Marketing Notes

Why bother measuring Twitter Influence? Measure Reach Instead.

2010-08-17T06:03:00.000-07:00

There are a ton of websites that attempt (all of them feebly) to measure Twitter Influence, including Klout, Edeleman Digital's Tweetlevel, Twinfluence among the crowd. It is an open and accessible network. So it lends itself to attempts to measure. So I will posit here the limitations, then bring reality into the discussion which is to measure Reach not Influence.

First of all lets discuss Twitter. Its very conducive to sharing links and information. Many people who use Twitter favor it over Facebook, People Use Facebook, but they Live Twitter. And most users tend to be higher of intelligence, more friendly to technology, and I personally believe in the Top 50% of Earners in the US (or future Earners). But there are some drawbacks. Based on the Tweet Volumes there are between 8mil-15mil people on Twitter World Wide at any given moment. Over half of the 100mil Twitter accounts are rarely used.

There are 250mil Consumers in the US age 14 and over. So obviously scale and influence across that group is limited from Twitter with only 40% of users being in the US. Influence only measures whether people share things on Twitter. Not who they are. Which is a HUGE contextual hole in the data. Or why people share something, which is content of the Tweet. There also seems to be an effort to also measure Tweeter's expertise, yet they base it on repetitive key words. If I tweeted about the BP Oil Spill for months every day incessantly that does not make me an expert on BP, the Spill, or the Oil Industry! And lastly if I am a Marketer I should only care about driving Sales for my client. It is almost impossible to know this from Twitter.

Who cares about getting a message out Viraly if no one acts on that message, other than Re-tweeting it?

I have observed all forms of Tweeters. From high volume users with very small networks that share among a few friends, to Follower Sluts who follow thousands of people. Since you will only see and read a very small percentage of Tweets in your feed influence must be looked at realistically. The chance of someone Re-tweeting or taking action will depend on two key factors:

1: Did they see the Tweet (most people will see only between 5-10% of the tweets in their feed if that!)
2: What is the content of the Tweet. (is it worth Retweeting?)

Lastly since outside influence can not be measured realistically and the 'who the person is' is unknown why even try to give a measure. I can be the CEO of a Company with 100,000 employees. I can have 5 people in my network on Twitter and see a Tweet sharing a new Calendar App that is incredible. I like it so much I send an internal Corporate Email telling 100,000 employees to start using this software. Or I can be rich and famous with a million followers, and maybe I get a Tweet that leads me to buy something at a store that I am then photographed wearing on the Oscar Carpet for 90mil people to see, but never Re-tweet or Tweet that I bought the item?

Yes I know what you are thinking. In both cases there could be a viral response such as the employees sharing on Twitter with their network this great App that came from their CEO (most likely without crediting the CEO). And there will be Tweets saying 'Did you see what that Star was wearing?. That is all fine and part of Social Media. But remember we are measuring influence on Twitter. Not in Life. In both cases the true influence originators would of gone unmeasured.

This is why I posit measurement should be focused on reach. You can determine the potential for a Tweet to spread based on the web of connections. But you will never know the quality of those connections, ever. You can estimate based on an average chance of 1] seeing a Tweet and 2] how often they Re-Tweet but that is it. This will allow you to give yourself realistic expectations, because that is what this is about. Expectations. As a Brand or Agency you can then not over promise to the CFO or VP of Sales or CEO like so many Marketers like to do.

Are Brands Scared of Social or is Social over Hyped

2010-08-15T12:13:00.000-07:00

The attached link from Clickz.com highlights 5 great Location Based Marketing Campaigns and 5 bad ones.

LINK

The reason I am using this link is it highlights location based campaigns that are very similar to campaigns run on Twitter and Facebook. They are all big brands. What it really shows is that Brands are kind of being forced into the Social Media and Location Based Marketing before there is a true need for it. I have discussed in this blog before reasons major-mega brands do not need Social due to lack of scale and potential downside.

I want to discuss the value here of Social and Location Based Services if done right, then some reasons not to be Social or use Location Based Services.

Done Right:

Where I see the real strategic value of Social Media and Location Based Services is when you use these technologies to steer a prospective customer your way. When they are in the decision making process. But the key is access, respect, and opt-in call to actions.

Creating a Geo-Fence around a store so that when I drive by you contact my phone is not going to change my behavior. You already have Sunday Circulars, TV Commercials, Digital Ads, Email Contact, Print Coupons, and I haven't come in to buy. Why would a Geo-Fence chance my behavior vs annoy me when I drive by to get Gas or Milk.

But what if I could tie in Print, Social, and LBS? When I come to your store I see a poster saying if I take action via and LBS I get a sweet deal on something? Or tie purchases into a real loyalty program that gives a reward for actual repetitive patronage. That is respectful and since I am already there I don't need as big a bribe.

Done Wrong:

Why do I want to participate? Do you need to truly bribe me? Won't that lower the value of your product in my eyes? Will you annoy me? Will it become Push Advertising after I sign up for the SMS Loyalty Program you promoted.

Do you feel such an ego that you think everyone wants to talk with you when out and about or online? Do I want to be a fan of my dog's food or the company I buy most of my soup from? Do these Brands need Social or LBS when they are already reaching me or when Point of Sale in a market might sway me between brands because of what is on sale?

In Wrap Up:

Don't be cocky. Think of what value you will bring to me so that I want to engage and have no remorse once the engagement starts. Be creative. Don't reduce your value in my eyes. But be enough of a value for me to want to engage with you, or patronize you. Be respectful. My time is precious. So is yours. Don't waste either. Think of what makes me want to connect via these media channels vs the already established ones.

The Next Coming Facebook Shit Storm?

2010-07-27T06:31:00.000-07:00

I saw this article on AllFacebook.com and it has me concerned. It is already impossible for Businesses to Market on Facebook using Fan Pages. The Live Feed has so many posts only 5-10% of someone's Feed is ever read. Which inhibits viral activity significantly. Now Facebook wants your feed filled with Spam from outside of Facebook if I read this correctly:

LINK

Here is why I think this is going to become a shit storm. The goal of Open Graph was so that Facebook users could 'Like' something off Facebook and that will tell their Network they Like this web page and go check it out. This of course added to the volume in the Live Feed.

Now Facebook is allowing whomever owns that page (NY Times, Apple, whomever) to publish in the users Facebook Stream opening you up to tons of spam. And eventually you will never see anything published by friends and family thus reducing Facebook to nothing valuable for you and your life.

But that isn't my concern since I am surely not a fan of Facebook's ownership. I think they are scumnozzle weasel's and this could be the nail in the coffin!

1] Will they begin this opening of your personal page to the outside world via awareness and notification? If I click 'Like' will a message pop up telling me the implications?

(Here is where I need to include the caveat that I have never clicked 'Like' off Facebook, nor will I ever, so I will have to ask the suckers who do what happens).

So if they fail to notify you this is Shitstorm Level 1, could include having to change this later to save face. Possible congressional inquiry.

2] What if they make this retroactive. Meaning all this time you have been clicking 'Like' they open your Facebook profile to all these websites posting to your page without telling you?

Now that is Shitstorm Level Nuclear War. No one would ever trust Facebook again. Zuckerberg gets his tires slash, house gets egged and spray painted, never given a seat in a restaurant, class action law suits and congress steps in.

Just my opinion but how would you react if tomorrow you can't see posts from your girlfriend or best friend and all you see is 2500 ads for Denny's in your stream, all because 2 months ago you clicked Like on the Denny's website.

Critical Journalism vs Fanboy Journalism

2010-07-21T05:52:00.000-07:00

The New York Times is Critical Journalism. People Magazine is Fan Boy Journalism.

Posted this comparison between Tech Crunch and Mashable covering the same Facebook Study subject:

LINK

Then Sir Ad Contrarian (see his blog to your left in my list of great blogs) also covered this same subject having a more critical nature of the study itself:

LINK

Now there is a new issue in the news that Facebook has dismal customer satisfaction ratings.

Ad Week covered this in a very thorough and objective way. They used critical thinking and never kissed Facebook's ass. I know the main reason is if Facebook collapsed tomorrow they will still have a business. Mashable also covered this story and wrote just a short article with one or two critical aspects then proceeded to kiss Facebook's ass and ridicule (in my opinion) the FB user base. And of course if Facebook collapsed tomorrow Mashable could go under since they only deal with Social Media.

Without further ado:

Ad Week Link

Mashable Link

Hands down Mashable proves again and again to be a Fan Boy site that is in awe of BoyBander Social Networks. Yes this blog loves kicking Mashable because they deserve it!

Social Media Scale: is it Right for Big Companies to Engage Customers?

2010-07-16T08:34:00.000-07:00

Every business would love to be able to personally interact with every potential customer and make them feel like you care about them. their thoughts, any issues they are having or get praise from them. Social Media is great for a small business because one or two people can easily engage with everyone who tweets or posts on their Facebook Page.

But what if you had 500 million customers. And say just a small fraction Tweeted or posted on your Fan Page. Say just a puny 50,000 per day. How do you make every single person feel like you are engaging with them without hiring 50 to 100 people. You can't. Automated Response is cold and you will be exposed. Many Brands I follow on Twitter do not respond to my Tweets. Not because they don't like me. But they have one or two people doing Social Media and how many can one person respond too in a day? And we expect a business to respond 24/7.

Another issue is the value of this engagement for a Brand in determining how much they pay someone. Are they going to pay someone more than a person who works in a call center? And if your paid call center money how will your engagement come across.

This is a big issue for big business. All the Guru's keep saying everyone needs to be in Social Media. But reality is maybe not on Facebook or Twitter. And maybe it needs to be a form of public call center but how can 100 people share one Twitter account. It's not an ACD system (Automated Call Distribution).

I wish I had a solution but you risk people unfollowing you or unfanning you or ending engagement if they don't feel special and get interaction. So it is my position Big Brands should not be doing this. Why spend the effort to engage with such a small amount of people which doesn't move the needle and has bigger upside risks?

One thing I do recommend is having employees themselves be brand advocates and create their own networks. They can manage their own networks and they put a real face to your company. 'I like Nabisco because I know Sharon from Twitter and I love interacting with her'. Something to think about.

Why is Mobile different for Push Contact Loyalty Programs?

2010-07-08T14:18:00.000-07:00

I have been getting really upset lately (who me?) about this ridiculous view that Mobile is different when it comes to Loyalty programs. That all the same people who signed up for email contact (opt in) and agreed to accept contact later (push advertising) will behave differently with mobile? In fact I think it will be the opposite.

I lifted this from a Mobile Loyalty Program Provider:

Specifically, consumers engaging Mobile CRM programs are giving the brand 24/7 open-door access to their mobile device by telling brands, "I'm interested...here's my cell number...send me anything you want, that you think I might be interested in receiving."

Yes when you join a few SMS or 2-D Bar Code type loyalty programs you will at first engage. Then you will add a Geo-Fence or 2 where as you drive by somewhere a deal is sent to your phone. Then you will have 50 then 100 etc. And then presto just like email....EXCEPT.....with email its in my email. My phone isn't buzzing every time I am contacted. And the day my phone starts buzzing every time I am contacted I will eventually hate my phone or the Brand that is harassing me.

So how do you fix this? Obviously making all the contact email style brings back the same email problems! Lack of response, apathy, delete unopened. Is the in box on my phone different than on my laptop? No it isn't.

I tell clients to be respectful. Condition your fans who love your products, your brand etc to connect on their terms. Let them know that they can access/contact you via a mobile APP or website or send a SMS or 2-D bar code that allows them to see what your offering. For non-fans you need to contact them outside of mobile and use the right reason for them to Opt-In for a call to action campaign.

And for Loyalty programs see my old post on them:
LINK

I suggest tying rewards to purchases or visits. Use FourSquare or similar. Set up an APP that purchases get saved and add up so after reaching some goal they get something. But to take someone's cell number and just send them offers repeatedly is going to piss them off and you could turn someone who likes you to someone who hates you very quickly.

Facebook Porn & Brands Failing on Facebook

2010-07-07T07:02:00.000-07:00

Facebook has been hijacked by Porn. Go to any Fan Page that is geared towards young men 13 to 30 and you will see many, many like this from the Dorito's Fan Page:

Laila Wensley I'm 23 and looking for a single man for some hawt encounter I just want to spend some fun night with anyone who wants to accompany me I'm not into something serious for now, have no time and patience for a relationship for now Let's talk in my personal page, I have chat widget installed ---> http://bit.ly/cKIsYu

So how many 'active' users on Facebook are spam accounts? And why aren't brands monitoring their Facebook Pages and scrubbing this? You can find this also on the Mountain Dew page. And its not just one or two posts. Its pervasive and constant. And any 13 year old can see and click.

I recently saw a Freelance Job post asking for 1000 Facebook Pages with real photos, real friends, and real high school to be created for a client.....I am sure you can connect the dots for what those accounts will be used for. So Facebook..how many of your accounts are frauds. How many of the actions from these spam accounts do you count in your numbers. And do Brands know they are being connected with porn on their Fan Pages?

Don't Waste my Precious Time with Hogwash and Gibberish

2010-07-06T05:52:00.000-07:00

Fallon Agency Slideshare Link

The above link was shared on Twitter from a to be left un-named source.

Its hogwash. I would fire the person who created this presentation. I will admit I do not know the person. It could be Fallon and this is what they teach their employees. 98 Fucking slides with maybe 7 or 10 of value. WTF? Don't waste my time. I want no gibberish. I want none of the Advertising-Marketing lingo. I want real info that gets right to the point. Is that so hard?

This is what the 98 slides say:

1] Identify the Goal/Problem
2] Here are the various digital technologies available to use.
3] Fallon can help you choose which of these technologies and strategies fit your needs.
4] Lets go do it.

The slides infer that we all want to interact with brands all the time. That is the biggest piece of bullshit ever stated. In fact we don't...except when we have a need. We will interact if we buy something and it sucks. Or we want something they don't have or maybe we substitute and wish we didn't have too. Yes if we are already passionate Brand Ambassadors on our own we will do this online. But remember people become that not from Advertising but from great Product-Brand experiences.

Other than that I want a bribe. I want free stuff. I want your margins zero. Or why are you wasting my precious time? Seriously I will interact with McDonald's when I am hungry and I chose McDonald's. Or maybe I am undecided. Then I will place several choices in play and want bidding. Who will drop their pants the fastest wins. Is Fallon going to help a Brand drop their pants for me to win my business?

But seriously. Most of Digital Advertising so far has been wasted. With some exceptions. SEO is a success. Google Paid Search pretty good since its pay for performance. Shopping comparisons on Google, Bing where I can compare prices for things I already want are great for the consumer and margin destroyers for the sellers. Yes have a Social strategy even if your not in Social since viral attacks can occur and you should respond. And if your not 'listening' to learn your not a market leader in your segment.

But 98 Slides? Just read this blog post! Done.

Why am I called a Contrarian?

2010-06-30T11:16:00.000-07:00

I really can not understand why people who focus on R.O.I. or Sales when it comes to advertising are considered Contrarian? Advertising is supposed to be about sales. Yes its great when creatives can do fun things and make selling fun or make your product or brand fun. But the reality is the CFO makes the rules. If the CMO can't show ROI the CFO is going to reallocate resources where the ROI is superior. This could be anything from R&D to Direct Sales. Or there can be a reallocation within Marketing.

I see often more buzz about advertising within Advertising Circles than outside of Advertising. My Finance background breaks down things to numbers very quick. I have written about this before. Creatives and Marketers hate that. But Finance is about maximizing returns (for good and bad). Owners and Shareholders demand this. I myself do not have tunnel vision. I feel businesses should take care of employees, their clients, and their communities before the stakeholders. But it is rare to find a Company that does that.

Now to be fair when I do bring up Sales, I am not slamming Creatives. I am an artist myself. I have many art and music friends, more than that are in the corporate world. So I know how hard it is to create and make great stuff. And your hamstrung in Advertising by the Product, your Client, the Media Buy etc. You can create a great TV spot that get's shown 3 times. Not the Creative's fault if no sales are generated from that. Or the spots could be shown to the wrong demographic. Or as I have written say the product sucks?! Advertising get's people to try something and if the client doesn't help with a great product its not the Agency's fault.

But if the Advertising Industry thinks being about R.O.I. and Sales is Contrarian then they are smugly and vainly telling clients they are happy to waste their money. And shame on the clients for allowing this. And yes when I pitch clients I do tell them bluntly 'If I can save you $10 million by cutting your media buy without reducing sales, will you give me $1 million of that'.

Why us Finance Folks are Needed by Creatives and Marketers

2010-06-28T07:50:00.001-07:00

Marketers are like Politicians. Its style and fluff over substance. It's about creating an image because that is their job. And for both when you peek under the hood it can be pretty scary. Remember a marketing or advertising agency is used to spinning things for their clients to get people to try a product, service or brand. Once that occurs their job is done. If the consumer tries something and the product, service, or brand does not fulfill expectations no marketing in the world can fix this.

Finance people don't like the fluff. We tend to be direct. We analyze numbers fast. We will use cost basis justification (proving superior value or return or investment). So when the news, marketers and politicians were spinning Health Care reform costing $1 trillion over 10 years, Finance folks immediately said: That is only $100 billion per year and less than our wars and only 15% of our Military Budget.

This week it was announced that Facebook users watched 250 million videos last month. The head of a BDA (see George Parkers Ad Scam link to your left to know what a BDA is) touted this milestone. I am a finance guy. I immediately took that number and divided by Facebook's 450 million active user number. And Whammo....0.6 Videos per active user per month. That is like me spitting in the Ocean and telling you the Ocean now has my spit. Its un-newsworthy. Period.

To see other Facebook Facts that are Un-newsworthy see my blogpost on analyzing the data:

LINK

Apple Sells 1.7 IPhone G4's first week:

LINK

Immediately I only care about how many units replaced old I Phones that were this taken out of service. See my comments on the Media Post Article.

So us Finance folks are needed to ensure our clients or the people we work for don't get taken in by spin and cut through to the reality. And it goes both ways. A Finance person is more likely to tell their client the truth, that their product or service or operations will impact our work. We won't promise sales to go through the roof just to win business. When I bid to consult on Social Media I do not bring up crazy numbers. I give them reality. But often they prefer the crazy numbers, and that means they aren't usually a client I should work with.

The Vanity of Advertising

2010-06-24T07:13:00.000-07:00

I think the Industry often does clients a disservice by not focusing on Sales. Yet at the same time patting each other on the back for great work that can not be proven has benefited the clients who paid for the work.

Glaring proof is the ridiculous number of Awards events. I know Advertising and Media is highly segmented due to mediums, formats, and technologies. But I have never once seen an award connected to sales. Shouldn't all awards for the most part be connected to either sales or customer retention.

And shouldn't the winners of all awards events be based not on the creative or the quality of work but the sales increase? If I helped a client increase sales 100% and someone else who wins an award can't prove they helped make a dime, doesn't that confuse our clients? Doesn't that do a disservice to our industry as a whole and have people view us as scammers?

In direct sales no awards are won unless you sell. And the ones who sell the most get the awards. And yes...THEY GET PAID MORE! And this whole issue of not wanting to be paid for performance because of the 'risk' and 'investment' is a crock of shit. I say that because businesses hire and train and support direct sales efforts risking much more money than advertising does with the same risks! Agencies should not be guaranteed a profit, but should have all their costs covered that includes the employee rate and everyone's pay. And if you are afraid you won't perform then that is the Agencies fault, not the demanding client. You don't have to take the work. Or if the Brand (see tomorrows post) sets you up to fail that is the Agencies fault too for being a sell out for some money.

Remember 9 out of 10 products fail in the marketplace. Do Brands stop product development because they know 9 will be failures? So for an Agency to demand always a profit is pretty damn vain.

My next post will discuss the Agency Bidding and Review process because its only fair I hold the Brands to account for their shortcomings.

Determining the Real Value of Media

2010-05-26T06:23:00.001-07:00

This is the most controversial and inflammatory issue in media. Its the reason I rail against the Facebook or Twitter numbers. And TV numbers. And Digital. Its the reason I question and challenge all measurement data that is 'Estimated'. And most media measurement is an estimation and thus imperfect. And even hard facts are spun with that spin when it benefits a specific party.

I recently got into an email fight with Fortune Magazine because the Journalism side of Advertising and Media often are not critical thinkers. This time it was because I wanted them to not just regurgitate Facebook's claim of 500million users, and put in some caveats so someone reading can determine the real value of this claim.

http://marketing-sensei.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-metrics-i-would-want-from-facebook.html

Now I need to adjust those numbers. If I use 500 million vs 200 million the numbers become awful:

On Facebook users Like something less than 2x per month. They upload 3 photos per month. And post a comment or update their status once every 5 days! You call that a website you want to engage people on????

I have posted examples of this stuff in my blog, specifically recently for MobileMarketer.com

http://marketing-sensei.blogspot.com/2010/05/yes-it-is-freaking-roi-damn-it.html

The whole reason is to determine the real value of something. Brands will pay gladly if they know they can reach someone. Trust me they would rather the Nielsen TV ratings be real than Estimated. It benefits the media outlets when audience size is overstated because marketers pay per person. Brands want bigger reach, its not that they are hoping to save money if the accurate number is lower. But too often media outlets overstate.

In the Facebook case I would tell a client there is 80mil US Consumers logging into Facebook each day. For Twitter there is only 5 to 10 mil logging in each day. Those are facts. I would tell them that any account that isn't logged in today is worthless and don't pay for any 'reach' that is worthless. And where is the marketing being done. Anything being inserted into the Twitter or Facebook live stream will only be seen by 5-20% of the users who stream it enters. This is determined by number of accounts one is following and time spent. Last night I was watching a movie. In 2 hours I missed 850 Tweets on Twitter. Any of those tweets that were meant for marketing...I did not see them. But the Social Marketing person will tell their Boss they have 8000 followers and that is how many that saw it?

My point is everything has a value. It's always one party's benefit during negotiations to inflate or deflate the value of something. And Advertising is the one industry where everything is a Guesstimate. And Agencies and Media Channels both want to increase their billings and while the Brands/Clients want to pay for what is real and not pay for fake numbers. 2 against 1 is why up to 50% if Ad Spend is wasted.

Social Media Authenticity

2010-05-24T09:30:00.000-07:00

Social Media is a bonanza for those with limited budgets hoping to promote and market themselves or their businesses. Its a great way to network, to discover and learn, and even to scope out the competition.

Too many big Brands use Social Media just because they think they should be there. And there is also a lot of deception with Social Media. Plenty of services to buy fans and followers by the 1000's. Where they get these fans/followers I have no idea. How the client can keep them I am not sure.

I think it is very important to be as honest and transparent as possible. You also need to have great content or bribes. I mean seriously now. Think of what you offer, your reason for being involved in Social Media, and why should someone engage with you. We are all busy. I know Kraft would love for me to spend 30 minutes a day engaging with them about their products. Why should I? I see their stuff once a week in the market. I see ads on TV. Why should I engage with them online or in Social Media. What is in it for me? A free box of Mac and Cheese? I might take that...maybe not.

I am in the Advertising/Media/Technology Industry. There are many people I view as sources of new information and discovery. Others provide great mind candy discussions on philosophy and theory. Some are just plain funny.

But if your not bringing me value why should I follow you on Twitter or fan you on Facebook and have my stream filled with things I don't care to see. I am ok with you existing in Social Media and you will find people who feel your value and good for them. The great thing is you get to choose who your follow, engage with, etc.

But its important to be authentic. If you play a role like some folks do using Brand Fiction* on Twitter, people should know you are that role. If your being paid to send sponsored tweets, those should be plainly stated. And you can't be afraid to have disagreements, or potentially be attacked if your going to play in the sandbox. Its not pleasant but if your going to be a person or a brand that polarizes you must expect this. We all know no one person or business or brand is perfect.

If your only in social media to advertise and not engage you can pay Twitter to sponsor tweets or pay Facebook to insert ads. But you shouldn't be creating accounts and interacting if you want everything one way...your way.

*Brand Fiction is courtesy of Helen Klein Ross aka. @adbroad who plays @bettydraper from Mad Men on Twitter. She can also be found at the Brand Fiction Factory www.brandfictionfactory.com

Facebook's Crappy Business Model

2010-05-14T06:31:00.000-07:00

Not sure who came up with Facebook's horrible 'Lets Exploit Our Users' Business model. Mark Zuckerberg? The VC's and investors?

Here is my question. Would you pay $3 month for a website that allowed you to interact with all your friends and family, sharing info, events, photos etc? If the network was locked down? If your privacy is #1? If no Brands could advertise to you? And if you knew the network was going to invest in making real conversations possible (vs short comment streams with no cohesion).

Forget Brands. Forget Advertising. Forget real time web where all your posts get shown on Google.

This business model would generate $7.2 billion in revenue immediately if you had 200 million subscribers. This would rank the network 314 on this years Fortune 500. It would generate probably 4x the profits if not more than Facebook currently is bringing in and piss off ZERO people, politicians, etc.

Would you pay $3 month? I would. And if you paid some money and invested in your own profile and network would you jump ship as fast as you are going to the moment a better network pops up? Or as Joseph Jaffe likes to say 'The next shiny bright new object'?

Time Time Time Time

2010-05-07T06:19:00.000-07:00

We don't have enough time. I know you agree. I don't care how much people are multi-tasking. There is still only 24 hours in a day. And there is so many more things and options competing for our time today than ever before. So Opportunity Cost for Time Spent is a bigger factor today than it ever was.

In Economic/Finance Terms NetMBA has a nice description:
http://www.netmba.com/econ/micro/cost/opportunity/

This is very important when it comes to Media, Entertainment, and Advertising. Every time you ask a person to engage with your brand, or your product, that means they have to give up time spent with something else. So this ropes in Value into the discussion. As the link above shows Value is a very important factor whether it is monetary or perceived.

The ways to Engage and Draw Attention include good and bad:

Offer greater content than the other choices out there (Perceived Value). Good.
Offer greater monetary incentive (Monetary Value). Good.
Offset something with greater incentive with ease of incentive. (Lazy Value) Mixed.
Force yourself on your target (Negative Value). Bad.

Too often Advertising and Media is a Negative Value. Even when you add creative entertainment value, unless they willingly choose to view something, part of the experience is a Negative Value and a Waste of someones time. This doesn't mean it's a 100% Negative, it just means some of the Positive Value is offset with the Negative Value.

Since we all are exposed to Media and Advertising constantly throughout our day, and often we have choices, make sure what you offer either has better content or monetary value, with your last course of action Lazy Value such as making your experience so much easier to consume than other choices. A great example is the choice of watching TV in Bed with the remote control, vs driving to an overlook to see the city lights at night.

Remember everything is an Opportunity Cost in life and when people choose to Engage or Consume they are giving up other choices. So if you want to be Chosen, step up your game and do things to increase your Value to your target.

Be Engaging, Be Fun, Be Informative, Save them Time, Save them Money, do something!

Yes it is the Freaking R.O.I. Damn It!

2010-05-03T13:57:00.000-07:00

This is Case Study number 1387 on why CFO's come down on the CMO's for R.O.I.

Mobile Commerce Daily Article on Taco Bell Mobile Coupon Campaign

I know all you 'Creatives' cringe. I know all you 'Branders' don't like this stuff. But us Finance/Sales folks need to measure stuff. And I am going to be the first to defend some things that help create value that are hard to measure. But when you come to me and report on the actions taken with Mumbo Jumbo like this article that would have me write off Marketing from the budget. Chihuahuas wearing Sandwich boards would be a better value.

In this case study Taco Bell signed up 13,000 people into a mobile coupon campaign. Taco Bell has 5,800 stores. It seems 600 participated. That's 21.6 people per Taco Bell signing up over 5 weeks. So 4+ per week?

This is a totally measurable campaign!!! And no one measured it? I will state maybe the data was not shared with the Journalist. Is that because the data sucked?

CFO: This campaign cost us $75,000? How much new business did we get?

CMO: We signed up 13,000 people.

CFO: We have 87 million unique customers in the US. How much new business did we get?

CMO: We sent out 29,000 coupons.

CFO: How many of the coupons were converted/turned in?

CMO: Well 93% stayed in the program.

CFO: Did they have a choice to stay in the program or know they could leave it?

CMO: Well 61% responded to our follow up survey?

CFO: Your fired.

Fact: This could of been a measurable success story if the CMO (Or Agency) could prove they made money or showed increased loyalty. But hey who measures profitability these days anyway?

Social Media Reality: Perspective and Value

2010-05-03T04:44:00.000-07:00

Reality is being honest about Social Media potential in the future, with reality today. The US has 310 million people. Take away children under 14 and you have the real pool of consumers you can sell too. So minus 60 million gets you 250 million people who can buy your stuff.

Considering Twitter has 8m to 15m users in a day world wide. And Facebook claims 200m logging in world wide each day. What are your customer pools in the US for each platform? Not the numbers I just gave. Last number I saw was 60% of Facebook users are outside the US. Nice pools of potential consumers yes. Not close to the number for TV you can reach with a 30 sec spot on a mid-level TV program that gets 2-5 mil viewers. But still very nice.

The problem is when I see too many statements, workshops, articles, conferences promoting Social Media for Advertising and Connecting with Consumers....that make it sound like everyone is using Social Media. But the fact is over 50% of consumers are not using Social Media on a given day. And your reach is so small compared to TV or even a Billboard on the 405 Freeway in LA currently. And due to the massive live feeds on Twitter and Facebook your posts will only be viewed by 5-10% of your Fans and Followers depending on factors such as time of day and each person in your network's volume flowing through their screen.

It's not a silver bullet and you can't reach everyone with it right now. Just don't get sold on the over hype.

Social Media is really about value. Using the networks right now is free minus your labor costs and any special content. Your not spending 100k on a commercial and then all that ad spend to reach millions of people. You will spend long term thousands to Engage with tens to hundreds of thousand of people in various ways. This can range from them viewing your post or tweet (Impression), to doing some sort of action (Engagement) such as clicking through to a video, a blog post, or participate in a contest.

The difference between say running a contest off line and on line is tremendous. Off line I might send in a sweepstakes card, or play McDonald's Monopoly game. No one knows if I win or lose. And the value is minimized by the isolation of each contestant. But on Social Media I get seen playing the game, I get seen winning the game, and I can give back to the Brand immediately.

A great example is Tony Hawk does an Easter Scavenger Hunt in all 50 States. He hides a box with Tony Hawk gear such as Skateboards, Pads, Video Games etc somewhere in a major city in each state (I am unsure how many prizes total). He then Tweets clues and eventually someone finds the prize. Then they take a photo of themselves with the prize and they tweet it to Tony Hawk. And he just earned himself so many new Brand Ambassadors and Brand Champions that a 30 Sec Commercial or a Monopoly Game at McDonald's can not buy. Tony has over 2 million followers on Twitter and doesn't even have a Facebook presence aside from like 300 small Fan pages created by Fan's.

I recommend using both Facebook and Twitter due to the different attributes of each and funneling people back and forth. Twitter is perfect for games and broadcasting. Facebook it perfect for showing photos, having more cohesive discussions and feed back, and is a bit more viral in nature.

So while the reach of Social Media is over stated right now, the value is actually understated. When you interact and engage properly with your customers or potential customers, it is more similar to direct sales (active) than it is to advertising (usually passive). And you can target people based on what they like versus traditional paid media guess work. And when you run the numbers the closer you get to direct sales the more value each customer/contact is. A traditional advertising channel will cost from $0.01/impression to maybe $0.50/contact to sometimes over $10.00 for a Google Adwords click through. So ask how much an active engagement with 1 customer/potential customer is worth. Ask how much a Brand Champion or Ambassador is worth, especially one that works for free.

And think of all the feedback you get without paying for focus groups. You have a readily available pool or people who will give opinions for free because they care about your Brand or Product. They wouldn't be engaging with you if they didn't!

But remember this starts with a great product or service. You won't earn Brand Champions if your product isn't a good one. If you follow me on Twitter @skypulsemedia you will find I am an active Brand Champion for a few Brands I believe in. Skullcandy, Volcom, Billabong and Vans are great examples. They pay me zero. I buy their stuff. But they make great products and they are fun brands that have incredible content on their websites.

The Social Media Fudge

2010-04-28T07:00:00.000-07:00

Ad Week Link

This is a perfect small article on Ad Week that is a great Case Study on the Social Media Fudge. I have written about the divergent agenda's in Social Media. The people who over hype Social Media tend to have a financial interest in it such as VC's & the Networks themselves because they want to go IPO.

This detracts from the real value of Social Media. The value to people. The value to Brands. Because there is real value! That is why Social Networks and Technology being view purely as Advertising/Marketing vehicles, vs Technology to be sold and licensed is so backward assed. They promote the wrong features and benefits.

So without further ado as someone who advises clients on Social Media for Marketing and Engagement purposes this article and chart say nothing to me. If I want to reach someone and they are only on the Network once per month that has zero value for me. How am I going to reach someone via Twitter when they are going to be on the Network once randomly in a month. But if I know your on at least every other day, that has value. And sometimes the value is something that shouldn't be hidden.

Fact is there is between 8-15 million people on the service each day. But before you belittle that number these folks tend to be brighter, smarter, more techie, and most likely either current higher earners (Jack and Suzy Welch!) or will be (college students). They are more likely to have smart phones. And they are more likely to be interested in sharing discoveries and communicating them because Twitter is different than Facebook.

The fact is the live Tweet Stream is fleeting. Its not like a Print Magazine where your ad could be viewed anytime in the next 2 weeks. If that person isn't on when you Tweet most likely it goes into Tweet heaven (the Library of Congress).

To Ad Week's credit they did whittle down to monthly users, vs the Gross Number of Accounts being 100 million that Twitter is promoting.

Great Podcasts in Advertising-Social Media

2010-04-26T13:52:00.001-07:00

Git yer Adva-tising Edumacation heyah!

I am a huge music freak and can rattle off my heavy rotation of current sweetness on my IPod. I figured it was time to give some great Pub to some great work being done in the Advertising Underground. We all know about the big shindigs and pow-wows. But there is some great work of current being done now. This goes beyond journalism. If you want to brush up on Social Media, learn current events in Media/Technology/Advertising, or just want intellectual mind bending romps but don't have time or the desire to read from my nice blog reading list to your left...do I have something for you. Mind candy fer sure.

I wanted to showcase really smart people who share with us via Podcast format the issues affecting us today. They do really great work and are worth listening too. I have learned immensely from these true Sensei's of AdLand-MediaLand and their incredible guests:

1] The Bean Cast (Tapes Sun Nights)- Bob Knorpp (@thebeancast) of the Cool Beans Group is your host and he always has 3 to 4 guests with the topics laid out before hand on his website. He has a great panel format and does a wonderful job as moderator. Think of NPR Left-Right-Center level of discussions. Bob will take all sides when necessary to get to the bottom of things with his panel.
http://www.beancast.us/

2] AdVerve (Tapes Wed Nights) - hosted by Bill Green (@mtlb) of Humungo and Angela Natividad (@luckthelady) of Hypios
This is much more free form. The discussion flow, there is laughter, there it sarcasm, there is bluntness. They normally have one guest and they do not hold back. Everything is fair game and they cover everything in Advertising, Media, Technology, Politics and Current Pop Culture. And sometimes they make me LOL. Plus the hosts span Two Continents. Yes that is right. Two Continents. North America and Europe.
http://advervecast.blogspot.com/

3] Quick N Dirty (Fridays on I Tunes) - Your Hosts Aaron Strout (@aaronstrout) of Powered and Jennifer Leggio (@mediaphyter) of ZDNet focus on Social Media and cover everything current and developing in the land of Social. They normally have one or two guests and they go deep like Jerry Rice on the topics they have discussions on. They get some heavy hitters on so don't be surprised if you think you know 'Social' and then realize after listening that your still a 'Grasshopper' but in a good way.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/quickndirty

4] Jaffe Juice - last but definitely not least, the Chief Interruptor at Powered and the Author of Flip the Funnel - Joseph Jaffe (@jaffejuice) is your host. He not only takes a very objective view to Social Media and Advertising, he's a brilliant and likable guy. His podcasts do not seem to be on any specific schedule but they are not to be missed.
http://www.jaffejuice.com/
http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/jaffe-juice/id93639319

Why I love the Ad Contrarian - the Facebook-Nielsen Study

2010-04-21T06:12:00.001-07:00

In my last post I highlighted two different sources for news on the Facebook-Nielsen Study. Of course unlike the Ad Contrarian I am not on Nielsen's list when they send this stuff out. There is a link to the Ad Contrarian Blog on your left. Bob Hoffman of Hoffman Lewis is someone I came across randomly via my Twitter Networking. When I read his E-Book (Link is on his blog) I realized there were other folks like me with the same viewpoints.

Without further Ado

http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2010/04/whos-nielsen-trying-to-fool.html

Bias (Mashable) vs Objectivity (TechCrunch)

2010-04-20T09:36:00.000-07:00

When reading the news one should always seek objective viewpoints, even if they contrast with your own. Often we prefer bias in our personal lives. But when it comes to our businesses objectivity is often crucial to success and survival.

Recently Nielsen did a Study with Facebook to look at the impact of paid and earned marketing on Facebook. Remember it is in Facebook's best interest for this report to come out positive. Not sure what Nielsen got out of it, other than codling up with Facebook in case there is a need to measure Social Media sites like they measure TV.

As for Mashable, if Social Media is over hyped, their business falters. They specifically cover Social Media, their CEO Pete Cashmore shamelessly promotes social media in ways that have me think he is being paid too, or has equity stakes in some Social Networks. But Tech Crunch covers a wide swath of Technology. If Social Media falters their business will not take a hit. And if they consistently show they are objective they will earn readers. Think of it as Mashable preaches to their choir, Tech Crunch doesn't have such a choir to preach too. Remember two articles about the same subject. You be the judge.

Mashable Article
Tech Crunch Article

This blog has shown skepticism over the effects of Paid Advertising on Social Media Sites since the click through rates for paid ads on Social Media run between 3 and 10 per 10,000 page views. But if you can truly get people talking and sharing about something that is very powerful. In 2009 when Quiznos offered a free sub to the first 250,000 people who signed up on their website by giving an email address I immediately posted that on my Facebook feed which gave a chance for my 260 friends to see.

Social Media Use Becomes Pervasive...Kind of

2010-04-16T06:03:00.000-07:00

The subject of today's post is this Article from Ad Week

The one or two people who read my blog know that I like honesty in numbers, and that numbers do not lie. I have broken down Facebook and Twitter's numbers claims to show that like Fox News they hype certain measures that help the IPO cause, and omit other measures that might reduce the IPO cause.

The viewpoint of the Marketing Sensei is that of someone who would either A] Invest in Stock of a Business or B] either advise a Client on Advertising to increase R.O.I. or if it was my own business that I had to make these decisions. The biggest factor being valuing Media/Advertising on the buying side.

So with that in mind have I have asked why doesn't Facebook explain what they term an Active User. If I was a Brand looking to reach a potential customer via Facebook someone who logs in only once per month is of zero value to me. But someone who spends 1 hour a day on the site is of value to me.

So when they bring up the 73% number that engages in social media once per week they are including people who potentially spend 5 minutes of a whole week. There are 86,400 minutes in a week btw. So as a Brand the 73% is of zero value to me.

And for Facebook even if 100 million US people logged in once per day, what does that mean to a Brand? The live feed is such high volume to place an Ad or a Fan Page Post it is a crap shoot that someone would see your post. Your lucky if 10-15% do. The fact is we go on there to chat with friends and family, not engage with Brands. And if like me, one has FireFox with Ad Blocker Plus, none of the Paid Advertising on the site gets viewed. So the utility for a Brand really needs to be valued properly.

So my point is measuring usage doesn't give the real story. Its how Social Media is used, can it be utilized for marketing/advertising, if so how does one overcome the barriers/limitations these networks have. Is there a difference between someone spending an hour posting photos, commenting on friends posts and exchanging emails, vs someone who spends the whole hour in Farmville or YoVille?

Lastly, it only took me 5 mins Nielsen to announce the 7-15 mil users/per day active on Twitter. This occurred immediately after Twitter announced 50 mil/tweets per day. I think my research then for all my 'objections' to the Hype should carry slightly more validity now.

But again numbers are deceiving. Of that 11.4 mil/day most are in the upper 50% of earners in their respective countries. So the value per user is higher than say those who read Sports Illustrated or watch ER reruns or spends time on Facebook. Ask a Media Company or a Brand the value of that demographic, or pool of potential consumers.

Twitter Unveils Plans to Draw Money From Ads

2010-04-13T05:59:00.000-07:00

NY Times Article

To be fair and give proper credit. Laurie Sullivan of Media Post grabbed this story a day earlier:

Media Post Article

I have in the past discussed options for Twitter should they continue the Ad Supported Business Model vs what I recommended which was Paid Subscription/License the Technology Model. I did some research on Twitter before it hooked me as a Professional Networking tool that has sincerely been invaluable. But for Advertising and Promoting by Brands it has major challenges which I spouted about here: Link

Basically since so many Tweets get unseen how does Twitter monetize with Advertising. Especially challenging since 3rd party platforms like Tweetdeck take away the home page space.
Some areas of thought were based on value to the Brands and value to the Consumer. And when will Twitter know I am viewing the stream.

First viewing really can only be guessed at when one logs in (but I am always logged in via Tweet Deck), tweets (but maybe not with mobile, maybe you send the tweet without viewing the stream), or searching for something.

So lets use the Tweet. If I mention a product type or Brand wouldn't competitors wish to send me an offer right then? I always use Coke-Pepsi. If I mention Coke, Pepsi wants to send me a coupon. But is that of value to me or the Brand? Depends. If I am at McDonalds and mention I had a Diet Coke with my burger I am not about to make a buying decision. So sending me an offer isn't relevant, especially since I had no choice in brands at McDonalds. But if I am at a store and Tweet 'debating on whether to buy Coke or Pepsi' that is different. But Twitter can not do such conceptualization. And is the highest bidder really the best for the consumer? Sometimes, but not always. I might miss out on something better for me who didn't have the money for the key word bidding. No different than Google/Bing, but usually they give you more than one paid result.

Now lets explore what Twitter is using: search terms. Who searches and for what? Brands search when they 'listen' to the live conversations/posts about their brand, products, and competition. It is possible searching for a term will cause themselves to be charged for an advertisement by Twitter. Of course they could also cause their competitor to be charged, similar to clicking on a competitors banner ad online over and over.

But what do consumers search for most? In my observances really only two specific things in an ongoing basis, which are new products and news. Movies are the perfect example. The Friday Iron Man 2 comes out they will search for reviews. So a Brand seeking to advertise to that demographic might want to bid on the Iron Man 2 key words (if that is allowable by Twitter). The other is real news, especially disasters or political upheaval. So bidding on Haiti Earthquake would of been a worthy choice. But you need to be quick since disasters are never planned in advance!

As with all Advertising the key is getting your ad seen. And Twitter just like Facebook have immense challenges due to the massive clutter of the live feed, and how many hours people spend logged in not looking at the screen. This post took 15 minutes to type while tweets are flying on my Tweetdeck screen, tweets I will never see. And there is the Brand safety issue. I recently showed a Tweet that showed up in the #P2 (progressive) and #tcot (conservative) politics hashtags that was very vile. Brands have to be careful because certain hashtags have content no brand wants to be associated with.

The Falsehood behind Mobile Marketing Loyalty Programs

2010-04-11T12:02:00.000-07:00

I have railed against Mobile Loyalty programs that after the initial sign up are really just push advertising to your phone. My specific beef has been that once you sign up for enough of these they pretty much all become spam, kind of what email is today. And in my opinion truly powerful mobile marketing is initiated by the consumer with a call to action, then an action taken. passively receiving notifications and offers is not powerful.

But my beef here is terminology. A true loyalty program earns points, or tracks your spending, like frequent flier or your super market club card. Other great ones are the business card size punch cards for buying a number of coffees or sandwiches you eventually get one free. Or even the drink buy backs at your favorite bar.

Most SMS Loyalty Programs I read about in the Advertising Trade Pubs start with a Call to Action SMS Text to get a coupon and then be entered into the loyalty program. The programs state 'to receive special offers in the future sent to your phone' vs 'once you spend X amount we will send a special payback to your phone'. But if I push offers to your phone unless there is a method to track your customer's spending with you, its not a loyalty program. If I get coupons sent via SMS saying we appreciate your business without having to buy more stuff to earn it, where is the loyalty? Isn't that just a give me your phone number and I will text coupons to your phone program?

Furthermore, if a customer who has your business in their regular rotation, unless there is an incentive for them to increase their spend and their patronage, you need to remove the loyalty title and just call it a coupon campaign. And if people expect to always have a coupon or discount every time they show up, your list pricing will stop being looked at as 'the price' vs the 'discounted price'. That can be deflationary to your revenues.

For example if I always discount my chicken wings from $7.99 to $5.99 your view eventually will be your buying a $5.99 product. And expect $5.99 quality vs $7.99 quality.

So unless your running a true loyalty program, call it a creative discount program. Make your special offers unique to draw them in. Make the customer think this won't be around next week, vs. knowing like clockwork the same discount will be showing up in their in box every 3rd Monday of the month.

What Metrics I Would Want from Facebook and the Big Picture Stuff

2010-04-05T07:19:00.001-07:00

Facebook publishes a lot of stats. Many I know are very fuzzy and used to promote/hype the site because they want to go IPO before a new site comes a long that everyone migrates too. I take a big picture approach. I look at an Ecosystem and use all relevant data to help clients value various media channels. Because all Media Channels have value, it's just determining the fair value that is important.

As a Brand there are some specifics that I care about which obviously are omitted from any Facebook Stats. Remember they claim 400 Million active users and half of them logging in everyday!

1] Page views vs time spent on site. Time spent is massively inflated (55 mins per user per day?????) because if you leave Facebook up in a browser tab all day but only spend 10 mins on the site they record all day as time spent. But page views show activity.

2] Fan Page Post views vs Fans. I want to know how many posts from Fan Pages show up in the first page/home page upon log in. Each page after the front page that your post shows up gives a significantly diminished likelihood of your post being seen. When I log into Facebook there are always over 300+ updates waiting for me. Due to that volume I never go beyond the front page. So all those posts I don't see are worthless to a Brand.

3] What is an Active user? How many Active users log in only once per week or less? If a user logs in less than once per day the chances of reaching that person by a major brand is almost zero. Facebook claims an Active User to be someone who logs in 1x per month. That is NOT ACTIVE! That is basically zero if you log in 12x per year!

Many stats are so ho-hum that I can not believe the 200 million daily log ins and 55 mins spent per user on the site each day. Monthly numbers below unless noted are based on 400 million active users:

Average user clicks the Like button on 4.5 pieces of content each month- once every 6 days? Remember many users do this several times per day. Thus increasing the number that click the Like button al ot less.
Average user writes 12.5 comments on Facebook content each month - less than 1 per 2 days? See Above.
Average user becomes a fan of 2 Pages each month- Not very viral I guess? Only once every 15 days someone becomes a fan of something.
Average user is invited to 1.5 events per month - I guess most social invites are done by email and phone. Since I get about 30 per month mostly for music events many people get less than 1.5.
More than 35 million users (out of 200mil log ins) update their status each day - since many active people do this more than once per day this is a small number.
More than 60 million comments posted each day- see above.
More than 3 billion photos uploaded to the site each month - this means 7.5 photos per user per month. Considering people often create albums with 10, 20, 30, 40 photos this is not an impressive number.

The activity data points to a lower level of activity than is being hyped by Facebook, especially the 55 minutes they claim people spend on the site EVERY DAY. What are you doing if your not posting and interacting? Playing Farmville I guess. But Farmville isn't going to pay the bills or Facebooks $14bil valuation by the VC's.

If I take 35mil + 60mil updates each day which is half the number claim log in everyday, this means half the people are doing nothing but reading on the website. I thought social media = interaction. And for every user who logs in and does more than one action reduces the number being active on the site and increases the number doing nothing.

But the fact is if less than half the people who log in do nothing at all what is the value of the network for marketers? Especially if you know most of your Fan Page posts will go unseen/unread.

And why would a major company need a Fan Page. Does Nabisco really gain by interacting with 500 people each time they post when they sell to 200 million people in just the US alone? These things do not make sense! Does Nestle need to give Greenpeace public forum to attack the company that has become the largest Food Company in the world using traditional marketing?

So my rant here is meant to put Facebook in proper perspective and to make sure your expectations are in line with reality. You do not have 400 million people to interact with but tens of millions. Still a very nice pool to play in each day. But not what is being touted by Facebook and Social Media Gurus.

Why the Twitter and Facebook Live Feeds are Dangerous for Brands

2010-04-04T17:52:00.000-07:00

I have railed against using the live feeds simply because of sheer volume. Meaning when you tweet or if you post to your fan page most people will not see it. If you get 1000 tweets to your twitter account or 300+ live feed updates on Facebook who has the time to view them all.

That being said I have seen some pretty sad, vulgar stuff posted to Fan Pages in the place you comment on posts. And there are some hashtags on Twitter some political some just vile.

Here is an example from Twitter Account HerschelSquirts:

My #ass needs a #drink! #cum #piss #creampie #gay #poz #pissboy #goldenshower #tcot #p2 #gregwhoward #happyeaster #christ #dildo #vibe #aids

You want to have your advertisement for your product inserted right after or before this stuff?

BTW #p2 and #tcot are two hashtags for political progressives and conservatives. Which is how I found this post since I have a to be left unnamed Twitter account that I comment on world events and world politics!

Reality is Very Important

2010-03-28T15:54:00.000-07:00

I know much of Advertising is Hype. Everything is elastic. Commercials take liberties with products and brands to prey on your emotions for good or bad. Best example is Multi-Vitamins. I take one everyday. Yet there have been countless studies showing no benefit.

I don't believe Facebook and Twitter's numbers. They are hollow. We all see tons of inactive accounts. Yet it seems both sites claim all user accounts are active each month. That's like me saying I feel great every day even when I don't. They benefit financially if they numbers are believed. I have a Finance Degree. I can work the numbers and I know they fib. Whatever. I can careless what they say as long as my clients and future investors know the truth.

So Twitter has 70 million accounts and only 50 million tweets per day. Facebook has 400 million accounts yet only 60 million updates per day. I know many people who update their status multiple times per day. Nowhere does either site state how many people are on the site per day!

The closest Facebook shows is time spent of 55 minutes per day. But we all know many of us are signed in all day long while only spending 10-20 minutes on the site. This evasiveness benefits the VC's and the Companies. It creates hype and belief in the product in hopes of going IPO. Once the IPO happens they won't care anymore unless they lose paper/equity/money when that event happens (very likely).

Now I see article after article and tweets galore that Apple has sold out of the first run of I Pads. But not one article has a number of units. Only one article gave an estimate of 500,000. If that is true its a home run of sorts for $250 mil gross. But don't forget they are sold online and through retail outlets so Apples take is much less than that. And I will bet the R&D investment was more than that. But definitely a good start. But what if it was just 100,000 units? That's only $50 mil in sales gross. Not as impressive. Actually a potential bomb. But if Apple get's people believing the highest number possible, they will invigorate the App Ecosystem to create Apps for the product. And Apple really needs to have 3-5 million units out there to have a big enough ecosystem for App Developers to have hopes of making good money.

So my point is real numbers are important. Reality is important. And beware when you read or hear anything that doesn't have concrete details.

Bias and Why to be Wary of It

2010-03-22T06:41:00.000-07:00

I am going to use two links here for reference:

Interview with a VC partner at Sequoia Capital, the second dis a long You Tube Ad for the Chevy Volt.

Sequoia Capital partner Mark Kvamme

Did You Know Video

It's ok for a Brand to try to convince us into buying or trying something. I champion Brands and if I can help them figure out how to get an action from someone I will, but I will always do it ethically.

During the 2008 election cycle I got many surveys from both the DNC and RNC asking my opinions. So many questions were biased and didn't give you the proper choices, they actually corralled you into what they wanted to hear. Same with Research of all sorts. Often Brand R&D efforts are skewed to trumpeting success because the folks doing development naturally are biased towards success. If this wasn't true why do so many product launches fail? And anytime there is an economic incentive for someone to hype, promote etc they will because their livelihood depends on it. You normally want to please the person paying you. Remember all those Dot.com's and Sub-prime Mortgages that went bust, while the promoters and ones selling the hype made money knowing ahead of time they would be screwing people? Or the ratings agencies afraid to rate bonds as junk because they were afraid of losing business since the bond issuers paid for the rating?

The Chevy Volt spot is specially an example of skewed facts. It is easy to cherry pick and not give the full story. Some of the facts make you say DUH! India because of the massive population the 25% with the highest IQ's are more in quantity than the US population. That does not mean their 25% is more intelligent or has higher IQ's than say our top 25%. Or the number of jobs someone will have between 18 and 34. They don't qualify this with the 'because this generation got shafted, the worker-employer fabric having been destroyed over the last 25 years, and the crash in the economy keeping this group underemployed for years to come'. My point is bad facts, very poor qualification of the facts so why use them?

Next I just want to SHRED Mark Kvamme. Sequoia Capital made a killing during the dot.com boom. In fact many companies they backed and then cashed out of after the IPO left investors decimated. While VC's have a very important part to play in our economy you need to remember they only care about 1 thing only, and that is a return on their Equity Investment. They care nothing about the workers or investors beyond when they cash out. So never listen to a VC when it comes to talking about areas of business they invest in because they are inherently biased towards hype and promotion. If Facebook goes IPO at less than a $14 billion valuation all the investors lose millions if not billions of on paper equity value. They are going to do everything to hype Social Media as the end all. So he is going to hype all Social Media and Brands needs to cut through this BS to know Social Media has it's place but it will never replace traditional Advertising.

While Facebook keeps a clean site Twitter is a scary place. You might be placing Ads next to tweets from Racists, Nazi's, Haters, Preachers, screaming Satanists acting like Preachers, angry people wanting to kill Liberals and angry people wanting to kill Conservatives (ask for the hashtags!). And I do believe Facebook will go the way of Myspace and Friendster in the next 5 years so the day they have their IPO I am personally shorting the stock.

I could write a book on instances of bias but hammered it enough! So don't believe the hype in anything and always remember everyone has a bias. It's just human nature versus some evil plan. Beware of it.

Flipping the Funnel and where it does and does not work

2010-03-18T05:31:00.000-07:00

This post was driven by this very funny video with Brian Posehn doing stand up at SXSW poking fun of Joseph Jaffe and New Media.

LINK

Flip the Funnel is Mr. Jaffe's Book which is linked here:

LINK

The premise is that it costs less to keep customers than get new ones. This idea goes back to the stone ages when the first spear tip maker had his first competitor for business. I have 16 years of Customer Service and Account Management experience. I have seen from both sides companies not investing in quality or customer service and thus losing clients while replacing them.

Where this specifically works is in Service Industries and High Ticket Item OEM's whether consumer or industrial. Service is easy. Your not taken care of you flee to another company or person. Big ticket items have the highest potential for buyers remorse. Try a new soda flavor and you don't like it, you toss it but do not cause pain to the Brand. Will you really stop drinking Coke just because Coke Vanilla tasted like Waste Water? No. But if you are upset you bought that car and your stuck with it for awhile, your never going to buy that Brand again.

But does this work for consumer brands? Yes and No. Whenever there is an equal out there it is very hard to Flip the Funnel. Can Coke win all my business Flipping the Funnel? No. Never. Not anyone's. People will substitute Pepsi when the deal at the market means saving money. (See previous blogposts on how Point of Sale trumps Ad Spend every time). But Coke can do this at their Wholesale Clients like Restaurants that usually only offer one brand. That is someplace that Coke can Flip the Funnel because service will often trump a pure price play and their retail patrons can't choose the 'or equal'.

What about other Brands? I personally think we patronize certain Brands or Products and do not know why. We try something, like the price point and found no problems using it so we go back and don't actually think about trying another Brand or Product for a long time. I really don't think the Brand did anything besides get lucky. But often this is price driven. And when you sell on price often you are vulnerable to someone else's better price.

Now with Store Brands coming in with almost equal taste and quality it is really hard to win and keep customers without a constant effort of coupons and rewards. Super Markets and anyone with a Loyalty Card Program do this the best. It doesn't mean they are truly Flipping the Funnel with superior attention or service, but the bribe of something back for the patronage is very strong. Think Frequent Flier Miles or a buy 10 sandwiches get one free at your local Sub Shop. But again we do patronize places that are cleaner, happier employees, better quality stuff and know we have to pay more gladly. But I don't think the products themselves can Flip the Funnel because service is not involved. Service is required.

See my post on Skullcandy

Link

High end brands definitely have an edge. They can combine quality with cache/image to keep you. Often this brings great service to the mix. Higher end products are sold at more upscale retailers that spend more to ensure the value proposition is there. And while a Brand might lose me if they product turns out shoddy, I won't blame Nordstrom's who gave me great service. Unless I specifically ask a sales person an opinion that turns out wrong.

For Service Industries or Big Ticket Items Brands MUST Flip the Funnel. For other consumer product Brands maybe spending a bit more on quality vs focusing on price will help them win more business.

Bad research does no one good service

2010-03-11T12:41:00.000-08:00

I get a lot of surveys. Political ones, Advertising Marketing, Harris Poll, YouGov, and other random lines of questioning. Often the questions themselves have inherent bias (Politics is great for this) or worded incorrectly in ways that fail to capture information.

But sticking with the Advertising/Marketing theme, it makes sense that more product launches fail vs succeed. There are competing reasons for this because of all the groups involved in the process.

Upper Management wants to increase sales, increase share price, etc. Often just mentioning to the market or shareholders 'a pipeline' of new products will help boost share price.

R&D will always have job security if they can pump out success more than failure. They also don't like to tell Management no, yet they also forget NPV and think budgets are bottomless.

Marketing and Sales are incentivized to have work to do when it comes to figuring out new products, product niches and revenue streams. This will require a lot of meetings that often have attendees who don't like meetings. This is usually an EGO play of sorts.

So it is really easy for those involved to con themselves into thinking something is going to be a winner. Hell none of us want to work for a loser, or on loser projects.

And market research can easily be skewed based on the questions asked to fit parameters to make everyone happy.

So I was asked a question:
Are you well traveled?

1] Never been out of the Country
2] Visited up to 5 Countries.
3] Visited more than 5 Countries.

Bad question. What is the purpose? If I visited 40 states and 3 countries in my life, travel 4-5 times per year to different places, I am more well traveled than someone who travels once per year and aside from 6 trips for 7 days each trip over seas, goes to the same resort each year.

Maybe it is to see who might need international products/services. But again I might think the first person more likely to seek new adventures than the second person.

Maybe it is to see who is more worldly, more exposure to different cultures? What if the second person went to England, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland, and Scotland. While the first person lives in LA, has 40% of their friends from other countries in South/Central America and Asia and travels for work to New Orleans, Mississippi, New York, Boston, Phoenix, and Denver.

Bad Question. Results will mean nothing for most angles.

Most Social Media is NOT About Conversations

2010-03-10T05:36:00.000-08:00

I really do not know where this B.S. comes from. I have been using social media for a few years now. I started with Friendster, which led to Tribe, Myspace, Tagged, Facebook, and Twitter. The only Social Media that has Conversation potential is blogs.

I firmly believe a conversation is a 2 way interaction, discussion, exchange vs one way. And I think Brands and Agencies are listening to the hype from Social Networks and their Employees, Investors, Gurus, and Journalists who cover the industry and who have a monetary interest in the term Conversation.

For example:

Conversation - John and I spent 10 minutes last night at the bar discussing some new music we have heard.

Not a Conversation - John called me and said he will be by at 8pm to pick me up to go to the bar.

Blogs enable the first. Twitter and Facebook only enable the second.

Most social networks have short bursts or threads about a topic where people post to the topic, but often none of these posts even when put together are a conversation, but definitely for individuals they are not. This is due to technology limitations and formatting. The closest technology I have seen so far to real conversations would be Google Wave. But often it is the sheer volume of comments, spouts, posts in social media streams that make coming back to something so hard. Victim of its own success.

So a Brand can see what people are saying, get commentary feedback etc. But if I say I have an issue with Coke, and Coke engages me to talk, but instead of me others each put in one comment or even two, while Coke keeps responding all Coke has is a list of comments vs a real exchange/discussion.

Blogs allow this. There are some very successful Blogs like the or Huffington Post and Musings of a VC in NYC (link is to your left). If you look at the comments there is semi-conversation. A true 2-Way exchange.

But the rest it's not 'What people are talking about', it's actually 'What people are posting or commenting about'. HUGE difference. I rarely have more than 1 or 2 exchanges with people in the topic streams in Facebook and Twitter. Re-tweets are not Conversations. Having 300 comments to a Wall Post by 285 Individuals who have read none of the other comments is not a Conversation. Value to a brand? Yes! But not a conversation.

So in effect Social Media is about connecting and sharing comments, posts, subjects, content, but not about any sort of real discussions. It's ok to have the goal of getting people to post, comment, share commentary about your Brand or Product. That is healthy stuff. Especially if there is something you are promoting. Think of how much money you can save if you do this right. But be careful. You could be left scrambling if your message, offer, promotion doesn't travel.

General Mills Susan B Komen Cause Marketing Refrain

2010-03-09T12:01:00.000-08:00

Cause Marketing is a hot topic in marketing circles these days. There is a great blog by Scott Henderson that specifically covers Cause Marketing and I think it is worth reading:

http://rallythecause.com/

I wrote about the Yoplait Program last year and how I felt it had some serious flaws that made it seem to be disingenuous. The premise was Yoplait will donate some money to the Susan B Komen Foundation for every pink lid the purchasers sent back to Yoplait.

At the time I wrote General Mills (no response btw), and brought up that are they trying to get positive publicity, without having to pony up their full commitment. What if consumers bought Yoplait and didn't mail back the lids. Will General Mills blame the consumer for a failed charity drive? I mean cut the fat check and brag about it, but don't leave the opening for possibly getting off the hook.

My other thoughts were the wasted resources for this program. Envelopes and Stamps derived from trees. The greenhouse gases from the transport to mail the lids. And you need to pay people to receive and process the lids. Money that could just be given to the foundation. None of this made sense.

Sure enough today we found the envelope with the 17 lids and low and behold program is over. You may ask why we failed to send the lids back? Because who is going to send them back 2-3 lids at a time wasting even more resources? So you put them in an envelope tuck that away and eventually forget you have them. Our household likes Yoplait but normally buys a variety based on the store sales just like everyone else. And the lid campaign was not in the fore front enough to think about the charity work.

Social Media Spout

2010-03-06T05:26:00.000-08:00

There is this view about Social Media that I feel is completely unfounded. That is this great big place to advertise and can replace everything else we do. I think Brands are being suckered with the hype. And maybe feeling since it is cheap, if done right it will cut costs. I also think they over value listening, and undervalue making great freaking products or services.

The fact is Social Media is very clunky. It is mostly one way. And even when you can have conversations they are VERY brief. Such as commenting on Facebook posts. Or the occasion someone replies back on Twitter. The word 'conversation' in Social Media is a misnomer. In no way is Social Media having conversations like we have on the phone, email, or live.

So when someone says it is about Conversations, I say What Conversations? You can not converse in any easy manner. People are so fleeting, they pop on make a comment and they are gone. Imagine having a real conversation with 300 sentences between two people. Now instead it is 300 people each giving one sentence and often not seeing any other part of the conversation!

Social Media is really a loose network of people, most of one's network are not close personal friends, but it does allow communication. Viral just means I post something that someone else says 'Hey that is cool let me pass it on' and so on. BUT since I only read/view 10% or less of the Tweets or Facebook posts due to the massive volume, just because you have 500 people in your network does not mean your reaching 500 people! In fact your lucky if you reach 100 of them. I still send direct emails to friends for things they need to see.

Listening is great. You can get a vibe. But you can't use listening to fix your problems. If your product sucks, it sucks. Do you need Social Media to figure that out? If your Sales Group isn't freaking at lack of Sales, or your Customer Service isn't freaking about 'problems' with the product before you find out via Social Media, you have an Organization problem!

If you can't drive people to your website, will a fan page really change things? Especially considering the huge limitations a fan page has vs. your website. And when only 10% of your fans will even see any posts or updates is your Social Media 'guru' telling you the truth or fibbing. There is a difference between having 1 million fans yet only having 50,000 visit your fan page each week or month. Which is the Social Media 'guru' telling you?

With Facebook exploiting all your content shamelessly and Snake Oil Hypsters like Pete Cashmore claiming the end to Privacy (so wrong), there is major opportunities for competition in this market.

Before you think I am a Social Media hater let me tell the good things:

I have found Twitter invaluable for Professional Networking and sharing of ideas. I have found Facebook as a nice site to communicate with friends but since I have so many it is not keeping me in touch or up to date with everyone, its very random actually. Kind of alike a Wheel of Fortune. Whoever posted to the Live Feed prior to my logging in and made the first page (I always have 300+ updates waiting) I see and react too. I never go to page 2. So I can't wait for a better technology to come out which is why I have hedged posting more photos since I don't want to have to upload everything else where.

I have been able to use Twitter and Facebook to observe how Brands are using Social Media, the good, the bad and the ugly. The successful ones always have something exciting like give aways or free content. Nabisco is giving away cookies for example. The unsuccessful ones such as Zappo's who have 1.5 million followers on Twitter but never talk about the brand, products, or specials. The last tweet I saw was pimping the CEO's Book! What a waste.

And I have been observing media. Media/News/Content is interesting. If I like a website I book mark it. I regularly go to these sites and read content. So seeing a Twitter feed every time a new article gets posted, or a post to a Fan Page in my Live Stream on Facebook for a site I already go to is kind of spamming me. Give me something different and new.

The one success I do see is 'Causes'. Social Media has been great to rally people for causes and NGO's. But not all wholesome. There are some hashtags on Twitter than even make me blush. People spouting hate, racism, etc. I hope Brands realize this prior to sending Ads into the Tweet Stream.

I also have seen some great give aways virally promoted via social media. Quizno's gave away 250,000 sandwiches last year. But you had to go to their website and sign in with an email. Often many music companies and acts offer free downloads for giving your email to them outside of the social network.

Lastly I know some companies actually have created private Social Media formatted websites to interact with focus groups and volunteers to discuss opinions and ideas in a very organized way. General Mills does this incredibly. So the technology is great I just think it isn't being used properly and that many companies are just lazy. They should be creating networks on Ning or proprietary platforms and inviting people.

What is success in Marketing?

2010-03-01T06:46:00.000-08:00

I often come across as negative if I don't agree on something with the rest of the 'world'. Sometimes I belittle achievements incorrectly because I compare them to my own views, goals, experiences for myself, my company, or my clients.
Often we all get caught up in the Mega-Big, the Mega-Huge.

For example Avatar. Do you think going forward a movie must gross $500 million to be gauged a success now? That is ridiculous. On a more reality view if a business only reaches 100,000 people (0.033% of the US) and gets just 1,000 to pay $1,000 per year that is a Million Dollars. Do you make that kind of money?

The view of success is very subjective. I think before creating a Marketing Plan one must figure out the Goal of the plan first. And I truly do not think Impressions, Feel Good, Branding etc are Goals. Goals are Sales based on your Marketing Budget and resources (person hours). From there you can use the other ancillary activities to reach those goals. We often work forward instead of backwards. But backwards is easier. What does it take to meet the end goal?

And this who am I to judge if something is successful. In Mobile Marketing I often see PR articles about campaigns with results that seem awfully pitiful. But what if the end result is considered great by the business paying for the campaign? Shame on the Journalist for not contextualizing everything properly like a Sales Person would in a write up.

And while I might comment on a new technology or media channel as not having value, everything does have Value, it just has to be measured properly so the Brand can pay for that Value and not overpay.

Twitter to announce Ad Platform + Bad News for their VC Backers

2010-02-24T08:28:00.000-08:00

Supposedly today (or soon) Twitter is going to announce how they will start doing advertising. I am very curious what they think. I felt a sure fire one is Ads on the static web site outside the live feed. I also am curious about the different platforms. I am not sure if tweet deck etc are owned or part of twitter. Which means they then have no choice but to insert ads into the live feed.

That all being said if they insert ads to be clicked through (since they still have the 140 character issue with no graphics) I am curious what the click through rate will be. Obviously unless you click through I can't see a 140 characters being very valuable for an advertisers.

On top of that is this report from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Link

Which means number of accounts mean nothing and number of unique visitors (last month it reached 70 million) mean nothing. If I was advertising I want to know how many people log in once per day because that is the only chance for your ad to be seen. I do say chance. I am an active Tweeter on 4 accounts. I use Tweet Deck. But I also only see maybe 15-20% of the Tweets if that each day. Why? Because I am not watching the feed all the time. There are times during the day that I am. Everything else I never see. But this is no different than almost every other Advertising Medium. You pay for a chance to be seen. The trick for Brands is to value that chance properly and not over pay.

So if an active tweeter is tweeting say 4x per day(very low estimate). Then you need to establish how many like me are on multiple accounts (my case 4)....there probably is only like 5-10 million people on the site using it per day. Which is a lot less impressive and makes Twitter more of a niche. So my feeling is a well placed campaign if Twitter can send an Ad the moment someone logs or Posts a Tweet can reach a few million people. But the Log In or 'Tweet' moment is truly the only moments that can guarantee it is viewed. After that it is a crap shoot. So that 'moment' does have high value.

As for Twitter using Behavioral Targeting based on what a Tweeter tweets I think that actually will not work. If someone uses my post key words to Advertise I will guarantee most will be a misfire. Today I mentioned Toyota several times but I am not in a market for a car, and my Tweets were about the recall. Do I want an Ad from Toyota or competitor? If I state I had a Roast Beef Sandwich for lunch does an Ad from the Chicken Industry have much value? Especially the 140 character limitation. We shall see. Don't forget when firms bid on key words this serves them and not the consumer. It actually will eliminate best choice in favor of who paid the most.

That all being said Twitter has a good side and a bad side. The Good side is like Charlie Rose there are a lot of very intelligent and successful people who use Twitter to network and share ideas. So these are High Value Targets for advertising. There are also a lot of great causes that have tweet streams like Help Haiti.

The Bad side is if you look at some of the hash tags there are some that contain nothing but vile tweets. I was appalled at some of them that attack Progressives and Obama as Nazi's, Terrorists, Marxists, Racism, Death Threats etc. There are plenty of Progressive tags attacking Glenn Beck and such, though Progressives seem to be a bit more passive and less vulgar when you view their Tweets. But does a Brand or Advertiser want to randomly show up in these streams? This has been You Tube's Achilles heal.

Privacy and Piracy

2010-02-22T10:36:00.000-08:00

There was a study done in 2009 to determine the public's view on various forms of Behavioral Targeting for Advertising. The study was done by major heavy hitters in the Social Science Academic world. You can download and view the study here:

Link for SSRN Study

I am not surprised at the findings. We as a society have a right to privacy. It is in the Constitution. Every time there is an infringement there is an uproar. Whether this is Bush's NSA eavesdropping illegally on Americans (my view btw) or Facebook constantly trying expose people's content and behavior for monetary gain (Beacon, etc).

Now I have heard people like Pete Cashmore at Mashable state the end of privacy. Granted he is biased because he is making his fortune reporting and advising on social networks. This blog doesn't agree. Yes we all expose ourselves to a ridiculous amount online. But as the study proves we want control of that exposure.

Brands and Ad Networks view is why do we want to see advertising that isn't relevant to us. And thus they should be allowed to shadow us to improve what we are exposed too. But that is a self serving view because they want to increase return on investment, vs necessarily looking out for the consumer.

So there is a clash between privacy and piracy. Facebook in the terms and conditions owns the content we post and can use it to make money. Of course we view that stuff as personal and private, so we feel they are pirating our content. And while we use social networks for a broad range of communication from superficial to intimate, we look at them as private spaces. Similar to one's living room or bedroom.

Crossing these lines could kill a business. We don't like our information sold and hijacked. I myself can not wait for a true competitor to Facebook and the moment I find one I am going to tell everyone possible. We tend to block as much as possible from the world outside our networks. This is why we have caller id and why so many people keep their accounts private on Facebook. This is why we are Ok with Amazon using Behavioral Targeting to recommend products, but freak if we find out Google has been following us. It is also why Ad Blocker Plus (42 million downloads per year) and No Scripts (18 million downloads per year) add-ons for Firefox are so popular. This gives us control.

One note on this study is the fact that over 30% of the people surveyed think Managers at companies that get caught behavioral targeting without permission should go to jail. I myself take this all seriously. I have a Student Pact on my website for my Skrib Sheetz! service letting college students, who my service targets, that not only will none of their information be sold or given out, but that if they participate in the Mobile Marketing feature I won't give my clients their phone numbers for future contact.

Thoughts on Social Media and Being Viral

2010-02-21T09:47:00.001-08:00

Confucius ponders:

If a Viral Video is Viewed 1 million times but 20% of the viewers watch it more than once, or several times...how many people viewed it?

If 100,000 people tweet negative sentiment about a brand or product, but it is only viewed by 10% of their followers, how many people viewed it?

What is the true population number for an activity where brands need to react? 1 million is only 1 in 310. or 0.31% of the population.

A viral video viewed by 500k unique viewers is only seen by 0.16% of the US Population. Is that really viral?

Ratings and Measurement Wars

2010-02-17T07:49:00.001-08:00

One thing that has fascinated me is the battle between Media Outlets and Brands/Advertisers over ratings and measurements. Whether this is online or airwaves. Brands pay a fee for each thousand people an Ad is viewed or heard by. It is in the best interest of Media Outlets to amplify the numbers even if they aren't accurate. Brands willingly pay for each person reached but they get ripped off if they pay for phantom contact.

Measurement is getting better, BUT it is still all estimation. Until we have big brother in every room, or wherever we go, proving we actually viewed or heard something, measuring will be an estimate. I sure hope and pray we never have big brother.

So this means Media Outlets and Brands have to compromise, and why ratings services like Arbitron and Nielsen exist. The problem right now is as measurement gets more accurate audience numbers drop, causing revenue loss to Media Outlets. This is fair, but any business that can lose revenue is going to fight to keep that revenue, whether that revenue is ethical or not.

I think he biggest areas of audience inflation are for TV and for online measurements. So many folks are multitasking now. I watched the Olympics last night while watching State of Play on my Laptop. I had the sound off the TV and would pause the movie when I saw the snowboarders ready at the gate. The commercials played in my room. I was in my room, I neither heard or saw most of them. Yet NBC made money on me, and the Advertisers lost money on me. Or when someone falls asleep with the TV on. Advertisers are paying for that sleeping person.

As for online I truly think clicks are the best measurement. Time spent on a website is truly today a bunch of crap sorry to be blunt. With all the browsers offering tabs and he ability to be on a website live, with it hidden from your views for hours upon hours, time spent is a ridiculous measurement. But Facebook pumps the time spent endlessly, trying to make it look like people spend all this time on their site when I bet the reality is 10-20% of their claim. At least clicks can't be fibbed!

But this leads to another dilemma my inquiries have never been answered because those I ask would never, ever want to admit this is going on. Currently Firefox has 22% of the browser market. 700,000 Firefox users download the Ad Blocking software that blocks 95% of all digital ads...and even blocks search engine paid search results (like Google's Ad Words). At least with Google I am pretty sure that you only get charged if you click through the link. But Banner Ads? What if my browser blocks them, but they were still served to my screen. Does a Brand get charged for that? They shouldn't be, but no Ad Network has responded to my question about this. On top of the Ad Blocker issue because I use Windows and have had virus infections launched from java script and flash before, no scripts run on my browser unless I unlock a website. Which means none of the Ad Networks themselves ever run on my machine. They still serve Ads to specific sites I have unblocked/Unlocked because 1] they are trusted and 2] for free content I feel this is fair.

So measurement wars will not end anytime soon. I think honesty needs to be the motto for Media Outlets because Brands/Advertisers want to reach people, they just don't want to pay for phantom contacts, or feel fleeced by their vendor.

Clutter Clutter Clutter and Lemmings.....

2010-02-16T06:15:00.000-08:00

I have railed against clutter in the Advertising-Media Industry in the past. That more advertising isn't the solution. If the estimates of 50% of Ad Spend is wasted, spending more isn't a solution it is spending better. I have noticed over the years that every time a new medium emerges that enables advertising, the ad spend follows...in massive quantities. And that brings clutter. Clutter clouds out your message. People are bombarded with too much, while their ability to consumer and process advertising remains the same.

I use the term Lemmings to describe the rush into new media areas by everyone from so called 'experts' who claim to know stuff that is new even before enough time has passed to have an expert (like Social Media or Mobile Marketing today being still in their infancy), to the techies and VC who see money in building platforms, and the agencies who tell their clients they will lead them to the promised land...but only if they spend more money.

Recently I have done two crude studies on mobile marketing and social media using email as my reference point. And the studies were based on figuring out when the clutter emerges. When will people either start opting out or just deleting without paying attention or responding to the ads. We all have a myriad of news, causes, and businesses that we signed up for email from. Now we get so many that we get more opted-in spam mail than we get real mail from friends, family etc. I recently had to close a very old hotmail account I used for personal use since 1996 or so because it got corrupted on the hotmail server. So I am migrating to my gmail account. I am slowly noting as I add opted in requests for emails from businesses etc how many I am just deleting immediately upon signing in.

When someone tells me that Mobile or Social Media is the answer for Brands to reach consumers I ask very simple questions....don't these businesses already have massive email databases? Do they not know who is a customer and who is not? With everyone having websites why do they need a fan page when they have a fully enabled and interactive website? And why are Social or Mobile different?

I am in Mobile Marketing as a business, and I do honest objective consulting. Read my blog I do not coddle anyone. I do praise when something is done right, with class and value to the consumer. I have a collegiate mobile marketing service that refuses to save any students phone numbers, sell them to anyone else, or contact them later for future offers. My service requires the students actively participate for each campaign so that it is fresh to them each time. I reach the students directly in person with Brand Ambassadors who gives them something directly with the call to action. I can prove ROI through every step of the process.

How long will it be before all these Mobile Loyalty Campaigns become a negative return, where you are paying to host the campaign and send out the texts and get very little in return? Not because they aren't interested in your product or service, but because they are getting 10, 20, 50 texts per day because over time they kept opting in to future push advertising?

As for social media I use Tweet Deck for Twitter. It allows me to use 4 accounts at once which has increased my viewership of tweets from about 8% to now 10%. So only 9 of 10 Tweets do I never see now. And in my busiest account I have only 140 accounts I follow. I see people with hundreds even thousands! Try getting your advertising through that mess. As for Facebook I hate the interface but love the technology. I also hate the Management for being exploiters and abusers of the one thing that keeps them in business...their account base. When I log in there is always 300+ news feed updates and I only scroll through the first page of 25. So you can imagine what I am not seeing. So what if a Brand has 400,000 fans if only 2,000 are seeing any messages from the fan page?

Clutter Clutter Clutter.

One note for the benefit of the Brands on Social Media, though your social media agency and employees will hate me for this. Do you really know what is going on or are you being snowed? I know someone who does social media for a non-profit, and they get pitiful numbers of emails opened. When the report is sent to show how things are going, they brag about number of people on the email list, and number of emails sent...the open rate is omitted. When your told you have all these fans and followers do you really know the effectiveness? You really can't measure this. It is all guesstimating.

And guesstimating is ok. Most of Advertising ROI is based on it. It's honesty that is important.

Fickle with Short Term Memory Lapses. Ethics anyone?

2010-02-12T07:14:00.000-08:00

I know you were thinking I was going blog about the stoner-slacker species. But in fact I am talking about our species. And it fits. And it gets worse every day.

Back in the day when times were simple. When we spent all our waking and sleeping moments stressed about food supply, basic necessities, and hoping some armed group with swords and bows didn't decide to over run where you live. Back then the smallest of good will gestures could earn a lifetime of good will back. Screwing someone could lead to the reverse.

Today with the news and gossip on 2 second sound clips and our days broken up into micro segments we are as erratic, forgiving, and forgetting as ever. This truly benefits brands specifically because of this fracturing of our time vs reality view. For the average person who cares about ethics and this planet we all try to do the right thing but often we have no idea if we are.

I recently read a very disturbing article in the Economist about Vietnam imprisoning political dissenters for multi-year terms. One over 10 years for doing nothing but speaking out peacefully. So I decided I will try not to buy products made in countries with oppressive Governments like China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia etc. The problem is in 3 months something else will grab my attention and I will get lazy (slacker) and forget to check labels here and there and eventually all together. Unless I am getting mail and seeing news reinforcing long term I will forget. And companies like Nike and Exxon who do business in countries with bad governments will over the long term have no reason to move their operations.

And this short term memory loss, sadly also helps reduce a company's incentive to do the right thing. Nike pulled out of the US Chamber of Commerce in protest over the Chamber's opposition to carbon regulation. Not completely altruistic. Nike has plants located in low lying Southeast Asian countries that would be under water if oceans rise from global warming. But still a positive move. A few months later no one remembers! Technically as a reward I should be choosing Nike products when made in a non-human rights violating country when all things are equal vs their competition who did not withdraw from the US Chamber of Commerce.

One positive is that ethically responsible Public Companies tend to out perform their peer competitors in almost every study I have seen published. So maybe ethical business practices in reality magically are more cost effective with a higher ROI than abusive practices.

The risks of unethical behavior I feel will always out weight the reward. Simple examples is there is potential for jail if you cook the books, operations being halted if your abuse of workers causes a strike or makes it hard to attract talent, or calamity when the oppressive foreign Government protecting your business (oil rig or clothing factory) get's over thrown via revolt with them nationalizing your business (see Iran and Cuba revolutions).

So in closing, the way out society has developed our Mode of Daily Operation after the industrial revolution, has become a deterrent to companies doing the right things. There tends to be a lot of PR but very little substance when it comes to businesses changing habits to be more ethical when it comes to workers, environment, and the inhabitants of this planet. We don't boycott Exxon over Human Rights or the environment when they are $0.03 cheaper than the station across the corner. I will succumb and buy my next running shoes from China or Vietnam potentially due to lack of alternatives. And companies like Nike will sometimes ponder if doing the right thing was worth it. And it is 'us the people' who are to blame for this situation. But luckily the 'profit incentive' tends to reward ethical behavior over the long run.

Best Street Advertising Ever

2010-02-10T08:17:00.000-08:00

This was taken on Fordham Road in the Bronx, New York.

Amazon vs the Publishers vs the I Pad vs the Others

2010-02-10T08:01:00.000-08:00

I am a life long student of the business world. I try to base my views on what is right/ethical, in my view, vs what is best for one group within a business industry ecosystem. I also know that business is cut throat and if you can take more that is called profits. If you don't someone else will.

We all know this is kind of B.S. There are happy healthy mediums if you can get rid of ego's and entitlements. When a major technology breakthrough disrupts a whole industry ecosystem, the dead weight gets exposed and there is a long slow march to oblivion if they don't change and follow a new path.

I truly feel the emergence of the E-Readers and Tablet computing are great develops for the planet. Especially for the environment. If we didn't need to cut down trees for general paper use it would be a major boon to the health of this planets air, water, and land. But there is sizable infrastructure and jobs in the timber, paper, printing/publishing and transportation industries. Just for books and magazines! Prior to E-Readers these businesses were vital to the book and magazine industry. But soon they will be just extra cost that is not needed. Its the words, the content that has value and we buy. We aren't buying paper or timber, though currently they are part of the delivery system of we want to buy the content.

Amazon is fighting Publishers over the price of he E-Books. Amazon just agreed with one big house that new books will be sold for more and they get 70% of the sell price. And there is this major panic with Apple coming into the game to ensure the higher revenues. And here is where the Publishers are deceiving themselves. What is a fair price for a new book electronically vs hardcover. What percentage of the $22 to $25 hardcover price is the cost of timber, paper, printing, manufacturing? If it came in at $8 and that cost was gone tomorrow the industry would see Revenues drop 33% and they would panic. But in reality the value and revenue for the content, content development, and marketing are the only core costs, everything else is bloat. How it is delivered and consumed might constantly change over time. But the variable non-essential revenue sources should not be what is vital to an industry's view success.

The Positive Side of the Agency Review

2010-02-09T07:13:00.001-08:00

I hope one day I have business worth defending. I have read plenty on the costs of defending and pitching new business. I have seen Agencies walk away from contracts worth hundred's of millions. You only make that decision if the Agency-Brand relationship is dysfunctional or antagonistic.
Often by that time it is hard to repair something that is broken. But that is not always the case.

It would be bad business practice for a company spending tens to hundreds of millions a year on advertising not to look at other Agencies or at least hear their pitches/advantage claims. You always want to have best fit and keep your Agency from becoming passive. When this occurs there is a good chance the incumbent will keep the business. If your operating honestly and in the best interests of your client all the time, there should be a good relationship between the two parties.

Whether or not Mindshare not only defended their Unilever account for the US and gained Canada Media Buying duties as a strategy or lucked out, it should be strategy. A review should be looked at as a prime opportunity to not only defend, but increase your market share with that client. The major advantage is while the competitors will be showing what they 'would' do for your current client, you get to show everything 'you have been doing' for the client. And if you have been doing a great job this is the perfect time to ask for more business.

Think about the potential to use guilt ethically and honorably without much effort. Your being asked to spend money to defend business your excelling at. Your client knows this. And if your working together properly they will feel like a partner, who is being forced to look around. Kind of like your dating someone who insists every 2 years to date other people just to ensure they are with the right person. Then when they realize they are they feel bad and buy you gifts or take you out to make up for it.

Obviously Agencies are not pleased when they are requested to defend in a 'review'. They know whether they have been performing and if they have been, this is a great time to gain business.

The Convoluted Advertising Ecosystem

2010-02-04T06:18:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I wrote about the Media/Entertainment world. Today I wish to discuss the world we operate in...Advertising. I am new to Advertising. Only 2 years in and I have an outsiders view. My background in B2B Sales, Business Development to Major Industrial Businesses like Lockheed Martin, Chevron-Texaco, Exxon-Mobile, Raytheon, Ford Motor Company etc really is completely foreign to Advertising to consumers. I have a Finance Degree but my social life is mostly around creative types in music, art, performers etc. Since I have always championed my customer, always sought to add value, and refused to take money just because I could unless I helped my client, I am actually the type of person the staid and entrenched entities in the Advertising-Media World love and loathe. I can help a Brand focus better to maximize their Ad Spending. I can help an Agency prove their worth to Brands to help them increase their value which always seems to be fuzzy.

The biggest issue with marketing is two fold. First is how do you connect marketing with sales. How do you value the different areas to prove you spent the Brands money well. Secondly is how complicated media plans are, especially today and now they are getting even more complex. To top this all off Agency's tend to specialize in certain niches like Mobile, Digital, TV etc, as well as for the actual Media Buying. And when you operate on a national scale combined with the fickle and chaotic decisions people make when they buy, I truly feel this is just as complex a task as when I worked on Missile Defense Programs for the Department of Defense.

Plus there is competing interests all over the place. I might tell Pepsi they can cut their advertising budget by 15% and they won't lose a penny in sales. Pepsi's Agencies will hate me for this reduction in revenue...even if it is true. It is not in an Agency's best short term interest to be honest if it means reduced billings and profits to be honest. But not being honest leaves you open to being exposed and have your business put out for review, which for long term is not in your best interest. This is why the review process sucks and hurts incumbents. Is the reason for the review a problem with creative or a problem with costs in the view of the Brand's CFO. As much as all you Creative types hate us Finance types, we control the purse strings. And while you may feel we aren't willing to spend money to make money, you should go see the expense reports for the sales team. It is the inability to measure the return on investment that creates all this chaos. And Brands and Agencies feel helpless.

Think of a nationwide media blitz for an upcoming Blockbuster Movie. You can spend all you want and force feed the information to the consumers but if the movie sucks it will bomb. How many times do I need to see a trailer? If I see it 25 times isn't 20+ of those times wasted money? And billboards and poster work across the nation? How do I know the placement is good? No one can do that on a massive scale. No one not even a media buyer/planner. They trust the local folks and take their word for it. And what about digital? My trailer had 1 million hits on You Tube. That was free yet I was told 20 million saw the TV trailer but that can't be proven because we are not in people's living room.

So a CFO who see's that his star salesperson spent $25,000 in entertainment expense brought in $30 million in sales. But the Ad Agencies can't truly prove their value which creates friction, distrust, and animosity...even if the Agency is kicking ass on behalf of their client. and sadly a product that sells itself, like an IPod often the Agency takes credit. And when the Agency kicks ass, but the product fails because it sucks, they get blamed.

At least with Missile Defense I can see if the interceptor hit the target, and how often.

The Convoluted Media Ecosystem

2010-02-03T08:33:00.000-08:00

I have been thinking about this for quite a long time. My view point comes from several places. First is my Finance Degree and CFO view. Second is my many years in Sales/Business Development. Third is my new Advertising Career. Fourth is my view as a consumer. When it comes to Business Models Media is the hardest to be successful in because of all the competing special interests. It is almost like Politics. People love entertainment. They spend a lot of money on entertainment. And without the content the rest of the ecosystem is dead. We all love great content.

But to create great content and be profitable you need your revenues to exceed your costs. And the middlemen inflate the costs and your end user views of your content's value after all the middlemen add their take onto it. And there are parasites like Journalists and Media that use the content for monetary gain without being forced to Ad Value. But the parasites can often Ad more value to the content creator than the middlemen. And everyone wants to defend their business/revenues even if you don't have an inalienable right to exist. See I told you Convoluted.

One great example is the music industry as it was vs. how it is now. The old industry is crying because revenues are down. But consumers and the content creators are consuming and selling more than ever, just cutting out the old industry middlemen. Who is being cut out? Record Labels. Packaging Companies. Radio. Media like the Grammy's. Do we need them? Not really. When CD's cost $14 each the artist only got $1. $4.50 was for packaging. And a band with 4 members plus management if they sell 1 million units making them platinum only made $1 million to split between them all. A nice bit of change but won't make you rich.

But now I can create music. Promote it free online. Sell it myself. And tour and make as much money or more than when I had all the bloat.

What about TV-Cable? Similar situation. They create something but added onto the cost is the technology to send it (cable, internet), the technology to view/consume it (TV's, Sound Systems, Computers). The media that is used to promote it all.

And while Ads can help reduce the costs for the entities that make money off the Ads, the rest of the entities really don't care. TiVo and DVR OEM's do not care about Cable Channels needing Ad revenue, or Cable companies needing subscription revenue. Apple doesn't care that I-Tunes destroyed the CD packaging industry. Or the internet/social media destroying the Record Companies/Radio niche of promoting music. But the fact remains if the people who make the content can not make a profit, the whole ecosystem collapses.

So what really happens is the creators cut costs. That is why TV is filled with cheap reality shows vs stellar content. If we are only willing to pay enough to support crap we get crap. See You Tube! And sadly as sheep most people watch the crap, because they refuse to either not watch and find something else to do, or they have decided they will watch anything. But this does a big disservice to the content creators and artists who are forced to dumb down what they do just because we are all lazy and cheap.

Visa does incredible campaign in Grand Central for Olympics...why?

2010-02-01T07:40:00.000-08:00

Link to Source

We all have enjoyed the battles between Visa and Master Card over the years. But the whole premise and whether it is money well spent is subject to debate. The reality is that the cards are not theirs, they are Bank Cards. And each card has different rates, terms, and benefits depending on the Bank. Visa/Master Card make their money via transactions. Banks via keeping a balance. Most people decide which card to use based on the credit limits/how much credit they have, benefits (like Airline Miles) and the card terms. Visa/Master Card have nothing to do with these things. Since there is no competition on transaction fees at point of sale most people really don't care about Visa or Master Card when at the point of sale. So is the money spent in sponsorships and advertising really well spent? Wouldn't kickbacks or lower transaction fees to consumers be much more well spent?

Where Print went wrong...sorry Digital Ad Networks

2010-01-29T08:05:00.001-08:00

Print has had a double whammy when it comes to revenues. One is their fault which was free news sites with digital ad networks, the second was out of their control - Craig's List which killed the Classified Ad revenue source.

But first I want to do a quick review of the past vs. the present.

Before the Internet if you wanted news most major cities had 1-2 newspapers, 3 major TV networks that did world, national and local news, and the radio. They competed within each market for eyes and ears and were pretty much protected from non-local competition.

With the Internet what has evolved is that every news source competes now globally. Using my own example growing up my family watched the TV news outside NY City and we subscribed to Newsday. I moved to LA and subscribed to the LA times and also watched Network News. Over time I now read the Digital Versions of the LA Times, NY Times, Economist, BBC, Washington Post, and Huffington Post. I never watch Network TV News. I do watch the Daily Show live and online. I also listen to news Podcasts from the BBC, NPR, and Economist. I read the print versions of Business Week, Fortune, and Rolling Stone. I also read local Entertainment Papers like LA Weekly, Village Voice, etc. All this accounts for 85% of my news consumption.

So now print competes world wide. And seriously I have estimated an industry maximizes competition and productivity when there isn't 500,000 competitors. So there will be a shake out eventually where many cities have no major print newspaper such as San Francisco, Boston, and Denver already deal with.

Prior to the Internet we all agreed to pay for print versions of news sources. Then came the Internet and this idea of Digital Ad Networks evolved. By not charging a subscription for Online viewing of news they lost a revenue stream. Now granted if I pay $0.50 for a print paper that is just subsidizing the true cost of printing and distributing. The rest comes from Print Ads. So removing the physical print and distribution they could charge less than the $0.50 and break even on that portion.

But the Digital Ad Networks promoted a lie to the Print Industry. That their Ad Distribution Networks are better than Static Ads on Print Pages (like a pdf would be). And this was the huge revenue killer. They lost control of this part of their revenue stream. Computer OEM's, Software OEM's, and Internet providers make no extra money if Ads are blocked, like Firefox allows. 700,000 downloads of Firefox's Ad Blocker Plus happen each week for the browser with 22% market share. Viruses have people fearful of interactive ads. I myself use No Script which prevents Java from running on websites unless I allow it. So while I disable Ad Blocker on sites I get free content from, the actual Ad Networks are all prevented from running on my browser because I have had virus infections before.

Since all the players mentioned before are out for themselves. Print has been left high and dry.

The true solution for this would be that Newspapers etc charge a nominal fee for a subscription. And their pages served to E-Readers should be static with Ads just like Print Ads. This way when I read Page 4 of the NY Times it views just like the hard copy of the paper would. This would guarantee impressions and increase CPM's. Why should a Brand or Marketer pay more, if 1] their Ad is blocked by 1 of 5 browsers? 2] They have even less proof an Ad was seen.

I know the rebuttal. Static Ads will prevent click throughs reducing the increased value and creativity they offer. But seriously now. Click Throughs? You mean the 20 average per 10,000 page views? But seriously now. Most of us use a search engine to find website sites, type in URL's directly, get linked via social media, or we go direct via a book mark. Leave your creative interactive consumer engagement effort for your web site. Make it easy to get there. And boom increased R.O.I.

Apple's first stumble with the IPad

2010-01-29T07:49:00.001-08:00

Apple just released it's I Pad. I truly think they blew it here after all this hype. But how can it live up to the hype? Apple obviously wasn't reading any of the posts here or my posts to the Media Trade Journal Articles when it comes to readers and TV everywhere. Plus not only is the name hysterical since my esteemed sister said it was a bunch of men who came up with the name, Hitler was very disappointed. And I agree with his talking points.

Click for:

Hitler's Rebuttal

Over 700,000 people have seen this hilarious creation which highlights many sever limitations of the I Pad. In one fell swoop all the free marketing from Apple fans and Media/Advertising Industry Journalists and Pundits has been countered.

The Wi-Fi and 3G are great. The battery life incredible. But no Flash???? No Firefox?

This blog had suggested in the past the perfect "Insert Brand Here" Tablet Computer will have full HTML and Flash (or equal) with full web surfing and game playing because that is what people want. They want bigger screens for TV and Movies. I myself bring my laptop into my bed to watch DVD's because up close the screen is bigger than the 19" LCD HDTV across on my dresser. I would love a fix for this heavy, hot device from my lap.

And when an "Insert Brand Here" Tablet comes out with Flash(or equal) they will truly be a game changer. The I Pad is really just a large sized I Touch. And the only reason I can think Apple did this was to not have an APP Creator Revolt. Nothing like bragging about 125K Apps in your store front only to have them not work on the I Tab and crushing that whole ecosystem at once. But what Apple fails to realize in a HUGE way is that App ecosystem be damned other forms with no App Stores who can care less will gladly destroy this ecosystem. HP, Dell, Sony, Upstarts, all have no App Stores!

Interesting because in the past Apple was the company bringing creative destruction to industries. Now they might suffer the same.

In my next post I am going to address the print industry and where it went wrong and can it be saved.

Customers Rule. Examples of Great (Skullcandy)and Piss Poor (Facebook) Business Ethics

2010-01-27T07:16:00.000-08:00

I was blessed today to read a great blog post from AdScam that enabled me to add Facebook to this blog post. I apologize to Skullcandy but I think it creates a great contrast to my reader(s). Consumer Businesses forget that the Consumer Rules. without people buying your product (or alive to buy your product in the case of companies that destroy and poison our earth) you have no business. And sometimes the little things can destroy a reputation or enhance it dramatically.

So do you prefer me to start with the good or the bad? The good? Ok Skullcandy. I discovered Skullcandy's really by accident.

http://www.skullcandy.com/

They sure did not advertise to me in any way. I was living in Venice Beach on a gorgeous walk street in the summer of 2007 and was enjoying some time in between jobs. I was riding my mountain bike everywhere and taking long rides down the bike bath from Marina Del Rey to Malibu a few mornings every week and my IPod ear phones kept falling out when I would do jumps or tricks.

So I went to Target to get some 'earbud' style earphones and saw this new brand Skullcandy. I loved the style and the price which was around $17. The sound quality was incredible for this price point and I got hooked. At $17 an item to me is almost toss away if I only need to replace it every year or even twice a year. The INKD's Buds would usually fail where the wire meets the connector for the MP3 player. Normally after 4-6 months and I would just get a new pair. Over time Skullcandy came out with new colors that to me were rad. And I could match the colors to my IPod. I never thought that based on the price point or the product type that Skullcandy would have any type of warranty. Sorry I was an ignorant dumbass I admit it.

Why should a brand that sells $17 items to skateboarders and snowboarders warranty products that would get beat on!?? Unless.....let me think...maybe Skullcandy decided that it was worth it since they might win customers for life? Customers in the 14-30 year age (vs me an old 42 year old fogey)?

So my last set of INKD's failed but sadly after just 2 months and right now I just jog and use them in the gym or while on Amtrak/Walking around NYC. And I thought I should write them and give them feedback on how to improve the product. And sure enough I notice on my new package of INKD's it says go to the website to see the warranty info. Incredibly not only does Skullcandy warranty against defects for life with a replacement service. They actually refuse to flip the finger to users who beat on their product. They just want honesty. And if your an Extreme Sports Fan who blasts head first into a wall or mountain thus destroying the product, they will still take back the product and issue the owner a 50% off a new set coupon. This totally amazed me. I could not believe the level of dedication to their customers are. Above and beyond and this needs to be a shining example of the consumer comes first.

And because of this I will recommend their brand and products to everyone.

Now the bad? This will be short and easy. Facebook's business model is two fold. Advertising revenue and finding ways to profit on users information and content. They will pimp your content any way they can make a penny. Users are meat and nothing more. They only respond when there is a serious backlash from the community and then they do things on begrudgingly. So in effect they have created a situation where by the moment a new social media network pops up that can replace Facebook. They will be toast.

First it was Beacon. Then they keep trying to have everyone open up their content via privacy changes in very weaselly and slimey ways. Because of this I am what Business Calls a Vocal Terrorist. While I use Facebook I rail against these moves openly every chance I get. The latest version of them being slimes can be read in the following Blog Post from the great George Parker from AdScam.

If you want take How To Screw Your Customer 101 in college just read this post!

AdScam Blog Post

Why the Supreme Court Decision on Corporate Campaign Spending is Bad for Media and Advertising

2010-01-22T06:43:00.000-08:00

Yesterday the Supreme Court gave Corporations full freedom of speech rights by ruling they can spend unlimited monies on advertising positive or negative that support their positions. Even though it was never part of the discussion it will be a boon then a bane for Media Companies and Advertising Companies and even Brands which I will discuss.

One of the issues regarding 'ethics' that I struggle with for accessing 'free' content has it's roots with the decision to create a new Media Format way back when called Television. Somehow the revenue metrics for Television allowed content to be viewed for free by consumers supported by Advertising. But it was not a contract with the consumers. Nothing forced consumers to view a commercial. We can switch channels, leave the room etc. So this created a true 'opt-in' relationship with consumers. This has been the root of most of today's troubles for Media Companies aside from the Movie Industry.

Until 2 years ago I was not in Advertising. I was very happy to use FireFox with Ad Blocking and No Scripts Ad-Ons so I see pretty much ZERO digital Advertising. And while I valued Advertising-Media it was a Love-Hate relationship because the industries can be evil in pursuit of profits, such as the marketing of cigarettes to children. I also witnessed the demised of most quality content on the major networks so that in 1999 when High Speed Internet came out I canceled cable for DSL and stopped watching TV altogether. Why pay good money to receive crap in my living room.

After entering the Ad Biz I started thinking about the ethics of accessing content and blocking all the Ads. And while I am a champion for paying directly for content in return for not seeing Ads until this becomes a reality what am I supposed to do? So I have 'unblocked' the Ad Blocker from specific Web Sites that I enjoy free content from out of a sense of Ethics and Honor. But since the Media-Advertising Industry doesn't force people to view advertising I refuse to unblock all websites. Sorry. Earn my eyeball time.

But now things might become different. With the Supreme Court ruling, at first Media Companies and Ad Agencies will benefit from increased Ad Spend for political advertising. In some cases this could be dramatic. As of today the Insurance Industry can buy up all the Ad Time and pitch lies about Healthcare reform because nothing in the Ruling Requires Truth! And they can hide behind Special Interest Entities which make it impossible to know who is paying for the Ads. This will dramatically increase people's negative feelings towards Media and Advertising and eventually turn people off. They might start TiVoing everything just to remove commercials from their lives.

Case in point during the Kerry - Bush election I was in Ohio and Florida for business and couldn't watch TV because every other commercial was an attack ad against one or the other candidate. I had to give up Sports Center! Now it is going to get worse.

So if a Media Company is willing to take money from groups with Nefarious Purposes (meaning they do not require transparency), then my view of Ethics changes and maybe I shouldn't feel obligated to unblock websites from Ad Blocking. Maybe I will be more ok with eliminating commercials from my life for good?

This will be interesting to see how this unfolds. But as the first case in point. Yesterday my local paper had a full page Ad from a mysterious group with no website, just a gmail address attacking a Democratic Senator over the GOP win in Massachusetts. Was this paid for by Insurance Companies? A Right Wing Religious Group? Who knows. But I am punishing the paper for the lack of transparency and not for the content. So for the next 30 days I am reading the paper online and blocking all Ads.

Paid Tweeters and how I feel decieved

2010-01-21T07:01:00.000-08:00

I am not going to mention any specific people since I do not know the whole story yet. But there is someone in the Advertising/Marketing world with a website and lots of followers on Twitter. I agreed with the FCC's ruling that paid Tweeters somehow must announce they are being paid (this goes for Bloggers too), for the most part I always assumed this was just for products. Like Paris Hilton being paid to state she is buying a Brand of Nail Polish, to separate the 'real life' from the 'paid to respresent' Tweets.

Yesterday while reading an article from a very well known business publication, it seems someone I follow on Twitter, whom I just figured was either sharing, building their own business, or being social. My hunch is that some Tweeters are now paid per Tweet to drive traffic to specific websites. And this can come across as innocent especially when the subject matter seems beneficial, funny, informative etc. And when the article said that while Kim Khardasian someone I would never follow or care about is paid $10k per Tweet (talk about throwing money away on a G Lister) this person gets $900 per Tweet!

So in fairness I have asked this person to explain because I wish to know what they are being paid to promote. Is it all the Tweets? Is it specific ones? I don't want to see the paid Tweets unless they are clearly marketed as Advertising-Promotional so I can decide whether to read, click through any links etc. This isn't to say I won't click through to links. I mean if there is value being shared sure thing. But I do not like deception and currently I have 'Followers Remorse' since I have re-tweeted some of the persons Tweets.

Now to be fair when a Brand or a Website or any Business Entity has a Twitter or Facebook account the people who are managing it obviously are being paid, but we all know they are being paid to promote a product and are on the payroll. But when it is an individual the lines blur. If this specific person makes money when I click through to their website and read content I am very OK with that as long as I can connect the dots. It is very important trust not be broken between Brands, Businesses, and Consumers because it is very hard to win back that trust.

The Coming Mobile Commerce Destruction of Retail Profits

2010-01-20T07:41:00.000-08:00

I have been kicking around this scenario for a while. It should strike fear in all retailers (and somewhat for Brands too). It will erode customer service especially in times of economic recession when 'price' trumps all else because profits have to be made so service might be cut. And with the increasing power, abilities, and breadth of mobile smart phones and eventually tablet computers small enough to take around with you this will be the bane of brick and mortar stores.

When we shop online we have the ability to compare prices. Thank you Search Engines! Soon we will be doing this in stores that sell 'Commodities'. Commodities in this case is anything I can buy (same or equal) at multiple locations within a short drive. These could be anything small like a bag of Doritos and a case of Pepsi, to big ticket items like HDTV's or even automobiles!

This blog has discussed in the past the Point of Sale fact of life for consumer products. Anything that has a substitute is in danger of a lower price competitor getting the sale no matter how much is spent on Advertising based on the current price in the store. Often this is out of a Brand's control. I have used the Coke vs Pepsi battle as example number 1. The Supermarket not the Brand puts one on sale with the club card as a loss leader (or break even leader) so you buy what is on sale vs maybe your preference. Kiss all those Ad Dollars Goodbye!

Your Supermarket could care less as long as you buy your Cola from them. But to Coke and Pepsi its a revenue issue. I myself prefer Diet Pepsi but buy what is on sale at point of purchase.

In the future (not too far off) a consumer will be able to show up ready to buy and at the point of sale not only decide based on pricing at that store, but also compare with every other retailer within a few mile radius. I can show up at Best Buy and run the Sony 56" HDTV throw my Smart Phone and show that the store down the street has it for $250 less and I demand they match the price or I walk.
I am in Best Buy, this proves my preference to buy from them, will they let me walk?

Or I can compare a Sony and a Panasonic 56" HDTV and I can contact Sony and say I am buying the Panasonic if you don't match their price via Best Buy somehow.

This isn't a browsing dilemma. This isn't a 'let's sow the seeds so we get the sale in 3 months'. This is a 'the person is ready to buy immediately' and if you miss the sale you must wait for the next purchasing opportunity to make the sale. For Coke and Pepsi they might have to wait a few days to a week or two. For a big ticket item it could be years before the next chance. Just think Sony and Best Buy has a chance to sell a 56" HDTV right now with the next chance in 4 years! What do they do? Especially if the consumer notifies them that they prefer to buy Sony! You give a competitor a chance to not only get this sale, but all the free marketing when friends ask how you like your new TV and you say "I preferred the Sony but the price was better on the Panasonic and you know what, its a great TV. I would recommend it to others."

This could be a huge problem for Retailers and Brands. They are not allowed to collude on prices. If a retailer has to contact a brand every time this issue arises to work something out that adds costs to the picture. And worse all the Ad Spend up in smoke. Sony or Pepsi can spend millions getting a consumer to the point of purchase only to lose the sale because the Retailer or the Brand themselves refuse to match the price.

My beef with so called loyalty programs

2010-01-19T08:07:00.000-08:00

Advertising is like Politics. People tend to stretch terms and lingo to reflect their needs vs reality. And the term 'loyalty program'. It has been thrown around loosely recently specifically for Mobile Marketing and this needs to be clarified and the abuses of the terminology ended once and for all!

Signing up for future offers/contact is not a loyalty program. It is just an agreement to be pitched in the future by a company for their products and services in hopes you will be swayed to buy something down the road. It does not require a purchase of any sort, only that you sign up (opt-in) for these offers. When a business runs a Mobile Campaign to collect phone numbers for their database so they can contact your phone later is not a loyalty program. That just qualifies you to view special offers on your phone. Same as if you sign up for email or direct mail marketing pitches. And these programs are way down on the priority list for people. They might read them but the conversion rate will be lower than true loyalty programs.

Loyalty programs require purchases. They reward you for patronizing a firm with your business, whether personal or professional.

Examples of loyalty programs are supermarket rewards cards, office supply rewards, or as simple as getting a card stamped and after buying 8 coffees you get one on the house. Loyalty programs can be long term or short term. Short term examples are the McDonald's Monopoly Game. The more you buy the higher the chance of winning a prize or free give away. Same with Airline Frequent Flier Miles.

The big reason loyalty programs are so impactful is because you get something back for your patronage beyond the 'deal'. We might be interested to hear from all sort of brands what their current special or promotion is, but if all is even a person chooses the greater reward (kickback). When I search for Airline Flight Pricing I will steer my business to the Airline I have the most frequent flier miles with before choosing a different brand. The simple reason is consolidation brings a faster reward, in this case a free flight.

The Beauty of the 30 Second Spot

2010-01-07T06:49:00.000-08:00

One thing I have beaten to death is measurability and wastage in the Advertising Industry. And I have discussed the issue with Nielsen pumping inflated, deflated, or just plain inaccurate TV/Cable ratings due to a flawed system. And I will admit this is a topic of interest with clients, and I will tell them it is almost impossible to prove someone watched your 30 second commercial. Were they in the room? Were they using a laptop or mobile device curing the commercial? Even polling won't fix things. Yes the subject remembers your commercial. But you bought 6-8 spots during the football game. Did he watch all 6 of exactly the same commercial? So many unanswered questions that not only are almost impossible to solve, but they will remain impossible until people agree to electronic brain impulse monitoring in mass numbers in a way that the monitor can actually confirm you viewed and remembered the advertisement! Good luck!

But figuring out a realistic CPM can be solved relatively easily with an educated guess. And that CPM is higher than the rate published on purchase contracts for the TV/Cable air time. But I am a firm believer that the value of each viewer who truly watches your 30 second spot is probably higher than the realistic estimate. The internet and mobile have presaged the death of the TV Commercial but not medium is as perfect for telling your story, building brand image and personality, exposing consumers to new products, and engaging them for that period of time. Even if I went to a Brand's website I might click on 10 web pages in 30 secs of my choosing (vs choreographed by the Brand), and I might stay 5 seconds of 5 mins. Maybe I will leave the site up in a Browser Tab for 6 hours inflating the Time Spent metric for the website.

But with that 30 second spot you can make people laugh, tell a serious story, pimp your business or product in glowing terms, or major promotional announcements on your terms. And while I will be the first to say that after seeing an Ad once or twice the rest is wasted Ad Dollars spent, there really is not perfect way to fix the shot gun approach of buying slots all over the place to blanket the airwaves in hopes that if you watch TV/Cable at all, you are likely to see an Ad if you fall in the proper age demographic.

Genius, Goof, or Dumb the Nivea New Years Coup

2010-01-01T07:43:00.000-08:00

I know Times Square for New Years is a goofy type party of pop culture. But plenty of people get dressed nice and go out to watch the ball then go out partying from there. When I saw.....witnessed...observed of watching the ball fall on TV was the Nivea Coup. Brilliant in one sense....ridiculous in a few others. Somehow Nivea gave out hundreds...thousands of big blue Nivea foam Top Hats that everyone put on. Crowd shots of people waving wearing these hats was funnier than anything Comedy Central pumps out. No matter who gave you the hat it was a corny New Years in NYC give away......but a liquor brand or even beer would be half way conscionable because it is a party...but Nivea? BRILLIANT! Now whether this leads to stronger Nivea sales remains to be seen.

But this is a perfect example of the evils of Advertising. Whether anyone cares to think of the moment and the people. Nivea got a gazillion impressions with the hats. People in and around Time Square (or looking down from the buildings), the TV exposure, and going forward all the personal private photos will forever have the Nivea Brand positioned prominently. All those uploads to share on Facebook or your digital picture frames etc.... so Nivea will be there for years to come. Yet how many of these people made a special trip to NYC for New Years? And why didn't grown Adults think about this stuff more!

Nivea? BRILLIANT!

Super Bowl Advertising, Smart Move or Marketing Gluttony? The Refreshing Pepsi Refresh Project

2009-12-21T06:17:00.001-08:00

Recently Pepsi made the decision to not place any spots on this years Super Bowl, and instead are directing that money to Cause Related Marketing.

See WSJ Article

I think this is a great move for several reasons specific to Pepsi. As anyone who reads this blog I focus often on Return on Investment. I have a Sales/Finance Background. And while Advertising/Marketing has a big emotional component that the Creative's use to hook us on products, without Sales and Profits all the money spent marketing gets wasted. The one thing that the Industry has to deal with is the Elephant in the Closet we all ignore, especially the Sales/Finance folks (And CFO's this means you!). No matter how good the Creative's are I will use the well beaten saying 'You can't put lipstick on a pig, because it is still a pig.' Why CFO's think Marketers can do this I am still trying to figure out. As a Sales Person for many years I dealt with the same thing. Reality of the Product, or the Company.

And this is where the Pepsi story and the Super Bowl comes in. While we all love Super Bowl Ads because the brands compete to have the funniest, warmest, most memorable Ads that we will all talk about for a year, most of the brands are 1] known and 2] most people already have their view mostly set on that brand for various reasons. I love the beer commercials and can watch them over and over but I never buy Bud, Miller, or Coors because they are bland to me. Nothing they can do except give it to me for free will change that. The one group who are impressionable would be the 10 to 25 year olds who are still developing their views on what they should be identified with in their life, and this goes for most of the products that get advertised.

The one exception is New Brands, Products, and Promotions. The goal here is to get someone to try it....once. And hope they like it to earn repeat business. For launching new things the Super Bowl has superior reach to everything. Everyone is watching and everyone for once actually would rather miss a play of the game than miss a commercial!

So for Pepsi, most everyone has tried their products and has decided if they like them vs the competition. And I have mentioned before that Point of Sale in the store trumps a lot of Marketing spend. I am a Diet Pepsi drinker. When we stocked up for a Holiday Party the other day Pepsi had a big in store promotion so that is what we bought: Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, and Sierra Mist. Had it been Coke I would of chosen them because I am not rich, the deal was incredible (Two 24 packs of Pepsi Brands for $10 with a $25 purchase of other goods at Price Chopper Super Market) and I can settle. This covers most people no matter what soda brand you prefer unless money is not an issue.

I asked Rob Schwartz the Chief Creative Officer of TBWA\CHIAT\DAY Pepsi's Creative Agency if Super Bowl ads sell more Pepsi. He said, "The Super Bowl is more to keep a buzz about your brand in the Pop Culture Conversation." Talk about a hard sell to the CFO! But then he said, "The goal of the Pepsi Refresh Project is to do some good with our marketing money. The last thing the world needs is another Super Bowl ad. You can quote me for your blog." Now the CFO is listening.

So what will sway me? What will sway the average Joe and Jane out there if there is a price difference or none at all to buy one brand or another? Social Responsibility! But only when it is fully exposed and known, for good and bad. On a National Scale Nike, Walmart, Exxon have been exposed for bad practices in the Third World and had Non-Profits try to rally boycotts. Brands like Starbucks have earned praise for offering insurance to all workers, even part timers. Everyone knows about the Ronald McDonald House. Unless this is exposed for all to see (good or bad) there will be no impact. That is why Brands often don't market their own good deeds enough, and why Brands fight to cover up the bad deeds.

But if you do this on a local level, grass roots, this trumps everything. This is direct marketing at it's finest. If I know that Pepsi helped my community organization, school, park, hospital this could earn my patronage for life. Too many Brands write a check and slap their logo on a Social Cause and think that is enough. Most brands have charities they support. But very few people if asked can name the causes with brands. The best recent one of note was the NFL Breast Cancer Awareness Week for the Susan G Konem for the Cure weekend with many layers wearing pink shoes and accessories. I have also written about the Yoplait Pink Lid Program (which I didn't give a good review on).

So Pepsi is earmarking $20 million from their marketing budget to support local community programs and initiatives. But even more critical, they are asking Pepsi Drinkers to nominate programs for their support. This is true bottom up from the community sincerity. And that Super Bowl 'Buzz' Pepsi is giving up? There has been more articles and free publicity given to Pepsi already from this decision than they will get from the Super Bowl. And in return community programs in need will benefit.

The Marketing Sensei will revisit this program in 2010 to highlight the positive effects on communities and Pepsi's bottom line. The CFO will be pleased.

In wrapping up the Super Bowl Ad Buy view, I get it. It shows you arrived as a company. It will create a buzz. But it might not increase sales, and during tough economic times Brands should analyze how to get the biggest return for their marketing spend, because Sales and Profits are wonderful things. They help prevent layoffs, increase R&D and Marketing Budgets, and keep Share Holders happy. And even more important allow Brands to give back to the world like the Pepsi Refresh Program is doing.

Subtle Startegy, Network Greed or Poor Media Buying

2009-12-19T05:45:00.000-08:00

We have observed this, we are watching a program on Cable or Network TV and we notice one or two commercials are repeated so often that we actually switch over while they play because we are sick of hearing the same message. I am currently watching a stand up comedian on Comedy Central. I have seen in 45 mins the same I Pod Touch commercial 6 times and an I Phone App commercial 4 times.

So is this strategy on someone's part? To ensure the message is beaten in my skull. So that I get brainwashed into buying the devices.

Or is this greed by Comedy Central? Apple gave them money for inventory to reach a certain demographic and they are light on clients for spots on this show so they just keep plugging Apple?

Or is this poor media planning? Where someone isn't paying attention or not critiquing the performance reports they get from Comedy Central when they come in?

I know media planning and buying for a major national brand across all platforms is as complicated as curing cancer. But Apple spent about 30% more than they should of on spots during this 1 hr program. And as a champion of the brand with a Finance/Sales background I call it wastage.

Facebook, Privacy, OverHype and Bad Business Model

2009-12-11T15:33:00.000-08:00

Facebook has just received a lot of flack (deservedly) for their efforts to expose (by force) more of the content people post to their website for all the worlds eyes to see. This is after the failed Beacon service, and other efforts to boost advertising revenue. As an advertising platform this business is significantly over-hyped by a few biased groups:

1] Facebook Employees and Investors - they want to cash out with an IPO then who cares what happens to the business.

2] Social Media Journalists - They are paid to write about social media and of course Facebook is one of the biggest. If Social Media fails to live up to the hype they might be seeking new jobs.

3] Social Media Guru's/Consultants who claim they can help you make bank using websites such as Facebook. Recently it was proven many ex-real estate folks have migrated to Social Media.

4] People who are employed by their firms to be the Social Media Manager - which can be frustrating but also very fun to work on. And who wants to go back to Accounting?

5] Hyper Hype! Facebook and it's promoters spout now 350 million accounts. Yet in August when they had 300 million there were only 92 million unique visitors per comscore. So why the discrepancy? Well I have 2 accounts. 1 personal and 1 for a service of my company Sky Pulse Media. And companies like USocial sell friends and fans by the 1,000's. So there has to be over 100 million zombie accounts!

So those are the vested interests in businesses like Facebook living up to the Advertising Platform Hype.

Considering Facebook is seeking to exploit it's users (community's) information and content to make money as an Ad Platform it really puts their business on the side of Advertisers and not the community who without they would not exist! Kind of like being on the Yankees and offered a massive contract but trying to earn money from the Red Sox instead.

Now I wish to state I don't hate Facebook. The technology is great. It can be bested since it lacks many, many things in terms of the format. But it was the first really simple platform for people to connect with each other. And this is why I get aggro on them. If Facebook took Apple's model and sold their technology to other businesses, or had a subscription model where Advertiser's be damned, then they would be on the same side as the community. It would allow them to do things in a walled garden that people would be willing to participate in more openly. And immediately they would be valued much higher than they are now.

But currently they use this news feed and live news feed as kind of their platform for brands and marketers to listen and reach the community. But just like with Twitter this stream is monstrous. Every time I log in I have 300+ posts I haven't read, of which I usually read the first 25. So over 275 posts I do not see. And 90% of all accounts that I check out are set to private. This proves people want the walled garden. So their business model is going against what the community will champion and as soon as a true alternative pops up people will fly away. If you think they won't social media is littered with the last great hype...Friendster, Myspace, Tribe, sites people spent considerable time developing profiles, uploading photos only to jump away when something better came.

So when I see this whacked out effort to go behind people in a weaselly manner to have them expose themselves more I am allowed to champion the community over the website. I use weasel because instead of having new settings and allowing people to change them...when the window popped up t automatically changed them and you had to change them back. And if your business is a reflection of your ethics, honor, and character then Mark Zuckerberg fails once again on all 3 counts.

Why Brick and Mortar will never disappear

2009-12-09T07:57:00.000-08:00

Media Post Article

I read this article by Laurie Sullivan and really was blown away that anyone in the Ad Industry or Retail for that mater would think we would go all E-Commerce. She blew her thesis up front by saying there will be warehouses to go see/feel product, which if that is true we would need them all over the place (ie stores) and if we already are there wouldn't we want to buy what we like for immediate gratification? I am surely not going home then placing and order and paying for shipping.

But there are a few significant reasons why in person retail will trump online for the foreseeable future.

1] Many, many stores are small businesses and it would be impossible to replace these online.

2] We love exploring unique and interesting stores. And shopping is often enjoyable. And there is much less buyer's remorse in person.

3] Online reduces impulse buys considerably. When you walk into say a Target think of how massive your view is. Imagine changing that view to a 15" diagonal window. You will miss so many sale items and choices.

4] If something is close by and we can get it now we will. Especially if i is something we didn't plan ahead for. Like oops ran out of milk.

5] I can view the whole Cracker/Cookie aisle in 3 minutes in a Supermarket. This would take about 15+ minutes on line. I don't have time for that. And the actual physical packaging makes or breaks a sale. To get the same visual online I have to click on each item to blow it up.

One day it is possible that we might buy commodities or things we don't need to shop in person for online as routine. But until we can shop via hologram or HD-3D with the exact same visuals from our home, E-Commerce will accent not replace our shopping experience. While a store might make more margin on an item I buy directly from a website like my favorite shampoo I always buy, they would lose the volume of impulse buying that is proven from a 100 years of retail and marketing research and studies.

For items like clothes which we are getting used to buying online more and more, it really sucks when something doesn't fit and you have to wait to return it and get a replacement. And shopping for books is so much more pleasurable in a book store than online. You can browser titles and subjects so much faster. And it is very hard to replace that feeling of discovering something via the online experience. It is being worked on but nothing yet is close.

Social Media Update

2009-11-27T08:15:00.000-08:00

Sorry my laptop fried and I was unable to post for a while. Since my last post I have read a lot of articles written on Social Media that truly make my jaw drop in terms of ridiculousness. I read from the founder of Mashable that everyone will be living lives without privacy by our own choice where everything we do everyday is seen by everyone. I almost died laughing at someone who made the Huffington Post's Top 10 Game Changers! Well sorry dude your not a game changer when you have no clue. If we all wanted this Facebook Beacon would of been a smashing success. If we all wanted this we would not keep our profiles set to private. 18-24 year olds wouldn't be leaving Facebook because they are being friended by their parents and grand parents!

Then I read that Media Companies will have no Advertising Business for Black Friday and that Brands will be using only Social Media to Advertise. Well I was pretty mad because after laughing so hard at Mashable I sure didn't need something to make my gut hurt so hard I need to be sent to the ER. An example given was a Twitter Account named CheapTweets which posts 800 deals per hour on it's Twitter Account. So I checked it out. Well the fact is to showcase deals and a web link in 140 characters is impossible. It basically forces one to blindly click on link after link after link to see if the deals are worthwhile. And to sift through 800 per hour I could read War and Peace before getting through just 2 hours worth of deals. And considering that CheapTweets had to reach me from OUTSIDE of social media just to be known, and that if I followed them I would have 800 spam tweets showing up per hour clouding out anything my friends post or anyone else worthwhile I would probably un-follow within 10 minutes. So no this view is not only wrong it is hysterically amusing.

Lastly is the lack of reach for social media. I will use Twitter and Facebook as my examples. Anyone who uses these networks knows that attentions are fragmented, most live news feeds and Tweet Streams go unviewed because of the massive amount of posts. Normally when I log onto Facebook I have over 300 updates I have not seen so I read the first 25 from my 259 friends and 60 Fan pages I connect too! On Twitter I average about 75 to 100 unseen and I read the first 20, and I only follow 59 accounts. Now the numbers. Since only 1 in 3 Facebook Accounts is actively logged into once per month, that means either 2 of 3 are frauds created by Social Media Companies that sell Friends and Fans by the 1,000's I estimate only 1 in 6 Americans are on Facebook at least once per month. And since we all chat and talk with friends foremost an amazing engagement campaign can hope to reach maybe a million or two people which is nice but not world beating.

I will end with these observances and state I love Social Media as technology for us all to connect. We should be paying for it directly. Facebook would have 7 billion in sales this year if they could get each account to pony up $2 per month (and eliminate all fraudulaent accounts possibly). But the Guru's and the Networks all self promoting to make a buck are completely biased in the face of logic and Brands should be aware of this. Use Social media to accent your marketing efforts. But don't think it will replace the traditional forms of marketing that have worked to varying degrees for so many years. Remember all marketing channels are valuable, the challenge is how to measure and price them so that you get proper value for the money you spend.

And to all you Social Media Companies, Advocates, Guru's, Journalists you really should stick to highlighting how Social Media affects our lifestyles, the great technology being developed, and stop focusing on the Advertising Side of things. Apple has made a killing selling technology that changes our lives and not by selling advertising. So again sell the technology instead of this Ad Revenue Model. Apple should be role model number 1!

Behavorial Targeting, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

2009-11-11T07:52:00.000-08:00

This post is aimed at Google, Facebook, Twitter, and all Ad Serving Networks.

My previous post discussed my search for a new laptop. One that will cost me between $650 and $900. So not a small sale. It is worth the various brands and retail outlets to observe me researching specifications and pricing. The specs I seek are for across the brands in terms of the hardware, so they are an equalizing factor. Since I seek to buy in the next 6 weeks the real impetus will be the best deal. I have a few models picked out that I am willing to buy and seek the best price, warranty, and any deals like free virus protection etc. I do have concerns about pre-loaded software. I want minimal. My Compaq that I bought in May 2008 came with too much stuff. Like MS Works..deleted. MS Office trial...deleted. MS Internet Explorer...deleted.

I want to take the BT from various view points. The retailers, Staples, Best Buy, Walmart, and Apple all observe me crawling around their websites. The Ad serving networks that have access to my surfing also could possibly see that I went to these sites (unsure if they see on the sites themselves). And if I post any information about my search on Twitter or Facebook, they have access to knowing I am searching. And of course Google owns this Blogging site!

What I want. I want the retailer to send me a pop up saying if I buy within the next 60 mins I get something. Free accessory. $50 off. Free shipping. Etc. And really that is it.

The retailers. Should want what I want. Try to make the sale right there immediately while I have items in my cart to look at pricing.

Those two are great benefits to BT.

Now the Ad Serving networks, Google, Facebook, and Twitter. It is in their best interest to offer Ads to be served by the Brands themselves to me in hopes of swaying me one way or another. But to do this they would have to serve me Ads at some point, somewhere. Obviously a retail site will bar this. Obviously if I have Firefox with Ad Blocker I won't see them anyway. But I am a very high value prospect. Meaning they could auction or sell Ads served to me to the brands at a high price. Now while I might be fine with 1 or 2 ads popping up, I would flip out if I was slammed because of BT. And that is the danger of BT.

Brands obviously want every single time someone is looking for such a big ticket item to be able to contact you. But if they all do, again I am slammed and upset.

Now get to the value of BT. Who gets the value? That depends. Will BT of Ad Serving help me find the best product at the best price? Or will the Ads bought by the highest bidder cloud out a best solution for me? If I can't see all my options then BT fails me.

And of course the only way to see best option is to work at it. To search via Bing or Google. Read all the Ads and Circulars. Visit stores. Ask friends. And make phone calls. In this case my work (and information found online) will pay off 80% of the effort to find best product/price. And Advertising will actually help since that is how the 'deals' reach me.

Big ticket behavorial shopping, Online, Offline...metrics?

2009-11-11T07:28:00.000-08:00

I had an 18 month old Compaq Laptop just die...completely dead. So I have to shop for a new Laptop. Since I read all the Advertising Trade Journals about the various types of measuring success, ROI, 360 marketing, all the major marketing channels, this is a perfect case study to show how jacked up measuring ROI is. It will also prove the bias in various marketing channels will use to hype their portion of the sale.

First off HP is out. I spent $70 at staples to find out my motherboard is fried (after 18 months of mostly use for work!) and HP wants $315 for a new one. Not only do I flip them the bird, I refuse to buy from them now. Including most likely getting a new Printer for Business that is non-HP! See what customer service and honoring the product means? Plus I am slamming HP in my blog. Touche %#%@&^@%!&!'s.

I am looking at Dell's, Toshiba, Mac's (way too expensive! sigh), and Asus brands. I am comparing Staples, Best Buy, and Walmart (hate Walmart but saw they were trying to put best Buy out of business). I am researching online via the stores vs the actual brand sites. I am looking at pricing online and via the Sunday Circulars. I paid $100 for a 1 year warranty on the piece of crap Compaq I had (it was a great unit until it died!). I want 4GB RAM, Pentium Dual Core, 320GB HD minimum, 15" screen, and the best Warranty possible. Although there are other sellers of Laptops my concern is who can support the warranty. When I brought the Compaq I had bought at Best Buy in they told me since it is out of warranty it will cost $90 to look at and they send it out with a 2 week lead time just to call and tell me what is wrong! Boo Hiss!

In the last 2 weeks Staples, Best Buy, Apple and Walmart have observed me crawling around their sites, reading specifications, pricing, and customer reviews. I have a borrowed Think!Pad with Linux with no rush to buy today, but in a rush to buy before new years.

Now look at my vendors. Apple. Love them. Wish their laptops were a bit less expensive and I am still open to a refurbed model if I can find a deal via the Apple Store. Best Buy. Kind of upset about the Compaq Laptop support. But I like the company, the service, the selection. I will be calling to discuss the warranty support before buying. Staples. Did a good job looking at my laptop that died. Not a great selection. But they are right their in price and they do fix computers on site vs. sending them out.

Walmart. Loathe the company. I refuse to buy from a right wing business owner, who wraps themselves in Christ while treating employees and contract manufacturers as indentured servants. Biggest hypocrites on Earth. You would think they would pay their workers more than anyone, pay their suppliers properly and make sure no 3rd world slave labor is working in the factories, and they would give wrap around Healthcare to all, and make sure all communities with a Walmart benefit vs suffer because that is what Jesus would do. So no sales to Walmart. But I will use them for leverage if need be to get a better price. But they do have a great warranty and if it turns out the price saves a bundle I can consider them. The products I am buying are made in the same place no matter what retailer I go too anyway.

So when I do buy, how will the various marketing channels take credit for the sale? Obviously the heaviest impact is online. But since Best Buy has amazing details on their products, the actual Brand I buy can thank them for helping steer me to them. But in reality quality and service are important, not just specs. And what if on Sunday I see the circular and jump at a deal? Doesn't the Print folks get some credit for reaching me since I still get a daily paper? How much does my sale mean to the retail stores? $50? $100? $150?

Now lets look at Behavioral in my next post and why BT is good and bad.

Do Apps really matter to Brands?

2009-11-09T08:31:00.000-08:00

Malibu Rum has 2 million I Phone App Downloads in 6 Months

I am not singling out Malibu Rum. This is specifically typical 'excitement' Branded Apps generate for certain biased parties.

I know I know I always am the cynic. I personally do not see value for Branded Apps unless it is a 'must have must use' App. The reason is it will be hard for Malibu Rum or any Brand to know if the App they worked so hard on is used beyond the first week....or even visible to the smart phone user among the ridiculous amount of Apps an active App down loader will have on their phone. In the case of Malibu Rum, you have a liquor that is very sweet, lower alcohol content than regular rum, and the imbibers will be mostly slanted towards younger people and specifically women. Most adult real men do not drink Malibu Rum, just like they don't drink Wine Coolers LOL. So a bowling game?

There are plenty of ideas for Apps that people will want to use over and over for a Liquor Brand that would get more use and more Brand exposure than bowling. And BTW I love video bowling, it is the Malibu Rum demographic that I found the game choice intriguing.

I don't own a Liquor Brand but my free advice would be an App that has drink recipes and allows people to enter in their own favorites for future reference. Maybe include a calorie counter and allow people to zap drink recipes to their friends and even take pictures of the perfect concoction to share.

Or for Malibu Rum an App that includes lots of topical locales (photos and videos), a way for people to upload their own from such locations when partying in the sun, and even connect to Travel Websites that get Malibu a referral fee for any travel booked during that session.

Bowling?

The transfer reallocation moving about reaily of mobile retail applications

2009-10-30T06:31:00.000-07:00

I read today that Pizza Hut has booked $1 million in sales in 3 months via it's I Phone App.

See Article

But some perspective needs to be shed on this. First of all Pizza Hut is a $6 billion company. So the amount is very small. But that being said the key to success for Mobile is getting people to Adopt using mobile devices in ways that benefit your firm. So today Pizza Hut has a clear cut advantage over other pizza delivery companies because I Phone users can easily order from them on the way home from work, or while in transit to watch football at a friends house. That will change over time and eventually there will be applications that collate all delivery places including private one off local pizza places into one App so you can compare all prices and specials and make your decision. But until then Pizza Hut has an edge.

Now for the reality. Pizza Hut can not tell how much of the $1 million was added sales vs sales they would get anyway via traditional phone call or the internet. Obviously Mobile and Online reduce over head because a person does not have to answer the phone. But the fact is I will guarantee more than half the sales were sales they would of gained anyway. So the impact as of now is minimal for ROI, but huge in terms of being a trend setter and conditioning customers to order via their phone. This benefits not only Pizza Hut but the entire Mobile Ecosystem.

It is very important that firms and agencies relay proper measurements. Often in the news 'success' is touted without any data to back it up. They conveniently omit the number of people, or the true bottom line impact of their activities. While this is great PR investors should be wary of buying stock in companies that do great PR without the substance to back it up. In this case the jury is out, but we will give Pizza Hut some kudos on their efforts and progress!

Marketers Salivating At Smartphone Potential..but is the Public?

2009-10-21T08:19:00.000-07:00

USA Today Article

My views on this have been pretty blunt. People do not want ads pushed to their phone. Obviously AdMob feels you do. But this person said it perfectly in the comments section of the article:

Oversanitized (1 friends, send message) wrote: 54m ago

Sounds like advertisers can now literally be in your pocket wherever you go. Society acts like that's a good thing. I hate pop-ups on my computer, commercials on TV & radio. Why would I want them in the palm of my hand? I take pride in NOT being a commercial zombie.

Not all marketers and brands feel being pushy is a good for business. But for Ad Server Networks it is their lifeblood. And they will do everything they can to convince clients this is a good thing. Opt-In advertising is the way to go. If people have their small phone screens cluttered with served Ads they will leave mobile web.

Is Traditional Digital Advertising Over Rated and Over Hyped?

2009-10-13T09:09:00.000-07:00

Center for Media Research Article on Media Post

Billions have been invested on Internet Ad Serving Networks and Companies. This was supposed to be Advertising Nirvana. That Behavioral and Demographic Targeting would reduce Wastage and enable Ad Networks to serve relevant Ads to people. But has this been achieved? Obviously based on the research the answer is no. Search actually was the answer not ad servers.

Why is this? Agencies and Marketers spend millions on research. People do enjoy advertising to learn about new products and services and promotions. They do state they wish more of it was relevant. So what is the problem? Very simple traditional branding doesn't excite anyone. Seeing a banner ad online or a billboard somewhere that just says Drink Coke means nothing even to a thirsty person. People don't like it when advertising permeates everything they do. They see Ads everywhere all the time as it is. So why should they click through a banner Ad unless it states clearly some benefit. Specifically something free, a coupon, sale, or deal, or a new product being launched that interests them. Most Digital Advertising does not offer any of these things. Digital Agency's have sold Brands that they need to put their name out there online because the Ad Serving Networks and Digital Agencies have a vested interest in this even if the ROI and Click Through Rate is completely pitiful. Yet Digital as a gateway to a website when successful is more powerful than a 30 second commercial spot because of unlimited time and creative options!

On top of all this open software communities like Mozilla not only created an incredible Web browser with Firefox, the Ad Networks had the double whammy of the creation of Ad Blocker Plus which prevents the ads from showing up on the browser. And malicious software/viruses led to the creation of No Scripts software. I specifically must turn on scripts for every single new website and I have never activated any of the Ad Networks.

So with me as an example there is an ROI of pretty much Zero. When I want/need something I search or go directly to the company I am seeking. When I want info on a Brand I type in the Brand not the category. And Ad Blocker Plus actually blocks Google Ad Words results!

Now I know you cry foul. That I am blocking Ads that support the free content that I consume and that statement is correct. But Brands don't force anyone to watch commercials on TV or Cable or look at Billboards or Print Ads. So why should I?

Now the worst kicker of all. I do feel guilty so for certain websites that I feel need support like Newspapers (NY Times, LA Times, Huffington Post, and the Economist and a few others) I have disabled AD Blocker Plus! And not only that I specifically click on Ads so that these businesses can make money equivalent to what the subscription rate is or more! And of course my clicks cost the Brands who's Ad it is money. Yet they make zero money from me. On the Economist I click on Ads from Siemens, Lloyds, Oracle, IBM, Shell, BP all the time yet give them no business because I am not interested in their message, and only interested in supporting the Economist.

So is Traditional Digital Over rated and Over Hyped? I truly feel paid content/technology is really the way to go for many digital brands and some are starting to get a clue such as the Wall Street Journal. The Financial Times has been charging for a long time is is very profitable. People will pay for quality content. Ad Networks and Brands be damned. I pay 6.95 a month for a radio show from Premier Networks that I listen to online time shifted commercial free (yet I would still pay even with the commercials because the content is that good!)

Response from General Mills/Yoplait is BS

2009-10-08T09:39:00.000-07:00

Talk about a canned response that proves 1] They didn't read my actual letter, nor care to discuss why their decision was best. 2] They really do not care about fighting breast cancer.

I challenge Yoplait to prove that 15 million lids are returned from this promotion! That is right it would take 15 million lids to reach the 1.5 million in donations. Yet it would take only 300,000 people each donating 5 dollars online to have the foundation receive 3 million in funds if Yoplait matched!

Dear Valued Consumer:

Thank you for taking the time to write to Yoplait USA regarding your concerns about our recent Save Lids to Save Lives® program.

We have made a commitment to support the Susan G. Komen For the Cure and the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure®, but we feel we are also charged with heightening awareness and participation through national marketing and merchandising efforts, such as Save Lids to Save Lives®.

While we considered a number of formats for our program designed to support breast cancer treatment, education and research, we ultimately selected the Save Lids to Save Lives® program for the unique partnership opportunity it offered and for the potential it had to raise awareness. Because we believe that breast cancer has powerful implications for all of us, we wanted to craft a program that would allow our consumers to take an active role in combating this terrible disease by collecting and submitting the pink lids.

More information about the Susan G. Komen For the Cure is available by calling 1-800-IM AWARE (800.462.9273) or by accessing the Susan G. Komen For the Cure website at www.komen.org.

Again, we appreciate your comments about the Save Lids to Save Lives® program. We hope you will feel free to contact us in the future with any comments or concerns you may have regarding Yoplait.

Sincerely,

Rhonda Short
Consumer Services

Does Yoplait truly want to help fight breast cancer? I have my doubts.

2009-10-06T07:07:00.000-07:00

Yoplait Yogurt has this program that for every lid sent back from a container of yogurt they will donate 10 cents to breast cancer research up to $1.5 million. Sounds great but why do they not just donate 10 cent for every container sold? Why use the cost of mailing and the added green house gases from sending the lids and the poisons from the papermill that made the envelope to send them in? Is there some sort of ulterior motive such as reusing the lids to save them money a possibility? 10 cents off a container is quite a gross margin hit.

I would bet most people don't bother. So is the purpose then to gain positive PR while hoping to not have to donate the maximum of $1.5 million they state they will donate? They can then use the 'lazy consumer' as the reason that number wasn't met? I personally think a better bargain could struck with consumers that actually makes sense. If Yoplait really wanted great PR, to truly fight breast cancer, and to reduce environmental impact, wouldn't a special code that when entered online to the charity directly with Yoplait matching all donations up to $1.5 million be much better and more lucrative for the charity?

Twitter and Facebook just hit with body blow

2009-10-01T06:10:00.000-07:00

Article from Ad Week

I have written plenty about Facebook and Twitter being over hyped. Not the technology, just the business model of using social media behavioral targeting for advertising. I think they are stellar technology companies and should be charging for the service just like a Skype or Google Voice or an I Phone App.

Report from Social Science Research Network

This report adds power to TV/Cable who at least can prove their demographics that watch each show. People are ok being semi-targeted but if you start using social media conversations to serve ads your running into privacy concerns. Think Bush's NSA eavesdropping on peoples phone calls. Remember we got rid of a king in 1776. We don't want one back. Remember McCarthyism and how we rebelled against that. Advertisers for some reason feel they have the right to invade people's lives no matter where they are and this view is wrong. When it is done in classy, unintrusive, or at least transparent ways people do find value in discovering new products, being given discounts or free schwag, and staying current with pop culture.

But advertising done wrong is offensive. So the idea from Twitter about people who Tweet having their location exposed to businesses seeking to reach them scares consumers. It is why Beacon from Facebook was such a disaster. It is also why SEO is so successful. That is classy BT! Your looking for something online and Google or Bing serves up possible vendors but not by being in your face. It is why Social Media is great for listening at what is being said and participating in conversations because that is seen as Altruistic vs throwing branding in their face. Think that every time someone Tweets the word Coke that every beverage maker in the US wants to send an Ad to that person saying try my drink that is not Coke. Or here is a coupon. Can you imagine the volume you would get? And if Twitter limits the Ad Serve to the highest bidder that doesn't serve the consumer because it isn't presenting all the choices.

Point of Sale will always reign King, Queen, Jack and Ace when it comes to decision making and presenting options and enticements. Not mobile or online BT.

Exactly my point on Privacy Issues regarding Social Media

2009-09-23T07:28:00.000-07:00

How do you feel about the loss of privacy that comes from sharing information commercially?

I am selective about what information I give out and to whom.	56.28%
On principle, I don't give out personal information for commercial use.	40.62%
My life is an open book. I'm not at all reluctant to share information.	3.10%

Wary consumers: Of the 1,462 readers who voted, 97% are still guarded about the information they'll share commercially. If private information is as readily available as we're told, perhaps their strategy is to stay off the radar and avoid becoming a target. But with so much of the focus on issues like identity theft, we've already rewritten our definitions of privacy. --Eva Schmatz, president, Summus Limited

The above study by Summus Limited proves my point. Consumers do not realize that when they enter an SMS Campaign (especially a loyalty program for recurring contact) that they are giving away their phone numbers. And when Brands and Agencies promote behavioral targeting of people by listening to conversations on Social Networks and then serving them 'relevant' push advertising, this is going to upset a lot of people. The last thing I want is people revolted by Social Networks or Mobile Marketing because of privacy concerns.

Bud Lite the Good the Dumb and the Stupid

2009-09-19T07:58:00.000-07:00

Just needed to comment briefly on the new Bud Lite commercials. First the Good.The Grooler is ingenious. As a combo of a double cooler and grill all sporting Bud Lite logos (and sold out BTW) I have to give high praise to the creators of this product. The number of impressions these will give at tailgates everywhere is awesome. Won't make me ever buy Bud Lite (I drink only good beer) but if I had one, I would use it...even if filled with Stella, Sam Adams, Pacifico, Becks etc it will still generate impressions!

Now the Dumb. The Foozie which is a combo foam We Are Number 1 Finger and Coozie. Idea sounds good. But ergonomically it is a tragedy. It is the dumbest combo you could create. Just think your team scores a TD and you immediate throw up the Foozie...and immediately douse your neighbor with beer or soda. I will guarantee these wind up in someones closet after one use and never used again. There is only utility inside a sports stadium, park, or arena (or at a local game). No one will ever bring it the beach or use it in their back yard or even when in front of their TV. So the verdict is few impressions and a high probability of starting a fist fight (of course the Foozie owner will lose because one hand is stuck in the Foozie while the neighbor has two fists ready to go.

Now the Stupid. Why do all Alcoholic Beverage Sites force you to enter a birthdate? This does NOTHING to prevent underager's unless they are really dumb from entering the site. Nothing stops a 12 year old from entering in a fake birthdate so why even have it required? I understand it saves brands from lawsuits but the law is dumb and does nothing. Same with porn sites. Nothing except parental control software stops someone too young from entering a site and for a parent or adult or organization to sue someone over this, while full knowing this is a personal responsibility issue is a travesty.

Social Media Listening

2009-09-15T05:44:00.000-07:00

Social Media ‘listening’ should be a part of every company’s strategy to get feedback and learn how to improve their products and services. And to offer a quick and easy web presence folks can address you at. And this is all FREE! It also provides easy ways to conduct conversations with your customers in a non-sterile comfortable manner. people are much more likely to let their honesty hang out than if they were in person at a focus group. People inherently don't like offending other people even if it means telling the truth, when the other person is right there in front of them.

BUT Social Media is not a viable advertising platform because people find the networks private, kind of like walking into someone’s home so they don’t want to be intruded on. How you feel walking down the street chatting with your friend and every time you mention a word that relates to a product an Ad gets pumped in your face? That is what Facebook dreams of.

So as much behavioral information a Facebook or Twitter has at their finger tips, people do not wants Ad’s cluttering their conversations, and the high level of clutter makes it really hard for a Brand or Business to even get their information read. Much better channels for advertising than social media as it exists today.

Mobile Marketing Anonymity

2009-09-14T07:21:00.000-07:00

I might not be a proponent of Mobile Web advertising such as banner ads (annoying push advertising that takes up precious screen space). But there is a HUGE advantage mobile web has over SMS Campaigns. Anonymity. Consumer's have not caught on yet, but they will when a brand breaks the covenant with consumers, but when you send a call action US Shortcode (Text Number) you are sending your phone number with it. There is no rules against a Brand or Agency using your number in the future to contact you. Technically by giving your number in an SMS campaign it is very possible the Do Not Call Registry does not apply since you gave the number blindly by signing up for future promotions.

Mobile Web si different. You are accessing the WWW via a IP point. So your direct phone number is not being transferred every time you access a mobile web site. And when Mobile Web Ad Blocking Software get's developed you will be able to download an APP to block banner Ads.

I truly feel that SMS is superior for Mobile Marketing for two specific areas: Immediate gratification with a coupon or free offer. Or using SMS as a launch pad to your Mobile Website Content. These are very measurable, tasteful, and unintrusive. These are call to actions that are permissive and thus truly powerful for Consumer Engagement.

There also should be plainly written expectations on a website to explain policies to consumers that if they send the SMS Shortcode a brand is not taking advantage and adding their phone number to a database unawares. If you ask people if they would give out their phone number to a brand most would say "Why, What for, or No!". If you ask them if they are aware they are giving out their phone number when sending an SMS Code the answer would most likely be they didn't realize this.

The Twitter Test should Brands truly be using Twitter to advertise

2009-09-11T06:29:00.000-07:00

Anyone who reads my posts here or in the Advertising Trade Journals knows I am not an advocate of Twitter as an Advertising Medium. Ad Age gives 5 new people in the Industry to follow each week. So I decided to prove my thesis about the clutter and use of this medium. I am currently following 15 tweeters, some are industry people and some are news sources like Rolling Stone, Vogue, Silicon Insider etc and one is a friend of mine.

Just from these 15 tweeters I have been seeing over 100 tweets per day. I am going to add a few a day that are brands and see how this volume magnifies. Because while I browse through the list of tweets most I don't have time to read because I have my own personal email, Facebook, and my work email to deal with! Never mind private SMS texts I get from friends.

I will update this are progress is made.

But my three basic premises here are:

1] there is a critical size of tweeters that once your following that many there is no way you can see each tweet, which means brands must increase the number of tweets hoping to get through compounding this problem.

2] The re-tweeting measurement is interesting. It is possible that many people all connected and following each other could wind up re-tweeting the same exact tweet/webpage/article within the group driving up this measurement yet not actually expanding who is seeing the message! So there is major flaws in this measurement number 1, and number 2 there is no proof a tweet is seen so tweet broadcasts are measurable but tweet views/reads are not (not sure if twitter can measure a click through to an article I am investigating). So the volume of tweets is not a true measurement of volume of people seeing something or of news getting around. But trust me whomever has the position of 'Social Media Administrator' is not going to be honest about this to their boss because they need to justify their paycheck!

Also I am curious when the Tweetbots will be developed. Studies have shown that 17% of all Click Throughs for Web Advertising are not people but Webbots created to rack up money for whomever gets paid for the clicks. And since another study has shown that 85% of click throughs are done by less than 20% of clickers (meaning less than 1 of 5 people are heavy clickers and the other 80% barely click at all) compound with the Webbots we have a Web Advertising measurement problem.....but I will address this in another post.

3] So I am not a complete twitter basher the idea of a portable broadcast like the front page of Facebook (which is EXACTLY the same btw except without the 140 character minimum) is handy to me if I followed ONLY my friends/family. Though I can see problems tweeting 'I am at a bar come meet me' and forget people you wish not to know this are following you (and you have no control who follows you!)

I am a proponent of having Twitter and Social Networks monitored as a way to increase customer service, hearing what your customers are saying, and then responding to them. The real struggle is even if you have direct emails response is still a challenge to get through all the email clutter. I feel the best way for Brands to connect is in ways that a consumer is actually waiting and looking for a response. If you can work out how to do this successfully, a brand had better not keep the people waiting!

Wearing two hats: Sage Advice for Agencies

2009-09-08T08:07:00.000-07:00

This Ad Age post sums up what a Marketing Sensei is:

Wearing Two Hats: What I learned as Marketing Director

Mobile Strategy vs Mobile Marketing Strategy

2009-09-08T05:59:00.000-07:00

Domino's Mobile Success from Mobilemarketer.com

Too many people/news stories confuse the two concepts. This is a great article which I commented about on the bottom. It has two components for Domino's. The first is a wonderful success story for Mobile Strategy, the second is their Mobile Marketing Strategy which I personally find the incorrect way to handle mobile marketing.

Mobile Strategy should be using mobile technology to enhance your business, whether that be providing information to helping create a sale from anywhere. Once a consumer knows for instance that they can order a Domino's or Pizza Hut pizza with a few clicks on their Smart Phone this can help migrate people from calling up for a pizza. This reduces costs, and increases profits, and hopefully the ease of use helps create loyalty. Though taste and price points also are an issue. For most New Yorker's even an ease of ordering and low price are not enough to order from a chain Pizza Company since the taste is so sub par vs a real NY Pizza. The way Domino's created their mobile web site and ordering system in my view is a major Mobile Strategy Success Story.

Now let's take mobile marketing. How does Domino's use mobile to market their products to initiate a sale? Now that is a big challenge. Domino's feels bugging people at 4:30pm after the consumer 'opt's in' to be communicated with, or a banner ad on the 10 most viewed mobile sites is the way to go. Pizza Hut feels an 'opt in' program to win a free pizza each month is another way to go.

The challenge here is the small viewing space allows limited information to be presented for banner ads. And if you cannibalize even 10% of that viewing space you risk pissing off consumers even if they like your brand. And this is push advertising that the consumer did not ask for. It is my view that someone's mobile device is like their bedroom. Push is bad in the bedroom!
Of course once someone tries out the Domino's or Pizza Hut site and bookmarks it there is not need to informational contact with the consumer stating you can order via mobile web.

As for the loyalty programs where someone sends an SMS Text to be signed up for future communication, just like tweets this will cause clutter in people's inboxes once they sign up for many of these programs just like what has happened with email. You get drowned out in the volume of businesses trying to reach someone. And after the initial sign up this is Push Advertising not Opt In. And another key point which people do not realize, when they send the SMS Text they send their phone number. This can be dangerous if the number get's sold to other parties. So until there is a way to send your Opt In without showing your phone number this is an issue. Ask anyone if they want to give their number to Domino's or Pepsi my guess is most would say no.

So how do you get people to try your product or service by using mobile marketing properly in a classy non-intrusive manner? It is called bribery. And it is going to cost you something. But that should be ok since if you get a consumer to send an SMS Text or go directly to your mobile web site this is 100% measurable. This isn't guess work like TV, Print, Billboards etc. This is the real deal. They actually took initiative to engage with you. Willingly. Permissively. There is very few advertising/media methods that can claim this. So offer a coupon, something free, or something ridiculously cool (like a mobile web content treat). It will earn you much more loyalty and improve your relationship with the consumer than any other form of marketing. And use your existing media plan to achieve this. No need to use Mobile to reach out. You are already advertising Out of Home, TV/Cable, Print etc. Ask the consumer to use their phone to get the reward. This will allow a much more real anytime, anywhere engagement than anything else in your arsenal.

Views on Social Media

2009-08-29T09:16:00.000-07:00

There was an interesting blog posting on Media post about measuring social media.

Five Ways To Measure Social Media

The intro was great because it rehashes some of advertisers challenges. I put some comments on the post regarding my view of utilizing social media. I truly feel getting people to send your message via word of mouth is important if you can achieve that. Actually advertising via this media channel I feel is going to be more than fruitless for most campaigns.

Google and Twitter the evil side of Mobile Marketing

2009-08-21T10:42:00.000-07:00

It is my position that my phone is a sacred place. I will deal with mobile web advertising that is similar to traditional web. Though eventually their will be Ad Blocking technology. Mobile Advertising should be classy and valuable and Opt-In always. But Google via Android and Twitter are developing location based and behavioral targeting ad serving to invade your phone. Eric Schmidt mentioned in a Business Week interview:

What are the biggest challenges the mobile Web presents?
Let's start with the fact that the phones are not fast, the networks are not as capable, the ad formats are not standardized. But on the other hand it's very, very important to solve those problems because a phone is very personal. And so if we know a fair amount about a person, with their permission we can target a useful ad—you know, "It's Eric. You had a hamburger yesterday, do you want pizza today? There's a pizza store on the right." That kind of ad is likely worth a lot of money to an advertiser because it will generate a sale.

In other words, you send a message to the person's cell phone, saying: "Look, we know you had a burger yesterday. If you want pizza today, just go around the block"?
Right. It may sound creepy, but it might also be quite valuable. People could use advice as to what to eat and where the food is—and of course you can turn it off. So the important thing here is advertising that has value to the person is advertising that is a valuable business. That's the business we're in.

The Marketing Sensei wants to know how Google plans this as an Opt-In service vs Push Technology. And how do they know I had a hamburger? BTW this little exchange proves Mr. Schmidt doesn't really know Mobile.

Now Twitter is planning to make public your Tweet location.

From Marketing Vox:

Twitter is preparing to add an additional detail to each and every tweet published by its users: location, according to co-founder Biz Stone on the Twitter Blog.

"A new API will allow developers to add latitude and longitude to any tweet," wrote Stone, adding that with "accurate, tweet-level data" you can immediately toggle to the tweets from users in your neighborhood or city — even if you do not follow them. It would also be of use to Twitterers at events "like a concert or even something more dramatic like an earthquake."

"A small business on Twitter could potentially use the location feature to reach out to local customers, or a Twitter user hungry for pizza could search for nearby pizza joints offering specials," The New York Times speculated.

The question the Marketing Sensei has is if I turn on this feature does that open the flood gates that enables all local businesses to see me and spam me? Do I really want to be located?

Let's break down the last point from the New York Times:

A small business owner will be able to broadcast tweet to all people with this service turned on that are within a certain radius! Basically every store/restaurant can do this flooding your phone!

Now the second part. Why would I use twitter to find Pizza? if I have mobile web I can instantly go to City Search or the Yellow Pages just as easy!

So where is the unique value?

Only following 19 on Twitter and clutter just ruined the experience

2009-08-19T03:48:00.000-07:00

I am new to Twitter. I signed up 3 months back and only recently have I started using it in even a minimal way. I had quite a few people following me who I was not following so I returned the favor. One was a music label and I log in and bam...my whole front page is 100% an update every 5 minutes what music this person is playing. ARGHHHHHHHH!

Now imagine if that was from a Brand? OMG I would become the biggest terrorist against that Brand instantly. Even though initially I signed up to follow willingly and permissively.

Social Networking and the big lie

2009-08-16T07:20:00.000-07:00

I started with Friendster and Tribe.net. Then Myspace was the rage. Now Facebook. And even more current Twitter is the newest in new. With all these services the same thing occurs over time. Clutter Creep. Initially it was great reconnecting with friends on Facebook. Or connecting on Myspace (I am into music). But over time when you finally have enough 'friends' you can not keep up with everyone. My old High School friends? Rarely ever see even a post from them on my front page since the initial 'Hey how have you been exchange'. And while Brands, Musicians, etc think this is a great medium to broadcast updates and news, most gets buried in the clutter. Normally I log in check my email....and just like with standard email I delete 90% of the broadcast updates without opening them. And to reach me me through updating what you are up too....if your not on my front page when I log in...I will never see it. I never check my wall so I never see anyone who is posting to my own updates.

Clutter Clutter Clutter!

And thus is the reason why Advertising is a failure on Social Networks.

In my opinion the true value of a Social Network for a brand is to reach the people outside of the network not inside...but to use the information from inside to help narrow who you send your advertising too.

Think of this scenario. Coke wants to launch a loyalty campaign. So they send a message to all their fans on Facebook. Well as I just mentioned since all the broadcasts to my email are ones I opt in for and each possibly important or of value. The fact is if I have 200 of them to go over 90% get deleted without opening. What about just posting on their fan page? Well I am fans of a lot of things but I also never go to any of those fan pages, or have so many I don't have the time. This is not a dilemma. This just means Social Networks are not a great medium to use (though they are CHEAP!).

As for damage control from attack campaigns. Well is this different than email? Not really. In reality the big worry should be search. Coke does not want someone to Bing 'Coke' and have all these anti-coke blogs pop up first. I personally do not think Social Networks are all that more powerful than TV or Blogs or even a bad write up in Consumer Reports.

The other big deficiency in Facebook is the lack of a true profile page. Their set up is very weak. It is not an information service it is a communication service.

And Brands need to understand they are already inundating us with Advertising everywhere. On TV, Radio, out of your home driving around, in stores, in print etc. So why they feel they have to intrude on every single personal space we have to be successful is because Agency's are snowing them into thinking this is the way. But really it only enriches the Agency's.

Google isn't a tech company...it is a Media-Advertising Agency

2009-08-16T07:13:00.000-07:00

There has been many articles in the Business News about Google and Apple competing in more and more ways. Well the answer is yes and no. Apple creates products for people. Gadgets and computers and phones. From these gadgets they make money selling software and digital products such as apps, music, etc.

Google is a Media/Advertising Business. They create applications that enable them to make money from Brands seeking to advertise. They have their own Digital Ad Server Business and their search engine is specifically for Advertising revenue.

So in reality Google is closer to a WPP, Omnicon, New York Times or Yahoo than they are to an Apple or Sony.

Recently Eric Schmidt has mentioned the reason for Android is so that Google will eventually be able to serve ads to your phone using behavioral targeting. Google also created the Chrome browser. Why? Because Firefox has Ad Blocking Software so it impacts Google's revenues (not for search BTW). And while Chrome might be promoted to 'improve' your browsing experience, it ensures all Ads Served reach your browser.

Now they are working on Chrome O/S which I am sure will be tightly tied to help behavioral target and serve even more Ads to your desktop or Laptop.

Apple makes their money selling products. Google makes their money selling Advertising. So technically in my view they do not compete.

Mobile can bite you in the arse!

2009-08-14T15:42:00.000-07:00

As I am pouring through way too many back logged Industry Trade Emails with so many ideas swimming in my head I realized how helpful or damaging the mobile web can be on people's smart phones to their retail business. The technology isn't there yet....but it will be.

Imagine going to Sears and looking for a new Dishwasher. Your budget is $600. Your decide while in the store to do on the spot research comparing 3 brands and 4 models. Specifically to see if Consumer Reports have given a thumbs up as well as any social network recommendations.

You decide that Brand X's Model 1234 is perfect.

Wow....Sears didn't even need sales person to help you with your decision.

Now the three horror film scenarios for retailers.

1] Because your doing research on Dishwashers the behavioral targeting software for the ad server alerts all the stores that use the ad server that your potentially ready to buy. And your phone starts seeing offers from competing retailers.....where you click through to compare prices real time. And you find the same model down the street for $500 and Sears who has you in their store will have to lower their price or lose the sale.

2] You immediately go to Google/Bing and punch in Brand X and the model and a list of all prices come up for this Dishwasher that also includes total price including shipping and you find a retailer out of the area but for the total cost for $550 and you show the salesperson at Sears and demand the lower price.

3] You immediately go to the 'IAuction' I Phone App software. You enter in the brand and model and a real time auction takes place between all the retailers carrying the Dishwasher with the lowest price winning the sale.

Even worse.....Imagine going to Nordstrom's and trying on clothes. And immediately putting out to bid the exact same ones, you place the order with Macy's and say thank you to Nordstrom for letting you try on their clothes, but sorry they lost the bid.

Perfect Ad Perfect Content Perfect Placement

2009-08-12T07:01:00.000-07:00

So recently I was walking around NYC observing advertising content and placement. The true problem with out of home advertising is it is impossible for one person or even a small group to physically choose where their signs and billboards they rent are in relation to reality. Though Google Street View can help. But just imagine trying to make an out of home buy in NYC. How many signs and locations there are, and coordinating the actual installation of the ads!

So even a massive media buyer has to rely on small fry to get all this work done at a reasonable cost and timing.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I am a cynic. I truly feel that certain locations are very effective to get your message out. But this one was the winner.

Dr. Scholl's ad for the gel inserts. Placed outside a bus stop on 3rd Ave that is seen by anyone who just walked up the gradual hill heading south. Anyone who has spent time walking NYC know that your joints and feet ache after pounding the concrete...and that pain starts sooner and hurts more as you get older. So as I am returning from a long walk to a book store and having jogged central park in the AM....just as I am burnt and feeling the pain....there is the Dr. Scholl's Ad!

Nearby there was an Ad for America's Next Model which is great for their narrow demographic (wasted money to have me included in the CPM), the Dr. Scholls really reaches it full demographic which is anyone who has walked up the hill and feels their feet could use some loving!

That being said....I will guess the actual choosing of that window was probably random from a map of all available properties in the city at the time of the buy.

Irrationality

2009-07-24T12:01:00.000-07:00

Behavioral Economics stresses that Human's often act irrationally. This is the bane of Advertising and Marketing. It causes people to buy things on impulse that they shouldn't buy and thus have buyers regret. And it also prevents people from buying things they should buy out of fear of change.

And the worst of all scenarios someone who resists trying something (major acquisition cost!), and then finally gives in and has buyers remorse.

As much as I read behavioral studies on how people act in general, you still can't guarantee people will act as expected. It is what makes like unique and wonderful, but it also adds significant cost to consumer retailers and businesses.

Think of the Supermarket Discount Loyalty Cards. Your data shows that Mrs. Jones comes in once a week and buys a Dark Chocolate Bar. Murphy's Law and Behavioral Economics will show that stocking the bar specifically for Mrs. Jone will most likely be the right choice. But 5 weeks of the year she buys White Chocolate with Almonds!

Think of all the gun and ammo manufacturers who ramped up production because of the buying spree of guns prior to Obama coming to office (irrationality to the extreme). Now they have over stock because the same paranoid people realized they were foolish and sales dropped! So irrational behavior did a double hit on the gun makers. They failed to meet unexpected demand. Then the demand died just when they ramped up!

Do not patronize your target audience!

2009-07-21T09:56:00.000-07:00

Most marketers stick to simple ways of product promotion. When it comes to young adults often marketers try to show their product is hip, just like their audience. But sometimes this effort will actually offend your target by showing not only are you not in touch with what they are about, but they know it is some 'old person' just trying to make some money off them.

I wish to highlight two brands who do this right. And one that failed miserably.

The best example of doing it right is Mountain Dew. They know who buys their product. And because of this they sponsor Extreme Sports events. They are synonymous with the edgy fun young adult. This gives the Dew hipster credibility.

A more recent campaign is the 79 89 99 commercials from taco bell. They show funky young adults with a hip hop/street attitude. It is a fun commercial with music and focused on 'we know you want more food for less money'.

Now the flat out failure. This campaign even offends me and I am 41!

Motorola! The last thing this company needs is to alienate the youth from it's new cell phones. The intent is great the message is abominable. They have a print campaign in Rolling Stone to show off the A455 phone which is a cool looking device and specifically geared to text messaging. The problem is they don't know their audience. Yes the 3 models look kind of cool 18ish year olds. But the narrative is ridiculous. One is texting while at the concert gate. One is jumping a fence...uhm what fence? And you can not text while you are jumping a fence! And the last one which is most offensive is the girl 'on the glow stick line'. Obviously the creators have never been to a rave or techno party. First off there are no gates at most events that have glow sticks. Secondly Bush passed the Rave law preventing glow stick sales at public events. And if anything they will bring their own glow sticks!!!!!

Maybe Moto should stick with being what they do best. A provider of solid electronic communication gear for adults and industry.

When Opt-In Content Becomes Spam...Email, Facebook, Twitter...

2009-07-16T06:09:00.000-07:00

Today everyone is bombarded with media spam and clutter in our every day life. Walk or drive and you see billboards and company's advertising on their buildings/storefronts. Advertising is now in gas stations and the supermarkets. Even the men's room of bars have advertising!

Many brands, organizations and businesses use email and social networking with Opt-In programs thinking that these are superior to the traditional methods of Push Advertising. But in reality this is true only in the beginning. Eventually all those Opt-In methods become spam to consumers.

When the volume of Opt-In subscriptions reaches a point where they become clutter then your program loses it's effectiveness.

For example the front page of Facebook and Twitter shows a stream of events in time. Your friends/contacts/followers post information about current happenings that can be viewed by a consumer. But people don't crawl through the whole volume of postings once those postings become hard to follow due to volume. If you have 200 every time you log in then those posts drown each other out.

Same for email. I have a personal account that I have signed up for emails from Brands/Stores, News Providers, Sports Teams, Non-Profits Orgs, Political Groups, and Social/Lifestyle Events as well as friends contacting me. Today of my first 100 I combed through I deleted 93 of them without reading or opening them. Every single one of those 93 were Opt-In by me.

Yet when the CEO asks the CMO to review their marketing channels/programs the CMO will claim me in their tallies for the various Opt-In channels I subscribed too (from Cable TV to email) and the CMO will claim they reached me...yet that would be a lie.

The point of this post isn't to specifically offer a solution as much to be aware that Brands must get creative if they want to ensure they stand out. This goes beyond crafting a message or an image. It goes to the heart of Advertising and why CMO's have such high turnover. Specifically how you prove your value and your budgets value to the CEO! And to be fair sometimes the CMO or Agency is successful in their general mission yet are considered failures by the CEO. Other times the product or service is so good that no matter what the CMO or Agency does, they are a successful and take credit.

It is best to figure out a media plan that will increase the quality vs the quanitity of impressions/contact with the consumer. People will get your message out for you if you do a good job. Media plans should incorporate as much pay for performance as possible that is measurable/trackable.

Everyone looks after their own best interest. Your Agencies and Marketing Departments for years have relied on fuzzy math and logic to ensure you keep spending your ad dollars no matter what happens. Often with little proof of accomplishment. Some branding efforts will never be able to be truly measured.

Some image building programs will be done less with regard to increasing sales as much as supporting the demands of the brand. Think of a Rolex Bill Board or Panel Ad in an Airport. They know most of the people viewing the ads can never afford their watches but they need to present themselves to the common person so that the elite will feel special when they buy a Rolex. So these programs should not end, but brands should break out of their media budget the actual dollars they wish to allocate to actually bringing in sales and figure out how to maximize the return on those invested dollars vs. using the dart board/shot gun/me too-follow what everyone is doing approach.

How legacy infrastructure can negate marketing and features

2009-04-28T06:33:00.000-07:00

This one is just a short whimsical observation. The advent of flat screen TV's ended the need for the same type of entertainment centers for the home. Yet millions of homes have these as either stand alone's or wall built. My folks have been talking about replacing their TV in the living room with a flat screen HDTV. My father measured the space. Only one Brand, Sharp, can offer a 42" screen size to fit that space. So instead of Brand Name, Quality, Features, or Price...it seems luck is how Sharp will win this sale.

Individual Irrationality

2009-04-24T07:57:00.000-07:00

I was recently exposed to Personality Typology. I instantly found a parallel with Advertising in trying to determine how people generally behave. And if a marketer can predict certain behaviors to a large enough degree it should be able to tailor products and marketing styles to be successful.

But I am always reminded that individuals do not always behave as predicted. There is a large enough percentage of sales from irrationality and pure luck to prove this. These are impulse sales for right place, right time, right price. You are on a business trip and the restaurant for dinner is two blocks from your hotel, the menu prices were within your per diem budget, and you don't have to wait to be seated.

Brands can capitalize of Individual Rationality by creating Ad Campaigns that promote it. Luxury Brands and Upscale Services can benefit when people splurge even when they shouldn't due to their lack of spending power. The object though is to figure out the right channel for the right price. Why waste your Ad Dollars on fringe sales. But a campaign message can be crafted for the Advertising done on more Mass Channels such as local publications. If your forced to make a Media Buy just to support your Presence in people's minds use the opportunity wisely. And yes every Media Buy is an Opportunity and should be viewed as such.

The Danger of Brands Launching Celebrity Products

2009-04-10T09:06:00.000-07:00

The safe way to market your products is through celebrity endorsements. This is when Brands sign up a celebrity representative who will use/wear the products and be involved in the Advertising and Media Campaigns. If a Celebrity does something negative you can always end the relationship. Usually just the announcement of severing ties is enough to mend the damage to the association with your brand. On occasion this will backfire. Kellogs recently severed ties with Michael Phelps over the photo of him using marijuana where quite a few people vocally called for boycotts of Kellogs products. But usually it is just the celebrity who becomes damaged.

But when a Brand actually develops a product with a Celebrity such as the Air Jordan sneaker a brand risks being left with a ton of inventory and a waste of resources developing the product that could of been used elsewhere.

Sometimes the celebrity can actually do nothing illegal yet a Brand can get left holding the bag. A great example is Nike just launched a Men's Sneaker co-developed with Kanye West who is a music entertainer in the Hip Hop Genre. The same week of the launch unwittingly to Nike, South Park a cartoon on Comedy Central had Kanye as the focus of an episode ridiculing him for not being heterosexual, for being vain and self focused, not very bright and that he has sex with fish.

It doesn't take everyone to watch the episode but word of mouth could damage the celebrity brand. Brand's beware!

Beware using Social Networks can harm more than help

2009-04-03T06:59:00.000-07:00

Brands need to be careful regarding the use of social networks to promote products and services. Most people do not want advertising or corporate intrusion into their social lives. I still can not understand why Brands or Advertising Agencies are pursuing this so hotly. It is very illogical.
Obviously the lure of social networking makes sense. But it only works in my opinion if you can have people themselves sharing with friends. NOT you pushing advertising.

Let me start with some perspective. Advertisers want your attention and eyeballs. So they follow your eyes. Their goal is to have products and service advertisements follow you everywhere. If they could blast ads to the back of your eyelids to view while sleeping the would. With so many eyeballs on Social Sites it is logical to want product placement or ad placement on those web pages. That is no different than buying the space behind home plate at a baseball stadium knowing everyone watching on TV will see your Ad behind the batter when he is being pitched too.

The deficiency of the Stadium Ad is that really you can show a product or a business name and not much else. On a Social Network like Myspace if you place a banner Ad you hope for a click through to your website. But the person on that social site could care less. They are there to socialize. They already see your ads everywhere. So in effect just like the baseball game the value on that web page is the same as the Ballpark. You can show the company name and whatever benefit you get from that is about all you can ask for. In fact the click through rate for Social Networks has been shown to be half the rate of regular non-social site web pages.

Now lets discuss a little recent history. The problem is clutter in peoples lives. Every Brand/Company has a web site. Most offer email updates for special offers, new products, promotions etc. Since you already have your Brand with national advertising and product exposure and your website address everywhere people can and will sign up for the email updates. But eventually when you sign up for so many of them a persons inbox and spam box get filled.

I myself receive a ton and I only read a small percentage of them because of the volume and the fact a person only cares when the subject is a right fit. An example is you begin planning a vacation and now you will start opening emails for travel companies.

So if all these tools are there for people and they still aren't using them like a Brand would like, you can't force yourself on people. It turns them off. People will wear designer gear and friends will see and want the stuff themselves. But they do not want advertising forced into their personal space. Try standing forehead to forehead with a stranger or even a friend. See what happens!

This gets me to Twitter. Twitter has some great attributes. But it can be a very bad place for advertisers. If I already sign up for email offers from a Brand and do not take advantage of most, or even view most why would I want Brand updates on Twitter on my computer or phone? It doesn't make sense. Nothing is that urgent!

Now where Twitter does make sense is such times as a product recall. Like the peanut butter or pistachio recalls to get the word out for people's safety. Or if I buy a new car and the dealer says they will send me reminders for service. Though SMS Texting works just as good. But do I want my phone filled with updates from Keebler that a new cookie is on sale this week at Safeway? No freaking way.

There is nothing wrong with Brands chasing eyeballs. But there is a wall/line of personal space that people do not want crossed. So say yes to Brand Champions online and off line. But I feel that forcing your way into someones personal space is the wrong way to go.

Engagement does not equal sales!

2009-04-01T08:00:00.000-07:00

Often the Advertising World discusses Consumer Engagement and how important it is. I think Brands need to take a step back from this assessment and think about what they are advertising, how they advertise, and who their target demographic is.

If you are launching a new product that is revolutionary and unique like when the I-Pod came out, you want consumers to interact and test the product. Whether that is online, in person, or if a friend has it. If your a beer company and your promoting Bud over Miller/Coors you want people who drink Miller/Coors to try Bud and hope they buy on taste not on price.

But the Marketing/Advertising people who come up with the Ad Campaigns like to use Engagement with the advertisement as a measurement of success for their campaigns. There is a ton of engaging advertising out there especially on TV that people love to watch but yet they will never buy the product for various reasons. I will not buy Bud/Miller/Coors because they are mass market bland beers with no taste. Yet I am engaged with all their ads and always watch them because they are hilarious. They even create positive views towards the makers of the product because I like that they entertain me.

So the marketers would claim success reaching me and engaging me and the sales folks will claim a failure because I bought zero product.

So the fact is if your product is mostly purchased based on price and not the actually product attributes stick with promoting your price points because no matter how much you engage people they will still buy your competitor if they are significantly lower in price.

The only way to trump at this is by spending money to go above and beyond to win loyalty. But they want something from you in return beyond your product. Like some schwag.

One Size Does Not Fill All

2009-03-30T07:56:00.000-07:00

As I scan the Advertising Landscape it becomes very clear that different brands and products have unique needs and attributes when determining what the components of a media plan should consist of. Coming from a Sales and Finance back ground long term growth in sales, profits, and market share should be the focus of a Brand's marketing efforts.

One of the reasons that the CMO has the shortest average tenure of C level jobs is the inability to present clear and concrete results based on the marketing budget dollars available. Every other business discipline is measurable in ways that can not be challenged.

So when the CMO and the Marketing Creators/Planners brainstorm for new ideas as well as utilize the available tools to market a Brand or Product there needs to be clear cut goals and a method to measure the Return on Investment.

A perfect example of Marketing trying to sell Upper Management on value and achievement without hard measurements is Viral You Tube Videos:

Ad Week March 30th Article

In the referencing article the benchmark being used by Marketers is number of Video/Ad views on You Tube and other sites. Sales, Finance, Operations will all want proof this success equals more sales and profits. Yet while the generated buzz and views might be free to the Brand, the effort and results might be wasted with zero increase in sales or profits.

Marketing has several aspects that all together hope to equal a cohesive funnel of customers towards the final purchase. Yet at the point of purchase many factors contribute to the decision including immediate ones such as price, availability etc.

A man might still buy Trojan Condoms over Lifestyles because the price points are significant enough to sway at the point of purchase. Guitar Hero has a limited audience who might want to purchase the product but an exponential amount of non-potential purchasers might find the video hilarious and forward it on.

Yet the CMO could very well tout the volume of views as equaling a successful marketing effort.

When a Brand has clear goals vs just being given a budget and a shotgun to blast that money all over, it becomes possible for Media Plans to show clear cut ROI that is measurable and proof of success vs failure. CMO's who can accomplish this will have much longer tenure than their more inept counterparts.

Welcome!

2009-03-12T07:13:00.000-07:00

This blog will focus on what is right and what is wrong in advertising and marketing. I will be commenting on developments in the world and the news as it relates to better principles and techniques to reach consumers and businesses. I will also include views on a wide array of products and services in relation to world at large. Stay tuned for more......