http://www.slideshare.net/Weave/pr-for-people-meetup-7109

It’s happened quite suddenly: celebrities have found Twitter, and so have the masses. In the last few weeks, we’ve started to hear more and more in the media about Twitter, everything from Larry King/CNN and Ashton Kutcher throwing down in a contest to be the first to reach 1 million followers (Kutcher won), to Oprah doing her first tweet. What started as a small community of early social media adopters has become the CB radio—no, the AOL—of the late 2000s.

I realized this the other day when CNN’s HLN channel started posting “Follow CNNBRK on Twitter for breaking news” at the bottom of the screen. I sat there amazed: Twitter IDs…on CNN?!? Clearly, things have changed, and they’ve changed very rapidly:

Twitter has gone mainstream.

“Getting” social media

This recent tweet from Julian Matthews (@trinetizen) got me thinking: all the recent news about Twitter, all the recent Twitter adoption by celebrities, is going to cause two things: 1) the masses will investigate, and 2) the masses’ impression of Twitter will be hugely impacted by this flurry of celebrity tweeting.

The only problem? If you don’t follow others, you can’t possibly “get” the value of Twitter…or any social media, for that matter.

Why? First of all, Twitter’s value comes from dialogue. Social media and networking were borne out of the desire to connect you to others, to learn from others, to create an exchange, and to share items of interest. When we use it as it was intended, social media is extremely powerful: consider the recent successful Obama presidential campaign.

But when we use social media for monologue, e.g., blasting one-way content at whomever will listen, then we’re not connecting, we’re shouting from a street corner.

Imagine, if you will, handing out megaphones at the various street corners in Times Square. Add some TV cameras to the mix. What would you get? Overwhelming cacophony of very little value.

Yet that’s how many Twittering celebrities are using the site: as one more one-way communication channel. Some seem to be taking the time to respond to fans, but most appear very uni-directional.

That had me wondering: which celebs are following the most people, and by extension, getting a more accurate impression of Twitter? Is it Demi Moore or Ashton Kutcher? Oprah? Larry King? Let’s take a look.

Celebrity Twitter Follow Ratio

Amongst the least dialoguey celebs are, yes, Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher, Oprah and Larry King. Pat yourselves on the back, kids! The news commentator ranks the highest of the group, but even he is only following a mere 46 people out of the 123,000+ following him.

Interestingly, the person most open to the most inbound information is none other than Karl Rove. Whether you think he’s a wiley super-genius or Satan Reincarnate, the man is at least giving the appearance of doing the most listening. I’d say he’s up there in the Most Likely to Get Social Media camp.

In the meantime, his political antithesis, Al Gore, is following 7 people out of 664,000.

Musicians Yoko Ono and Björk are both following over 90% of those who follow them. Yet Mandy Moore and Dave Matthews follow 2 and 3 people, respectively.

In the news realm, CNN’s Rick Sanchez is following over 30,000 people. Talk about casting the net widely! But CNN’s own Anderson Cooper follows a paltry 22.

Finally, comedian Robin Williams is following over 1200 people. Yet comedienne Kathy Griffin, whom I find equally hilarious, has only posted two tweets and follows no one. Kathy, here’s your perfect focus group for jokes!

Your brand needs to listen, too

And I guess that segues into the punch line for my post: like these celebs, you need to listen to your audiences—your market—if you want to understand social media: how it works, the advantages, the disadvantages, and the power it provides. Not power to blast your one-way message to waiting millions, but the knowledge, connections, conversation and feedback it provides.

Because if all your brand is doing is barking on a street corner with a megaphone, you ignore the competitive advantage provided by engaging your market. You ignore market feedback, specific market needs, advice on what to avoid pursuing, and perhaps just some really good ideas. By not listening, you won’t really “get” the power of social tools.

You leave your social media “success” up to the power of your brand’s celebrity—or lack thereof. And you do so at your competitive peril.

Caveats

I’ve excluded Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and others where their tweets were clearly done by staffers. Britney Spears was included because her staff differentiates between her tweets and those of her manager/publicist. There are other minor celebrities, some of whom you may feel unnecessarily excluded, that I bypassed simply because I didn’t know much about them.

Obviously, also there is a human limit to the number of people you can follow before the resulting onslaught of information becomes unmanageable. So while MC Hammer and others may be following thousands, for them the Twitter experience is likely overwhelming on a good day, repulsive on a bad one. A high following ratio shows openness, not necessarily actual listening. I get that.

Finally, I didn’t link many of the Twitter handles because I simply didn’t have time. I think you can manage.

Expert. Guru. Genius. As jobs dry up and self-promotional tools proliferate, more and more people are rebranding themselves as Social Media Gurus. What you should watch out for, and why.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: You may say to yourself, “Self, isn’t this dufus a ’social media guru’?” Hell, no. The tools, trends and the power of the consumer are changing at an astonishing rate. This social media “bus” is moving far too fast for anyone to have pulled it over and taken apart the engine. Beware those who say they have.)

If you’re like most marketers, you are a Very Busy Person. Chances are your budget has been slashed, your staff has been outsourced, and as sales dry up, you’re under the gun to produce leads, build awareness and convert fence-sitters. Most of the marketers I know are insanely busy, running from meeting to meeting, juggling project after project. In many cases, the reason we got into this business—the chance to apply creativity and strategy to the brand we built or fell in love with—has been diluted through quarterly goals, reduced budgets and increasingly unreasonable expectations. Our dream job, now a nightmare. What’s a marketer to do?

Because we’re the cheerleaders for the company, and because we love those shiny objects, we may look at social marketing tools and tactics as a hopefully inexpensive solution to the demands placed on us. We’ve heard a lot about Twitter, or we get conference mailers to new media events we can’t take the time to attend, espousing the green, green grass of branded Facebook pages and magically viral videos. Perhaps these are levers we can pull to generate success. But where to start?

Being overworked, often we turn to outsourced consultants, particularly in the case of trials. A quick Google search, or a trolling of LinkedIn, produces a glut of results, mostly saying the same thing: “social media guru.” “Marketing innnovator.” “Facebook expert.” In a hurry, we may reach out to one or two, to see how they approach engagements and brands like ours.

When money is tight and expectations are high, the last thing you need is a mistake to be held up to public scrutiny. You ask yourself, “should I go with a big agency? They’ve gotta be more buttoned up, right? Or should I find a best-of-breed consultant who specializes in this stuff?”

Part of the problem of a Google search for help is the level of noise. Social tools help extend brands like yours. They also help amplify the voices of self-named gurus. So sifting through the results can be daunting at best.

Here are six key traits I would recommend you look for, and watch out for.

1. Look for a media-agnostic perspective. Many people are enamored with the tools, extolling their virtues to eager, curious audiences. The reality is just that: these are tools. Not strategies. Not programs. Ask the consultant how they perceive social marketing tools and their place within a marketing mix that includes traditional channels. If you get the standard Cluetrain Manifesto response or someone who is all about the amazing miracle that is Twitter/Facebook/etc., keep looking.
2. Look for a marketer, not a technologist. Marketers often feel that these new tools are technical because they live on the Web, and therefore they are less qualified to investigate or even understand these tools. This could not be further from the truth. Marketers see tools in terms of brand, outreach, dialogue, and trust—the real levers in market engagement. Technologists-cum-marketers often feel they are equally creative, have a customer perspective and understand branding, but the reality is they don’t—not really. Look for marketers who have embraced and utilized social tools as part of overarching awareness, conversion or loyalty campaigns. They’ll be speaking your language and you’ll know they have felt your pain.
3. Look for quality of thought, not quantity—clients, not followers. Many social media dilettantes will generate a cult following of people who are similarly enamored by the technology. The gurus will engage in endless and frequent conversations with their fans, exploring heady subjects like “by replacing their homepage with a Twitter search, did Skittles do something forward-thinking, or lazy?” That’s all fine and dandy, but what have these experts done with actual client brands? There are plenty of armchair marketers out there—don’t mistake online popularity or digital verbosity with expertise. Food for thought: the people who are truly busy building digital programs for their clients don’t really have the time to create a daunting stream of social media run-off.
4. Look for selflessness rather than self-interest. Everyone has a mortgage to pay—that’s to be expected. Yet what if a rocky relationship with a consultant turns ugly, and your brand (or even you personally) are paraded before a guru’s fanbase and the public as a Cautionary Tale, an idiot…or worse? What if an “expert” really doesn’t know what they’re talking about, and blames you for the results of a campaign? A successful consultant will act as a champion and advocate for their client brands AND their clients: helping you understand the new tools, and how to achieve your own goals. The best ones will place your goals over their own, even if it means passing up a possible long-term relationship to provide you with a short-term solution. Sharks don’t always need ramora fish to help keep them clean. Similarly, watch out for hangers-on who are more interested in a steady stream of work than doing the right thing for your brand.
5. Look for evidence of commitment. This is the Age of Non-Commitment. There are examples everywhere. It’s hard to commit to a job when the management team may not be committed to you. It’s hard to commit to a vendor when you’ve been screwed in the past. And if you’re a consultant, it can be hard to commit to completing a project if 1) you have a propensity for overcommitment, usually out of fear, or 2) when finding and locking down executional resources can be challenging. I myself am ashamed to say that despite a huge desire to be completely responsible, I too have flaked on a project. Never intentionally, but the client was impacted nonetheless. Look for client testimonials and proof positive that this “guru” has come through for people like yourself.
6. Look for final products, and ask them to fully disclose their role. “I’ve built a corporate blog for Client X.” Does that mean they threw a Wordpress installation together? Anyone can do that. Is there evidence of executive coaching in blog protocol? Discussion of how a blog can integrate into publicity efforts? Talk of engagement guardrails—when to engage trolls and when to be silent? It’s not a blog implementation that’s important so much as a consultant’s understanding of how it fits into an overall engagement strategy, knowing the difference between fluff and true value, and how to create a content creation process within the enterprise. Same applies for podcasts, Facebook fan pages, or a custom YouTube channel.

I’d also encourage you to attend great conferences like the Forrester Marketing Summit to hear case studies of marketers who used consultants to great success, or inquiring at your local AMA luncheon to see if any local folks have utilized your prospective consultant.

It’s tough to find good help these days. Vetting the gurus with these six filters in mind should help you find a truly valuable resource, rather than a noisy “tool guy” who talks a good game but is totally cool learning how to “market” on your dime.

my.commetrics.com

Twitter has gotten tremendous press in the last three years, has been used by presidential candidates, actors and seemingly the entire, highly vocal social media crowd. But many companies and brands still haven’t considered Twitter as a channel for brand dialogue and engagement. So let’s talk about how a marketing team can use Twitter as another arrow in their engagement quiver.

“What is Twitter?”

Twitter is a website that allows registered users to post short comments to their followers: other Twitter users who subscribe to your posts, or “tweets.” Posts can be made from the Twitter website, from numerous cell phone applications, and from instant messenger clients like AIM, so “tweeting” is very easy to do, from pretty much anywhere.

Originally, Twitter was intended to be a means of posting your status, such as you might do in AOL Instant Messenger: “I’m heading out now – back in 5″ or “working on a project.” Twitter’s founders launched the site in March 2006 as a “what if” proof-of-concept: what if you could take your status updates out of the IM clients and place them on the web? Now, less than three years later, what was created as a side project has turned into a full-blown short messaging service serving millions of users.

“Sounds like a whole lot of people boring the world with the mundane details of their lives.”

Not anymore. When Twitter was launched, many users assumed it was similar to IM status: a place to share the day’s details, like I’m having a sandwich, doing my laundry, heading out to a movie. Because of this initial start, Twitter developed a reputation as a place for others to bore you to death with incredibly self-interested trivia. But a much bigger set of uses was forming.

People began to tweet at conferences and events, starting with the 2007 South By Southwest Festival. You could “listen in” on commentary of people attending events, even if you weren’t there. Some dramatic events were twittered, such as an American student who was being arrested by the Egyptian police and alerted family via Twitter. Users started providing instantaneous updates from the scene of catastrophes. NASA provided real-time Twitter updates from the Mars Phoenix landing as if the probe itself was tweeting. And people with fascinating careers, such as Jim Long, an NBC cameraman on assignment with the White House Press Corps, provided insight into the events in their lives.

Brands get involved

Within months of launch, a few experimental brands saw the opportunity and jumped on the Twitter bandwagon. Delta Air Lines started tweeting special offers. Comcast, often a target of angry bloggers, began to answer customer service queries on Twitter. H&R Block started offering tax advice, and Aston Martin started sharing car news with AM fans. And news providers like the New York Times and the BBC began posting headlines.

Simultaneously, myriad applications were developed to allow easy tweeting. Twitterific let Mac users see tweets and replies in real time, while Twhirl provided the same functionality for Windows users. TweetDeck allowed a broader view of the conversations. TwitterMaps and the fabulous Google Maps mashup called TwitterVision allowed you to not only show where you were physically located, but also see where people were twittering from. Cell phone applications were developed for iPhone (here, here and here), Blackberry (here and here) and Windows Mobile (here and here). And widgets were developed to bring one’s tweets to any other website. All of this, of course, led to a tremendous rise in the number of users, resulting in the Twitter we know today.

And to answer the original question: if you find that someone is boring you with minutiae, it’s quite simple to unfollow them.

What other companies are using Twitter?

The list is too long to go into but this should give you a good idea of the brands who are using Twitter for outreach, customer service and engagement:

• Whole Foods
• Marriott International
• TJ Maxx
• Fast Company
• MTV
• Wall Street Journal
• ESPN
• Comcast
• Dunkin’ Donuts
• Starbucks
• Urban Outfitters
• Carl’s Jr.
• GE
• Overstock.com
• American Apparel
• Apple
• QuickBooks
• Dell
• CNN
• JetBlue
• Virgin America
• Ford

“What will joining Twitter provide me?”

It depends on who you follow, but Twitter can provide instant news as it happens, helpful professional hints, the chance to follow thought leaders in your industry, to connect with like minds or brand zealots, or the opportunity to merely learn more about people. Like a radio that can tune into a million stations at once, Twitter can connect you conversationally with people all over the world.

“Who should I follow?”

Like figuring out which cable channels you want to watch, finding people to follow involves a lot of trial and error. You can search for conversation topics, the city you live in, search terms from your profession or certain people by name.

As a marketer, you might want to follow Jeremiah Owyang of Forrester Research. Former colleague Steve Rubel of Edelman PR. The latest social media news from Mashable. Or social media professionals like Ford Motor Company’s Scott Monty.

You could follow ProfNet for a chance to get some press by providing a quote for a journalist, or NBC’s Jim Long for an inside view into the White House. There are many many options for new Twitter users.

If you want to see who is being followed by the largest number of people YOU are following, try Twubble. It’ll show you those most followed by the people you are following.

“What should I watch out for?”

1. Above all others: give Twitter time. It takes time, effort and thought to create a successful Twitter experience and to build a following. If you hang a Twitter shingle and only have a handful of followers, it may be that you aren’t providing value. You will get from this tool and the community what you put into them.
2. Do not use Twitter as a monologue channel. If you are merely spouting outbound messages, you will seem as uninteresting as a person at a cocktail party talking only of themselves. Twitter is about conversation, so converse! Even if it’s through direct messages, be sure to respond to inquiries and conversation starters. Remember that old interpersonal communications adage: the best conversationalists are the best listeners.
3. Assume that everything you tweet will be recorded permanently within Google search results. Everything. From now in perpetuity. Do not tweet anything you don’t want found. Assume it will live outside of Twitter as well as within it.
4. Not everyone on Twitter is who they say they are. For example, one user calls themselves “ComcastScares” evidently as a joking reference to ComcastCares, the official Twitter ID for Comcast. “4Starbucks” is a wag who makes fun of the real @Starbucks.
5. Not everything you read on Twitter is true. Should be obvious but warrants restating. It’s easy to react to a tweet but before you do, best to investigate before saying something permanent.

“What should I tweet about as a marketing professional?”

if you set up your own personal account on Twitter, decide what you want to use it for. Are you merely connecting with others? Are you sharing personal stories or experiences? Are you going to do a mix of personal and professional updates? Decide what you want Twitter to be for you.

Personally, I use it to demonstrate expertise and value. I post helpful tips, try to provide insights into my areas of expertise, as well as commentary on marketing trends. I also call out examples of bad marketing behavior and sometimes will talk about major cultural issues dominating the public consciousness. I typically avoid politics and religion unless they are part of a major discussion.

Think about how you might want to represent yourself online as a marketer and tweet accordingly.

“What should we tweet about as a brand?”

If you are using Twitter as a channel for brand extension, I would limit tweets to some combination of the following:

• Category/sector news
• Company news (that would interest more than a few folks at HQ)
• Current events that impact company business (e.g., are you a food manufacturer? Discuss the recent peanut recall)
• Talk about CSR efforts
• Pointers to genuinely-helpful thought leadership pieces on the company blog or in the press
• Reports from the floor of events such as marketing conferences
• Special offers to Twitter followers (discounts, promotions, contests)
• Customer service requests

“What should I not tweet about?”

As a rule, I counsel my clients to NEVER tweet something that has no value. Valueless tweets merely add noise to the stream and we’re all time-starved. Respect this time starvation by being succinct, valuable and interesting.

A press release about a minor rev of your software product may interest a few people, but chances are few will care. If you truly believe your followers will find it interesting, go ahead and tweet about it. If it’s questionable, I’d pass.

“How much effort will this take?”

Twitter is a qualitative, rather than quantitative, brand channel. It’s a great tool to build dialogue, engender trust, establish brand loyalty, and to raise awareness. IT IS NOT A MASS COMMUNICATION MEDIUM, nor should you consider it an outbound-only channel.

To cultivate a Twitter “garden” has required me to spend approximately an hour a week as an occasional “tweeter.” If you plan on really learning and making connections, expect to spend at least 2-4 hours a week getting started.

For those of you who shudder at the idea of adding another activity to your time-starved lives, I offer you this: social marketing is the New Marketing. Spend less time with older, less effective methods like email blasts and tradeshow booths and rethink your marketing program spend. Reallocate some of your time and effort away from older techniques and try the new. You’ll have fun, learn a lot and will be able to demonstrate new expertise and innovative marketing approaches.

“What is proper Twetiquette?”

Great question. It’s easy to offend an online community if you’re unfamiliar with the rules. Many of the following are currently open to debate, since Twitter changes so rapidly. My recommendations are:

• Stay positive. It’s easy to get snarky, easy to scoff. Unless you specifically want to critique or criticize, be shiny and happy.
• Thank people who follow you with a Direct Message. Twitter allows you to send private messages (called “Direct Messages” or DMs) to individual users. Rather than publicly replying, send a DM saying thank you.
• If someone asks you a question, respond via DM. If your response would benefit a number of followers, reply publicly.
• If it makes sense, thank those who retweet your tweets. If you see “RT @yourname” in your Replies, it means someone has found your tweet valuable enough to share with their own followers.
• There is some debate about automatically following those who follow you. Some think it’s only fair to follow those who follow you, as a sign of mutual respect. Others, myself included, only follow interesting Twitterers, regardless of whether or not they follow me. Like everyone else, I am time-starved and drowning in social media noise. So I thank them and continue to keep my Twitter reading workload to a manageable 400 or so.

“How do I attract a large audience?”

As with many social media venues, size is not what matters. You might have a small number of followers who are extremely vocal brand advocates. Or you may also have a large audience that provides little feedback and takes a lot of your time.

There is no formula for Twitter success, in my opinion, other than if you feel you are getting value out of your audience and spreading value back to them.

“How do I measure this activity?”

Twitter is new enough that metrics around Twitter programs are questionable. There’s no way to measure pageviews or impressions, other than followers. There’s no way to know if a tweet has impacted behavior other than if they respond directly to it. You could measure product or brand mentions but there’s no way to tie it to your outbound twittering. And finally, there’s no easy way to measure influence, although some are working on a formula.

WebAnalyticsDemystified has put together a formula to measure Twitter influence which, after some recent tweaks, looks reasonable. Enter the Twitter ID of yourself or someone else to see how influential that user is.

An earlier yet less substantial influence calculator is TwitterGrader. Follow @grader to get access to a report on your influence.

Yes, according to the Twitter Influence Calculator, I am “slowly emerging.” And I’m down with that.

In summary

In the mid 2000s, there was an explosion of Web 2.0  sites that mostly provide a one-off technology or service. Twitter survived the Web 2.0 shakeout that hobbled several competitors, including Pownce and Jaiku. Despite service outages and negativity from the uninformed, Twitter has prospered and grown.

Recent Compete.com numbers show Twitter.com to be at around 6MM unique visitors at the moment. However, that doesn’t include mobile phone or instant messenger users. Suffice to say this is one Web 2.0 channel that will continue to be both a benefit and tool for marketers.

Based on a survey of 6000 people across ten countries, some of the findings really support our contention that the efficacy of traditional channels is waning and that a groundswell of interest in social good is on the rise:

• Only 25% of people find contentment from the shopping experience
• Over 83% of consumers are willing to change consumption habits to make tomorrow’s world a better place
• 63% of consumers think brands spend too much on marketing/advertising and should put more into a good cause
• Globally, 80% of consumers feel that during a recession, it is still important for brands and companies to set aside money for social purpose

This thorough, thoughtful study can be investigated further at Edelman’s GoodPurpose Community.

My forehead is purple from my pounding it on the table.

It’s So Not About You

Social Marketing represents a massive opportunity for marketers: not to create more inbound links, and not to push your message to the places where people congregate online, but to package and demonstrate relevance and value amongst consumers and to leverage their trust and connections as advocates of your offering.

In a nutshell, our role as marketers is to connect our markets to our company’s/client’s value. As consumers are ever more empowered to search for what they desire and bypass marketing efforts, traditional push techniques become just so much more noise. Consumers simply do not NEED marketing!

Compounding this issue is the growing trend in which internal pressures (lead-gen goals, quarterly revenue targets, conversion targets, etc.) lead us to place our own goals over those of our customers. When KFC buys the rights to turn off fast-forwarding on TiVos, when RyanAir sells overhead bin space for advertising, when CapitalOne bombards consumers with credit card offers until they cave, when flashing LED billboards try to distract you as you drive – they each demonstrate marketers putting our own goals before those of our intended converts.

Social channels, on the other hand, offer the ability to leverage existing peer affinity and recommendation to spread value in the context of trust. And when content and communications are created with consumer value in mind, rather than self-promotion or self-interest, they will be perceived less as unwanted, shotgunned intrusions and more as valuable benefits.

Advertisers showing up on social networks are like Amway salesmen showing up at a neighborhood cocktail party: no one wants them there – it’s not the right context in which to sell. It’s unwanted push in a pull venue.

Conversely, many companies are jumping on the bandwagon in smart ways – Nike, UPS, Starbucks, H&R Block, and Comcast – leveraging social tools to improve perception and engagement.

In my opinion, the more quickly marketers realize the shift of power to the consumer, the increasing irrelevance of push, and the increasing importance of customer advocacy and engagement, the more quickly we’ll again be able to reconnect our company’s value to them. This is a viewpoint that has generated widely varying opinions from other marketers – some who think me an asshole for supposedly “dissing” their chosen professions, many who feel that social media is a fad and that better segmentation/targeting, more clever promotional ideas and better/funnier/more clever copy are the answers to increasingly distracted/disinterested audiences.

I could not disagree more.

A central challenge facing the marketing profession is the fact that we are trained, motivated and compensated based upon our efficacy at Push. Until we recognize that Push is an annoying, outdated tactic, until we find a way to promote value rather than self-interest, we will continue to watch marketing effectiveness drop across the board.

And no amount of clever copy will make advertising shoved in our face any less intrusive.

The statistics are staggering: 100 million trees are destroyed each year to create the 4.5MM tons of junk mail in the US alone. 28 billion gallons of water go into the production of US junk mail annually. Each American adult spends approximately 70 hours per year dealing with the handling of the junk mail that comes into our mailboxes.

“But it’s my job. I’m getting a good response rate – 2% – for my clients.”

How, how, HOW can marketers contribute to this waste in good conscience?

I’d love to ask the marketers working for Capital One, coupon printers, the people who flood magazines with blow cards, and anyone else involved with this waste and destruction how they feel pulling in their average paychecks, knowing they’ve contributed to deforestation, water waste and time waste by millions of Americans.

Want to do something about this? Check out Greendimes.

When you spend most of your time immersed in the Social Media/Social Networking “scene”, discussing where things are going with other social media proponents, it’s often easy to forget that most companies are still trying to determine what this phenomenon is, and whether or not they should participate. I was recently asked some questions by Katie Ford, who is compiling some ideas and suggestions for customers of Hoover’s, that made me go back and think about what massive shift in culture, commerce and media is all about, and why companies should pursue it.

She had some great questions, which I’m posting, along with my responses, here.

Q: What does marketing in the age of social media look like?

The growth of social media and networking are signs of dramatic shifts in how consumers express interests and needs, share affinity, and find value.

As marketers, our job is to craft and communicate a value proposition that generates market interest and compels our prospects to purchase. For decades, this has been a one-way communication effort. But lately, as our customers use these new tools to communicate with one another, marketers are finding their audiences expect to engage in dialogue with brands rather than merely listening passively. Social media and networking provide powerful, inexpensive tools with which to participate in dialogue with your target markets.

Marketers who leverage these tools are showing their markets that they are not merely window-dressing when it comes to expressing an interest in their customers.

Whirlpool created the American Family Podcast, a parent-targeted, downloadable talk show in which they interviewed thought leaders on the state of the American family. Little or no mention was made of Whirlpool or their products. (2009 update: it appears the American Family Podcast has been discontinued by Whirlpool, an incredible shame.)

With no marketing budget, the podcast has generated more than 70,000 downloads per month, all through word-of-mouth marketing. Through this, Whirlpool was seen as an advocate for the family, which spoke strongly to their core brand values.

Eager to experiment with Facebook, Target created a Facebook group (2009 update: group page no longer active) aimed at helping college students deal with moving away from home into a small, cramped dorm room. The idea was to help students come to terms with this adjustment, with the ulterior motive of selling furnishings.

By October 2007, the group had attracted over 7,000 members, over 400 photos posted by students, 483 posts and 37 discussion topics. Feedback from students was primarily positive (statistics from Jeremiah Owyang at Forrester Research)

Q: Why should marketers pay attention to or consider social media as part of their strategic planning? Secondly, what price will they pay for ignoring it?

If marketers value their customers, they MUST consider social media as part of their brand strategy. Any Google search (typically the first place customers go to find out more about your brand) will not only turn up your official site, but will likely show customer-generated commentary on your brand — both positive and negative. Marketers who ignore this community conversation do so at their brand’s peril.

According to a 2006 Edelman PR study, when asked where they turn as the most credible source of information regarding a brand or product, 68% of respondents said “a person like me.” Clearly, trust and authenticity are hugely important to purchase decisions. As the “volume” of the customer dialogue grows around a brand, the more “people like me” are heard – and the more a finely-honed, one-directional marketing message will sound self-serving, inauthentic and untrustworthy.

Marketers will invest millions in lead-generation and brand building efforts this year. Without taking into consideration this very loud conversation happening outside of their control, they are dedicating marketing spend toward highly-polished communication channels that are of less and less interest to their targets.

A metaphor I think works well for the social media space is a large cocktail party. You’ll enter the room and be sized up by attendees. They’ll wonder what kind of person you are, what your values are, who you associate with, how impactful you are to the market. They WILL talk about you behind your back, in groups that trust each other’s opinions. Knowing that, what will you wear? How will you act? What will you say? When encountering a snide remark, how will you react? If all you care about is your (brand’s) own appearance, and you ignore and disengage from these conversations, a marketer is a little like a person spending more and more on clothing to attend a party where no one wants to talk to them. What’s the point?

Q: In your observations, what types of companies (or industries) are embracing social media in their marketing plans? Which ones are not? Do you have theories on why certain companies/industries are leveraging social media and others aren’t?

Many companies have taken tentative steps into the social media space over the last three years or so. Consumer brands with youthful audiences, such as Coca-Cola, Ford, Target, American Apparel, Juicy Couture, and Acuvue have embraced social media as part of their marketing efforts. American Apparel, for example, got a huge awareness spike by merely opening a virtual store in the 3D world of Second Life, in which they sold virtual goods.

Social media adoption – tied to marketing leadership generationalism?

Why are certain companies or categories investing more into social media? I believe it’s due to the generational social issues inherent in their marketing leadership.

Marketers like myself, perhaps aged 38 and above, were from the generations who were taught not to overshare, not to over-express nor to be self-aggrandizing. For these generations, you put on your best outward appearance, controlling your own behavior and appearance as best you could. Adages such as “never let them see you sweat,” “put your best face forward,” and “keep a stiff upper lip” were taught to us since childhood. Marketers my age were also taught to try to displease as few people as possible, to be appropriate and acceptable to as wide an audience as possible, in hopes of maximizing revenue opportunities. These marketers seem to direct their outbound communications in a similar way: high level of polish, avoid dissent and control your image.

Gen X and Gen Y marketers, however, learned to share more with others, to worry less about façade and more about substance. To me, they seem less concerned about appearances and more interested in being understood. They prefer to be themselves and to find others with shared outlooks and affinities rather than trying to be all things to all people. Their marketing seems to follow similar directions: to seek out more venues to express brand values and to communicate with audiences with shared affinity. With the search and affinity tools inherent in social media, younger marketers seem to embrace these tools more readily, compared to older marketers who are more likely to vet image and copy through management, PR and legal departments.

Q: In your opinion, are their certain types of businesses that shouldn’t include social media in their marketing plans? If so, who are they and why is social media not their best bet?

B-to-B companies should monitor the online dialogue around their brand, but until vertical-specific social networks emerge, these companies are less compelled to invest in it.

That said, B-to-B companies can set up their own customer networks to allow brand zealots to connect with one another in a “walled garden” environment. Upside: the pre-sold help sell the unsold. Downside: who has time for all these online communities? Companies need to be realistic about whether such an effort would truly draw time and attention from time-starved customers.

Q: Are certain types of social media better/worse for specific messages that you want to get across to your audience/consumers? For instance, is a blog from the CEO always your best bet?

It depends on the CEO. A strong, outgoing, market-friendly personality can propel a blog to become an authentic platform for dialogue, whereas a tightly-controlled blog with comments turned off will immediately smell like a traditional monologue mechanism.

Blogs are good feedback channels, although companies should be prepared to address how they will handle “trolls” (online louts), how to keep conversations on track, and where or when they should link to external content.

Podcasts and vidcasts put a voice and a face on a brand. They can create a stronger personal connection between the team behind the brand and their audience. These are great channels for brands that need to show more personality. However, audience quality expectations are high.

A brand presence on a social network can be good channels for offers. Like viral videos, social networks make it easy to spread interesting content to friends. This content will have a natural advantage in breaking through market noise, and if it’s a positive impression, it will be given more credibility than highly-crafted marketing messages.

Q: What kinds of marketing goals can social media help you reach in particular?

• Conveying your value to the market.
• Conveying your unique proposition within the competitive landscape.
• Conveying your brand’s values, reason for being and “brand spirit”.
• Creating affinity with your desired audience.
• Creating a viral spread of your value prop.
• Showing your brand and company to be authentic.
• Providing more touchpoints for interested prospects to find via search.

Q: How can you measure your ROI with social media marketing? What metrics can you use?

This is another huge area of discussion. Generally speaking, measurement tools are evolving for this space. Traditional metrics (pageviews, clickthroughs) don’t apply. For example, how do you know that someone downloaded the entire podcast? How do you know they listened to the entire podcast?

Also, many metrics are based upon the end conclusion of a marketing effort: a sales conversion. Yet “social marketing” is as much about building affinity as it is about a conversion. Given this, many marketers are advocating measuring social media from the perspective of outcomes: awareness or conversion. Rather than trying to measure downloads or blog comments, many suggest focusing on measuring overall results.

Q: Any other noteworthy comments or statistics on this topic that my questions did not address?

Regarding the question, should companies invest in social media, here are some interesting statistics:

Now that it has opened up its community to anyone, Facebook has more than 54 million users, which, if it were a country, would make it the 24th largest nation in the world. It adds over 250,000 new users a day — equivalent to the entire population of St. Paul, MN or Fort Wayne, IN signing up each day. That’s just crazy!

Recent statistics released by Facebook claim that over 55% of its users are over the age of 35. They project that 75% of worldwide users will be out of college by December. College students are officially in the minority. This older demographic is interesting to marketers because according to Forrester Research, more than half of adult professionals on social networks are wanting to hear from their brands in those venues.

For comparison, as of September 2007, MySpace had over 200 million active accounts, which would make it the fifth largest country in the world.

POINT: social networking and media are neither fads nor something just for kids. As a primary intersection point between culture and media, they are clear indicators of where marketing efforts must be.

Also, when placing purchasing opportunities into the context of trust networks and shared affinity, more people take action than on traditional websites. For example, Facebook newsfeed ads are generating 4%-26% higher clickthrough rates than traditional banner ads.

Weaver tips for businesses considering social media

1. Take the time to study and participate in social media before engaging in marketing to these audiences. Missteps are painful and public.
2. Be very transparent and honest. Consumers often assume marketers are self-interested. By being transparent, you curtail doubt.
3. Ask your visitors to provide feedback on your communication efforts. These tools allow you to easily gather feedback.
4. Be fearless. Many marketers will cringe when they get their first scathingly negative comment. You will receive both positive and negative commentary. Use it to learn about your market and your brand impression.
5. Draw up engagement boundaries. When should you respond to a negative critique? When should you be silent? When should you ban a “troll” from your corporate blog? Determine how you will behave in the public eye — when you’ll assert control and when you’ll let the market be itself.

The best conversationalists are the best listeners

All in all, social media and networking are incredibly inexpensive to explore. Going back to the cocktail party metaphor, better for companies to know now how they should engage their markets “socially” than to be an overdressed wallflower brand that no one wants to talk to.

2009 Update

I recently found Katie’s whitepaper posted on the Internet. You can view, print or download the whitepaper here.

To embed, please use [ipaper id=8979019 key=key-nkzcpv4h6s606ub92ym] by itself, not [ipaper id=8979019 key=key-nkzcpv4h6s606ub92ym][/ipaper]!

His name is Mach Arom, and he was executive creative director for FCB Interactive in New York. I just found out he died on August 23rd, while doing humanitarian work in Rwanda.

I worked with Mach while we were at Magnet Interactive in Washington DC. Mach was the “mother hen” for our large, boisterous and extremely talented creative department. He was a skilled designer, an inspired leader and an intelligent, funny guy.

Much of our business, our daily lives, as marketers revolves around the task of being creative…or at least, facilitating good creative on our projects. It’s not easy, creating the aesthetics of a communications program, be it a website or ad or whatever, since aesthetics are so personal and subjective. You can have the best creative strategy, the best wordsmiths, the best offers, but if the creative stinks, the program will flop.

Mach knew good creative, and he drew the best talent out of his team. He led them by example, directed design, managed egos, kept account types at bay and led his team to build the best creative product I’ve ever seen.

He died at 38, doing what he loved: helping people.

I remember coming over to bug him, repeatedly, for proposal graphics or for status updates on client work. He would protect his creatives fiercely. I remember his terse “Weaver!” when I would ask for a level of effort that would impinge on his team. And his alternating between being all-business and then joking and smirking while we discussed projects.

He went on to Ogilvy Interactive, then FCBi. I spoke to him last year, caught up on where he was. It was good to hear from him, to hear he was happy in his new role.

Since being spoilt at Magnet, I’ve been looking for not good, but GREAT creative. I’ve found strong talent in people I’ve worked with over the last few years, but nothing like Mach. I’ve not found another creative department like his, either: hopeful, happy, joking, wildly creative and supremely talented.

If you’re an account guy like me, selling creative isn’t easy. Clients can’t always tell you exactly why they like or dislike certain creative efforts. It’s often related to past experience, background and taste. Because of this I respect good creatives who can translate communication problems into beautiful, compelling and at times emotionally moving works.

Safe journey, Mach. Thanks for being such a great person, and such a great example to others.

His memorial is here.

Those of you creating a Web 2.0 startup: avoid the urge to name your firm after the successful players in the space. A trendy copycat company name and market presence may directly work against your own success.

For the last 18 months, there has been a huge increase in me-too branding efforts in the tech space. The success of well-known sites such as Google, Yahoo!, Flickr, Digg and Del.icio.us has inspired many startups to copy the branding elements of the big boys, particularly their names. This lemming effect sometimes drives them to copy even the design elements and exact colors of the more successful sites.

Before I begin my marketer’s diatribe, let me first acknowledge that almost all the good brand names have been thought of and are taken. Finding a unique company name, let alone an available URL, is extremely challenging these days. So creating a name that mimics Flickr, for example, “Stiflr”, can help you solve both these problems.

I also suspect that many of you are also hoping to capture a little Web 2.0 VC love…can’t say I blame you for that. But here’s the thing: by creating a copycat name of a popular Web 2.0 site, not only does your company name become “trendy” (and therefore, easily dated), you end up giving away all your market differentiation. You actually reduce customer interest and appeal by sounding like everyone else: in this case, Slickr, Zooomr, Frappr, Mappr, Blogr, Grazr, ad nauseum.

The right way

My job as a marketer is to help companies identify their unique value proposition (”UVP”): the special sauce that will compel people to sign up, subscribe or enter a credit card number. The thing that makes them stand apart from the competition. When I lead naming engagements, our team starts these assignments by identifying our clients’ value proposition, unique traits, their market’s interests and preferences, and the messages that will lead to market success. Once you know these things, then you begin work on a name and identity: one that’s memorable, easy to pronounce, rolls off the tongue, and is meaningful to customers.

The thing is, your name is only one part of your brand. And the most effective brands use the entire branding ecosystem of company name, logo, tagline, and marketing messages at every customer touchpoint to talk about your uniqueness, your value proposition and your customer benefits. When a component as valuable as your name is a copycat, it kills the impact of the rest of your efforts…and dilutes the impact and effectiveness of your marketing spending. Far better to establish a name and identity that works with your marketing instead of against it.

From my perspective, the tech startups that are copying their more successful brethren show a lack of imagination, which is surprising given the tremendous amount of imagination it takes to craft a brand new kind of functionality or mashup using C++ and AJAX. And when some even steal signature graphic design elements from others – at times, even exact colors – they simply should be caned. At that point, they deserve to be just one more me-too play on the way to market fade-out.

You know it’s gotten bad when the depth of misspelt or silly 2.0 names has spawned a site called CERTIFYR. It humorously certifies your site as trendy-compliant as it checks it for big fonts, me-too names, a “beta” designation, overly bright colors with or without pink, rounded corners, use of Google maps, and whether or not the “founder has a blog”.

A strong, relevant connection with your customers, along with an identity that supports a unique market position, will generate revenue and awareness far more effectively than a me-too name emulating the first-movers in the social networking and media spaces.

Here are some examples of copycat naming. I list them here not to say they’re “bad companies” but to point out the overwhelming similarity and lack of differentiation when you choose a copycat name.

Paying homage to Flickr…or just a lack of imagination?

Flickr.com was apparently registered by Ludicorp in November 2003. Here are a sample of sites employing lipogrammatos, Greek for missing a letter, and how long after Flickr they registered their domains:
Blogr – (Jun 2003 – predates Flickr’s domain registration by 6 months)
Talkr – text-to-audio tool for blogs (March 2004)
Lookr – Japanese site (March 2004)
Colr.org – a site for playing with colors (Jan 2005)
Wrickr – Polish open-source startup (March 2005)
Coastr – “the social guide to beer” (May 2005)
Gtalkr – IM client purchased by Google (Aug 2005)
Suprglu – ties together results from Flickr and others (Sep 2005)
Frappr – Google maps mashup (Oct 2005)
Flagr – geo-bookmark sharing (Oct 2005)
Gabbr – social new sharing site (Oct 2005)
Zooomr – Flickr competitor that adds localisation (Oct 2005) – the 17-year-old kid who launched it gets some slack for being 17, but has said slack removed due to being the worst copier
Enablr – software firms with products called Transcribr, Stenographr (owner says he “runs a marketing firm” – run, customers, run!) (Nov 2005)
Nabbr – broadcast/share your lists (Nov 2005)
FeedBlendr – combines RSS feeds into one (Dec 2005)
Squishr – unknown app in alpha (Dec 2005)
Grazr – RSS feed browser (Feb 2006)
Calcr – online calculator (March 2006)
Ticklr – legal bookmark sharing (March 2006)
Rel8r – tag, read, search blogs
Phixr – photo editor
Empressr – Flash-based PPT competitr
Skinnyr – Widget for MySpace (”Beta!”)…they just get lamr and lamr

AT LEAST THESE HAVE AN EXCUSE

These apps/plugins/sites have an excuse for the dropped vowels: they’re directly related to Flickr.
Bloggr – WordPress plug-in to display Flickr shots
Bubblr – add speech bubbles to Flickr shots
Delivr – create digital postcards, “made possible by the fabulous Flickr”
Grabbr – Flickr uploading app
Groupr – Flickr mashup
Mappr – Flickr map mashup
Phrasr – Flickr mashup
Retrievr – sketch-based image search of Flickr
Slickr – Flickr screensaver app
Stalkr – email search tool, now renamed
Tickr – Flickr mashup (slideshow)

Worst Branding Award goes to…

Zooomr, a competitor to Flickr that not only copied the name, but colors the R differently too, just like Flickr.

Ob.noxio.us copying?

Digglicious – live comparator between Digg/Delicious
Expialidocio.us – Delicious mashup
Fort.uito.us – blog
Grat.uito.us – tagged, social wishlists
Icio.de – German clone of Delicious
Lib.rario.us – catalog your media collection
Mobilicio.us – Del.icio.us bookmarks via mobile phone
Podolicious – personalized podcast news
Script.aculo.us – Javascript library
Singlestat.us – MySpace relationship monitor, now shut down?
Staralicious – Delicious about celebrities

They dig Digg

BlogDigger (predated Digg)
TalkDigger (predated Digg)
Diigo – social annotation
Digforit
DiggDot
Diggnews
Diggol – personalized news site
DigLog – Chinese Digg
HotDigg – blog
Hugg – environmental Digg clone
Polidiggs
SlashDigg
StockDigg
VCDiggz

The Yahoo!/Google double-O thingy

Accoona – “Hakuna Matata, what a wonderful phrase…”
Asoboo
Baeboo – mix Billy Blanks and Taebo and you get…
Congoo
Cluckoo
Dodloo
eefoof – very descriptive for a video site!
Emongoo – tools & marketplace to sell your property
Favoor
Favoritoo
Foonance – manage your finances
Getboo
Gootodo
Gumshoo
Newroo
Noodly
Nooz – news for MySpace members
Orangoo
Ouioo – Captain, consonants have failed!
Picaboo
Polloo
Publicloos
Qooxdoo – WTFHell?
Queoo
Reevoo
Sabifoo – which was one of few names available on all IM clients: nice IM-to-RSS-feed app
Schoopy – classroom organizer
Squidoo
Springdoo
Woomp
Wufoo
Yoosi – create your personal startup page

At this point, I stopped searching. It was just too painful.

Hat tip to fellow marketer Alison Moore for getting me thinking about this one, and Simon Looker for “lipogrammatos”.