Yesterday, I received an email from a friend and fellow marketer indicating that I needed to do another post on Apple. He was right.
When Steve Jobs made his latest announcement on Wednesday, September 5, that Apple lowering the price of the 8GB iPhone by $200 less than two months after its release and eliminating the 4GB model, it made a fair amount of iPhone owners feeling disappointment. As Apple's early adopters tend to be passionate, fiercely loyal, vocal brand advocates that most brands can only dream of (just do a search to get an idea how many blogs, websites, forums and publications are put out by Apple customers, it's impressive), Apple CEO Jobs knows this and respects his customers loyalty (and I am certain, wants to avoid losing it).
On Thursday, in an ingenious move, just one day after the announcement to drop the 8GB price $200, Jobs issued an open letter to iPhone owners offering them a $100 credit at Apple stores for being early adopters. Of course, this open letter sends a powerful message to the world about Apple's loyalty to its customers. I strongly recommend you read Jobs letter, because, I believe, this man knows how to talk and connect with customers. He claims to have read "every one of these emails" from customers upset about the $200 price drop. Jobs acknowledges customer disappointment with Apple, shows humility and respect for customers and what seems to be a genuine desire to do right by customers and makes good with a financial reward for loyal customers, putting his money where his mouth is (of course, smartly, the $100 can only be used at the Apple store).
Every marketer and CEO should be taking notes. This is a great example of how you talk to customers in the age of the informed consumer. Jobs' puts a very human face on the brand and rewards loyalty, which is very likely to make brand advocates more passionate about their choice. It's also resulted in an enormous amount of positive media coverage, blog and message board posting, emails and old fashioned word of mouth (not just word of mouse, but good old fashioned actual one-on-one, in-person and telephone communications) for Apple and iPhone.
Kudos Mr. Jobs. All of this is is so smart, part of me wonders if it wasn't a pre-planned publicity stunt. Whatever the case, Apple has gotten a great deal of good press and word of mouth off of this, and even more, it's gotten the appreciation of its loyal fans.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Why All Marketers Can Learn from Apple
While I left Motorola earlier this year and am currently am on contract to a leading B2B/B2C brand not in the cell phone industry, I continue to be fascinated by the competitive activity in the cell phone space. Like many others, I am particularly fascinated by Apple. But for me, my fascination isn't merely because of a cool new music cell phone. My interest is due to Apple's marketing and brand strategies. Today, Reuters reports that, in the US, during its first full month for sale (July), the iPhone has outsold all smartphone models. Impressive, but not surprising.
Apple has shown brand and marketing management expertise with the iPod and the iPhone (which I consider a kind of brand extension of the iPod) from which all marketers, b2c and b2b, can learn a great deal. Apple provides an excellent example of the care and feeding needed to build and sustain a strong brand. Apple has done this by continually moving the iPod brand forward (think Nano then iPhone) and never milking the brand's success; it's part of why it is very difficult to steal the iPod's market share. Apple has also done some smart brand extensions which always maintain the integrity of the core brand (or subrands, if you prefer).
Brand loyalty for iPod is complex connected to many factors: product design, user interface, software, the coolness factor (it's the cool music player to be seen with) -- the fact that a user gets locked in with his/her music collection being in the iTunes format, etc. Of course, you can buy a competitor mp3 player with more features for less money than the iPod -- iPod commands a premium price, always.
Sustaining the Apple iPod music player brand meant moving the product forward, which inevitably led to the iPhone, the convergence of the music / media player and a cell phone. Apple knew it was where portable music players were headed and wanted to cannibalize iPod sales before someone else became first to mind in the space (of course, Apple didn't make the first cell phone that played music, however, it quickly has become first in mind when it comes to cell phones that play music).
Part of managing the brand is managing pricing, and Apple has always smartly exercised strong control over it's retail pricing that most marketers should look at with envy. It's hard to imagine a premium brand selling for $49 - $99 USD (the price range of many subsidized cell phones in the US) and I am confident that Apple is too smart to let that happen to the iPhone (I am also confident that cell phone carriers appreciate this; like any business, they want products they can sell for a nice profit). With iPhone, Apple has innovated in this area too. In the US, cell phone carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc.) have traditionally subsidized the cost of cell phones looking to service for their profit. Not with the iPhone. Reports are that Apple has ensured that AT&T is making a sizable margin on the iPhone. That's smart for both companies. After all, any business is more likely to push a brand they make a profit from rather than a loss -- it's a great differentiator and incentive for the carrier to push the product, especially when you combine that with strong consumer demand for the phone. I've always believed that cell phone makers should have been working hard to do this (i.e., offering carriers high end phones they can sell at a profit), instead of marching to the beat of what's always been done by pumping out more subsidized cell phones. It's interesting that it took a new marketing and brand savvy entrant into the cell phone market to accomplish this.
Even more, only several years ago brands didn't mean much to carriers. I remember seeing a research study a carrier had done that showed that more than 70 percent of consumers could be switched to a different brand while at the carrier's retail store. I seriously doubt this will apply to consumers coming in -- and even switching carriers -- to purchase an iPhone. I am confident those consumers are not going to be easily switched.
I'm also confident that Apple and its iPhone will change the cell phone game in many ways.
Kudos Mr. Jobs. Brilliant work. I am eagerly anticipating your next move.
Apple has shown brand and marketing management expertise with the iPod and the iPhone (which I consider a kind of brand extension of the iPod) from which all marketers, b2c and b2b, can learn a great deal. Apple provides an excellent example of the care and feeding needed to build and sustain a strong brand. Apple has done this by continually moving the iPod brand forward (think Nano then iPhone) and never milking the brand's success; it's part of why it is very difficult to steal the iPod's market share. Apple has also done some smart brand extensions which always maintain the integrity of the core brand (or subrands, if you prefer).
Brand loyalty for iPod is complex connected to many factors: product design, user interface, software, the coolness factor (it's the cool music player to be seen with) -- the fact that a user gets locked in with his/her music collection being in the iTunes format, etc. Of course, you can buy a competitor mp3 player with more features for less money than the iPod -- iPod commands a premium price, always.
Sustaining the Apple iPod music player brand meant moving the product forward, which inevitably led to the iPhone, the convergence of the music / media player and a cell phone. Apple knew it was where portable music players were headed and wanted to cannibalize iPod sales before someone else became first to mind in the space (of course, Apple didn't make the first cell phone that played music, however, it quickly has become first in mind when it comes to cell phones that play music).
Part of managing the brand is managing pricing, and Apple has always smartly exercised strong control over it's retail pricing that most marketers should look at with envy. It's hard to imagine a premium brand selling for $49 - $99 USD (the price range of many subsidized cell phones in the US) and I am confident that Apple is too smart to let that happen to the iPhone (I am also confident that cell phone carriers appreciate this; like any business, they want products they can sell for a nice profit). With iPhone, Apple has innovated in this area too. In the US, cell phone carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc.) have traditionally subsidized the cost of cell phones looking to service for their profit. Not with the iPhone. Reports are that Apple has ensured that AT&T is making a sizable margin on the iPhone. That's smart for both companies. After all, any business is more likely to push a brand they make a profit from rather than a loss -- it's a great differentiator and incentive for the carrier to push the product, especially when you combine that with strong consumer demand for the phone. I've always believed that cell phone makers should have been working hard to do this (i.e., offering carriers high end phones they can sell at a profit), instead of marching to the beat of what's always been done by pumping out more subsidized cell phones. It's interesting that it took a new marketing and brand savvy entrant into the cell phone market to accomplish this.
Even more, only several years ago brands didn't mean much to carriers. I remember seeing a research study a carrier had done that showed that more than 70 percent of consumers could be switched to a different brand while at the carrier's retail store. I seriously doubt this will apply to consumers coming in -- and even switching carriers -- to purchase an iPhone. I am confident those consumers are not going to be easily switched.
I'm also confident that Apple and its iPhone will change the cell phone game in many ways.
Kudos Mr. Jobs. Brilliant work. I am eagerly anticipating your next move.
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Most Annoying Buzzwords of 2006
The Creative Group recently polled 250 marketing and advertising executives to create their latest list of the most overused buzzwords. Of course, they probably should have polled other departments to find out what they thought were the most overused buzzwords from marketing and advertising departments (we do generate a good deal of these terms). I’ve edited down their list to create the absolute worst of the worst of over-used, annoying buzzwords and added my commentary in parenthesis. Granted, many of these words have legitimate uses, but their overuse has been so dramatic, it is probably a good idea to limit their use as to not drive co-workers to the brink of insanity:
- “Outside-the-box”
(This phrase should only be used as a joke. It made in their past list too. It should go into the hall of fame – or is that hall of shame?)
- “Synergy”
(If you’re using this phrase, I’m willing to bet you’re probably wearing plaid pants and a bright bow tie.)
- “The big idea”
(Okay, if you actually said this, chances are you’re not the one with the big idea.)
- “ROI”
(While ROI is an important business measure, marketing and advertising professionals have abused this acronym so badly, I’m actually starting to think we should institute a law that says you can only use this term if you possess a permit that proves you understand what it means and are actually capable of generating positive ROI.)
- “Paradigm shift”
(If you’re still using this term, be advised, the paradigm already shifted sometime in the 70s. You actually missed it.)- “Integrated solution” (Are there really non-integrated solutions? This one is too meaningless to be spoken.)
- “Customer-centric”
(If you’re still over-using this one, odds are you have a Pets.com sock puppet on your desk.)
- “Make it pop”
(Unless you own a time machine, there’s no need for this one.)
- “Break through the clutter”
(If this is the best you can come up with, clearly, you are part of the clutter.)
- “Take it to the next level”
(On second thought, perhaps the level you are on is most approrpriate.)
- “Free value”
(Huh? You lost me.)
- “Low-hanging fruit”
(As annoying as this one is, I admit, I’ve been guilty. I try to use “quick hits” which was probably a finalist for this list.)
- “It is what it is”
(And the plural form, “They are what they are.” I like this, but only when used for humorous effect.)
(The buzzwords I removed from the Creative Group’s list are: strategy, CRM and organic growth. All of these are, no doubt, over-used, but have legitimate meaning.)
The Creative Group’s previous list had a number of gems, including some on the latest list and a number of classics that some managers and consultants just can’t stop themselves from (over) using:
- “At the end of the day”
- “Solution”
- “Thinking outside the box” -
- “Synergy”
- “Paradigm” “Metrics”
- “Take it offline”
- “Redeployed people”
- “On the runway”
- “Win-win”
- “Value-added”
- “Get on the same page”
- “Customer centric”
- “Generation X”
- “Accountability management”
- “Core competency”
- “Alignment” - “Incremental”
Okay, it's time to wrap this one up. Please, don't hesitate to take this list to the next level and add the phrases you find most annoying. It's a win-win.
- “Outside-the-box”
(This phrase should only be used as a joke. It made in their past list too. It should go into the hall of fame – or is that hall of shame?)
- “Synergy”
(If you’re using this phrase, I’m willing to bet you’re probably wearing plaid pants and a bright bow tie.)
- “The big idea”
(Okay, if you actually said this, chances are you’re not the one with the big idea.)
- “ROI”
(While ROI is an important business measure, marketing and advertising professionals have abused this acronym so badly, I’m actually starting to think we should institute a law that says you can only use this term if you possess a permit that proves you understand what it means and are actually capable of generating positive ROI.)
- “Paradigm shift”
(If you’re still using this term, be advised, the paradigm already shifted sometime in the 70s. You actually missed it.)- “Integrated solution” (Are there really non-integrated solutions? This one is too meaningless to be spoken.)
- “Customer-centric”
(If you’re still over-using this one, odds are you have a Pets.com sock puppet on your desk.)
- “Make it pop”
(Unless you own a time machine, there’s no need for this one.)
- “Break through the clutter”
(If this is the best you can come up with, clearly, you are part of the clutter.)
- “Take it to the next level”
(On second thought, perhaps the level you are on is most approrpriate.)
- “Free value”
(Huh? You lost me.)
- “Low-hanging fruit”
(As annoying as this one is, I admit, I’ve been guilty. I try to use “quick hits” which was probably a finalist for this list.)
- “It is what it is”
(And the plural form, “They are what they are.” I like this, but only when used for humorous effect.)
(The buzzwords I removed from the Creative Group’s list are: strategy, CRM and organic growth. All of these are, no doubt, over-used, but have legitimate meaning.)
The Creative Group’s previous list had a number of gems, including some on the latest list and a number of classics that some managers and consultants just can’t stop themselves from (over) using:
- “At the end of the day”
- “Solution”
- “Thinking outside the box” -
- “Synergy”
- “Paradigm” “Metrics”
- “Take it offline”
- “Redeployed people”
- “On the runway”
- “Win-win”
- “Value-added”
- “Get on the same page”
- “Customer centric”
- “Generation X”
- “Accountability management”
- “Core competency”
- “Alignment” - “Incremental”
Okay, it's time to wrap this one up. Please, don't hesitate to take this list to the next level and add the phrases you find most annoying. It's a win-win.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Marketing 1.0 Skill Sets Are Not Sufficient in a Web 2.0 World
The phrase Web 2.0 has become popular lately. If you’re not familiar with the term (and like a lot of internet-related terms, its definition is not completely agreed upon), it describes the web’s second generation, which has more community applications, such as social networking sites, wikis, message boards, blogs, etc.
Web 2.0 means that users have a voice and increased expectations for commercial websites and communications with brands online have increased. It also means that online marketing has become incredibly more complex than the days when you could get by with throwing up your brochures and a contact us page and wait to see what happened. There are significantly greater opportunities for business as well as significantly greater complexity for those who manage online marketing. Of course, this means that the skill sets necessary to effectively manage web 2.0 must similarly evolve.
However, historically, companies have staffed their internet marketing department with personnel that lacks marketing experience, when, in fact, internet marketing is easily the most complex marketing channel to manage today. Very candidly, again and again, I’ve seen and learned from peers with similar experience that the reason for inadequate skill sets in the online marketing department is often rooted in senior marketing executives not being comfortable or familiar with online marketing. Consequently, they often view online marketing as an area to hire managers with strong technology skills, not necessarily strong marketing skills. My twenty two years of marketing and advertising and twelve years of managing online marketing tell me that companies should be looking for managers with very strong marketing and communications skills who are technology savvy. So, what is the result of online marketing departments staffed with inexperienced marketers? Check recent studies on marketing effectiveness, integration in the marketing mix and ability for online marketing to measure effectiveness from the CMO Council, Jupiter and others from the past several years. Although online marketing departments can provide a lot of web operational metrics, they rarely provide measures that are meaningful to the business. (Hint to CMOs: If you’re staff is providing you with low level web operational measures such as visitors, click-throughs and page views, you have a problem – you should be seeing measures meaning to the business objectives and ROI. Additional deficiencies include areas such as marketing mix integration, planning, setting quantitative objectives, properly testing, effectively leveraging media vehicles, etc. -- the list goes on.)
Web 2.0 not only means that marketing and metrics experience is even more critical than in the past, it also means that in-depth experience with communications is vital. Web 2.0 means that your targets have a voice – whether it’s on your turf (AKA website) or somewhere else. Which means that online marketing staff should be managing communications that are two way in nature. Think message board, blogs – it doesn’t matter if your company has launched one of these vehicles or if your targets use them somewhere else; if you’re not at least monitoring these vehicles and leveraging the information in your marketing -- plain and simple -- you’re not properly managing your brand.
All of this makes internet marketing incredibly more complex than it was a decade ago. It is no longer about throwing up brochures and watching what happens. I’m not even persuaded it is fair to call that interactive marketing, when that is about as interactive as someone reading a newspaper or watching a television show on their couch -- that's observing. Today’s web enables significantly greater interactivity. Internet users can rate things, provide their opinion to the community or brand, ask for help or give help to others, share their experiences with a brand – there are almost endless possibilities. However, companies still often manage this area with skills sets that fit more with Web 1.0.
I’ve put together a list of some of the skill sets necessary to manage online marketing in today’s environment:
- Advanced communications skills.
Merely understanding and communicating the value proposition isn’t sufficient. The web isn’t like one-way communications sent out to the public such as advertising or press releases, online marketers must be fluent in two-way communications with the public and know how to deal effectively with harsh critics. This is probably the most difficult skill set to expect from candidates, as this area is so new. Consequently, strong corporate communications experience is imperative.
- Strong knowledge of branding and a solid understanding of design, usability and user experience.
Visitors to your website, recipients of your emails, readers of your corporate blogs are all experiencing your brand. Your website being hard to use and forms not working might represent that your company is not customer-focused and concerned with ease of use in your products to her.
- Strong knowledge of other elements of the marketing mix.
Great online marketing rarely exists in a silo. It is integrated into everything else your company is doing, from PR to word of mouth marketing to traditional advertising to packaging to support. In order to be integrated, great online marketing requires integrated planning and, ideally (but rarely, in practice), integrated metrics. This means that online marketing managers must have a solid understanding of how these other elements work in order to best integrate.
- Strong marketing, segmentation and targeting skills.
Effective online marketing requires a strong foundation in marketing and direct marketing fundamentals (yes, I believe a foundation in direct marketing is very beneficial for online marketing, even if you're not doing direct selling), segmenting audiences and effectively targeting messages.
- Strong understanding of technology/information technology.
Managing online marketing requires a strong knowledge and comfort with technology to understand how things work and what is possible. It means working closely with the IT department, programmers, coders, designers, illustrators, analysts, etc. Even more, because internet technologies and usage is regularly evolving, it requires a manager to regularly stay up on technology. However, the technical aspect of managing online marketing shouldn’t define the online marketing position, marketing skills should.
- Strong analytical/data skills.
Online marketing, even for brands that do not sell direct (that is, through channel partners), requires constant analysis of data that indicates what users do. Database marketing experience is critical.
- Strong knowledge and experience with research and marketing testing techniques.
I’ve often thought that a good place to find great online marketers is from the direct mail marketing world, as these marketers are often experts with testing, complex metrics and database marketing. Doing online marketing campaigns at a best practice level requires testing and an effective online marketing manager must have a strong knowledge of testing techniques, and research in general to know when to conduct research and how to leverage the information learned from research.
Managing online marketing well requires a strong grasp of internet technologies, but it requires an even stronger grasp of marketing management. Perhaps CMOs are only beginning to realize this.
Web 2.0 means that users have a voice and increased expectations for commercial websites and communications with brands online have increased. It also means that online marketing has become incredibly more complex than the days when you could get by with throwing up your brochures and a contact us page and wait to see what happened. There are significantly greater opportunities for business as well as significantly greater complexity for those who manage online marketing. Of course, this means that the skill sets necessary to effectively manage web 2.0 must similarly evolve.
However, historically, companies have staffed their internet marketing department with personnel that lacks marketing experience, when, in fact, internet marketing is easily the most complex marketing channel to manage today. Very candidly, again and again, I’ve seen and learned from peers with similar experience that the reason for inadequate skill sets in the online marketing department is often rooted in senior marketing executives not being comfortable or familiar with online marketing. Consequently, they often view online marketing as an area to hire managers with strong technology skills, not necessarily strong marketing skills. My twenty two years of marketing and advertising and twelve years of managing online marketing tell me that companies should be looking for managers with very strong marketing and communications skills who are technology savvy. So, what is the result of online marketing departments staffed with inexperienced marketers? Check recent studies on marketing effectiveness, integration in the marketing mix and ability for online marketing to measure effectiveness from the CMO Council, Jupiter and others from the past several years. Although online marketing departments can provide a lot of web operational metrics, they rarely provide measures that are meaningful to the business. (Hint to CMOs: If you’re staff is providing you with low level web operational measures such as visitors, click-throughs and page views, you have a problem – you should be seeing measures meaning to the business objectives and ROI. Additional deficiencies include areas such as marketing mix integration, planning, setting quantitative objectives, properly testing, effectively leveraging media vehicles, etc. -- the list goes on.)
Web 2.0 not only means that marketing and metrics experience is even more critical than in the past, it also means that in-depth experience with communications is vital. Web 2.0 means that your targets have a voice – whether it’s on your turf (AKA website) or somewhere else. Which means that online marketing staff should be managing communications that are two way in nature. Think message board, blogs – it doesn’t matter if your company has launched one of these vehicles or if your targets use them somewhere else; if you’re not at least monitoring these vehicles and leveraging the information in your marketing -- plain and simple -- you’re not properly managing your brand.
All of this makes internet marketing incredibly more complex than it was a decade ago. It is no longer about throwing up brochures and watching what happens. I’m not even persuaded it is fair to call that interactive marketing, when that is about as interactive as someone reading a newspaper or watching a television show on their couch -- that's observing. Today’s web enables significantly greater interactivity. Internet users can rate things, provide their opinion to the community or brand, ask for help or give help to others, share their experiences with a brand – there are almost endless possibilities. However, companies still often manage this area with skills sets that fit more with Web 1.0.
I’ve put together a list of some of the skill sets necessary to manage online marketing in today’s environment:
- Advanced communications skills.
Merely understanding and communicating the value proposition isn’t sufficient. The web isn’t like one-way communications sent out to the public such as advertising or press releases, online marketers must be fluent in two-way communications with the public and know how to deal effectively with harsh critics. This is probably the most difficult skill set to expect from candidates, as this area is so new. Consequently, strong corporate communications experience is imperative.
- Strong knowledge of branding and a solid understanding of design, usability and user experience.
Visitors to your website, recipients of your emails, readers of your corporate blogs are all experiencing your brand. Your website being hard to use and forms not working might represent that your company is not customer-focused and concerned with ease of use in your products to her.
- Strong knowledge of other elements of the marketing mix.
Great online marketing rarely exists in a silo. It is integrated into everything else your company is doing, from PR to word of mouth marketing to traditional advertising to packaging to support. In order to be integrated, great online marketing requires integrated planning and, ideally (but rarely, in practice), integrated metrics. This means that online marketing managers must have a solid understanding of how these other elements work in order to best integrate.
- Strong marketing, segmentation and targeting skills.
Effective online marketing requires a strong foundation in marketing and direct marketing fundamentals (yes, I believe a foundation in direct marketing is very beneficial for online marketing, even if you're not doing direct selling), segmenting audiences and effectively targeting messages.
- Strong understanding of technology/information technology.
Managing online marketing requires a strong knowledge and comfort with technology to understand how things work and what is possible. It means working closely with the IT department, programmers, coders, designers, illustrators, analysts, etc. Even more, because internet technologies and usage is regularly evolving, it requires a manager to regularly stay up on technology. However, the technical aspect of managing online marketing shouldn’t define the online marketing position, marketing skills should.
- Strong analytical/data skills.
Online marketing, even for brands that do not sell direct (that is, through channel partners), requires constant analysis of data that indicates what users do. Database marketing experience is critical.
- Strong knowledge and experience with research and marketing testing techniques.
I’ve often thought that a good place to find great online marketers is from the direct mail marketing world, as these marketers are often experts with testing, complex metrics and database marketing. Doing online marketing campaigns at a best practice level requires testing and an effective online marketing manager must have a strong knowledge of testing techniques, and research in general to know when to conduct research and how to leverage the information learned from research.
Managing online marketing well requires a strong grasp of internet technologies, but it requires an even stronger grasp of marketing management. Perhaps CMOs are only beginning to realize this.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Fifteen Rules for Starting and Managing a Corporate Blog
There has been a good deal of talk about corporate blogs in the last few years – first hype, then a media backlash – but still, there are relatively few Fortune 500s with blogs.
As I was spending last weekend finishing up a chapter on blogging for my forthcoming book on B2B internet marketing, I thought I’d share a draft of a list I've created of "rules" or lessons learned for developing and launching corporate blogs or a corporate blogging program . I came up with the list based on a combination of my own eleven years of online marketing management experience and (including creating a Fortune 500 blogging program) and the insights and experiences gleaned from conversations I've had with marketers from companies that have led the way. Over the years, there’s been a good deal to learn from these efforts – from smart moves to very public missteps.
In true blogosphere spirit, I invite you to comment on this list – add, agree, disagree – it’s all welcome. By the time I need to deliver the final manuscript in a few months, I’ll, no doubt, do some refining, but I wanted to put out this first draft and get reaction. I did try to make this into ten rules, but soon realized that wouldn’t really do this topic justice.
Fifteen Rules for Developing a Corporate Blog Program:
1. Don’t treat corporate blogs like another corporate communications or marketing communications device, it’s significantly different.
While a great corporate blog benefits the brand, a corporate blog should not be treated as if it is just another corporate communications or marketing communications vehicle. Blogs are not ads, corporate web pages or press releases – in fact, they have more in common with personal letters than these promotional vehicles. Blogs require a level of personality, sincerity and sense of respect for the community that is best kept real, and not turned over to a ghost writer.
2. Don’t blog without a solid, compelling case and proper resources.
Don’t blog merely because of the blogging bandwagon leads you to believe you should. Blogging requires a serious commitment of time and resources and entails taking on new risks. Start by having solid, compelling objectives to launch a blog, not because of ego or “me too” reasons. You are better off being slow to the blogosphere than going in without a reason or plan. Blogging is a radical shift from the monologues with which marketing and public relations professionals are familiar. The public will now be talking back to you on your own turf and may have very hard criticism that requires a prompt response. It’s a brave new frontier, so don’t expect the same old approaches to apply.
3. Have solid executive backing before you blog.
Make sure you’ve made a good case with the CEO before you embark on corporate blogging. It’s better for the CEO to understand the benefits and risks of blogging long before s/he reads that the media has picked up on customer dissent on one of your blogs. Have a good corporate blogging policy. Developing a corporate blogging policy is no small feat, it should address official employee blogging and – depending on the advice of your legal department – employees blogging activity on their own time. That means involving multiple departments including: marketing, public relations, internal communications, human resources and legal. IBM’s blog policy can be found at: "http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/jasnell?entry=blogging_ibm'>http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/jasnell?entry=blogging_ibm">http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/jasnell?entry=blogging_ibm, some other good Charlene Li of Forrester has a good post on the topic at: http://forrester.typepad.com/charleneli/2004/11/blogging_policy.html.
4. Choose your bloggers carefully.
Allowing all your employees bloggers sounds very democratic. It’s also the online equivalent of telling your employees that anytime they spot a news crew they should jump in front of the camera, grab the microphone and begin talking, representing the company without media training, talking points – just winging it. And when they’re finished, make sure they remember to grab a passer by and ask her to provide a critical rebuttal for everything they just said – after all, that’s what corporate blogs do. Smart corporate bloggers need to be trained, re-trained, and encouraged. And it’s a lot more than what’s required for media training. Finding an employee who has influence, something compelling to say that benefits the brand, has a style and views that align with brand objectives, knows how to write, is prolific, is well-tempered and has the time to regularly blog is a tall task. IBM, Microsoft and Novell all have policies allowing all their employees to blog. For companies who have, for example, a large amount of employee developers and make products that target software developers, it can make a decent case to enable these employees to blog. However, even so, I think companies will benefit from having a blogger certification program. While making all your employees bloggers is neat in a human, democratic sense – and I like it as an individual – as a marketer, I find it creates a situation with a lot of brand noise where it’s very difficult to locate and quickly discern between those voices worth listening to from those that are just chattering. Even more, journalists are usually going to look for the most controversial voices.
5. Authenticity is critical.
Don’t make blogs a marketing or PR mouthpiece and don’t ghost write. Blog readers connect with people, the flesh and blood of a brand. The blogosphere is rightfully cynical of corporate blogs. While all blogs need to align with and benefit the brand and objectives, companies should spend time finding employees whose style is a match with the brand and objectives and allow the blogger’s true personality and style to shine through. Influence is more important than rank on an org chart.
6. Thoroughly train your bloggers and require an internal blogging test period before a blogger is “certified.”
All of your bloggers should go through thorough training that covers blogosphere 101 (I believe all bloggers should spend at least a few months getting immersed in the blogosphere before launching a blog of their own), blog etiquette, blog writing basics, dealing with intellectual property leak concerns.
7. Assign a blog approver for each blog who has some degree of subject matter expertise, knowledge of company policies and public relations.
Require each blog post to first be reviewed prior to posting. Let’s face it, bloggers (including some very well-known ones) sometimes write things they shouldn’t. Sometimes they blog when they’re having a bad day, a nasty reaction to something…Other times they make poor choices or are unaware that something they’ve written includes information that is proprietary. Having a second set of eyes review posts prior to publication can stop these posts from going out in the first place. The reviewer should be knowledgeable on the subject matter and company policies so that she can spot potential problems. Have an editorial calendar for your bloggers to keep them on track. Work with each blogger to develop an editorial calendar that keeps him or her on track and aligns with company events, releases, industry happenings, etc.
8. Don’t hide from the tough stuff. Be willing to admit mistakes.
The blogosphere expects a company joining the blogosphere should be honest about shortcomings, failings and issues. Members of the blogosphere are also willing to forgive companies when they admit their mistakes.
9. Create a blog crisis communications plan.
When your company has a problem – and especially a big one – your blog readers will expect relevant company blogs to address it and may attack if you do not. Making mistakes on corporate blogs aren’t unheard of. When HP removed a blog comment from an HP customer describing numerous poor customer service problems, the blogosphere and the media (right up to the WSJ) picked up on it. The best time to plan for these scenarios is long before they happen and then, after you realize the danger, put together a plan to avoid these situations all together.
10. Moderate blog comments.
One of the worst mistakes a corporate blog can do is to post than remove a critical comment on a blog. It smacks of censorship, which is antithetical to core blogosphere values – permitting honest, two-day dialogue. Again, recall the HP blog fiasco when they removed a blog comment. Had they instead contacted the commenter about the problem described in his comment, helped him to resolve the problem and then asked if he wanted the post published the commenter might have said no. If he still wanted the comment published, he would probably end up putting another post praising HP for how they corrected his customer service issue.
11. Make your blog part of a communications plan – not the whole of it.
A blog should not be the center-piece of your marketing communications plan. If you are focused on building or maintaining your brand’s position as a thought leader, a blog should be one component which includes white papers, speaking engagements, citations in the media as an expert, etc.
12. Monitor your corporate blogs.
Considering the potential for mistakes, abandoning blogs and bloggers going off and engaging in brand damaging behavior that might gain media attention, it’s a wise idea to have a plan to regularly monitor blogs. Now, I’m not suggesting a blogging CIA here, in fact, I believe if you find bloggers who are engaged in activities that aren’t helpful, your first course of action should be to work with the blogger. Consider that you want to nurture blogging talent, not stifle it.
13. Determine measures of effectiveness up front.
Before embarking on corporate blogging, you need to determine how you will measure blog effectiveness. This should largely be dependent on your objectives. However, some areas that are worthy of consideration include: - Positive media mentions - Positive mentions in other blogs - Traffic to the blog – unique visitors, click-throughs, length of visit - Incoming links to the blog - Increases in brand, product or program awareness and sales that can be attributed to the blog - Increased attendance at company events that can be attributed to the blog
14. Consider that the blogosphere expects your blogs to be a marketing and PR mouthpiece. Always keep this in mind and prove them wrong.
There is a real sense of community in the blogosphere. It’s a bad place to be overtly self-serving or self-promotional. Corporate blogs, while undoubtedly should benefit the brand, they should never do this like a press release or promotional web page. Instead, corporate blogs should avoid being only focused on the company’s products being great and be infused with some level of concern for the industry and customers overall and show a level of unselfishness. Your readers know you want people to buy your wares, so skip the hard core sales talk, and instead get into things like the passions for excellence, concern for customers, product development, etc.
15. Manage your brand online: Monitor what people are saying about your brand online.
The most important choice you make in the blogosphere might not be your choice to launch corporate blogs but to monitor what’s being said about your brand by customers, prospects, vendors, employees, former employees and other stakeholders.
Some additional thoughts on the topic worth reading:
-Blog Rules
http://www.informationweek.com/management/compliance/57300091
- Robert Scobler's (Microsoft blogger) Corporate Weblog Manifesto: http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2003/02/26.html
- James Snell of IBM on IBM’s blog policy: http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/jasnell?entry=blogging_ibm
- 7 Rules for Corporate Blogging:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/03/seven_rules_for.php
As I was spending last weekend finishing up a chapter on blogging for my forthcoming book on B2B internet marketing, I thought I’d share a draft of a list I've created of "rules" or lessons learned for developing and launching corporate blogs or a corporate blogging program . I came up with the list based on a combination of my own eleven years of online marketing management experience and (including creating a Fortune 500 blogging program) and the insights and experiences gleaned from conversations I've had with marketers from companies that have led the way. Over the years, there’s been a good deal to learn from these efforts – from smart moves to very public missteps.
In true blogosphere spirit, I invite you to comment on this list – add, agree, disagree – it’s all welcome. By the time I need to deliver the final manuscript in a few months, I’ll, no doubt, do some refining, but I wanted to put out this first draft and get reaction. I did try to make this into ten rules, but soon realized that wouldn’t really do this topic justice.
Fifteen Rules for Developing a Corporate Blog Program:
1. Don’t treat corporate blogs like another corporate communications or marketing communications device, it’s significantly different.
While a great corporate blog benefits the brand, a corporate blog should not be treated as if it is just another corporate communications or marketing communications vehicle. Blogs are not ads, corporate web pages or press releases – in fact, they have more in common with personal letters than these promotional vehicles. Blogs require a level of personality, sincerity and sense of respect for the community that is best kept real, and not turned over to a ghost writer.
2. Don’t blog without a solid, compelling case and proper resources.
Don’t blog merely because of the blogging bandwagon leads you to believe you should. Blogging requires a serious commitment of time and resources and entails taking on new risks. Start by having solid, compelling objectives to launch a blog, not because of ego or “me too” reasons. You are better off being slow to the blogosphere than going in without a reason or plan. Blogging is a radical shift from the monologues with which marketing and public relations professionals are familiar. The public will now be talking back to you on your own turf and may have very hard criticism that requires a prompt response. It’s a brave new frontier, so don’t expect the same old approaches to apply.
3. Have solid executive backing before you blog.
Make sure you’ve made a good case with the CEO before you embark on corporate blogging. It’s better for the CEO to understand the benefits and risks of blogging long before s/he reads that the media has picked up on customer dissent on one of your blogs. Have a good corporate blogging policy. Developing a corporate blogging policy is no small feat, it should address official employee blogging and – depending on the advice of your legal department – employees blogging activity on their own time. That means involving multiple departments including: marketing, public relations, internal communications, human resources and legal. IBM’s blog policy can be found at: "http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/jasnell?entry=blogging_ibm'>http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/jasnell?entry=blogging_ibm">http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/jasnell?entry=blogging_ibm, some other good Charlene Li of Forrester has a good post on the topic at: http://forrester.typepad.com/charleneli/2004/11/blogging_policy.html.
4. Choose your bloggers carefully.
Allowing all your employees bloggers sounds very democratic. It’s also the online equivalent of telling your employees that anytime they spot a news crew they should jump in front of the camera, grab the microphone and begin talking, representing the company without media training, talking points – just winging it. And when they’re finished, make sure they remember to grab a passer by and ask her to provide a critical rebuttal for everything they just said – after all, that’s what corporate blogs do. Smart corporate bloggers need to be trained, re-trained, and encouraged. And it’s a lot more than what’s required for media training. Finding an employee who has influence, something compelling to say that benefits the brand, has a style and views that align with brand objectives, knows how to write, is prolific, is well-tempered and has the time to regularly blog is a tall task. IBM, Microsoft and Novell all have policies allowing all their employees to blog. For companies who have, for example, a large amount of employee developers and make products that target software developers, it can make a decent case to enable these employees to blog. However, even so, I think companies will benefit from having a blogger certification program. While making all your employees bloggers is neat in a human, democratic sense – and I like it as an individual – as a marketer, I find it creates a situation with a lot of brand noise where it’s very difficult to locate and quickly discern between those voices worth listening to from those that are just chattering. Even more, journalists are usually going to look for the most controversial voices.
5. Authenticity is critical.
Don’t make blogs a marketing or PR mouthpiece and don’t ghost write. Blog readers connect with people, the flesh and blood of a brand. The blogosphere is rightfully cynical of corporate blogs. While all blogs need to align with and benefit the brand and objectives, companies should spend time finding employees whose style is a match with the brand and objectives and allow the blogger’s true personality and style to shine through. Influence is more important than rank on an org chart.
6. Thoroughly train your bloggers and require an internal blogging test period before a blogger is “certified.”
All of your bloggers should go through thorough training that covers blogosphere 101 (I believe all bloggers should spend at least a few months getting immersed in the blogosphere before launching a blog of their own), blog etiquette, blog writing basics, dealing with intellectual property leak concerns.
7. Assign a blog approver for each blog who has some degree of subject matter expertise, knowledge of company policies and public relations.
Require each blog post to first be reviewed prior to posting. Let’s face it, bloggers (including some very well-known ones) sometimes write things they shouldn’t. Sometimes they blog when they’re having a bad day, a nasty reaction to something…Other times they make poor choices or are unaware that something they’ve written includes information that is proprietary. Having a second set of eyes review posts prior to publication can stop these posts from going out in the first place. The reviewer should be knowledgeable on the subject matter and company policies so that she can spot potential problems. Have an editorial calendar for your bloggers to keep them on track. Work with each blogger to develop an editorial calendar that keeps him or her on track and aligns with company events, releases, industry happenings, etc.
8. Don’t hide from the tough stuff. Be willing to admit mistakes.
The blogosphere expects a company joining the blogosphere should be honest about shortcomings, failings and issues. Members of the blogosphere are also willing to forgive companies when they admit their mistakes.
9. Create a blog crisis communications plan.
When your company has a problem – and especially a big one – your blog readers will expect relevant company blogs to address it and may attack if you do not. Making mistakes on corporate blogs aren’t unheard of. When HP removed a blog comment from an HP customer describing numerous poor customer service problems, the blogosphere and the media (right up to the WSJ) picked up on it. The best time to plan for these scenarios is long before they happen and then, after you realize the danger, put together a plan to avoid these situations all together.
10. Moderate blog comments.
One of the worst mistakes a corporate blog can do is to post than remove a critical comment on a blog. It smacks of censorship, which is antithetical to core blogosphere values – permitting honest, two-day dialogue. Again, recall the HP blog fiasco when they removed a blog comment. Had they instead contacted the commenter about the problem described in his comment, helped him to resolve the problem and then asked if he wanted the post published the commenter might have said no. If he still wanted the comment published, he would probably end up putting another post praising HP for how they corrected his customer service issue.
11. Make your blog part of a communications plan – not the whole of it.
A blog should not be the center-piece of your marketing communications plan. If you are focused on building or maintaining your brand’s position as a thought leader, a blog should be one component which includes white papers, speaking engagements, citations in the media as an expert, etc.
12. Monitor your corporate blogs.
Considering the potential for mistakes, abandoning blogs and bloggers going off and engaging in brand damaging behavior that might gain media attention, it’s a wise idea to have a plan to regularly monitor blogs. Now, I’m not suggesting a blogging CIA here, in fact, I believe if you find bloggers who are engaged in activities that aren’t helpful, your first course of action should be to work with the blogger. Consider that you want to nurture blogging talent, not stifle it.
13. Determine measures of effectiveness up front.
Before embarking on corporate blogging, you need to determine how you will measure blog effectiveness. This should largely be dependent on your objectives. However, some areas that are worthy of consideration include: - Positive media mentions - Positive mentions in other blogs - Traffic to the blog – unique visitors, click-throughs, length of visit - Incoming links to the blog - Increases in brand, product or program awareness and sales that can be attributed to the blog - Increased attendance at company events that can be attributed to the blog
14. Consider that the blogosphere expects your blogs to be a marketing and PR mouthpiece. Always keep this in mind and prove them wrong.
There is a real sense of community in the blogosphere. It’s a bad place to be overtly self-serving or self-promotional. Corporate blogs, while undoubtedly should benefit the brand, they should never do this like a press release or promotional web page. Instead, corporate blogs should avoid being only focused on the company’s products being great and be infused with some level of concern for the industry and customers overall and show a level of unselfishness. Your readers know you want people to buy your wares, so skip the hard core sales talk, and instead get into things like the passions for excellence, concern for customers, product development, etc.
15. Manage your brand online: Monitor what people are saying about your brand online.
The most important choice you make in the blogosphere might not be your choice to launch corporate blogs but to monitor what’s being said about your brand by customers, prospects, vendors, employees, former employees and other stakeholders.
Some additional thoughts on the topic worth reading:
-Blog Rules
http://www.informationweek.com/management/compliance/57300091
- Robert Scobler's (Microsoft blogger) Corporate Weblog Manifesto: http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2003/02/26.html
- James Snell of IBM on IBM’s blog policy: http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/jasnell?entry=blogging_ibm
- 7 Rules for Corporate Blogging:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/03/seven_rules_for.php
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Social Media, Blogs, Message Boards...It's Not Just a B2C Thing
I often present at marketing events. But I was taking a breathier at a recent event and came as an attendee. After listening to a panel of B2B online marketers from Fortune 500s present, I was a bit surprised that there wasn't a single reference to social media -- blogs, message boards, etc. -- as it's been a hot topic of late and frankly, it's important to anyone handling online marketing. And while most of the attention on social media and communities and user generated content has been about B2C, it clearly is not merely a consumer phenomenon, as there are numerous professional communities and business professionals using "consumer" and "business" communities to share their views and research prospective and current vendors. Further, more than one of the speakers, like myself, was involved in both B2B and B2C.
So I asked a question during the Q & A.
"Your customers, prospects, competitors and stockholders are talking about you offline and online. How are you monitoring and impacting that? What is your company doing to cultivate online communities? Are you exploring community vehicles such as message boards or blogs?"
The panelist who immediately responded, from a dot com that is both B2C and B2B, said that he and his company were not doing anything to monitor their brand/reputation online, nor was he or his company exploring using blogs, message boards or other community-oriented vehicles. The other panelists either said they were not doing anything or monitoring what the public was saying about their brands or companies or shook their heads indicating a lack of knowledge in this area. It seemed clear this was unfamiliar territory and it appeared they were caught off-guard without a ready response.
So I asked a question during the Q & A.
"Your customers, prospects, competitors and stockholders are talking about you offline and online. How are you monitoring and impacting that? What is your company doing to cultivate online communities? Are you exploring community vehicles such as message boards or blogs?"
The panelist who immediately responded, from a dot com that is both B2C and B2B, said that he and his company were not doing anything to monitor their brand/reputation online, nor was he or his company exploring using blogs, message boards or other community-oriented vehicles. The other panelists either said they were not doing anything or monitoring what the public was saying about their brands or companies or shook their heads indicating a lack of knowledge in this area. It seemed clear this was unfamiliar territory and it appeared they were caught off-guard without a ready response.
Now I thought to myself, perhaps these online marketers figured it was PR's responsibility -- although no one expressed this view. Perhaps they thought it was only a consumer phenomena; it's not. The Internet has significantly impacted the balance of power between marketers and those they market to whether those are consumers or business professionals. The people we market to now have a voice and they are using it. This isn't just hype, it started happening years ago and it's now in the mainstream. Fortune 500 marketing and PR departments need to take this shift seriously and not keep operating the way they did twenty years ago. The world has changed and marketers and PR professionals need to change too -- we need to adapt. A recent Euro RSCG, Columbia University study found that more 51 percent of journalists use blogs regularly and 28 percent turn to them in their day-to-day reporting duties. That alone creates compelling evidence that blogs need to be on our radar screens.
Several years ago, a respected bike lock manufacturer was nearly brought to its knees over an online video that showed how the lock could be defeated in seconds using only a Bic pen. A whistle blower recently used YouTube to create a video that allegedly revealed a serious security flaw of a product made by a giant defense contractor. This was one individual on a mission -- and he's gotten the attention of major media outlets since. Prior to turning to You Tube, the man said that he turned to dozens of media outlets who wouldn't listen to his story. When he unleashed his story on the public, the media also began listening and telling his story. In the consumer electronics world, blogs Engadget and Gizmodo sprung up and built an audience and influence that traditional publications look at with envy.
The power of social media -- and the power of those we market to has become a force to reckon with -- and it is a significant mistake to ignore it. We can actually learn from it and it can make us better marketers, and our companies, better corporate citizens.
Frankly, as a marketer and as a consumer, I am fascinated by this power shift. I realize, as a marketer, this is previously uncharted territory for our profession (and for PR, customer service and the corporation as a whole). It makes marketing communications much, much more complex. It's no longer about sending out one-way communications and monitoring data to see the impact. I believe it will eventually raise the bar on marketing communications and truth in marketing.
Whether marketers and PR professionals like it or not, the folks we market to can now have a real voice and we would do well to take this seriously. More than that, it no longer requires money and influence to be heard; it now merely requires being at the right place at the right time with a message that resonates. Even more, there is growing distrust from messages from marketers. This isn't merely a consumer phenomena. In the B2B world, internet users are using online communities to make their voices heard -- sharing their experiences and opinions. Sure, consumers are more engaged in social media, but business users are increasingly using it too, and I am confident it will become the norm over the next few years. Business decision makers have a lot invested in the decisions they make -- their careers -- and they're likely to increasingly turn to these outlets to learn about companies they buy from and work with as they become more familiar with the tools. I usually look at technology professionals as the indicators of where the rest of B2B might be years from now, and technology professionals use these tools regularly. Consider how investors use online communities like Yahoo Finance to share company information and stock tips.
If you don't already know the below sites, I recommend you get to know them:
www.youtube.com
www.break.com
www.consumerist.com
www,linkedin.com
This isn't just for "exciting" industries like technology to have people talking about your brand or company -- I've marketed everything from cell phones to chemicals to dot coms to insurance to consulting to testing services, from the Fortune 100 to small companies and all of them are potentially affected to various degrees. Marketers and PR professionals need to monitor message boards and blogs. We can learn from these conversations and we need to engage our targets. We need to be a part of conversations, not just givers of monologues.
Marketing has forever changed. We're not going back to the old ways.
In the age of information, where your targets can easily share experiences, brand experience is more critical than ever and advertising, while still having an important impact, is certainly losing its power. Your targets don't trust it like they once did. In fact, they're getting down right cynical about advertising. They don't rely on marketers for information the way they once did. Sincerity and transparency are becoming more and more important.
It's not an easy change, but we, not our targets, are the ones who need to adapt to succeed.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Frito-Lay and GM Get Integrated Marketing and Leverage the Power of Consumers in a Big Way
GM and Frito-Lay and their agencies have recently figured out a great way of getting consumers more engaged with their brands, leveraging the new found power of the consumer. It's a great lesson in integrated marketing communications and engagement for all marketers.
Both brands are running contests for consumers to create homemade commercials (also referred to as consumer generated content) for their products, the winning entries will appear as commercials during this year's Super Bowl (XLI).
Now, of course, primarily hardcore brand advocates and video enthusiasts will enter these contests. But, the media attention and word of mouth these contests and the commercials will generate (and already are generating) for these brands is significant.
I am confident that, executed well, these campaigns will capture a great deal of consumer attention (and it should, as a spot on last years Super Bowl cost around $2,500,000 USD). With reality TV still hot and consumer generated media getting the public's attention, the timing is right.
Now, in and of themselves, the increased visits to each brand's websites won't make them any money. However, it does represent increased time consumers spend engaging with these brands in (mostly) very positive ways which these marketers hope and believe will eventually pay off in increased awareness and brand preference. But there's more to these campaigns.
Done well, these commercials can send a message to viewers that slick commercials with beautiful actors and models cannot: that real people love these brands. In a world where consumers increasingly distrust advertising messages, these messages can convey something that polished professional messages cannot do as well. Authenticity.
This is also a very good example of a marketing communications campaign that is not bound by functional silos of online and offline marketing communications that well, for most companies is a prevalent, and even outwardly obvious problem. Let's face it, today's standard for marketing communications integration is often not much deeper than slapping a web address into an offline ad with no value proposition for visiting the site -- not even a few words. If marketers can't think up a good reason for targets to visit our websites, why would we expect the consumers or business decision makers we are targeting to do so? Some companies/brands have done a great job of integrating offline and online and leveraging offline advertising and packaging to drive visitors online -- FedEx, Intel and IBM immediately come to mind. Now I'm adding GM and Frito-Lay to the list.
Kudos to GM and Frito-Lay and their agencies for the idea. Now go execute this as well as my expectations so I don't look back on this post with regret come February!
Both brands are running contests for consumers to create homemade commercials (also referred to as consumer generated content) for their products, the winning entries will appear as commercials during this year's Super Bowl (XLI).
Now, of course, primarily hardcore brand advocates and video enthusiasts will enter these contests. But, the media attention and word of mouth these contests and the commercials will generate (and already are generating) for these brands is significant.
I am confident that, executed well, these campaigns will capture a great deal of consumer attention (and it should, as a spot on last years Super Bowl cost around $2,500,000 USD). With reality TV still hot and consumer generated media getting the public's attention, the timing is right.
Now, in and of themselves, the increased visits to each brand's websites won't make them any money. However, it does represent increased time consumers spend engaging with these brands in (mostly) very positive ways which these marketers hope and believe will eventually pay off in increased awareness and brand preference. But there's more to these campaigns.
Done well, these commercials can send a message to viewers that slick commercials with beautiful actors and models cannot: that real people love these brands. In a world where consumers increasingly distrust advertising messages, these messages can convey something that polished professional messages cannot do as well. Authenticity.
This is also a very good example of a marketing communications campaign that is not bound by functional silos of online and offline marketing communications that well, for most companies is a prevalent, and even outwardly obvious problem. Let's face it, today's standard for marketing communications integration is often not much deeper than slapping a web address into an offline ad with no value proposition for visiting the site -- not even a few words. If marketers can't think up a good reason for targets to visit our websites, why would we expect the consumers or business decision makers we are targeting to do so? Some companies/brands have done a great job of integrating offline and online and leveraging offline advertising and packaging to drive visitors online -- FedEx, Intel and IBM immediately come to mind. Now I'm adding GM and Frito-Lay to the list.
Kudos to GM and Frito-Lay and their agencies for the idea. Now go execute this as well as my expectations so I don't look back on this post with regret come February!
Friday, October 13, 2006
Marketing: The Art vs. Science Debate
I am amazed at how often we marketers debate over whether marketing is art or science.
I was recently at a marketing association fund raising event where a speaker proclaimed that marketers are true artists, as if being artists validates our work. I thought, hmmm...Maybe that's part of the reason why CEOs and other departments think of marketers as lacking process and accountability, because we can excuse those shortcomings as "art" -- just as branding has been far too often used as a black box to explain away campaigns and programs that lack accountability or perform poorly.
Consider an example that can appear more art then science. The marketing of Apple's iPod. It features beautiful design, beautiful packaging, a slick user experience. Hold an iPod in your hand. The product certainly delivers on some very slick, artsy, advertising that promises cool.
But should Apple manage its very artsy advertising as if it were art with little or no regard to brand and sales metrics? Of course not.
Too many marketers look at ads and websites as if they were bright shiny objects and throw logic and science out the window. Considering marketing's credibility battle and a short life span of CMOs (less than two years), I think a new model is in order. Brand marketers can learn a lot from direct marketers. Brand marketers often look at accountability as forsaking the brand, but done well, it's just the opposite.
Marketing should be scientifically managed art. At a handful of companies it is this, but it's certainly not the norm. Check every study on marketing accountability published in the last five years. We need to be raising the bar on marketing to earn organizational credibility and move the bar on marketing ethics. In an age where customers are no longer so dependent on marketers for information (they can now communicate with peers with ease), marketing must evolve, and part of that is becoming more scientific.
I was recently at a marketing association fund raising event where a speaker proclaimed that marketers are true artists, as if being artists validates our work. I thought, hmmm...Maybe that's part of the reason why CEOs and other departments think of marketers as lacking process and accountability, because we can excuse those shortcomings as "art" -- just as branding has been far too often used as a black box to explain away campaigns and programs that lack accountability or perform poorly.
Consider an example that can appear more art then science. The marketing of Apple's iPod. It features beautiful design, beautiful packaging, a slick user experience. Hold an iPod in your hand. The product certainly delivers on some very slick, artsy, advertising that promises cool.
But should Apple manage its very artsy advertising as if it were art with little or no regard to brand and sales metrics? Of course not.
Should Apple forsake slick branding in favor of a series of hard sell, direct response commercials? Of course not.
Apple, like any marketer, needs to manage its marketing to deliver value to the brand and while the creative needs to be creative, the process determining what goes out the door and what does not needs to be more science than art, more left brain manages right brain than a battle.
Too many marketers look at ads and websites as if they were bright shiny objects and throw logic and science out the window. Considering marketing's credibility battle and a short life span of CMOs (less than two years), I think a new model is in order. Brand marketers can learn a lot from direct marketers. Brand marketers often look at accountability as forsaking the brand, but done well, it's just the opposite.
Marketing should be scientifically managed art. At a handful of companies it is this, but it's certainly not the norm. Check every study on marketing accountability published in the last five years. We need to be raising the bar on marketing to earn organizational credibility and move the bar on marketing ethics. In an age where customers are no longer so dependent on marketers for information (they can now communicate with peers with ease), marketing must evolve, and part of that is becoming more scientific.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Marketing Accountability on Another Level; Seth Godin's Profoundly Important Post
Seth Godin recently wrote a post on marketing ethics at his blog that has marketers talking.
I applaud Seth's passion and his clever way of addressing marketing ethics in his book "All Marketers are Liars." It's a topic our profession needs to dialogue on and care about.
I realize that business ethics books don't sell very well, so I'll keep this short and hope you'll look at Seth's post. Seth's point is that marketers take on personal responsibility for the decisions they make that they cannot rationalize away. I think he is dead on and am delighted to see him take on this important topic. Persuading managers on the merits and importance of thought and discourse on ethics is easily the most challenging area of business to tackle -- especially for those farthest from ethical behavior.
I could try, but I doubt I can write it any better than Seth did in his final sentences:
"We're responsible for what we sell and how we sell it. We're responsible for the effects (and the side effects) of our actions.It is our decision. Whatever the decision is, you need to own it. If you can't look that decision in the mirror, market something else."
I applaud Seth's passion and his clever way of addressing marketing ethics in his book "All Marketers are Liars." It's a topic our profession needs to dialogue on and care about.
I realize that business ethics books don't sell very well, so I'll keep this short and hope you'll look at Seth's post. Seth's point is that marketers take on personal responsibility for the decisions they make that they cannot rationalize away. I think he is dead on and am delighted to see him take on this important topic. Persuading managers on the merits and importance of thought and discourse on ethics is easily the most challenging area of business to tackle -- especially for those farthest from ethical behavior.
I could try, but I doubt I can write it any better than Seth did in his final sentences:
"We're responsible for what we sell and how we sell it. We're responsible for the effects (and the side effects) of our actions.It is our decision. Whatever the decision is, you need to own it. If you can't look that decision in the mirror, market something else."
Can a Blog, Long Neglected, Be Resuscitated? My Re-Entry Into the Blogosphere
It's common blogosphere wisdom that to keep a blog alive, you need to keep to a rigorous publishing schedule. Well, if you've kept up with my blog, or even if you haven't and you notice the dates of previous posts, we're about to put that assumption to a test, as I make my re-entry into the blogosphere.
But first, a little disclosure. For those cynics out there, you may see this (perhaps, rightly) as rationalizations for my extended absense from the blogosphere. Truth be told, I have been working on something very related, however, at this time, I cannot share anything more. So onto the disclosure.
While I started Marketing Today to support my consulting business, I later joined Aon Corporation in 2000 where I eventually became Director, eMarketing. More recently, I joined a Fortune 100 corporate marketing and brand department where I have been responsible for a number of enterprise-wide marketing programs as well as campaigns and the corporate website. Why don't I share the company's name at Marketing Today? Simply put, to avoid the perception that I am speaking officially on behalf of the company (if you're interested in who it is, you can easily check my resume at www.businessmarketing.net or Google "Peter DeLegge"). I enjoy the ability to share my personal views and experiences on marketing on this blog without concern for people confusing my views with those of my employer. (Now back on to my excuses for not being a more frequent blogger!) However, having a full-time position as a manager of a Fortune 100, doing a blog, being a fairly new father (okay, he's a toddler now, but all it takes is one person asking me to post pictures and you'll have an idea how much I enjoy this responsibility!) and writing a book can be a lot to juggle.
So here's what I am up to lately:
- Public speaking. I'm doing one of two Marketing Thought Leader keynotes for the DMA's upcoming B-to-B Interactive Marketing Conference in Arizona this week.
- The book. I'm working on a book on B2B interactive marketing on a major publisher that will come out in 2007 that has kept me pretty busy. I'm looking for great, best in class examples of B2B marketing integration and online marketing. I'm covering a diverse range of company sizes and industries, so if you feel you have something exceptional, don't hesitate to contact me. If you're in marketing (please no sales calls, I'm already overloaded) and looking to share, feel free to send me a LinkedIn invitation. My profile is at http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterdelegge .
Okay, I'm officially back in the blogosphere. So, does anyone have thoughts to share on blogs whose authors have been, well, less than frequent with their posting activity?
But first, a little disclosure. For those cynics out there, you may see this (perhaps, rightly) as rationalizations for my extended absense from the blogosphere. Truth be told, I have been working on something very related, however, at this time, I cannot share anything more. So onto the disclosure.
While I started Marketing Today to support my consulting business, I later joined Aon Corporation in 2000 where I eventually became Director, eMarketing. More recently, I joined a Fortune 100 corporate marketing and brand department where I have been responsible for a number of enterprise-wide marketing programs as well as campaigns and the corporate website. Why don't I share the company's name at Marketing Today? Simply put, to avoid the perception that I am speaking officially on behalf of the company (if you're interested in who it is, you can easily check my resume at www.businessmarketing.net or Google "Peter DeLegge"). I enjoy the ability to share my personal views and experiences on marketing on this blog without concern for people confusing my views with those of my employer. (Now back on to my excuses for not being a more frequent blogger!) However, having a full-time position as a manager of a Fortune 100, doing a blog, being a fairly new father (okay, he's a toddler now, but all it takes is one person asking me to post pictures and you'll have an idea how much I enjoy this responsibility!) and writing a book can be a lot to juggle.
So here's what I am up to lately:
- Public speaking. I'm doing one of two Marketing Thought Leader keynotes for the DMA's upcoming B-to-B Interactive Marketing Conference in Arizona this week.
- The book. I'm working on a book on B2B interactive marketing on a major publisher that will come out in 2007 that has kept me pretty busy. I'm looking for great, best in class examples of B2B marketing integration and online marketing. I'm covering a diverse range of company sizes and industries, so if you feel you have something exceptional, don't hesitate to contact me. If you're in marketing (please no sales calls, I'm already overloaded) and looking to share, feel free to send me a LinkedIn invitation. My profile is at http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterdelegge .
Okay, I'm officially back in the blogosphere. So, does anyone have thoughts to share on blogs whose authors have been, well, less than frequent with their posting activity?
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Speaking at BtoB's NetMarketing Breakfast Thursday in Chicago - Oct 6 - Here's $10 Off
Forgive the self-promotion, but I'll be speaking and participating in a roundtable at Crain's BtoB's NetMarketing Breakfast in Chicago this Thursday, October 6th. I've been strugling between two presentations, one regarding a significant study that breaks apart and measures each vehicle of marketing campaigns -- television, print, Internet, search engine marketing, radio spots, etc.; the other presentation is a view into a best practice Fortune 100 enterprise search engine optimization program. If you have a preference, please post it here. In either case, it's going to be a short presentation followed by an internet marketing roundtable with marketers from SBC, Accenture and 1Sync.
Use the promotional code PEDL when registering at BtoB's site and you'll save $10, making the final cost only $35. If you come, please stop by after the event and say hello.
Here's some of the details of the event:
At BtoB's NetMarketing Breakfast in Chicago on October 6th, you can...
*Network with your peers over a continental breakfast
*Learn from marketing experts as they present best practices in e-mail, e-commerce, online advertising, search marketing, webcasts and more
*Ask the questions you want answered during the Q&A
*Find helpful resources by visiting our sponsors’ tabletop displays
BtoB's editor, Ellis Booker, will moderate the following panel:
* Peter DeLegge
* Christian Barnard, Executive Director, SBC Online
* Molly Spatara, Internet Marketing, Accenture
* Amy Fanale, Director of Global Marketing, 1Sync
Type the promotional code "PEDL" (without the quotes) when registering at: https://www.btobonline.com/calendarRegistration.cms?eventId=53 and you'll save $10.
Use the promotional code PEDL when registering at BtoB's site and you'll save $10, making the final cost only $35. If you come, please stop by after the event and say hello.
Here's some of the details of the event:
At BtoB's NetMarketing Breakfast in Chicago on October 6th, you can...
*Network with your peers over a continental breakfast
*Learn from marketing experts as they present best practices in e-mail, e-commerce, online advertising, search marketing, webcasts and more
*Ask the questions you want answered during the Q&A
*Find helpful resources by visiting our sponsors’ tabletop displays
BtoB's editor, Ellis Booker, will moderate the following panel:
* Peter DeLegge
* Christian Barnard, Executive Director, SBC Online
* Molly Spatara, Internet Marketing, Accenture
* Amy Fanale, Director of Global Marketing, 1Sync
Type the promotional code "PEDL" (without the quotes) when registering at: https://www.btobonline.com/calendarRegistration.cms?eventId=53 and you'll save $10.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Google Launches Google Blog Search
It was only a matter of time.
Google has been promising blog search for a couple of years. Finally, this morning they rolled out a blog search engine capability. Not surprisingly, it’s labeled “beta.”
According to a Google, “The goal of Blog Search is to include every blog that publishes a site feed (either RSS or Atom).” It looks for sites that update pinging services and crawls in real-time. It will “only include items that have been posted since it started indexing a given blog. For most blogs, that will be around June 2005.” Note that it is not a full-text search engine across all sources. It doesn’t access and index the full content available on the publisher’s server (you can find out more about how Google Blog Search works at http://www.google.com/help/about_blogsearch.html). You can find Google Blog Search at http://blogsearch.google.com/.
Google has been promising blog search for a couple of years. Finally, this morning they rolled out a blog search engine capability. Not surprisingly, it’s labeled “beta.”
According to a Google, “The goal of Blog Search is to include every blog that publishes a site feed (either RSS or Atom).” It looks for sites that update pinging services and crawls in real-time. It will “only include items that have been posted since it started indexing a given blog. For most blogs, that will be around June 2005.” Note that it is not a full-text search engine across all sources. It doesn’t access and index the full content available on the publisher’s server (you can find out more about how Google Blog Search works at http://www.google.com/help/about_blogsearch.html). You can find Google Blog Search at http://blogsearch.google.com/.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Disintegrated Marketing...
After more than a decade experience with the commercial web, you’d think major marketers would consider the web more than an afterthought.
However, evidence reveals many consumer marketers still can’t distinguish between a website, an ad or a brochure. While retailers like Wal-Mart, Lowes, Nordstrom and Circuit City get it, there are others that still seem confused.
When clothing retailer Gap ran its latest very cool television commercials and turned its website into a single page that read “Under Construction” for the past couple weeks (same thing with OldNavy.com, which shares the same corporate parent), I was pretty amazed.
Where’s the planning? What about integrated marketing?
You have to wonder if Gap would do the same with its retail stores. As of this writing, OldNavy.com still features the words “Under Construction.” All that's missing is the little animation of the construction worker shoveling.
However, evidence reveals many consumer marketers still can’t distinguish between a website, an ad or a brochure. While retailers like Wal-Mart, Lowes, Nordstrom and Circuit City get it, there are others that still seem confused.
When clothing retailer Gap ran its latest very cool television commercials and turned its website into a single page that read “Under Construction” for the past couple weeks (same thing with OldNavy.com, which shares the same corporate parent), I was pretty amazed.
Where’s the planning? What about integrated marketing?
You have to wonder if Gap would do the same with its retail stores. As of this writing, OldNavy.com still features the words “Under Construction.” All that's missing is the little animation of the construction worker shoveling.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Burger King Goes Tasteless
Shock value is the refuge of the talentless when it comes to advertising and viral marketing.
Burger King has decided to one-up Carl Jr.'s Paris Hilton raunch, by creating a series of over-the-top raunchy commercials and a website to promote a fictitious band called Coq Roq -- filled with bad double entendres. And while Carl Jr. is a small brand that can thrive by staying in the niches, Burger King needs to reach a much wider audience, including families and seniors, to stay a top fast food brand.
While teens and pre-teens are an important target for Burger King, so to are parents and seniors, who are likely to be offended by the current campaign.
A caption on one of the pictures at Burger King's CoqRoq.com website exclaimed, "Groupies love the Coq" prior to Burger King backing off and pulling the caption after a good deal of publicity. Burger King stated it was an typo (yeah, sure, from the minds that gave the world this campaign in the first place).
Is this Burger King's and its agency's definition of pushing the envelope on advertising and viral marketing? Come on. Anyone can do shock value, that's really not pushing the envelope. Go to a junior high school playground and you'll get plenty of ideas. But will shock value drive overall business up? Maybe it will get some more teens and pre-teens to Burger King, but it is going to damage the brand with other important targets, like parents and seniors.
An ad campaign that offends some of the brand's most important targets is generally a bad idea. The whole thing smacks of desperation to me. There are already enough reasons not to eat fast food, Burger King has just given many of its family targets one more reason.
Burger King has decided to one-up Carl Jr.'s Paris Hilton raunch, by creating a series of over-the-top raunchy commercials and a website to promote a fictitious band called Coq Roq -- filled with bad double entendres. And while Carl Jr. is a small brand that can thrive by staying in the niches, Burger King needs to reach a much wider audience, including families and seniors, to stay a top fast food brand.
While teens and pre-teens are an important target for Burger King, so to are parents and seniors, who are likely to be offended by the current campaign.
A caption on one of the pictures at Burger King's CoqRoq.com website exclaimed, "Groupies love the Coq" prior to Burger King backing off and pulling the caption after a good deal of publicity. Burger King stated it was an typo (yeah, sure, from the minds that gave the world this campaign in the first place).
Is this Burger King's and its agency's definition of pushing the envelope on advertising and viral marketing? Come on. Anyone can do shock value, that's really not pushing the envelope. Go to a junior high school playground and you'll get plenty of ideas. But will shock value drive overall business up? Maybe it will get some more teens and pre-teens to Burger King, but it is going to damage the brand with other important targets, like parents and seniors.
An ad campaign that offends some of the brand's most important targets is generally a bad idea. The whole thing smacks of desperation to me. There are already enough reasons not to eat fast food, Burger King has just given many of its family targets one more reason.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Search Engine Marketing Secrets Revealed, Email Marketing Secrets, Direct Marketing Secrets...Apparently Marketers are Lousy at Keeping Secrets
A quick perusal through my email inbox reveals dozens of messages from companies touting for pay articles, books, seminars and papers on every topic known to marketing all claiming to possess "secrets."
I checked a few out recently and was amazed to learn that things I've considered fairly common knowledge among those experienced with online marketing are actually secrets! Things like Google search engine optimization techniques – many found on Google's own website – are actually secrets someone is willing to share with you for a price! Boy, some secrets are just hard to keep.
I've learned things like what I previously thought were the basics of email marketing has, in actuality, been a number of closely guarded secrets! I wonder who told?
How about a marketing webzine called marketingsh**** proclaiming email marketing expertise trying to sell research papers on email marketing while its emails often end up getting spam filtered at Yahoo? This is a mistake for even a half-competent email marketer. But the practice of pre-testing emails to make sure they get through spam filters of Yahoo, Hotmail and other systems must be a secret to these folks.
Okay, before anyone sends me a defensive email, I do know that the word "secrets" can be very effective in direct response copy. That doesn't mean it's not annoying and even a bit dishonest when marketing magazine, webzine and newsletter publishers and "marketing consultants" profess to be experts and try to spin commonly known information as secrets, especially when they are pitching their wares to marketing professionals.
Can someone please put a limit on the number of times a copywriter can use the word "secrets" during his or her career?
I checked a few out recently and was amazed to learn that things I've considered fairly common knowledge among those experienced with online marketing are actually secrets! Things like Google search engine optimization techniques – many found on Google's own website – are actually secrets someone is willing to share with you for a price! Boy, some secrets are just hard to keep.
I've learned things like what I previously thought were the basics of email marketing has, in actuality, been a number of closely guarded secrets! I wonder who told?
How about a marketing webzine called marketingsh**** proclaiming email marketing expertise trying to sell research papers on email marketing while its emails often end up getting spam filtered at Yahoo? This is a mistake for even a half-competent email marketer. But the practice of pre-testing emails to make sure they get through spam filters of Yahoo, Hotmail and other systems must be a secret to these folks.
Okay, before anyone sends me a defensive email, I do know that the word "secrets" can be very effective in direct response copy. That doesn't mean it's not annoying and even a bit dishonest when marketing magazine, webzine and newsletter publishers and "marketing consultants" profess to be experts and try to spin commonly known information as secrets, especially when they are pitching their wares to marketing professionals.
Can someone please put a limit on the number of times a copywriter can use the word "secrets" during his or her career?
Monday, February 07, 2005
"Those Who Ignore History are Destined to Repeat It" Applies to Marketing Too
One of the great lessons of the dot com era was that you can’t buy your way into a successful brand with mere dollars and awareness. After all, awareness doesn’t equal preference or sales. Those who attempted to “build their brand at breakneck speed” only ended up breaking their brand’s neck. Great brands are not built from ad dollars, although there are always marketing and advertising professionals that will attempt to lead a client or employer down this path. And while Super Bowl spots can be a good fit for automotive manufacturers, job sites and beer companies whose products appeal to a wide audience, these spots can provide immense waste circulation when you are selling more specialized and technical products or services.
One notable dot com that disagrees with these lessons and was willing to put around 5% of its annual sales into two Super Bowl commercials (production and airtime) is GoDaddy.com.
In an earlier post to Marketing Today Blog, I praised Bob Parsons, the CEO of this dot com, for making a significant donation to a Tsunami relief fund. After learning Bob was going to spend the majority of his promotional budget on a Super Bowl, I, along with a good deal of other marketers, couldn’t help but offer Bob some advice. Specifically, rethink the spend. These dollars could be more effectively spent elsewhere. Great brands are built on more than advertising. Consider Starbucks, who built a great brand without much advertising, and consider the dot com failures who often used a great deal of advertising.
Advertising doesn’t have the same power it once did, and even then, that power was often greatly exaggerated. I also mentioned that just by advertising during the Super Bowl, GoDaddy.com faced negative comparison’s to dot bombs and the media was likely to seize that connection, even if Bob’s company is financially strong. Bob saw it differently. In fact, he went on to purchase a second Super Bowl ad running the same spot again, which Fox ended up pulling as the NFL deemed it offensive.
I believe this is GoDaddy,com’s first time using television advertising and it shows. Their commercial takes a jab at US government media censorship, specifically at last year’s Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction incident. Now this could have been funny. However, the script and execution are crude and the production was low quality. All in all, I, and many others found GoDaddy.com's commercials to be in very poor taste (the one that Fox refused and the one they aired). They are sexist and have a strong power to offend. Which has ended up being an even bigger part of the problem of the ad spend. (Judge for yourself, here's a link: http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/superbowl05/landing.asp?isc=bpshdr001).
Even those that like the ad -- mainly men who like to see large breasted women paraded as sex objects -- often can't recall what GoDaddy.com does. It gets worse, it turns out the GoDaddy.com girl's background includes porn. Even as it becomes one of the most Tivoed ads of the Super Bowl, I think it is doing some serious brand damage to what should have been its target audience. After all, when you are selling legitimate business services, do you really want to tie your brand's reputation to a porn star?
At best, for a brand where it is an appropriate vehicle, buying airtime for a Super Bowl commercial could be looked at and leveraged for the enormous publicity potential alone. But in GoDaddy.com’s case, I think they blew it and then did even more damage by creating an ad that many people find offensive. Despite the old adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity (a statement that refers to celebrities more than corporate brands), there is. Just ask Enron, Arthur Andersen, Worldcom, Tyco and Firestone, for some extreme examples.
The best Super Bowl commercials are usually for brands that can be purchased by the general public, have compelling creative that gets the message of what a company is selling and what is different about that product or service and are "water cooler" worthy. Certainly, you want your commercial to stand out. But, while GoDaddy.com’s commercial was water-cooler worthy, it wasn't wrapped around the product. The controversy was wrapped around what GoDaddy.com did in the commercial. It is very unlikely that many of the water cooler conversations involved GoDaddy.com's actual product.
Just sample the media’s response. As one advertising commentator put it, the commercial was ineffective because it polarized the audience. The NY Post wrote. “Trashy vamp testifying before uptight censorship committee is an old idea, which is okay, except does anyone have a clue what GoDaddy.com is?” The Arizona Republic, “But who remembers what GoDaddy.com even is?” The Ledger’s five person panel of advertising professionals all agreed that the ad was disgusting and described the ad using the terms, “sleazy,” “tasteless,” and “degrading.” One panelist went on to state, “By the time it was over, I wasn't sure what it was for." Adweek wrote: “GoDaddy.com Are they kidding? This was so pre-dot combust. Been there before. I thought we were over this. I don't know what they do.” USA Today reported members of a panel watching the Super Bowl ads were offending, with one member stating, ""It was degrading, almost." Perhaps MSNBC.com's Martin Wolk may have hit the nail on the head when he wrote, "Not everyone got the memo about good taste. An ad for GoDaddy.com smacked of a vanity project with its sly reference to the name of the Internet company’s president and sole owner." Even Advertising Age columnist Bob Garfield, who actually liked the ad, acknowledged, "Sure, it's blatantly sexist and juvenile..."
In the end, most of GoDaddy.com's 15 minutes of fame as the result of this single commercial will be spent on the controversial and offensive nature of the commercial, not on selling or creating preference for the company's services. In the end, even after the conversations, people will not have a good awareness of what GoDaddy.com sells and business people in the target audience for GoDaddy.com's services may feel uncomfortable with a brand that presents itself in a manner they find amusing, but is less than professional. In the end, the ad will probably most greatly benefit the model who played the GoDaddy.com girl more than GoDaddy.com itself.
Offensiveness aside, good advertising does more than drive awareness. Companies don’t make money from mere awareness. The Taco Bell dog had very high awareness, but sales fell. They pitched the dog and replaced him with something I can’t even recall. But sales went way up. Pets.com had high awareness and no sales. We all know what happened next.
It just doesn’t make sense to dump so much of your marketing budget into one vehicle or even primarily into advertising when consumers have grown so resistant to it. GoDaddy.com could have spent some of those millions buying a toll-free phone number (calling GoDaddy.com to buy its products or services is a toll call for the majority of their customers and Super Bowl watchers), PR campaigns, ads targeting IT professionals and small business people who are its key targets and on launching a referral program to encourage its strongest advocates to tell others about GoDaddy.com (aka, viral marketing). GoDaddy.com could have then partnered with companies selling complementary products and services, but it went the route of branding at break neck speed. Hopefully, GoDaddy.com has enough money to survive this kind of spending. It takes selling a lot of domains for $8.95 to get back the millions it spent on the ad it aired and the ones it didn't. Plus, it has now created a negative brand image with more consumers and business people than ever before.
Maybe GoDaddy should have pressed the pause button before submitting their Super Bowl commercial.
Thoughts?
One notable dot com that disagrees with these lessons and was willing to put around 5% of its annual sales into two Super Bowl commercials (production and airtime) is GoDaddy.com.
In an earlier post to Marketing Today Blog, I praised Bob Parsons, the CEO of this dot com, for making a significant donation to a Tsunami relief fund. After learning Bob was going to spend the majority of his promotional budget on a Super Bowl, I, along with a good deal of other marketers, couldn’t help but offer Bob some advice. Specifically, rethink the spend. These dollars could be more effectively spent elsewhere. Great brands are built on more than advertising. Consider Starbucks, who built a great brand without much advertising, and consider the dot com failures who often used a great deal of advertising.
Advertising doesn’t have the same power it once did, and even then, that power was often greatly exaggerated. I also mentioned that just by advertising during the Super Bowl, GoDaddy.com faced negative comparison’s to dot bombs and the media was likely to seize that connection, even if Bob’s company is financially strong. Bob saw it differently. In fact, he went on to purchase a second Super Bowl ad running the same spot again, which Fox ended up pulling as the NFL deemed it offensive.
I believe this is GoDaddy,com’s first time using television advertising and it shows. Their commercial takes a jab at US government media censorship, specifically at last year’s Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction incident. Now this could have been funny. However, the script and execution are crude and the production was low quality. All in all, I, and many others found GoDaddy.com's commercials to be in very poor taste (the one that Fox refused and the one they aired). They are sexist and have a strong power to offend. Which has ended up being an even bigger part of the problem of the ad spend. (Judge for yourself, here's a link: http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/superbowl05/landing.asp?isc=bpshdr001).
Even those that like the ad -- mainly men who like to see large breasted women paraded as sex objects -- often can't recall what GoDaddy.com does. It gets worse, it turns out the GoDaddy.com girl's background includes porn. Even as it becomes one of the most Tivoed ads of the Super Bowl, I think it is doing some serious brand damage to what should have been its target audience. After all, when you are selling legitimate business services, do you really want to tie your brand's reputation to a porn star?
At best, for a brand where it is an appropriate vehicle, buying airtime for a Super Bowl commercial could be looked at and leveraged for the enormous publicity potential alone. But in GoDaddy.com’s case, I think they blew it and then did even more damage by creating an ad that many people find offensive. Despite the old adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity (a statement that refers to celebrities more than corporate brands), there is. Just ask Enron, Arthur Andersen, Worldcom, Tyco and Firestone, for some extreme examples.
The best Super Bowl commercials are usually for brands that can be purchased by the general public, have compelling creative that gets the message of what a company is selling and what is different about that product or service and are "water cooler" worthy. Certainly, you want your commercial to stand out. But, while GoDaddy.com’s commercial was water-cooler worthy, it wasn't wrapped around the product. The controversy was wrapped around what GoDaddy.com did in the commercial. It is very unlikely that many of the water cooler conversations involved GoDaddy.com's actual product.
Just sample the media’s response. As one advertising commentator put it, the commercial was ineffective because it polarized the audience. The NY Post wrote. “Trashy vamp testifying before uptight censorship committee is an old idea, which is okay, except does anyone have a clue what GoDaddy.com is?” The Arizona Republic, “But who remembers what GoDaddy.com even is?” The Ledger’s five person panel of advertising professionals all agreed that the ad was disgusting and described the ad using the terms, “sleazy,” “tasteless,” and “degrading.” One panelist went on to state, “By the time it was over, I wasn't sure what it was for." Adweek wrote: “GoDaddy.com Are they kidding? This was so pre-dot combust. Been there before. I thought we were over this. I don't know what they do.” USA Today reported members of a panel watching the Super Bowl ads were offending, with one member stating, ""It was degrading, almost." Perhaps MSNBC.com's Martin Wolk may have hit the nail on the head when he wrote, "Not everyone got the memo about good taste. An ad for GoDaddy.com smacked of a vanity project with its sly reference to the name of the Internet company’s president and sole owner." Even Advertising Age columnist Bob Garfield, who actually liked the ad, acknowledged, "Sure, it's blatantly sexist and juvenile..."
In the end, most of GoDaddy.com's 15 minutes of fame as the result of this single commercial will be spent on the controversial and offensive nature of the commercial, not on selling or creating preference for the company's services. In the end, even after the conversations, people will not have a good awareness of what GoDaddy.com sells and business people in the target audience for GoDaddy.com's services may feel uncomfortable with a brand that presents itself in a manner they find amusing, but is less than professional. In the end, the ad will probably most greatly benefit the model who played the GoDaddy.com girl more than GoDaddy.com itself.
Offensiveness aside, good advertising does more than drive awareness. Companies don’t make money from mere awareness. The Taco Bell dog had very high awareness, but sales fell. They pitched the dog and replaced him with something I can’t even recall. But sales went way up. Pets.com had high awareness and no sales. We all know what happened next.
It just doesn’t make sense to dump so much of your marketing budget into one vehicle or even primarily into advertising when consumers have grown so resistant to it. GoDaddy.com could have spent some of those millions buying a toll-free phone number (calling GoDaddy.com to buy its products or services is a toll call for the majority of their customers and Super Bowl watchers), PR campaigns, ads targeting IT professionals and small business people who are its key targets and on launching a referral program to encourage its strongest advocates to tell others about GoDaddy.com (aka, viral marketing). GoDaddy.com could have then partnered with companies selling complementary products and services, but it went the route of branding at break neck speed. Hopefully, GoDaddy.com has enough money to survive this kind of spending. It takes selling a lot of domains for $8.95 to get back the millions it spent on the ad it aired and the ones it didn't. Plus, it has now created a negative brand image with more consumers and business people than ever before.
Maybe GoDaddy should have pressed the pause button before submitting their Super Bowl commercial.
Thoughts?
Friday, February 04, 2005
Marketing Even I Can’t Resist...to a Point
Indulge me for a bit. This post is a diversion. Perhaps an infusion of some color and personality into Marketing Today Blog. I am going to get personal.
What have I become?
I was once an extremely logical consumer. Then it happened. The event that transformed me into an illogical consumer, guilt-ridden to pay a premium and prone to emotion over logic. To a point.
Still, there is one factor that overcomes all of the promotional branding and claims for me: safety. Specifically, safety ratings from an independent research lab. I research everything. No matter what the brand, if Consumer Reports doesn't rank it at or near the top of its list for safety, I won't buy it. I also check out other parents ratings and opinions of products on Amazon.com and baby-related community sites. In this market, for me and many others, brand image and cute design means nothing when safety isn't there. Last, when it is a purchase of $100 or more, I check the Web for prices before running out to a local store. Of course, short of safety ratings, I will rely on a brand known for safety...and still look for the extras like cool features and cute animals too. Remember, my son deserves the best.
If I were handling marketing for one of these firms, I am confident that safety is a key issue for parents and would make sure ads, brochures and packaging for the products prominently feature safety ratings and safety information before getting to the logic-blocking emotional appeal. Of course, I would also make sure that we had plenty of cute little bunnies, doggies, bears and the extras many parents pay a premium for because their child "deserves the best."
Are there any lessons for B2B marketers? I believe there is.
First, about the psychology of pricing. Pricing that is too low may cause a parent to wonder about quality and safety (of course, that is my gut feeling, not the result of any formal studies, but I am confident it is accurate); pricing that is too high, like anything else, narrows your potential market. Second, about awareness and management of the emotional aspect of branding. Business products and services will never have the kind of emotional power that the purchase baby products have. Still, job security and advancement for the parent of a baby can also be a pretty emotional. IBM has made many sales by providing IT professionals with a sense of job security. It is an area more B2B marketers should consider. Last, the Internet makes researching products and services much easier. While I check with third-party ratings services for baby products, I also check what people who have bought the products I am considering have to say.
The baby product purchase decision cycle can span many channels, from online research to asking friends for recommendations. And while a degree of logic significantly impacts the final purchase, I -- as well as many others -- will still end up shelling out additional dollars to get the product with the bunny or doggy on it. It's a good example of the roles of various channels and emotional influences in the purchase decision cycle and can show the opportunity for marketers to better manage channels and marketing communications.
As exprienced parents are surely thinking, I have many more years of learning from baby marketing to come.
What have I become?
I was once an extremely logical consumer. Then it happened. The event that transformed me into an illogical consumer, guilt-ridden to pay a premium and prone to emotion over logic. To a point.
The event that brought the change was my wife's pregnancy. My first child is on the way, a boy, due this month. Consequently, I've been sucked into the world of baby product and service marketing as a consumer, not a marketer. It is an area that I know little about since this is my first child, although I did provide some consulting advice to a manufacturer of baby carrying products a few years ago, mostly related to leveraging the Internet in their marketing mix.
Marketers' attempts at manipulating parents and parents to-be in this field can be incredible. Although, even a veteran marketer like myself can hardly resist the mentality of "I only want the best for my little one" when it creeps in and I spend more on goods whether I need to or not, just because "my son deserves it." My wife is sometimes quite surprised to see my normally solid analytical side being overcome by my emotional side during the buying process, but it happens all the time lately. Talk about emotional branding and marketing. And the tactics! Diapers with cute little animals (logically, the baby will never even see this), heavily reinforced buggies that look like they were engineered by Hummer or Brinks, vibrating mattresses (the salesperson tells us it helps the baby fall asleep more easily and, get this, reduces crying)... Is that mattress claim too good to be true? Probably, but I love the pitch. Emotion once again overcomes logic, even though I should know better.Still, there is one factor that overcomes all of the promotional branding and claims for me: safety. Specifically, safety ratings from an independent research lab. I research everything. No matter what the brand, if Consumer Reports doesn't rank it at or near the top of its list for safety, I won't buy it. I also check out other parents ratings and opinions of products on Amazon.com and baby-related community sites. In this market, for me and many others, brand image and cute design means nothing when safety isn't there. Last, when it is a purchase of $100 or more, I check the Web for prices before running out to a local store. Of course, short of safety ratings, I will rely on a brand known for safety...and still look for the extras like cool features and cute animals too. Remember, my son deserves the best.
If I were handling marketing for one of these firms, I am confident that safety is a key issue for parents and would make sure ads, brochures and packaging for the products prominently feature safety ratings and safety information before getting to the logic-blocking emotional appeal. Of course, I would also make sure that we had plenty of cute little bunnies, doggies, bears and the extras many parents pay a premium for because their child "deserves the best."
Are there any lessons for B2B marketers? I believe there is.
First, about the psychology of pricing. Pricing that is too low may cause a parent to wonder about quality and safety (of course, that is my gut feeling, not the result of any formal studies, but I am confident it is accurate); pricing that is too high, like anything else, narrows your potential market. Second, about awareness and management of the emotional aspect of branding. Business products and services will never have the kind of emotional power that the purchase baby products have. Still, job security and advancement for the parent of a baby can also be a pretty emotional. IBM has made many sales by providing IT professionals with a sense of job security. It is an area more B2B marketers should consider. Last, the Internet makes researching products and services much easier. While I check with third-party ratings services for baby products, I also check what people who have bought the products I am considering have to say.
The baby product purchase decision cycle can span many channels, from online research to asking friends for recommendations. And while a degree of logic significantly impacts the final purchase, I -- as well as many others -- will still end up shelling out additional dollars to get the product with the bunny or doggy on it. It's a good example of the roles of various channels and emotional influences in the purchase decision cycle and can show the opportunity for marketers to better manage channels and marketing communications.
As exprienced parents are surely thinking, I have many more years of learning from baby marketing to come.
Thursday, December 30, 2004
The Emotional Branding Impact of Real Values; How You Can Help Victims of the Tsunami Disaster
First and foremost, I would like to begin this post by urging everyone who reads it to do his or her best to influence corporate giving towards Tsunami relief funds and strongly consider a personal contribution. Contributions can be sent to the Americares Foundation and American Red Cross International Response Fund. The tragedy is enormous and the help needed is immense. Please provide whatever help you can. Now on to my post.
I recently learned about the President and founder of a leading domain registrar (the companies that one uses to register web site domains) called Go Daddy being so moved by the recent Tsunami disaster in Southern Asia and Eastern Africa that he had his organization, a small business, donate $25,000 to relief efforts. He later decided he needed to up the amount to $250,000 and is attempting to influence other companies to act similarly.
The man’s name is Bob Parsons. He publishes a blog, that I learned about only minutes before writing this post, which I find refreshingly straight-shooting.
Corporate giving, in my experience, is rarely a truly altruistic act, regardless of spin. Big business often donates to high-profile causes for the PR impact and brand benefits – and I am not saying that is necessarily bad, but it certainly doesn’t inspire the emotional bond that a surprisingly and believably altruistic act would. After all, it’s easy for a Fortune 500 to give $1 million to a high-profile cause and reap the resulting publicity rewards. But, to see a small business give $250,000 out of the conviction and compassion of the business leader is nothing short of inspiring and, frankly, is far too rare an event. And while Bob might not get the same media coverage as a big brand like Citigroup, I think there is strong brand benefit, as this act results in his company’s customers developing an emotional bond with the company. In fact, with this act, in the eyes of many customers, Bob's small company with a silly name has transcended simply being viewed as another competitor within a marketplace that has fairly generic offerings and will now be perceived as a company with values and a heart.
On a personal level, while I have used Bob's company for a few years and had good experiences, I have also had good experiences with some of his competitors and never had much brand loyalty. Now, as a result of what I know about Bob and his company, I will give much stronger consideration to his company with my own business. I now want to swing all of my domain business Go Daddy's way. I’m also more likely to recommend Bob’s company than I was before this event. To me, Bob’s actions have a spiritual and a business benefit. I believe that Bob’s actions were taken as the result of a passionate commitment to be a responsible and caring corporate citizen.
In an age where big company greed, bad ethics and the resulting scandals fill the headlines and the court rooms, seeing a business with a conscience needs to be celebrated and, I believe, held up as an inspirational example. I also believe there will be a longer-term positive impact for Bob’s company, as many customers are likely to develop deeper, emotional bonds with the Go Daddy brand that will result in increased customer loyalty/retention rates, referrals and sales.
Call it goodwill or good values. I only hope it spreads.
I recently learned about the President and founder of a leading domain registrar (the companies that one uses to register web site domains) called Go Daddy being so moved by the recent Tsunami disaster in Southern Asia and Eastern Africa that he had his organization, a small business, donate $25,000 to relief efforts. He later decided he needed to up the amount to $250,000 and is attempting to influence other companies to act similarly.
The man’s name is Bob Parsons. He publishes a blog, that I learned about only minutes before writing this post, which I find refreshingly straight-shooting.
Corporate giving, in my experience, is rarely a truly altruistic act, regardless of spin. Big business often donates to high-profile causes for the PR impact and brand benefits – and I am not saying that is necessarily bad, but it certainly doesn’t inspire the emotional bond that a surprisingly and believably altruistic act would. After all, it’s easy for a Fortune 500 to give $1 million to a high-profile cause and reap the resulting publicity rewards. But, to see a small business give $250,000 out of the conviction and compassion of the business leader is nothing short of inspiring and, frankly, is far too rare an event. And while Bob might not get the same media coverage as a big brand like Citigroup, I think there is strong brand benefit, as this act results in his company’s customers developing an emotional bond with the company. In fact, with this act, in the eyes of many customers, Bob's small company with a silly name has transcended simply being viewed as another competitor within a marketplace that has fairly generic offerings and will now be perceived as a company with values and a heart.
On a personal level, while I have used Bob's company for a few years and had good experiences, I have also had good experiences with some of his competitors and never had much brand loyalty. Now, as a result of what I know about Bob and his company, I will give much stronger consideration to his company with my own business. I now want to swing all of my domain business Go Daddy's way. I’m also more likely to recommend Bob’s company than I was before this event. To me, Bob’s actions have a spiritual and a business benefit. I believe that Bob’s actions were taken as the result of a passionate commitment to be a responsible and caring corporate citizen.
In an age where big company greed, bad ethics and the resulting scandals fill the headlines and the court rooms, seeing a business with a conscience needs to be celebrated and, I believe, held up as an inspirational example. I also believe there will be a longer-term positive impact for Bob’s company, as many customers are likely to develop deeper, emotional bonds with the Go Daddy brand that will result in increased customer loyalty/retention rates, referrals and sales.
Call it goodwill or good values. I only hope it spreads.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
At the end of the day, the synergistic new paradigm of this out of the box thinking is a win-win, if you have the bandwidth to get on the same page.
A new study reveals the most overused, annoying buzzwords and it is pretty much spot on, in my book (hmm…those phrases didn’t make the list; last year’s list, perhaps?).
Of course, the research process for this could have been much easier than contacting hundreds of companies. All they had to do was have someone pick up the phone and listen to a few management consultants for a couple of minutes. Okay, that list would have been far too long.
Here are the buzzwords voted most annoying (you can find the full article here):
“At the end of the day”
“Solution”
“Thinking outside the box”
“Synergy”
“Paradigm”
“Metrics”
“Take it offline”
“Redeployed people”
“On the runway”
“Win-win”
“Value-added”
“Get on the same page”
“Customer centric”
“Generation X”
“Accountability management”
“Core competency”
“Alignment” “Incremental”
Have any to add?
Of course, the research process for this could have been much easier than contacting hundreds of companies. All they had to do was have someone pick up the phone and listen to a few management consultants for a couple of minutes. Okay, that list would have been far too long.
Here are the buzzwords voted most annoying (you can find the full article here):
“At the end of the day”
“Solution”
“Thinking outside the box”
“Synergy”
“Paradigm”
“Metrics”
“Take it offline”
“Redeployed people”
“On the runway”
“Win-win”
“Value-added”
“Get on the same page”
“Customer centric”
“Generation X”
“Accountability management”
“Core competency”
“Alignment” “Incremental”
Have any to add?
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Marketing Accountability: The Bottom Line
The number of self-professed experts on marketing ROI is astounding. Ask one of them for greater detail and the number quickly and dramatically decreases.
I recently wrote an article entitled "The Bottom Line on Marketing Accountability" that suggests a real-world solution for marketing accountability. Just in case you don't feel like reading the article, I'll provide a short summary. The idea that there is a "one size fits all" solution is incorrect. Even some of the marketing-world's most respected marketing ROI calculations may not be accepted by the CFO. Consequently, the most effective solution is for the top marketing executive to forge a relationship with the CFO -- and possibly the head of sales, depending on organizational structure -- whereby they together determine the key marketing measures, how they will be monitored and who will monitor them. This solves two problems, employing measures that matter to the organization and gaining buy-in from the CFO.
Think this is too obvious? Consider that the majority of top marketers don't do it. A couple of years ago, I was speaking to a senior consultant for one of the largest and most prestigious branding consultations. I asked him the percentage of brand valuations his firm does where the CFO is at the table and buys-in to the valuation. He said CFOs are only there 10% or less of the time, and they are often very skeptical. For a process that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and is a financial valuation, I am astounded that any marketing executive would go through this without the CFO's buy in. In fact, I wouldn't invest a dollar in it until the CFO bought into it. After all, when your the CFO presenting to the C-level, who do you think the CEO is going to turn to and ask, "What do you think of this?" Too often, the charge for marketing accountability comes as a criticism from the CFO or CEO. With budgets being more scrutinized than ever, marketing must lead the charge for marketing accountability within the organization, as well as the charge for internal collaboration and sell-in that it will take for marketing to gain the respect marketing deserves.
I recently wrote an article entitled "The Bottom Line on Marketing Accountability" that suggests a real-world solution for marketing accountability. Just in case you don't feel like reading the article, I'll provide a short summary. The idea that there is a "one size fits all" solution is incorrect. Even some of the marketing-world's most respected marketing ROI calculations may not be accepted by the CFO. Consequently, the most effective solution is for the top marketing executive to forge a relationship with the CFO -- and possibly the head of sales, depending on organizational structure -- whereby they together determine the key marketing measures, how they will be monitored and who will monitor them. This solves two problems, employing measures that matter to the organization and gaining buy-in from the CFO.
Think this is too obvious? Consider that the majority of top marketers don't do it. A couple of years ago, I was speaking to a senior consultant for one of the largest and most prestigious branding consultations. I asked him the percentage of brand valuations his firm does where the CFO is at the table and buys-in to the valuation. He said CFOs are only there 10% or less of the time, and they are often very skeptical. For a process that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and is a financial valuation, I am astounded that any marketing executive would go through this without the CFO's buy in. In fact, I wouldn't invest a dollar in it until the CFO bought into it. After all, when your the CFO presenting to the C-level, who do you think the CEO is going to turn to and ask, "What do you think of this?" Too often, the charge for marketing accountability comes as a criticism from the CFO or CEO. With budgets being more scrutinized than ever, marketing must lead the charge for marketing accountability within the organization, as well as the charge for internal collaboration and sell-in that it will take for marketing to gain the respect marketing deserves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)