketing vs. Social Media Marketing

I stumbled upon an interesting post today that got me thinking. The post is titled “The Difference Between Social Marketing and Social Media Marketing,” and it can be found on the blog of Mike Kujawski. It’s not a new post, but it raises one of my favorite topics: nomenclature. I found it via a tweet by the author today saying, “Wishing people would stop confusing Social Marketing with Social Media Marketing once and for all…”

Back in June, Brennan White wrote a nomenclature post about the definition of viral marketing and described our viewpoint on the meaning of “viral” in viral marketing. Brennan notes, “To me, ‘viral’ denotes the specific distribution strategy of a piece of online media.”

Kujawski addresses a similar nomenclature issue. Rather than defining “social,” however, he clarifies the differences between “social marketing” and “social media marketing.” Let’s look at his definitions.

For his definition of social marketing, Kujawski uses a quote:

Social marketing is a process that applies marketing principles and techniques to create, communicate, and deliver value in order to influence audience behaviors that benefit society (public health, safety the environment and communities) as well as the target audience.” – Philip Kotler, Nancy Lee and Michael Rothschild (2006)

The Wikipedia entry for Social Marketing confirms this view:

The primary aim of ’social marketing’ is ’social good’, while in ‘commercial marketing’ the aim is primarily ‘financial’. This does not mean that commercial marketers can not contribute to achievement of social good.“

Kujawski goes on to define social media marketing, but the definition of that term is not the issue here. My primary issue here is the changing use of the term “social marketing.” Kujawski no doubt wrote his post to clear up what he saw as a misuse of the term social marketing. But, I’m not so sure it social marketing means what it used to.

In my experience (and I would love for someone to show me a contrary example) types of marketing are named for methodology and medium, not for their goal. “Direct marketing” is marketing directly to individuals. “Email marketing” is marketing using email for distribution. “Television advertising” is advertising using television for distribution. Each of these examples shows the adjective preceding “marketing” to refer to the method or means.

This, then, leads me to wonder why the term “social marketing” was ever used to refer to marketing for the purpose of social good. It is in contrast to the overarching (though unofficial) naming conventions of marketing types. By this convention, “guerilla marketing” would be marketing to or for the benefit of small groups of combatants who like to ambush a lot.

Linguistically speaking (and I dredge up my college days here, so cut me some slack) humans like to keep to set language patterns, even if unconsciously. Just think of the linguistic convention of putting “e” in front of things. It is not an official rule, but we all know that, much like e-mail, putting “e” in front of something means it takes place on the internet. If someone told you that eMarketing was something other than online marketing, you would likely be a little confused.

It is for this reason, our collective tendency to adhere to linguistic patterns, that I think the term “social marketing” is quickly moving away from the dogmatic definition prescribed in Wikipedia. An increasing number of people are beginning to use the term to mean marketing using social methods. “Social methods” casts a wide net and could encompass everything from street teams to viral marketing…anything where interaction, conversation, and other social elements are at work. It is easy to see how this marketing ideology differs from billboards which shout messages and commercials which are 30-60 second monologues whether you want to see them or not.

Personally, I prefer using the term “social marketing” to encompass various forms of new, conversation-based marketing. It makes sense…it fits the naming pattern that I am used to. I do not deny that the term has been used differently in the past, but I think the times are ‘a changin’ and people who blindly cling to their old definitions will quickly find themselves scrambling to redefine.

18 Comments
  • Jul 08
  • 23

7 Reasons Why I Don’t Like Lists

There are posts all over the place about how using lists is one of the best ways to craft a popular blog post. Even at Podcamp Boston 3 this past weekend, Chris Brogan, made an entire point of using lists to make popular posts. In fact, while writing this I just Stumbled on a blog post called “7 Unmissable Tips For Writing Great Content For The Web.” Look at point number 1: “Lists Work Like a Charm.” Lists are everywhere!

Before I go on in my rant about why I don’t like list-based blog posts, let me be crystal clear in saying that I do recognize that lists work. I am in no way claiming that they are not a great way to get popular posts. If they didn’t work then their wouldn’t be a list featured on the front of just about every Cosmopolitan cover. (note that there are two lists featured on this cover)

Hayden-Cosmopolitan-Cover

My dislike for them, therefore, does not lay in the results they achieve. My issue is more ideological, or philosophical, or some other sort of -ical.

So why don’t I like lists? The answer can be found within the reason why so many other people do like them. As Abhijeet Mukherjee, author of the post I mention above, says:

The primary reason behind the success of list posts is that most people like to scan, and if it’s interesting enough, read it in full and maybe leave a comment. So, a list post that is carefully crafted with bold headings does a good job as far as grabbing the attention goes.“

Lists are great for scanning. But that’s it. Mukherjee indicates that lists allow a reader to scan and read deeper into what he’s interested in. I disagree. 99% of the time, there is nothing deeper to read in a list post. Therein lies the core of my dislike for them: they are educationally shallow.

Hopefully right now there are half of you booing and half of you cheering. If this is happening then we can have a list/no-list slugfest in the comments of this post and all get riled up. Before that happens, though, I will go into a little more detail about my viewpoint.

Personally, I like reading posts that delve deeply into the subject. I very rarely get any benefit from list post because they do not go deeply enough into the subject matter. If you write a blog post on the “10 best social networks for marketers,” I will learn which ones you like, but I will not know the details of how you formed your opinion. That means that more often than not, I will then look for a deep post on one or two networks that I gleaned from your list. That is just more work for me.

The second reason I do not like lists is really an offshoot of the first. Because lists do not delve deeply into the subject matter about which they are concerned, the writer doesn’t need to know anything about the subject matter. I do not know a thing about Linux, but I could go to Google, pull a random ten Linux-focused sites I find and craft I great looking post called “The Top Ten Sites About Linux.” Think of all the people I would mislead. Conversely, I could not write a post about why one specific site is the best Linux site on the web. That depth of analysis requires knowledge of the subject matter and therefore is much more difficult to fake.

My solution to this lists-work-but-I-don’t-like-them problem is to create a “Deep List”. I have not yet done one of these, but the idea is:

  1. Make your list (e.g. “5 best social media marketing campaigns”)
  2. Before you post your list, write a blog post for each of your five points going into detail about each one.
  3. Publish each of your Deep Posts first.
  4. Then post the list with each element of the list linking to it’s respective deeper analysis.

That way, you go deep, provide real value and expertise, but still get a list-based post with which you can rocket to the top of all your favorite social media sites. You get to use the list as a tool, but still provide value to those of us that want more than a surface-level understanding of things.

5 Comments
  • Jul 08
  • 18

Social Media Marketing Session at PodCamp 3

podcamp logo smallThis weekend is PodCamp 3 in our good ol’ hometown, Boston. For any readers who are attending, you should make sure to check our the last minute updates. For those of you who are not attending, or who do not know what PodCamp is, I quote here a paragraph from the PodCamp guide:

First, PodCamp is YOUR conference. There’s plenty of open space and plenty of open times on the schedule. The best experience you have might be in a casual hallway conversation. Take charge of your PodCamp experience by deciding what you want to get out of the event, and get it. If you want to grab some old or new friends and have an impromptu session, go for it. More importantly, help out your community. If someone needs help with their laptop, volunteer. If someone can’t find the restroom, show them. See some trash on the ground? Pick it up. Need help? Ask, ask loudly, ask often.”

Both Brennan White and I attended the last PodCamp and this time we are very excited to be leading a session entitled, “Social Media Marketing is Not Evil.” Shameless plug: our session is on Sunday at 4:00 PM.

In many ways, our session has its genesis in the last PodCamp (a story you will hear in the talk), and has been growing and evolving since then. In particular our session will center around three idealogical concepts that have been fundamental to our company since day 1. In preparation for Sunday we have decided to briefly present these core concepts here for review and discussion. We would very much enjoy hearing peoples thoughts on our ideas and other concepts which people consider fundemental to their own new media marketing tactics.

1: “Mutual Value Proposition”

More so than almost any other idea, this concept was fundamental to why we founded Pandemic Labs. Our term for it has undergone some evolution, but lately we have found ourselves telling clients that social media marketing has to be a mutual value proposition. What do we mean by that? We mean that a properly done and successful social media marketing effort must provide genuine value to both the company AND the consumer.

This may not sound all that strange to you, but think about it. The ads that make your favorite magazine twice as thick as it needs to be don’t add any value to you. They benefit the advertiser and the magazine…they do not benefit you. Television commercials just interrupt what you are watching. I bet only a handful of commercials in your entire life have been so entertaining that you wouldn’t have rather been watching the program they interrupted. But many new media methods allow for the marketing effort to provide mutual value. As an example, look at the myUsearch.com blog. This blog doesn’t have company news and thinly veiled attempts to convince you how great they are. It provides genuine information that is useful to college-seekers (consumer value), and therefore drives consumers to myUsearch (company value).

2: “Consumer Primacy”

An offshoot of our concept of a mutual value proposition is the idea of consumer primacy. To get right down to it, “consumer primacy” is just a fancy way of saying, “put the consumer first.” This is a very difficult thing for many companies and brands to grasp. Even many people who have genuinely embraced the idea of mutual value still plan social media marketing efforts based on how those efforts will help their company. When approaching things from this side, you will invariably make a campaign that is more valuable to you than it is to the consumer. It is just human nature…we naturally think of ourselves first.

To remedy this, do and exercise and only think of things that are valuable to the consumer. Make a list…don’t be afraid to list things that would cost your company a lot of money and have absolutely no apparent marketing ROI. Now that you have a list of things that are genuinely valuable to the consumer (informative blog, educational videos, entertaining website, etc…) look at the ideas from your side. Now you can be selfish. Find the one where you can also make it a valuable marketing tool for the company. Approaching things like this will ensure consumer primacy and, in turn, ensure that you marketing initiative is a true mutual value propisition.

3: “Collateral Benefit”

The final concept in the trio is the idea of “collateral benefit.” This is something which can be easily seen in the world of social media. At it’s basic level, it refers to the ability to benefit multiple people by publically interacting with one. We see this all the time on forums. One person asks a question about how to do X with Y. Another person answers. That is a one-to-one interaction…the answerer only had to exert effort to benefit one person. But because the interaction took place in a public forum, everyone else reading that question also benefited from the answer. This is the inverse to the military idea of collateral damage. It is more efficient and preferable to use one bomb to destroy 10 buildings than it is to use 10 bombs to destroy one building each. In our forum example, there might be 100s of people who benefited from the answer, but the answer only had to be given once. It is a clear case of collateral benefit.

With this in mind, we can begin to theorize how marketers can apply the concept of collateral benefit. What if I could could have a positive effect on 10 consumers by interacting with only one? That would save money and time. Ways of doing this are a big part of many of our newest social media campaigns and, as much as I would like to, I can’t go giving away all the details here.

Conclusion

If you are in Boston, you should come to PodCamp3 this weekend. If you can’t make it, make sure to check back here next week for all sorts of good updates and ideas from the conference. I hope you all have a great weekend.

No Comments

  • Jul 08
  • 3

What Napoleon Can Teach Us About Marketing

Napoleon on horseIn 1793 Napoleon Bonaparte was a young officer fighting a gruesome battle at the Siege of Toulon. He had not yet become the great general or Emperor that we all know today, but nonetheless, even as a young man, he displayed a shrewd and calculating knowledge of how to lead men and affect their actions to further his goals.

Napoleon, a 24-year-old Captain at the time, had set up a gun battery in a forward position. In fact, the battery was so far forward that Napoleon’s superiors said he would never get anyone to man it. The battery was so close to the enemy and so exposed that to take up the post meant guaranteed death by enemy artillery. Indeed, the first men ordered to the post refused. Undeterred, Napoleon had one of his sergeants create a wood placard with a message on it and place the placard on a stake near the gun battery. The message on the placard read: The Battery for the Men Without Fear. The position was manned day and night from that point on by soldiers eager to prove their heroism, and Napoleon’s battery dominated the city’s harbor. The resulting withdrawal of the British Royal Navy led to French victory and the start of Napoleon’s illustrious career.

So what does this teach us about marketing? Speak to people’s deepest emotions in order to succeed.

Here are some of those deep emotions which, when activated, lead people to take action:

  1. Pride (specifically in one’s background, country, religion, etc…)
  2. Manliness or femininity
  3. Feeling of safety

Of course, the idea of appealing to these elements within people is not new. You can see each of the three above examples in any Chevy truck commercial. If you drive a Chevy truck you are not only safer than others on the road, but you also manlier than non-Chevy truck drivers, and also more proud of America. Chevy hits as many of your emotions as possible. But wait, what about Ford? Ford’s commercials say their trucks carry more weight and make you more manly. And then there’s Dodge, and Toyota..oh damn, they all say they are the most manly. One can pull a train, one can stop an airplane, one can drive off after a 3-ton rock is dropped in its bed. This is the equivalent of Napoleon having four gun batteries and placing the same placard in front of all of them. It wouldn’t have worked. A superlative is, by definition, an exclusive thing. There can only be one best, manliest, sexiest, bravest, —–est.

So, continuing our truck example, we have four pickup trucks lined up in front of us. Each truck has a wooden placard in front of it saying: Truck for the strongest men.

Confused, we all stand in a clump staring at one sign then another then another. Noticing our apparent confusion, the makers of Dodge, Chevy, and Ford quickly decide to tap into a different emotion. We watch as a new sign is posted in front of each of the three trucks saying: Truck for men who really love America.

Hmmmm…

Well, now we’ve pretty much turned away from Toyota because we all want to support America. But, we still stand in confused clump, unsure of which truck to choose because they all claim the same superlatives. Noticing this, the makers of the trucks go to great lengths to show us how strong their truck’s frames are, and how they perform in crashes. They each post a third placard in front of their trucks saying: For men who love their families.

I’m sure you can all see the pattern here. I will not go further into the unending stream of wooden placards shown to us. The point, I’m sure, is obvious. If everyone is “the best,” then no one is.

So what does this teach us about marketing? I think it teaches us that what was revolutionary for Napoleon is now commonplace. Napoleon “thought outside the box” and chose to approach his men though different channels than just passing orders down the chain of command. Today, however, Napoleon’s tactics are very much “in the box.” As such, it is important that marketers pay special attention to how the competition is appealing to consumers; not to mimic it, but to intentionally take a different course.

This is especially true in online marketing where the ability to target consumer micro-segments is unprecedented. Find the people you want and then hit their emotions in ways that they haven’t been hit before. At first it is likely scary, just like it would be scary to tell Ford to stop fighting the “I’m more manly that you are” fight. But, if you take a second and step back, move outside the traditional marketing dogma under which you were trained, you will see the true genius of Napoleon: Approach people differently than they are currently being approached.

Be different. Prove your superiors wrong. Lead people to the actions you want them to take. Market like Napoleon.

3 Comments
  • Jun 08
  • 19

Product Placement is Not the Harbinger of the Apocolypse

apoc

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.” -Revelation 6:8, KJV

As many of you know, I am an avid reader of Kevin Nalts, who writes on his blog WillVideoForFood. I’ve been following him since before I started this company, and I have discussed some of his thoughts on viral videos before. It’s been some time since I last mentioned him because, unfortunately, I only bring him up when I disagree with him. Nalts: if you’re reading this, sorry for that. Everyone else: I highly suggest you check out his blog and follow it closely.

In all truth, it is not Nalts’ most recent post, entitled Video Sponsorship Trends: “Cashing In” or “Selling Out”, that I really take issue with. His post is really more like the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Well, it didn’t really break my back, it just gave me the nudge I need to write this post which has been simmering inside me for a month now.

The Crux

The central theme here is the debate/argument over the relative virtues or evils of paid advertising (often in the form of product placement) that tries to seem like it is not advertising. If your favorite video blogger on YouTube talks about the new camera they are using, they might have been paid to do so by the maker of that camera.

(insert cheezy horror music here.)

How are you to know if it is a genuine product mention or a paid plug?

(insert confused face of an actress in an infomercial here.)

Many would have you believe that this situation represents a serious problem, tantamount to danger for the helpless, unsuspecting consumer.

The Views

Nalts’ article discusses another article written by Jennifer Hollett called Viral Video: Cashing In or Selling Out? I recommend reading it as well. The article brings forth different views on the matter. Nalts says, “It can help creators derive revenue, and therefore the quality of videos should improve. I think it’s great for brands because they can now access the audience in different ways than a pre-roll or a banner.” Then there is Kalle Lasn, editor in chief of Adbusters magazine and author of Culture Jam, who says we are already hit with 3,000-5,000 marketing messages every day. “I really don’t think we need 5,001,” he says.

This last view is tame compared to many that I have heard of late. As a digital marketing professional, I attend my fair share of web 2.0 conferences in the Boston area, and there are some times when I feel that I am almost not welcome. How dare I, a marketer, besmirch the purity of web 2.0! How dare I talk about how Twitter can be a powerful marketing tool for large companies! How dare I talk about the possibilities of hiring web video stars to create great content for your brand! I’ve heard people say that new media marketing is a black-hat endeavor. Frankly, I don’t agree.

The Spark

spark 2

At this point the savvy among you are saying, “So Matt seems to agree with Nalts’ point of view…why did Matt say he disagreed with Nalts at the beginning of the article.” Fear not, we have arrived at the much awaited point of contention. Now that we have set the stage, identified the issue, and seen some viewpoints, we are ready to go.

At the end of his post, Nalts gives some predictions for what will happen around this issue in 2008. In those prophecies he says:

I wish there was a law that required film makers to disclose any paid advertisers, even though I know much of the ‘product placement’ is offered free by directors. Federal Express, for instance, does not often pay to have its boxes appear in a film. The directors want the film to feel authentic, and seek permission not pay from FedEx to avoid needing to distract viewers with a Garbagepatch Kids-like bastardization of FedEx (FoodEx). In the end, however, I feel like the video creator owes me, as the viewer, disclosure. If you’re getting paid to hold a Mountain Dew, more power to you. Just let me know, so I don’t feel like you’re being sneaky every time your camera pans a mall and I see logos.”

It is on this point that I wholeheartedly disagree. My viewpoint follows…

My Stance

I think that any law (or even regulation) that required disclosure of advertising efforts is not only unnecessary, but also counter-productive. I do not feel that the content creator owes me anything of that sort, nor do I label you as nefarious if I notice you are drinking a Coke. I will try to delineate my arguments here:

  1. Squashing Creativity: I think that anything where content creators of any type are forced to disclose behind-the-scenes elements of their creation does nothing but stifle the free reign they might have to “go nuts” and create some really entertaining stuff.
  2. It Doesn’t Matter: There have been a bunch of viral videos that we have all watched and we likely weren’t aware that some of them were paid plugs. I just learned from Kalle’s article that the Guy’s Backflipping Into Jeans video was a Levi’s spot. Now that I know that…nothing has changed. I am not angry that I didn’t know that before. I do not feel violated because a corporation entertained me without my express permission. I do not see the damage caused by these marketing methods (i.e. product placement, branded entertainment, etc…), and therefore I do not understand why there is such a fuss about it.
  3. How Far?: How far would this regulation stretch? We all know that Tiger Woods is paid to wear Nike clothing on the course. But what about the random guy in the middle of the pack who is wearing an Adidas shirt? Maybe he isn’t good enough to warrant sponsorship. Maybe he is just wearing a shirt and the logo is there like it would be on any other average person. But, maybe Adidas is paying him. In this case we can’t know and we might be duped by marketers. So does this mean that under new regulations all sponsored shirts on the golfers would have to say “sponsored by: Nike” on them? If full disclosure were required in one form of advertising, wouldn’t it have to be required in all?
  4. Good Will Out: I believe in the power of a complex system to fix itself. In this case the “fixing” will be rather simple. The content creators out there who are just marketing whores and never provide value to their audience will quickly lose that audience. It’s like evolution. Audience (attention) is the scarce resource and the content creators will have to compete to get that resource. Done correctly, the help of money made from working with marketers could help a content creator thrive. But if that is abused, the audience will dry up real quick, leaving you alone to wither an die. It is survival of the fittest. We already see it taking place with blogs. When is the last time you saw a blog worth a damn that did frequent sponsored posts? One of the fundemental tenets of the evolution of the internet is that it allows for a bottom-up flow of information rather than a top down. So, it a bottom-up world there would be no need for top-down laws.
  5. Maybe It’s Better: I think there is tremendous potential in product placement and branded entertainment and other forms of so-called “sneaky” marketing. If Coke pays my favorite video maker so that he can put out a great webisode every week I am fine with it. Especially poigniant here is the possibilities for the extinction of the terrible and badly targeted TV commercials we current have to put up with. If Tampax pays to sponsor the “women’s interest” channels on various video sites, and therefore I never again have to see a tampon ad on TV, that would be worth it. If Viagra sponsors funny videos about aging and sex and therefore my girlfriend never again has to see an six ED ads during her favorite show, that would be worth it.

Conslusion

As always, I welcome and encourage discussion and – dare I say it – disagreement. As a new media marketer who believes wholeheartedly in Web 2.0 ideals, I am a little tired of being blamed for ruining all that is good about Web 2.0. I simply don’t see it that way and obviously there is a lot more talking to be done. No one really knows what works yet and what the future of marketing is going to look like. This is why we have blogs this…so we can learn together.

3 Comments
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

// Asynch Load, FB-JS SDK