Archive for September, 2010

Digital Communications Conversations Continue To Evolve

The maturation of the conversation about social media-driven PR continues.

As the “digital communications” industry (read: somewhere in the intersection of owned, earned and paid media) grows beyond the niche and towards the mainstream, the conversation at the leading end of the industry is shifting more and more from the “why” to the “how”.

Brian Solis published a great post yesterday, touching on a couple of important topics at the heart of the evolution of social media-focused communications from shiny objects to a serious business tool:

  • The continued focus of the metrics conversation on conversion as an endpoint
  • The definition of “influencers” from a client perspective

Conversion

More and more people are honing in on the importance of driving towards tangible, credible metrics. Conversions are key within that bracket. What you define as a conversion may vary depending on context, but in general the term will focus you in on sales, memberships, opt-in contacts (leads) and the like.

Why do conversions matter? Because they’re metrics that can lead to financial results (or could actually measure that themselves in the case of sales).

Folks like KD Paine, Olivier Blanchard and Rob Clark, who are neck-deep in the topic, figured this stuff out a while back but we’re slowly seeing more people hone in on it. Meanwhile, they’re focusing on how to prove value over “what you should do” and “why you should do it.”

As Chris Brogan put in a well-timed post on social media metrics today, “The social media metric that I think does matter and that is difficult to fully qualify is sentiment: the positive or negative mentions of a brand, product, service, whatever.” While unlike him I choose not to “poo-poo” measuring things like retweets, page views etc, I completely agree that in general they’re at best a proxy towards measuring more useful results, and at worst a cop-out from people unsure how to measure final results or afraid what it would show.

Influencers

Research continues to highlight the importance of context over quantity when it comes to influence. As Solis puts it:

“Brands seeking reach, presence, and connectivity must look beyond popularity and focus on aligning with the influential beacons who serve as the hubs for contextual networks or nicheworks.”

This is becoming more and more important as the early adopters who have built large followings become the focus of more and more attention from marketers – not only will the returns be greater from focusing on niche influencers in terms of success ratio; those people have more credibility within those communities.

Simply put, while I’m likely to check out a new business contact management tool if Brogan recommends it, if he suddenly recommended a lawnmower (for example), I’m much less likely to listen than if he were a credible and regular voice on that topic. That’s not a slight on him, but a reflection of the credibility that people can build up in a community that cares about their niche – that’s why sites like Pulse of the Tweeters help to drive things forward a notch.

So, the conversations on social graphs and content topics continue to converge.

Follow these trends; they’re important ones for anyone working in the digital communications space.

Book Review – UnMarketing: Stop Marketing. Start Engaging.

If you’re a regular Twitter user, Scott Stratten can be hard to miss at times (ok, always). The self-proclaimed “Jedi for social media,” with a big online mouth and an even bigger following, Scott provokes strong reactions from people. I’ve known him for a while and, while I always enjoy sparring with him, I consider him a friend so readily agreed to take a look at his new book – UnMarketing: Stop Marketing. Start Engaging –  when he offered to send me an advance version.

Right from the first word, UnMarketing is an easy read, written in simple, plain language that is easy to digest and has made Scott so many friends online. The blunt approach might put a few people off, but frankly it’s refreshing to see someone finally put in print the responses that people *should* hear to bone-headed push-driven marketing ideas.

UnMarketing veers sharply back and forth between different marketing-focused topics, which is both a good thing and a challenge as you work your way through it.

On one hand the varied content makes for an interesting read that never gets dull. From the evils of the approaches taken to telemarketing and how many marketers have adopted similar approaches in other forms of communications, to what Scott calls the “experience gap” (similar in some ways to Gap Theory but simplified), there’s plenty to think about.

On the flip side, there are times where it sometimes feels like a series of blog posts strung together. Still, it’s also well-formatted for the gnat-sized attention spans of many people nowadays, and it’s easy to digest a chapter or two on the way to work.

The book is also replete with examples of companies who have “done it right” – from Cirque du Soleil’s Jessica Berlin, to the Freshbooks RV tour, to the culture of customer delight created at Zappos, there are plenty of anecdotes of companies adopting tactics which just “feel” right. They’re also held up against examples of companies doing it wrong which, while it may not make Scott friends at those companies, is refreshing.

If there’s one weakness here, it’s that there are relatively few examples of results to back up these examples (my issue with many social media-focused books) – you’re left to rely on the warm feeling generated by the empirical examples rather than the broader business results of these techniques over the longer term. The language is very much “within the bubble” – it’s written for people who know understand basic social media terms, rather than those who are completely new to things. While there’s nothing massively complex within, if you’re completely new then you may want to check out Shiv Singh’s Social Media Marketing for Dummies or something similar before diving into this book.

Scott’s sense of humour shines through throughout the book, which does a huge amount for the book as it could run the risk as coming across as arrogant and condescending were it not for that. Instead, Scott’s humour humanizes the book and he comes across as an everyday guy who has made mistakes, learned from them and – which is all to rare nowadays – is willing to share them with the rest of us. The footnotes throughout the book are simply hilarious, too. Believe it or not, they’re a highlight of the whole book, and had me laughing out loud in the middle of packed subway cars numerous times (thanks for that, Scott)

UnMarketing is aimed squarely at people who are new to social media, rather than people who’ve been around the block, and primarily at small businesses rather than larger corporations. For people in that bracket, UnMarketing is an easy and enjoyable read. Those people should pick up a copy today.

Privacy Is About Control, Not Anonymity

Seth Godin says you don’t really care about privacy:

“If you cared about privacy you wouldn’t have a credit card, because, after all, they know everything you spend money on. And you wouldn’t use the phone, because somewhere, there’s a computer scanning what you say.

What most of us care about is being surprised. You don’t want the credit card company to track where you’re staying and whether you’re buying flowers for someone you’re not even married to–and then send you a free coupon for STD testing…”

I think Seth missed the mark with this one. I don’t care if my credit card company, Amazon, Google or Facebook have my information. I don’t even care if they use it to target ads at me. You know what I want?

Control.

I want control over how companies use my information. I want to know that if I post a photo of someone online, and set it so that only my friends can see it, then ONLY my friends will see it (though I still maintain that if you’re not ok with everyone seeing your photos, then don’t post them online at all).

I don’t need to put on a tin foil hat and go off the grid in order to care about privacy. I just need confidence that I can control how my information is used, and the means to do so.

How about you?

Do Facebook Fans Really “Like” You?

They like you, but do they really like you?

I just returned from Podcamp Montreal, where I attended several thought-provoking sessions which I’ll write about over the next little while. One of those touched on an interesting question:

If someone “likes” your company on Facebook but hasn’t tried your product, what is that worth?

Not in terms of dollars, but in broader terms.

Are they really worth anything if they just like your ad, or promotion, or even your outreach, but haven’t tried your product or service? Is a fan of your marketing really worth anything?

On one hand, you could point to reports showing a correlation between Facebook fans and higher spending on products they “like.” The report above also indicate people are more likely to recommend those products to their friends.

The question is, though, is that connection just a correlation or is it actually causality?

  • Does liking something on Facebook cause you to spend more on a products and talk about them more?
  • Do people who would do that anyway search out the Facebook pages to like them because they’re such fans of the products?
  • Are some people just enjoying your marketing efforts?

I would suggest that while this would actually be very useful to know, there is actually value in all three of these scenarios.

If the people liking something on Facebook then recommend the product more and buy it more, then the benefits are clear, and your challenge becomes how to continuously engage them while recruiting more people.

If people like something because they already buy and recommend the product more than other people, then Facebook becomes a useful retention mechanism for your business.

If people like something because they just like the marketing, that puts them much higher up the CRM cycle, so you then have the task of moving them further along the funnel over time.

Of course, the odds are that a page’s Facebook fans comprise all three groups (and more). However, knowing that breakdown still matters – that’s where the community manager and the type of activities undertaken to drive new fan acquisition comes in.

What do you think?

Interview: Aaron Goldman – Everything I Know about Marketing I Learned From Google

Aaron Goldman is the author of Everything I Know about Marketing I Learned From Google (affiliate link). Before declaring free agency earlier this week, Aaron was the founder and principal at Connectual, where he put lessons learned from Google to good use in digital marketing consulting and matchmaking.

As part of a blog tour celebrating the book launch, I took the opportunity to put a few questions to Aaron about his views on Google’s approach to marketing, and how its own social media activities have contributed to its success. You can find more information about the book at GoogleyLessons.com. I’m working my way through a review copy of the book right now; look for a review on here in the next couple of weeks.

With all of the companies taking innovative approaches to marketing nowadays, why did you choose to write about Google?

5 main reasons:

1. It’s a company I know intimately. I worked closely with Google during my 5-ish years at Resolution Media, helping brands manage paid and organic search as well as serving on Google’s agency advisory council.

2. Google’s ubiquitous. Everyone knows Google. Everyone uses Google. So it’s a company that people are familiar with.

3. Google is incredibly successful. Innovation and success don’t always go hand in hand. In Google’s case, they do. That makes it a company that many businesses look up to and aspire to be.

4. Google has a mystique and intrigue about it. People want to peek under the hood and see what makes the Googleplex tick.

5. People don’t usually think about Google as a company that does much marketing. Most folks think Google just had a great product and benefited from word of mouth. But, just because you don’t see Google ads all over your TV, doesn’t mean it’s not marketing. A lot of Google’s marketing doesn’t have media dollars attached to it.

All that said, many of the “Googley Lessons” in my book aren’t necessarily about Google’s marketing. They’re basic tenants that Google does well in other facets of its business that marketers can learn from — things like, “Relevancy Rules.”

If there’s one key insight marketers should take from your book, what would it be?

Marketing is more than just advertising.

I know I’m preaching to the choir here as this is a battle you PR pros often have to fight all the time when brands dump time and money into paid media when they could be getting better results with a little more focus on earned media.

Your book mentions the importance of data. PR has long suffered as a discipline that struggles with data and measurement. What can we as PR practitioners learn from Google’s approach to using data?

The lessons in chapters 8, 9, and 10 of my book are Test Everything, Track Everything, and Let the Data Decide.

Google is always testing. At one point, it tested 41 different shades of blue for its toolbar.

Of course, without tracking, testing is useless. Google has a bunch of great tools that marketers can use to track their efforts.

And Google doesn’t rely on intuition or gut feels. It lets the data decide the winner in each of these tests.

PR pros would be wise to take Google’s approach to continual tweaking and optimization. What worked yesterday will not work tomorrow.

And, while tracking is certainly not as easy in PR as in advertising and media, there are plenty of ways to measure impact. The key of course, is to measure actual impact — not impressions.

Now, every brand will define “impact” differently based on corporate goals but I can guarantee you no company has a goal to get 1 million Facebook likes or 1,000 retweets.

What impact did these social media indicators have on brand awareness, preference, and sales?

You feature insights from numerous marketing luminaries in your book, among them Avinash Kaushik, Google’s analytics evangelist. How do you see web analytics fitting into the modern marketing system?

Web analytics is one of the ways to do the tracking and measurement I just preached about.

And Avinash will be the first to tell you how important it is to focus on the right metrics.

When I interviewed him, Avinash told me that marketers put far too much emphasis on “input” or “acquisition” metrics like page rank or clicks. As he put it, “true glory” comes from “output” or “behavioral” metrics like bounce rate and average order value.

Going forward, the role of analytics will only increase as marketers create data-driven cultures.

How do you think Google’s social media communications activities – its numerous blogs and its Twitter presence, for example – have fed into its success?

I think Google’s social media strategy has made the company more approachable.

3 of Google’s core values are openness, transparency, and authenticity.

By having a blog and Twitter account for just about every business unit and product, Google is able to engage people in a “non-corporate” way.

Google doesn’t just use these channels to beat its chest and blast out promotional messages. It shares works-in-progress, product bugs and fixes, behind-the-scenes stories, etc.

This gives people a warm and fuzzy about Google that they just don’t get from, say, Apple. Can you imagine Apple blogging about products still in development or tweeting about product bugs?

Of course, this speaks to the difference in cultures between Google and Apple. Google is all about launch, test, fail, improve. Apple would never launch without full testing and QA.

Social media as a channel is ripe for the Google approach. If you wait to polish every single message and interaction, you’ll have missed the window of opportunity to engage a customer or potential customer — not to mention come off as unauthentic and insincere.

Time To Evolve How We Target Social Media?

How many times have you read something like this in a digital communications plan?

“One in three of our target audience is using Facebook. So, we recommend creating a Facebook page for this program.”

As social networks become more and more prevalent, we’re at the point now that almost every client brief appears to point, on its surface, to one of a few key networks. As a result, we’re seeing more and more programs based on “insights” like:

  • Only eight per cent of Canadians in the target demographic are inactive in social media (according to Forrester)
  • There are more Facebook accounts for Canadians aged 25-34 (according to Facebook’s ad creation tool) than there are Canadians in that age group
  • We need to reach our target market in the place they inhabit.
  • Therefore, we should create a Facebook page.

Right there, without any knowledge of the company, the product or the objectives and only minimal knowledge of the target audience, you’ve made a pretty standard case for a Facebook page. Trouble is, these insights are no longer particularly insightful. At this stage of the game, they’re akin to “2.6 million Canadians read the Globe and Mail. Therefore, we should do a traditional media campaign.”

This only leads to a plethora of Facebook pages, Twitter accounts and the like – some of which are well targeted, but many of which are not. Let’s face it, most B2C clients are going to target people somewhere in the 18-55 age group. Using just a demographic rationale, you could propose similar social media campaigns for all of them.

I think it’s time to move beyond sheer demographics when we’re planning social media campaigns, and towards more sophisticated analysis. What about:

  • What are the company’s business and communications objectives?
  • What behaviour are you trying to motivate?
  • What are the norms within the different social networks? Do they fit with what you’re trying to achieve?
  • Would you be better served via mass reach, existing niche communities or your own hosted site?
  • Do the company’s culture and existing policies lend themselves to social media engagement?
  • What existing properties do we have that we could leverage?

Let’s move away from generic demographic analysis and towards more sophisticated, critical analysis. For sure, some people are already doing this, but I think we can work to raise the bar.

What do you think?

Is “Social Media” Hurting Social Media?

Is the term “social media” hurting strategic communicators in the digital space?

Before you tell me I’m crazy, stop and think for a second.

Plenty of people have wondered about the term before (Google “social media term” and you’ll find a 2007 post from Jeremiah Owyang on the topic) but I’m thinking of this from a slightly different angle.

Is the term “social media” leading clients to take the wrong approach to their online activities?

How many companies have you encountered taking a scorched earth approach to their social media activities? I’m not naive enough to think that two words would lead us to a silver bullet situation, but do these two current words adversely affect some companies’ approaches to online interaction? I’m not suggesting we change the term – I think it’s here to stay in the short- to mid-term, at least. However, perhaps identifying challenges can help us on the agency side to address them.

Consider the term for a second.

Social media.

What image does that conjure up? Videos with comments enabled? Text with sharing features enabled? Tweets of links to stories about you? These might fall into a definition of social media, but they’re not really two-way – not truly. What’s more, they do seem to embody the approach taken to social media by many organizations – public and private alike.

Suppose for a moment we drop “social media” as a term and adopt a much more simplified “online networking.” We’d be using a term that, inherently, implies two important characteristics:

  • Two-way interaction. Networking is, at its core, a two-way interaction. You need to speak and to listen. Networking doesn’t involve broadcasting.
  • Long-term. Networking involves relationships. Relationships take time to nurture.

Nothing rocket-science based here, right? This is stuff that’s preached all the time. However, if it’s that easy, why are companies still engaging in marketing activities that essentially consist of one-shot, one-way fire-and-forget promotions that do nothing to shift the needle in the long term?

Back to “online networking.” What changes if we use that term?

  • YouTube: “Videos with comments” becomes Engaging people in a story, or enabling other people to tell your story as they see it
  • Blog: “Text with sharing” becomes a genuine conversation, where you solicit and respond to feedback from your stakeholders
  • Twitter: “Tweets of links to stories about you” becomes an opportunity to engage in real-time conversations with people

Changing a term won’t solve a widespread problem, and there’s much more to the issue than just a simple term (inter-discipline differences, for one, are another huge gap). I’m not suggesting we drop “social media” for “online networking.” However, if shifting the way you think can help – even slightly – to put you in the shoes of the people you work with, and that can help you to identify problems and solutions, then surely it’s worth it.

What do you think?