Archives

We’ve all heard about social media and most of us are familiar with it.  When online communities allowed for interaction between members, social media began. Remember iVillage?  GeoCities?  Then there was MySpace, Facebook, blogging, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, Digg, podcasts.  In a decade, we’ve all come a long way.

I read something today that struck me as so funny that I had to share.  From the AP via the NYT:

“Coca-Cola Co. is launching a new social media push that will send three bloggers to more than 200 countries in a year to uncover what makes people happy, as part of the soft drink maker’s ”Open Happiness” campaign.”

The three bloggers, voted for online by the public, will tell stories on the Coke website and via all the various social media outlets, under the “Expedition 206″ mantle.  (To read more, click here.)

Actually, I think it’s a cool idea, and is compatible with their brand.  But does anyone else find it completely ironic that they’re having to send actual people to so many places to get content from other people who actually live there (or would otherwise attend events such as the Winter Olympics)?  Is this really social media or sponsored reporting with a hoped-for interactive component?  I guess that’s why they’re calling it a “social media push.”

I just finished listening to a webcast entitled “From Brainstorm to Firestorm:  Creating an Environment for Viral Marketing Success” hosted by SmartBrief and moderated by one of my favorites, Guy Kawasaki.

In Guy’s opening take, he stated the obvious:  you get more followers with any social media tool by being more interesting; and you’re more interesting by providing interesting links and information.  The three tools he uses are Objective Marketer (for email campaigns), TwitterFeed, and TwitterHawk.  Another tool, TweetMeme, he felt to be the single most powerful way to get followers.

Andy Sernovitz had a slightly different perspective.  He felt that allowing people to participate and share however was best for them was the key.  Rather than TweetMeme, he would go the ShareThis approach where people could “share the love” for you/your brand in whichever they wanted.

Stacey Kane of California Tortilla (voted best burrito in D.C.) said they leveraged their TacoTalk email newsletter into effective Twitter campaigns to drive store traffic.  One example:  providing a “secret password” on Twitter for a free taco in-unit; conversion rates were much higher than when the same thing was done via newsletter.

Brendan Hart with National Geographic talked about the importance of connecting with the brand.  For instance, on Twitter, they’ve invited people to solve a puzzle of Mount Everest at their website; as someone improves upon the time, NatGeo posts that result on Twitter, keeping it fun and interactive.  On their website, people can post photos they’ve taken and a couple are selected for inclusion in each issue of the print magazine.  Involvement on all fronts.

Stephanie Miller of ReturnPath summarized things this way: Use Twitter when brevity over clarity is desirable, email when content is king, and Facebook when a brand wants to be more engaging.  She gave an example of Oreo, which has 1.3 million fans on Facebook and where nothing has been posted since early March vs. Coca Cola, with 3.4 million fans, who seem to be so engaged that every few minutes one of its fans is posting something.  Do people love Coke more than Oreo?  I’m not sure.  But what’s clear is that Facebook is more important to Coke and its fans know that.  In short, she said whatever social media we use, we must commit the time and resources.

As with any form of marketing, no matter the way in which we connect with our consumers, we must be channel appropriate and engaging.

Your thoughts?

For a week now, many of us have been keeping up on what we now know will be the closing chapter of the Michael Jackson saga.  Like millions, I’ve kept up on the news.  One might argue that this really isn’t “news” (battles in Afghanistan, anyone?), but no one can argue about whether this is a “story.”

As humans, we’re programmed to listen to and tell stories.  Books, movies, and television (especially soap operas) all tell stories in one way or another.  Facebook and Twitter might very well be tied to the desire to tell our own stories.  The more easily we can relate to a story, the more likely we are to follow it or to become involved with it.

In marketing, we know that a sale can’t take place unless there is some connection between a consumer and the brand.  Consumers are connected to “Brand Michael” and so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that his record sales are way up.  Brands typically don’t have a story they tell to consumers, but they can (e.g., the launch of Saturn).  Companies do have stories to tell (their history) and those stories often are the foundation for corporate culture – the way employees know how to act within the story.

In marketing research and account planning, storytelling is a critical skill.  It’s the stories we tell (aka research analysis and consumer insights) about target audiences which inform new product development, operations, and advertising, to name just a few.  Our job as consumer advocates requires we tell their story, objectively and with passion, so they have a voice when decisions are being made.

More in a future post on what makes for great marketing research/account planning storytelling.

Brand Schizophrenia is what can happen to a company when it has a strong “silo” culture.  The “contradictory or antagonistic qualities or attitudes” of schizophrenia experienced inside organizations can be felt outside in the consumer marketplace.

Consumers get confused.  Brand equity can be lost.  Brand image gets diffused.

Two examples:

A regional bank in 1999-2000 (in the earliest days of online banking).  At that time, consumers attracted to online banking were sophisticated, better educated, and more willing to take risks, so the website was designed to attract them.  Conversely, general market ads had a 1950s look and tone, with a folksy, “we’re really there for you” message.  And the call center was incentivized based on how quickly they could complete calls.  If you were a customer of this bank, would you have known the “person” you were dealing with?  (I created GSS’s “Relationship Matrix” to help companies avoid this problem.)

Kindle vs. Amazon today.  1) I get emails from Amazon suggesting I buy books I’ve already purchased on my Kindle.  2) I can “save for later” a book of interest on my Kindle, but don’t have that same function as a known Kindle owner at the Amazon website.  To the brand’s detriment, I’ve started to think of them as two separate companies.  What’s next?  Wondering why I can’t get non-Amazon content on my Kindle.

Consumers have a harder time relating to a schizophrenic brand.  If they don’t have a simple way to think about a company, they often stop thinking about it. A clear recipe for diminished customer loyalty and sales.

Let me know your thoughts or offer up your own stories about Brand Schizophrenia.