Thinking I may like the Fox summer line-up - just watched 'Glee' and it was good & I totally <3 "So You Think You Can Dance"
Avatar

Nicole DeRuiter

Vcard Download vCard   what is this?
Rss_icon

Recent Activity


Filter by:
All
  • Don't Leave Communication out of Marketing

    Graphic design, marketing, and communicating are three different things, but all too often they become substitutes for one another, both in language and in practice. This happens at every level of business, from the small entrepreneurial up-start all the way up to the Fortune 500 consumer brand giant. And the stakes are high. If you're starting a new enterprise with limited power for getting the word out and you blow the communication, it's all over. And if you're a multinational and you do the same thing, you're throwing millions of dollars down the toilet, or worse, creating negative effects for your brand that may cost you twice as much as what you're spending.

    In either case, you'd have been better off to keep your brand's mouth shut.

    I got most of my schooling in this area marketing social causes, where return on investment has to be measured with a kind of precision and persistence that makes consumer brand ad measurement look amateurish. Our company raised over half a billion dollars for various causes starting from scratch, with no donor lists, generating all of the interest through carefully crafted and targeted advertising. Here are some of the things I've learned over the years:


    1. Communication is king. There's one question and one question only: What are you trying to say? Everything, but everything else has to be in service of that — the media buys, the creative, the colors, the copy, all of it. It cannot be the other way around. You will never get the business result you want by putting something other than the communication first.

    2. If you don't want people to think of pink elephants, don't use pink elephants in your campaign. Many campaigns make the mistake of putting the thing they don't want you to think about front and center. There's a tragic American Express campaign out now that does exactly this. I've deduced, after way more deducing than any consumer's ever going to do, that Amex wants you to think about using your AmEx card for little things like toothpaste and gas (like you do Visa) and not to think of AmEx as the card you only pull out for luxury items. So what's their headline? "It's not just for vintage bubbly." They've used their whole headline to plant an image in your mind that's exactly the image they want to erase. What should the campaign have been? Gigantic picture of a jug of Tide detergent next to a gigantic picture of an AmEx card. Big tube of Crest next to the card. Big can of Pepsi next to the card. With no words, it would have completely rewired your brain. Instead, they strengthened the old wiring.

    3. Everything matters. In my many years of cycling, I've realized that there are a dozen things that contribute to your finishing time: your hydration, the food you're eating, the size of your tires, the weight of the bike, the height of the seat — they all work together to create a final result. Business communication is no different. In that AmEx campaign, not only is the headline bad, but the AmEx logo is tiny, as is the picture of the thing they want you to think about. (I thought the image was a bottle of champagne until my editor pointed out it's shampoo, which only underscores the point.) The three factors combined contribute to a massive failure of communication; like riding your bike dehydrated with a flat tire and a passenger on the back.

    4. A graphic designer is not a marketing department. I feel for entrepreneurs and small businesses headed by people who don't think they have marketing sense. They subordinate their own good intuition about what needs to be said to a designer who may be more interested in beauty and composition than in message. Be wary of copy written by a graphic designer who isn't in on the business strategy. Watch out for designers who prioritize graphics over copy, or who stylize copy to the point where it is no longer legible. A handwritten sign that says "Asparagus, 69 cents," communicates everything you need it to communicate. A bad graphic designer acting as CMO will take that and turn it into a collage of 10 different photos of asparagus with the price diminished to 8-point type, and the sign will no longer communicate anything.

    5. Distinguish yourself. The proliferation of inexpensive stock photography has contributed to the homogenization of brand looks and feels, especially for small and midsize firms. For example, law firm after law firm uses the same photo of a gavel or the same image of a bunch of smiling models dressed in business attire seated around a conference table. That's not going to distinguish your law firm. Chances are your team isn't made up of a bunch of people with model good looks. Chances are you have some folks who are really hard on the eyes. Much better to take the time to get some great photo-journalistic-style shots taken of the real people who make up the enterprise. People can smell inauthenticity, and stock photography reeks of it.

    The same goes for copy. Don't try to sound like every other competitor. Don't try to fit into your genre. Try to break out of it. Diesel has a great campaign out right now that really stands out from the endless designer-jeans billboards we've seen with pictures of half-naked men and women half-wearing the jeans. Diesel opted to break out of the pack with a new campaign that's not about your ass. It's about your soul. It's called, "Be stupid." One ad says "Smart listens to the head. Stupid listens to the heart." It has a photo of a skinny guy riding his bike with his purple-haired girlfriend in his arms giving him a smooch. Another says, "Smart critiques. Stupid creates." Through the campaign, you're challenged with a whole new ethos for living. So which website are you more likely to click on: The one that says "Check out how stupid Diesel is," or the one with the same old picture you've seen a thousand times?
    Bottom line: Don't confuse, conflate, or otherwise collapse communication, marketing, and graphic design. Be stupid. But don't be stupid.

  • Twitter Bans Sponsored Tweets, Saves Itself

    A few years ago my husband and I were browsing in our local bookstore when we got into a conversation with another couple. We hit it off, so we made a date to get together for dinner. We showed up at the restaurant to find the husband alone; instead of his wife, he carried a binder for the multilevel marketing scheme he hoped to introduce us to over dinner.

    I was reminded of that encounter when I read the news that Twitter has banned third party ad networks like Ad.ly, Sponsored Tweets and MyLikes. Like the multilevel marketer who used the pretence of friendship as a recruiting tool, these ad services are all about monetizing personal relationships.

    Each third party ad network offers a different spin on the same basic business model: you sign up as a sponsored tweeter, and based on the number of people who follow you, you are assigned a price for referring to various advertisers in your tweets. You select from a list of advertisers, and then tweet a link to that advertiser's product, either using your own text or a message that is provided by the advertiser. Your followers click the link, and you get paid.

    If you're preoccupied with the business of twitter, and the broad question of how to monetize status updates, perhaps ad networks like Ad.ly sound like a good idea. But these services violate the implicit agreement that a tweeter makes with his or her followers: you give me your attention, and I'll give you my perspective on the world. Not the perspective of MyShape (which advertises through MyLikes), Apple's Amazon store (on Sponsored Tweets) or NBC (Ad.ly).

    While some of the services have made an effort at ensuring that sponsored tweets come with an appropriate disclosure, that doesn't mitigate the corrosive impact of sponsored tweets on the trust that is essential to a successful social network. Unlike the ads you see on a personal blog or web site, sponsored social network updates are easily confused with authentic communication, even with disclosures attached. That's the whole point of sponsored tweet services: to varnish advertisements with the authenticity of being a personal recommendation from a friend.

    Compare that with the ads that many independent blogs display, often using Google's Adwords system, which are clearly separated from content and obviously commercial. Embedding ads in a communications medium that is purportedly an individual's personal voice is at best degrading, and at worst deceptive. Just imagine how you'd feel if your friends started dropping paid-for promotions into their personal emails:

    Dear Sarah,

    I'm so sorry to hear about the death of your spaniel, Goldie. I know how much you enjoyed walking together. If you're worried about getting out of shape now that Goldie is no longer with you, let me tell you about a great web site I just discovered: MyShape helps you buy only the clothes that fit and flatter. (Ad)

    That (ad) disclosure wouldn't diminish your horror at a friend who turned personal conversation into a marketing opportunity. So why should you accept embedded marketing in your friends' twitter feeds?

    Thanks to Twitter's announcement, you won't have to.

    Cynics will say that Twitter is banning third party ad services because they're the competition; that eliminating Ad.ly, Sponsored Tweets and the rest of their ilk is simply a way of hoarding all the ad revenues that could come from tweeted ads. Certainly, financial self-interest looks like the most likely driver of this decision.

    But a closer look at the differences between Twitter and its third party ad "competitors" shows how the network's self-interest may also be the best guarantee of its integrity. Unlike Ad.ly, Sponsored Tweets or MyLikes, Twitter's own "Promoted Tweets" service is based on authentic tweets, not commissioned updates. Advertisers choose to promote tweets that are already in the system, to give them greater visibility; they're not paying people to tweet in a specific way.

    If Twitter's own advertising system avoids the insincerity and spamminess that is intrinsic to sponsored tweeting services like Ad.ly and MyLikes, it's because only Twitter has the financial incentive to think not only about how to monetize tweets but about how to safeguard the Twitter ecosystem. As today's announcement notes, "third party ad networks are not necessarily looking to preserve the unique user experience Twitter has created. They may optimize for either market share or short-term revenue at the expense of the long-term health of the Twitter platform. For example, a third party ad network may seek to maximize ad impressions and click through rates even if it leads to a net decrease in Twitter use due to user dissatisfaction."

    Twitter's decision to ban these third-party services shouldn't be criticized as self-serving; it should be lauded as self-serving: serving the selfish goal of creating a social network that is authentic as possible.

    Authentic isn't the same as ad-free. And it's certainly not the same as annoyance-free. With or without sponsored tweets, there's plenty of junk on Twitter, and a tweet about iPad discounts is no more annoying than the tweets I read about puppies, breakfast cereals or Law & Order.

    But when my friends or colleagues annoy me with their tweets about ice sculpture, computer error messages and airport navigation, they are being authentically annoying. I'm following them not despite their annoying tweets, but because of them: because of the way that the ups and downs, trivialities and accomplishments add up to a picture of a full person, a real person, that I want to know better.

    By banning third party ad services, Twitter is preserving the social network so many of us have grown to love: a network that is more often trivial than profound, but where even the trivial can be trusted to be authentic.

    Alexandra Samuel provides insight and resources for working with social media on her blog at alexandrasamuel.com <http://alexandrasamuel.com> and on Twitter as awsamuel. She is the Director of the Social + Interactive Media Centre at Emily Carr University, and the co-founder of Social Signal, a Vancouver-based social media agency.

  • What Surprising Number Will Change Your Business?

    Numbers are the universal language of business. We use them to attract investors for our startup ideas, to win approval for product introductions, to make the case for expanding into new markets or entering new categories. In other words, numbers, when used well, tell a compelling story. So why is it that so many of the numbers we encounter in business — from endless Excel spreadsheets to bloodless calculations in business plans — make our eyes glaze over rather than set our minds racing?

    Earlier this week, I spent time with executives from DraftFCB, the advertising agency whose clients include Dockers, Miller Lite, and Honda. It was an impressive group of leaders, from offices around the world, who were thinking clearly, creatively, and ambitiously about the kind of organization they want to create — about how to build a fast-growing, high-performing agency in a fast-changing, high-pressure field.

    And, not surprisingly, these advertising executives had a real flair for language. They talked about the power of "calculated boldness" and urged each other to be "provocatively competent." Each of them offered his or her own simple aspiration for the agency, including these two, which were among my favorites: "To keep changing, but always stay the same"; and "That we all make our clients rich and our mothers proud."

    But what made the biggest impression on me about the DraftFCB meeting was how clever this group was about numbers. Sure, marketing and advertising is about big ideas — the winning pitch, the boffo campaign. But it is also very much about numbers: budgets, ratings, impressions, ROI. Which is why the agency and its leaders spend lots of time thinking about ways to get to "numbers that matter" — numbers that attract attention, shape perceptions, change minds. Which brings us to the search for what it calls the "Holy S#!t" Number, and why one piece of data may be worth a thousand words.

    Here are a few such numbers, identified in a workbook the agency developed to help account planners communicate more persuasively.

    • 70% of teens who abuse prescription drugs get them from home.
    • 80% of women plan to exclusively breastfeed; only 20% actually do.
    • We're in front of whiteboards 4 hours a day, but only use them for 4 minutes.
    • 80% of people age 45+ consider changing careers; only 6% actually do.

    Why do these numbers tell a story? Because they're simple and easy to understand. Because they're human and easily relatable. Because they surprise us, and/or capture the gap between intentions and actions. Indeed, on the agency's Web, each video of its work on behalf of a client comes with a piece of data that shaped the campaign.

    For Robert Harris Coffee Roasters: The average coffee drinker spends the equivalent of 11 days a year on coffee breaks. Robert Harris believes this is valuable fresh thinking time.

    For Sharpie: In a world where only 13% of communication is handwritten, we need all the help we can get to break through the technological clutter.

    For Dockers: Men's testosterone levels have dropped 17% percent in the last 20 years. 82% of jobs lost in the last year were by men. The new Dockers campaign is a call to inspire the masculinity in all men.

    Go figure. No, really, go figure! To figure out if you've arrived at a number that matters, the folks at DraftFCB argue, you have to ask, "Is it fit for human consumption? That is, it expressed in a way that others will not just be able to take in, but that will actually make them hungry to do something with it?"

    And how do you get to such numbers? DraftFCB suggests at least three simple strategies. Juxtapose: "Put related numbers together to create new information." Try different contexts: "What's the social angle? The green angle? Put it in terms of time, or length, or volume." Turn them over: "2% one way might not be as interesting as 98% the other way."

    However you choose to rethink your approach to numbers, it's an important way to address a huge missed opportunity. Business isn't just a battle of products and services. It's a battle of ideas about priorities, opportunities, values, and value. Ultimately, those competing ideas get reduced to competing numbers. So, if you can arrive at numbers that matter, you've got a better chance at winning the battle of ideas.

  • The Betterness Manifesto
    Shared by DwriteN
    I don't always agree with Umair Haque (often he pushes things too far the opposite direction in his quest for change), but this post is spot-on. Decide what you want to see in the world and then live that way!

    So you want to build a better 21st century. But how? That's what many of you have been asking me on Twitter and elsewhere.

    We can feel it, I suspect, most of us, deep in our gut. Bailouts, global debt crisis, fourth estate destroyed, nature ravaged, future stolen. Welcome to the roaring teens.
    Unless we do something about it, there won't be much of a tomorrow.

    Here's the score. The global economy faces a series of tectonic structural shifts. The great gears of this vast machine must be reset over the next decade. Consumption must fall. Savings must rise. Investment must be more productive. Incomes and wealth must be shared more broadly. Borrowing from tomorrow must slow. The rate at which we value the future must grow. Growth itself must be revitalized.

    Think of it as a great reboot of prosperity itself. How will it happen? Who will reset these great gears? Institutions are the "dials" that tune the gears, that set the rates. Exurbs, corporations, arms-length exchanges, industries, resources, "profit", and "GDP". All that's the stuff of the industrial era. Yet those are the institutions that still surround us today. A better kind of prosperity demands a new set of institutions. New kinds of cities, companies, communities, markets, capital, contracts, growth (to name just a few).

    It's up to each of us to build them. Want betterness? Betterness doesn't begin with Ben Bernanke, Lloyd Blankfein, or Anderson Cooper. It begins with you. Creating a better 21st century means choosing to stop living in the 20th century.

    So what can you do? Here are eight ways to kick start betterness:

    Invest. More specifically, stop investing in corporations that don't do good. Put your money where your mouth is and support companies that are, yes, profitable, but that profit by doing meaningful stuff that matters the most. Stop investing in bad, start investing in good. The key word here isn't good, it's investing: take an interest, engage, put your money to work for the long haul. Stop speculating by the Jim Cramer style nano-second.

    Allocate. It's a mystery why so many keep their money parked in big banks that bleed them dry through bailouts. Move your money to a better bank, a local bank, a community bank, a bank that hasn't needed a bailout, or a totally new kind of bank, like BankSimple. Switching costs are low and the benefits are clear.

    Cut. "Consume" less. Do you really need another pair of designer jeans, three soy mocha Frappuccinos a day, or a bigger TV? Really? Betterness happens not through naked, aggressive consumption of disposable, mass-produced stuff, but by learning to spend your hard-earned cash on smaller amounts of awesome stuff that's made with love, ethics, and passion.

    Work. You're worth something. Stop giving your talent away to organizations that misallocate it, underutilize it, and possibly even abuse it. If you're doing something meaningless, quit. Betterness can't happen if you're spending your life churning out toxic junk. It can only happen when more meaningful work is done. Find a company that's better. Better yet, start one. No, it's not easy. But here's the thing: over the next decade, the businesses that can't do better, the ones you're giving your talent away to, are to go extinct anyway. Cut the cord now, before the axe falls and cuts it for you.

    Live. If you're living somewhere meaningless, move. Exurban sprawl, mega-highways, big-box stores: that was the American Dream in the 20th century. In the 21st, it's closer to the awesome Richard Florida's dream of thriving, tightly-connected communities, that make up vibrant cities. Living somewhere where you're forced to, like it's groundhog day, hit the same old big, lame, toxic businesses, over and over again? Those places and spaces were built to support an industrial economy. Today, they're a barrier to letting it crumble and fall. Move somewhere where there's a local community made up of passionate, talented people, a community you can nurture and that nurtures you. It just might be good for your soul.

    Civilize. The Dark Mountain folks think the big problem in the world today is civilization and that we need to get radically uncivilized. I think the the opposite: we need to get re-civilized. We've forgotten what civics means. Join civil society. Become a volunteer. Mentor someone. Get involved with a local non-profit. Do something that has, in the parlance of economists, positive externalities: an activity that benefits others more than it benefits you. The basis of civilization is not naked self-interest, it's shared interest.

    Support. Support what you think matters. Want a thriving democracy? Buy a newspaper. Want haute couture? Stop buying fast fashion. Want green energy? Invest in going off-grid. Every choice you make with your money, time, and effort reflects your true support for betterness.

    Reflect. The 20th century was built never to allow room for reflection, only work. Take time out, no matter what. Pick a favourite place, a café, restaurant, park, or avenue. Hang out and reflect. What would betterness mean in your life? How are you helping betterness happen? How could you help betterness happen? Without time to reflect on those questions, and explore and refine your own answers, none of the above can happen.

    None of this is easy. And no, it won't magically create a paradise overnight, or possibly ever. These aren't the only paths to betterness, or even the best ones. This is just a blog post. Here's the point. It is only by accepting the hard truth of personal responsibility for yesterday that each of us can begin to create a better tomorrow.

    Institutions are emergent: born from the bottom up, they suddenly catch fire, and then transform the fabric of economies. It's through small changes massively distributed, like those above, that 21st century institutions are most likely to spark and ignite a great reboot. Call it a new American Dream. Its details aren't visible yet, but it's outline looms large. It's about a more meaningful prosperity, that matters in human terms, and it is institutions to support and nurture meaningful work, play, and living, that the 21st century demands.

    Real change doesn't begin with governments, presidents, or prime ministers. It begins with each of us. In the 20th century, never-ending mass-marketing, monopoly, and mega-politics came together to convince us, each and every one, that we're not really free: just free enough to choose between different flavors of the same old toxic junk. It was a trick, a ploy, a television hallucination. We're the freest people in history. It's time to use it like we meant it.

    Every revolution begins from the bottom up. Fed up with the status quo? Tired of the 20th century? Then don't just talk about it. Reject it and refuse it. Build a better 21st century instead.

    One of history's greatest builders once said: "be the change you want to see in the world". Let me update Gandhi's wisdom for the next decade. Want a revolution? Be the revolution you want to see in the world.

    Note: This is my opinion. You're more than welcome to disagree. If you'd like to, be polite and add to the discussion by letting us know why.

  • Hardly worth the effort

    In most fields, there's an awful lot of work put into the last ten percent of quality.

    Getting your golf score from 77 to 70 is far more difficult than getting it from 120 to 113 or even from 84 to 77.

    Answering the phone on the first ring costs twice as much as letting it go into the queue.

    Making pastries the way they do at a fancy restaurant is a lot more work than making brownies at home.

    Laying out the design of a page or a flyer so it looks like a pro did it takes about ten times as much work as merely using the template Microsoft builds in for free, and the message is almost the same...

    Except it's not. Of course not. The message is not the same.

    The last ten percent is the signal we look for, the way we communicate care and expertise and professionalism. If all you're doing is the standard amount, all you're going to get is the standard compensation. The hard part is the last ten percent, sure, or even the last one percent, but it's the hard part because everyone is busy doing the easy part already.

    The secret is to seek out the work that most people believe isn't worth the effort. That's what you get paid for.

  • Matrix: How Facebook’s ‘Community Pages’ and Privacy Changes Impact Brands
    Shared by DwriteN
    If you haven't read this yet, you should.

    This is one of those important posts to forward to your marketing team, agency partners, and to Facebook themselves.

    While there’s been plenty of coverage about user privacy concerns, attention on Facebook’s changes on brands hasn’t been adequately covered, this analysis is intended to unravel what’s at stake –and what brands should do.  I’ve spoken to a handful of brands and their representatives to learn what’s eating at them.

    Summary:  Facebook has quietly launched ‘Community Pages’ Hampering Brands
    Facebook has launched  several new policies and features since the F8 Conference ‘Crusade of Colonization’ which has resulted in a large backlash from media around user privacy.  It’s not clear if beyond the vocal media if users will leave the site in droves.  Perhaps more importantly,  Facebook launched “Facebook Community Pages” (read the official post) a feature that aggregates content from wikipedia and Facebook wall posts.  Think of it as a cross between Wikipedia with user comments –sometimes unwittingly.  These changes cause confusion for users, diminishing control for brands, and strains on the already torrid relationship between Facebook and brands.

    Motives: Facebook Must Go Open To Increase Monetization Inventory
    Facebook continues to leap ahead of their competitors in terms of innovation, however that often comes with risks to their community.  Here’s why they are making these moves:

    • At Facebook, Innovation Means Asking For Forgiveness Later. This is a pattern.  Facebook believes in their vision and launches innovative products (by innovation, I mean features others have not dared to do first) and then asks for forgiveness later.  They often move faster than their community is ready, from going for .edu to public, exposing wall posts features, to Beacon, they push forward in the name of innovation.
    • Aggregation is a Cheap and Effective Way of Creating New Content. It’s a brilliant model to repurpose existing content from other sites, as it’s low-cost for Facebook.  However, the downside is that content aggregated from Facebook members wall pages may not have been intended to be created as public.
    • Resulting in More Content Inventory for Advertising Opportunities. Facebook knows that in order to compete with massive Google, they need more content to be public. As a default, most features and content types are now being published in public, and you’re seeing why they’re aggregating existing Wikipedia content to drive up SEO and advertising revenue.  They must be open to win the end game of monetization.

    Matrix: How Facebook’s ‘Community Pages’ and Privacy Changes Impact Brands

    The Change Description Impacts to Brands What No One Tells You Community Pages In the spirit of Wikipedia, Facebook launched a feature that aggregates content from Wikipedia and public wall posts from users This has created confusion among users as many iterations of a single brand may spread from ‘official’ Facebook pages to now community pages. (see example from Arbor Day) Additionally, this causes angst among brands who were told to invest. Facebook struggles with being public, so their strategy is to aggregate the public web into Facebook. Yet expect brands to revaluate spending time and money in Facebook as trust has been broken. Aggregation of Wall Comments Content from users public wall posts may be aggregated to Community Pages.  However users may not: 1) Know the content is public, 2) It’s being aggregated out of context There are a few embarrassing examples of people’s content who are being aggregated such as “My Stupid Boss” as well as content being aggregated on Community Pages that are not contextually relevant. A search powerplay for Facebook. Facebook’s betting on more public content by aggregating existing content, which in the long run will influence brands to come to Facebook as SEO scores increase. Wikipedia Aggregation Wikipedia content about any topic (including that of a brand) is now being fed into Facebook Community Pages Less control for brands.  Brands already struggle with updating and keeping accurate their Wikipedia pages, now the content will be spread to more locations.  There appears to be a nod that Facebook will allow this content to someday be community edited. To be successful, brands must keep their Wikipedia pages fresh and accurate.  Expect savvy brands to ignite their advocates to manage this as Wikipedians have a general disdain against brands. Logo Usage Facebook Community Pages aggregate in corporate logos onto these webpages, often without brand content. These real logos may cause confusion for users as they could mistake Community Pages to be the official page over Facebook pages.   Legal department sending questions to the social strategist who’s not in control. Expect embarrassment and frustration for social strategists where the Community Pages have more followers than Facebook pages. Lack of Commenting Ability The Community Pages only aggregate content (some which is out of context) and do not allow for two way dialog in the form of comments Brands that have incorrect content on Community Pages, or brand detractors are not able to respond directly. This will cause frustration for brands as they try to respond into the aggregated wall post section from their own Facebook Page, causing continued confusion. User Privacy Woes There’s been much written (read the Q&A with a FB exec) about the privacy woes as more content is public, with complicated privacy toggles and controls. As users become frustrated (albeit, a small vocal amount), trust in Facebook will diminish, and brands will also lose interest in investing in Facebook. Although consumers say they care about privacy, but in most cases, don’t expect them to do anything about it until it impacts their personal lives. Communication With Brands These Facebook Community Pages (as I’m told) were not communicated in advance to brands, and they were generally caught off guard Partnerships are built off trust, and trust has been diminished by this recent move.  I’m told (but can’t confirm) that Facebook has generally responded in email and sent a link to a web form and answered a Q&A (Which I’ve read, but will not publish) to brands. Further degradation in trust as communication is not met both ways, brands will seek other opportunities.  Such as investing in community platforms on their own sites. Advertising Impacts More advertising inventory has been created by Facebook as Community Pages already have ads on them (once you’re logged in, see right nav). For brands that are not active in Facebook, they may see this as a “highjack” model in the recent criticisms of Squidoo, Get Satisfaction, and Wikipedia.  They’ll be forced to participate as communities rally around their community pages. The savvy brands are already active in Facebook, and those that are hesitant will continue to approach with caution (now that trust has been broken).  If Facebook continues with Community Pages, expect this increase in inventory to offer increased revenue streams.

    Facebook has Diminished Relationship with Brands
    For the last few years, Facebook has told brands to invest in their relationship through advertising, Facebook Pages, and connecting with brands –yet recent moves erode the relationship.

    • The Trend Continues: Power Shifts Away From Brands. Nothing new, more of the same: power continues to shift away from brands, read how some colleges are ‘freaking out’ by the lack of control. However what’s different is that in the past the ‘Groundswell’ as an unstoppable force from customers, brands weren’t expecting their power to be eroded from their media partner, Facebook.
    • Brands Frustrated As Community Pages Outnumber Official Page. Facebook must become more open, and expect community pages to continue to be created.  (see Tweet testimonial) I’m told that Facebook will migrate community pages to your official Facebook page, but more community pages are continuing to be created.
    • Burning The Bridge To Revenue Island Will Take Considerable Repairs. Because these Community Pages were launched without the consent or preview from brands, skepticism has emerged on trust of these new features.  If the long term strategy of Facebook is to generate revenues from brands (I know of a 7 figure deal in the works that could be re-evaluated) due to these changes.   It’s important that Facebook go back to the core values that communication foster trust, which fosters relationships, which fosters partnerships, which fosters revenues moving.

    What Brands Should Do:
    Although I like what Dave Fleet has had to say, there’s little advice has been offered to brands, here’s how companies should approach these changes:

    1. Work as a Collective. Nothing like using the power of community in order to influence a community that has power of you.  Brands should connect to each other to both share intelligence, develop a common voice.  Start with GasPedal’s Peer to Peer ‘Social Media Business Council‘ and the WOMMA trade organization, you’ll also find like-minded marketers in Marketing Profs, who may also offer an SMB perspective the others do not.   By joining with your peers and approaching with a common voice, brands will be able to force their hand.  You’ll have to work together.
    2. Monitor Your Brand on New Assets. If you already have a PR agency gleaning insights or have a listening platform in place, turn the listening devices towards Wikipedia and the newly minted community platforms.  Setup alerting systems as changes on Wikipedia will now impact Facebook Community Pages.  We’ve listed out the listening vendors in our latest report, Social Marketing Analytics.
    3. Spread Bets, Bring Community Closer To You. With power diminishing, brands shouldn’t place all their bets in just a few social networks. Instead, conduct socialgraphics to find out where your customers are, then invest in other networks.  Furthermore, start analysis on building your own community off your corporate website for customers, advocates, and lifestyle communities.  Give customers a choice to interact with others on your own properties rather than relegating to Facebook alone.  Look at vendors like Mzinga, Awareness, Lithium, Kickapps, Telligent, Jive, Pluck, Liveworld, and beyond.
    4. Develop An Advocacy Program Now. I strongly insist that advocacy programs are key for today’s brand.  They may have access to update Wikipedia pages, influence prospects, and become brand advocates when companies are unable to scale.   Use this advocacy program checklist to get started now.  See how vendors like Zuberance, Expo TV, and in some form, Bazaarvoice can spur forward advocates voices and aggregate.

    I’ve spent a few days sorting this out, and reading as much as I could, however if you’ve got more to add, please leave a comment with your observation, or suggestion for brands below.  Update:  I’d like to thank LaSandra Brill, a strategist at corporate who was a great source of information. I rely on her for her perspective, and I think you should too, follow her on Twitter.

  • Don't Make These Mistakes with Your Online Brand Community
    Shared by DwriteN
    A good reminder for all of us working on our brand presence online!

    If you've got a brand, chances are you've got an online brand community or you're considering launching one. When these work well, they deliver tremendous insights about customers and can help you improve marketing and advertising strategies and develop more relevant new products and services.

    Here are six mistakes to avoid if you want to make the most of your community.

    Don't think you can just plug in and go. Managing communities requires more than technological skills and software; technology is just an enabler. If you don't have people who understand your business and have the skills to facilitate vibrant discussions without dominating the conversation you won't generate good insights.

    Don't believe bigger is better. Companies often believe that the bigger the online community, the better the insights, and so they build communities with thousands of members. In fact, large communities are less effective than smaller ones at nurturing relationships among members, and between members and the brand. They are more transient, less "sticky," and less satisfying all around. When the goal is deep customer insights, smaller, private communities (up to 400 members) are best for developing trust. What you're after is participation, not reach.

    Don't expect people to stick around for nothing. Community members need to benefit from their participation. To sustain their interest, design engaging activities (online or off) that allow them to talk about the brand in the context of their lives and build personal or professional relationships. Give them ways to talk with each other, and with you.

    Don't "sell". You'd be amazed at how many companies get customer communities up and running only to sabotage them by trying to turn them into another sales channel. Customers want to feel like you mean it, and they know when they're being suckered. They'll clam up as soon as they get a slick sales vibe. Build trust and your community members will tell you more - and buy more from you.

    Don't drop the ball. Show members that you are actively listening and you value them: contribute to the conversation, building on their comments, and tell them what you're doing with their input. The worst thing you can do is stop engaging when you think you've got your "answer." Develop a long-term relationship with your community. Deep insight takes time to emerge.

    Don't hoard the data. Don't expect lasting benefit from the community unless you have a plan for how to mine its lessons and tailor them for the people who can use them. Create reports and communication plans that fit different stakeholders' needs within the company — everyone from market research, to product management, to C-suite executives. Some people should hear unfiltered customers voices; some need deep dives with detail; others need quick and dirty top-lines. The more that people throughout the company engage with community feedback, the more value they'll find and the higher your ROI will be.

    Listening online shouldn't be a campaign or a project; it should be woven into the company culture. Do it right and you'll get better customer insight and do a better job of discovering and satisfying your customers' needs.

    Debi Kleiman is vice president of product marketing at Communispace. Anat Keinan is an assistant professor of business administration at Harvard Business School.

  • Real-time Brand Management — Lessons from Virgin America's Hellish Flight

    On March 13, a Virgin America flight from Los Angeles to New York was diverted from John F. Kennedy International Airport to Stewart airport in Newburgh, N.Y., due to severe weather, and the passengers and crew waited in the plane on the tarmac for over four hours. The crew was anxious, babies were crying, mothers were anxious, and the passengers were unruly — to the point that one woman was taken off the plane by police. The entire ordeal was documented by David Martin, the CEO of Kontain.com, on his company's iPhone social-media application.

    Martin was called by someone in Virgin America's marketing department, who offered him a $100 voucher for his troubles. He said the passengers deserved more. He subsequently received a call from Virgin America CEO C. David Cush. During that conversation, according to Martin, he negotiated a full refund and a $100-per-person voucher for all passengers.

    If this account is accurate, it is fascinating that a customer, by posting an account of his ordeal as it was happening via his iPhone, became powerful enough to negotiate such a deal. It demonstrates the need for every company to start thinking about real-time brand management.

    Firms may "own" their brands, but brands really live in the heads of their consumers. Companies must constantly nurture and actively manage their brands at the speed customers form opinions about them. And today that's mighty fast. Notifications or conversations about an experience may begin on Twitter, but they can be immediately posted to all social media around the world. (If Facebook were a country, its population would make it the third-largest nation in the world — behind India and ahead of the United States.)

    Greg Brandeau, chief technology officer of Walt Disney Studios, recently told me that the window for premiering a new movie used to be the first weekend of its release. It would take two and a half days to figure out if a movie was doing well or poorly. Today, with people Tweeting and posting to Facebook while they are watching the movie, that window has shrunk to hours.

    Most firms do not have the marketing reflexes to respond in real time. There are a number of implications for executives:

    Every company must have "a brand radar system" to constantly monitor social media. The good news is that if a company commits to this notion of having a brand radar system, there are many tools to help build this surveillance capability.

    Firms must get used to being "naked" to the marketplace. There is no question that all the things that happen with your customers and even within your firm may become a matter of global, public record in minutes.

    Companies need a "trust bank" with their customers. I believe that Virgin America did not suffer too much from the horrific L.A. to New York flight because its customers deeply trusted it. In contrast, United Airlines suffered terribly when it broke the guitar of a passenger, who then created a YouTube video viewed over 8 million times in which he bashed United's service and attitude. Unlike Virgin America, United did not have a reservoir of good will to help protect its brand when a problem arose.

    I'd love to hear:

    • How fast are your firm's reflexes?
    • Do you have brand radar system?
    • How deep is your firm's trust bank?
  • Brands Must Become Media to Earn Relevance

    What follows is the complete version of my recent post on Mashable, “Why Brands are Becoming Media.

    One of the greatest challenges I encounter today is not the willingness of a brand to engage, but its ability to create. When blueprinting social architecture and the engineering that connects people to other people strategically, enthusiasm and support typically derail when examining the resources and the commitment required to rhythmically produce, distribute, and support content.

    Indeed, we are programming the social web around our brand hub and as such, we’re required to capture attention and also hold it through the introduction of engaging dialogue, interaction, and the introduction of relevant information packaged and published as social objects.

    Social Objects are the catalysts for conversations and occurrences — online and in real life — and they affect behavior within their respective societies. They are personified by our Tweets, our pictures in Flickr, videos on YouTube, events in Upcoming, profiles and updates in Facebook, the links we share in Delicious, our votes in Digg, the places we check into when playing Foursquare, the documents we publish in Docstoc, a destination or service we review in Yelp, a subject we host in Ning, a thought shared in the comment of a blog post or through a dedicated blog post, etc.

    But once we introduce a social object, we must stand ready to handhold existing subjects throughout the social web as well as create a publishing calendar rich with relevant content, programmed specifically for each network in which we maintain a presence.

    We Become Media

    There’s a saying in theater, a big part of acting is reacting. This is especially true when we consider how many individuals, brands, and organizations engage in the Web today. Instead of seeking inspiration and direction from those around us however, we simply react to activity, which may or may not benefit us in the long run. In Social Media, many of the existing programs are either dictated by the community-driven conversations strewn across the web, with an emphasis on Twitter and Facebook, or creatively designed to elicit specific responses in addition to the crowdsourcing of brands and dissemination of corresponding messages.

    But social media represents a greater opportunity that invites us to participate proactively, introducing new thoughts, ideas, and solutions through the people that inspire us to try something new.

    Social Media is an earned privilege.

    While establishing a presence is elementary, captivating audiences is artful. In the near future, brands and organizations will create new or augment existing roles to serve as editor and publisher to all channels with a primary objective of ensuring that timely, relevant, and captivating content is produced, distributed, and connected to both captive and desired audiences. This work is in addition to the other reactive and proactive social media campaigns that are already in progress, but held to a strategic editorial calendar that blends video, audio, imagery, text, updates, and other social objects and networks to reach, inspire, a galvanize communities.

    As brands, we become media.

    Through the democratization of publishing and the equalization of influence, we can create, connect, and attract a wider reach, establishing meaningful connections and building dynamic communities and interactive paths along the way.

    Everything starts with creation of a mission and purpose and fortified by the content we create, the processes in which we distribute it, and the activity that supports social objects and the reactions they engender.

    Perhaps among the most powerful rewards we procure through dedicated publishing is the generation of good will, social capital, and influence. It comes at a price however, and the price is defined by the cost of resources, production, distribution, and support. In the end, you get out of it what you invest in it and the investment represents time, money, creativity, and passion.

    We not only become media, through production and engagement, we become influential.

    Earned, Paid, and Owned Media

    In media, there are several channels that populate and shape perception, intent and action – earned, paid, and owned media. Each require a dedicated management system that actively creates, monitors and stimulates strategic movement as we broadcast relevance directly to our main channels and syndicate aggregate signals to our network of branded satellites and streams.

    Recently, Sean Corcoran, an analyst at Forrester Research, published a detailed post that described the differences between earned, paid and owned, clarifying the roles for brands who undertake the responsibility of embracing a new media role. Dave Fleet, a thought leader in new media and public relations, also visualized Corcoran’s thoughts through a series of graphics that represent the social media ecosystem. Fleet’s work inspired a new graphic of my own (coming soon).

    As Corcoran points out in his recent report

    Increasingly, interactive marketers are being asked to manage a wide range of paid and unpaid marketing communication — despite the fact that many marketing departments are still organized around traditional paid marketing channels. All types of online media (whether “earned,” “owned,” or “paid”) can play specific roles in meeting marketers’ objectives — especially when seamlessly working together. To find the right balance between these types of media, marketers should take stock of their resources, listen for the impact of earned media, look for opportunities to shift short-term paid media to the role of catalyst, and begin to build out a solar system of long-term owned media touchpoints.

    In other words, paid, earned and owned media require thoughtful programming and targeted distribution and must be linked to a systematic review of behavior and activity that surrounds each object. And, the analysis of activity and ultimately the end result should play a monumental role in the creation of future publishing and social activation.

    Corcoran uses the word “touchpoint,” which by standard definition, refers to any point of contact between a buyer and a seller. Touchpoint is part of the greater opportunity here. But more importantly, these touchpoints require direction and the establishment of a path that offers a complete experience – a beginning, a middle, an end and a reward.

    These experiences are definable by paid, earned, and owned media.

    New Media necessitates a collaboration between all teams involved with creating and distributing content, including advertising, interactive, communications, brand, and marketing – with an editorial role connecting the dots. We are competing for attention and our success is dependent on our ability to not compete against each other. Producing content and lobbing it over the firewall to an “audience” will only confuse communities. Therefore, we are obligated to build pipelines that carry strategic communications each with calculated intents, targets and outcomes.

    If we examine the differences between earned, owned, and paid, we can visualize necessary programming and dedicated channels for each.

    Owned Media is media that essentially, we control. Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by control. We design the object; we own the content within the object. Most likely, we also own (or lease) the distribution channels that present these objects to our target communities. We do not however, control the impression and perception of our objects. We lose that control at the point of distribution. For example, in addition to standard Web pages, social media presences contribute to our portfolio of owned media including, Twitter accounts, Facebook Fan Pages, Blogs, YouTube channels, etc. By creating presences in the communities where our customers, prospects, partners, and influencers congregate and collaborate, we can set the foundation to contribute to “earned” media based on the value we contribute through each profile and the social objects we introduce through them. How we embrace and fuel owned media determines our social capital and influence and its value and prominence is representative of our contributions and participation.

    Social Hubs are also gaining prominence in 2010 – 2011 social media plans as brands weigh options for directing traffic.  The creation of strategic landing pages can extend the rich, interactive experience within social networks (channels in which we partially own) to pages we do own, thus shaping the experience in a way that maintains interactivity and targeted options for action. I’m not necessarily recommending the creation of microsites, unless it’s warranted in the overall program, but a bridge that continues the desired experience, connecting people to value and benefits in a destination that serves their essentials.

    Forrester’s Corcoran recommends that brands create a “solar system” of owned media. However, I suggest that brands instead create a focused ecosystem of media that establishes presences where their communities are already active – a brand or organization specific social media ecosystem. This requires research and in the process, we uncover not only locations that require our engagement, but also how, where, when and to what extent to participate. We just may find that the given locations for social profiles represent only part of the many opportunities rife within the Conversation Prism.

    The differences between a solar system and an ecosystem are derivative of our actions and concentration. Meaning, we don’t need to be everywhere, only where our communities reside online with an emphasis on ultimately steering people in our direction (websites, hubs, etc.)

    Paid Media represents the visibility we purchase, such as display ads, paid search, and sponsorships. When paired with owned and earned media programs, paid media serves as a hub for complementing, reinforcing, and polishing brand voice, directives, mission, and stature. While many argue over the future and fate of advertising, what’s clear is that online paid presences can benefit initiatives where action and experiences are defined and promoted through the click path. Current trends reflect a shift away from branding programs and place emphasis on sparking desired activity, empowering viewers and their social graph to share in the experience all in ways that measure the cost per action.

    Earned media is the result of our owned, paid, and participatory media programs and is reflected in the blog posts, tweets, status updates, comments, and ultimately actions of our consumers, peers, and influencers. Earned media is linked to owned media campaigns as well as proactive initiatives that attempt to incite viral and word of mouth activity.  Garnered visibility is also tied to communications and public relations programs as they continually seek to gain the attention of reporters, bloggers, analysts, influencers and catalysts who can drive awareness and behavior based on the words, stories, and social objects they create and distribute.

    This isn’t a one way street, however. Earned media is just that, it’s earned. Success is absolutely conditional on the techniques and methodologies that inspire dedicated programs focused on outreach, relations, and hopefully the engendering of productive and mutually beneficial relationships. Crowd-powered visibility also merits an official and devoted listening and response initiative to ensure that each respective community aligns with the story and our mission and purpose.

    Participatory Media – Representing an extension of earned and owned media, participatory media takes the shape of a hosted hub where brand representatives and our communities can interact and collaborate. For example, go to examples usually refer to Dell’s IdeaStorm and Starbuck’s “My Idea” network which resemble branded wikis designed to elicit responses, dictate direction, establish community-focused governances, etc.  Participatory media equalizes the balance of power, providing a dedicated platform the gives voice to the consumer and a channel for their ideas to trigger transformation or change.

    Sponsored Media - This new category fuses owned, paid, and earned media.  Sponsored media is one that is championed by companies such as Izea (disclosure, my company works with Ted Murphy and Co.), Ad.ly, Twittad, among others and is creating a new medium for packaging messages through trusted voices within highly visible and social channels. Sponsored media can take the form of paid tweets, blog posts, appearances, and featured objects on targeted profiles. And, whether you agree or disagree with the idea, the reality is that they work and they seem to benefit all parties involved, from brand to paid affiliates to their communities. In fact, Forrester’s Josh Bernoff and Sean Corcoran shared their thoughts for why sponsored media is worthy of consideration.

    Sponsored Media fuses earned, paid, and owned as technically…1) the messages are owned, 2) the voices are paid, and 3) with more thoughtful approaches, the responses within targeted communities can inspire a positive wave of earned media.

    Influence

    As media, brands earn prominence and hopefully influence, social capital, and authority as rewards for contributing meaningful, genuine, and helpful content. On Twitter, brands can earn legions of loyal and responsive followers who in turn, become brand advocates and ambassadors, extending the messages, mission and purpose to their followers as well. In Facebook, brands can cultivate vibrant and dedicated communities where interaction inspires increased responses with each reverberating across respective social graphs. On uStream and/or YouTube, we can earn global audiences of viewers who tune in to watch our programming and to also interact with brand representatives in a live community that spills over to Facebook, Twitter and other social networks. And of course, our blog is more important than we may realize. Through our posts, we can establish a strong alliance of readers who subscribe to learn something of value, to participate in the direction of future ideas, to share their views and experiences, and also to inspire groundswells that motivate industry authorities and compel them to respond through the creation of earned media within their channels of influence.

    As Tom Foremski points out, we have the ability to earn noteworthy, equal, and in some cases, greater influence than those authorities whom we relied on over the years to help us reach greater audiences and communities. As influence is equalized, our ability to earn presence and relationships is derived from how we program, manage, and participate in all forms of media. And, it is through a balance of media and engagement where we also establish the foundation for affinity. People align with movements they can believe in and it is through the human, intellectual, and financial investment in sincere and empathetic content that define experiences and hopefully one day earn the attention and bonds that symbolize our significance – online and offline.

    Connect with Brian Solis on Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Google Buzz, Facebook

    Please consider reading my brand new book, Engage!


    Get Putting the Public Back in Public Relations and The Conversation Prism:



    Image Credit: Shutterstock

  • Why Social Media Means Big Opportunities for Women
    Shared by DwriteN
    Ladies, check it out! Interesting read on mashable today.
  • Is Social Media Worth Your Time?

    In the latest issue of Business Week, Stephen Baker's article "Beware Social Media Snake Oil" makes a provocative argument. He claims that all the hype around social networks, wikis, and blogs for business neglects the potential risks and time wasted. While I think he is overstating the argument, he is bringing up a vital question all managers and employees need to ask: What's the business value of using social media? In my view, there has to be a crystal clear business impact for using these tools.

    Consider collaboration inside companies (which differs from using these tools for marketing and PR). The promise of social media, or "enterprise 2.0" as it is often called, is that employees can become much better at finding information and working together if they use blogs, wikis, social networking, document sharing, Facebook pages, and the like. But are these new activities valuable for a company? Well, that depends. The first obvious issue is that you can spend an awful lot of time on this, and that's time not spent doing other things, such as finishing your job for the day. So it's only valuable if the result (e.g., finding good information) justifies the effort (all the hours put into social media). That's focusing on outputs, not inputs.

    Some people miss this point: They think of adoption success in a company as the number of wikis, blogs, tweets, and Facebook pages that people have created and used. In other words, they measure success as the activity level. But that's the same as saying, "in our company, we have lots of meetings so we must be doing something right." As enterprise 2.0 expert Oliver Marks told me, "random Twitter and online dialog can be an even more disastrous use of time than endless unfocused meetings." More is not necessarily better.

    There is a bigger problem, however. Social media tools are only useful for some problems. Managers need to ask, do social media tools solve my key challenges? Consider again collaboration inside companies. Why are people in your company not collaborating better? There are potentially many different reasons for this. As I show in my book Collaboration, some barriers to collaboration are motivational — people are unwilling to share information and look for help, perhaps because they see colleagues as rivals or only care about their own performance. Social media tools are just not going to be good at fixing these motivational problems. You need other solutions for this, such as changing the incentive system so that people are rewarded for helping others.

    If you blindly focus on investing in social network tools, wikis, and blogs in your company, without solving these motivational problems first, you have just committed a great managerial sin. You have applied the wrong solution to your problems. You have prescribed cough medicine for a broken leg.

    We need to be precise and honest about where these new social media tools have great impact, and where they don't. Then they will be seen as great tools, and we won't hear the snake oil label anymore.

    Morten T. Hansen is the author ofCollaboration: How Leaders Avoid the Traps, Create Unity, and Reap Big Results (Harvard Business Press, 2009). He is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and at INSEAD.

Next page