Monthly Archives: September 2009

Can “sponsored journalism” really work?

Posted on by

If you still even subscribe to your local newspaper, you’ve probably noticed that it’s getting thinner and thinner. What once would have passed for a phone book is now, at best, a placemat. Even if you consume your news online, news organizations are having a harder time keeping reporters on staff as they struggle to cover overhead and stay afloat.

So it’s perhaps not a surprise that some organizations are taking matters into their own hands, as the Los Angeles Kings hockey team did earlier this week. According to the New York Times, the team has hired a reporter to write (autonomously) for its Web site. I encourage you to read the full article and noodle on it for a bit.

Is it any different than providing your own corporate content?

I’ve struggled internally with whether this approach is good, bad or even sustainable. Obviously the Kings recognized that its fan base is hungry for news but that traditional outlets no longer have the means to provide it. So the Kings have decided to create news for themselves.

Initially, this may not appear any different than having an internal communications person develop and produce news stories for an organization. It reminds me a bit of what Lee Aase has been doing at Mayo Clinic: Don’t just pitch the media, BE the media.

However, that’s not exactly what’s happening here. Rich Hammond is not employed by the Kings to tout the company line and craft messages that are complimentary to the organization. He supposedly has complete editorial control over the content. Essentially he’s a “sponsored reporter.”

But I question how successful this approach can be. If Hammond’s stories are too complimentary or give the Kings a pass too frequently, will readers write him off as “working for the man” and simply regurgitating the party line?

Could you square off against the organization that’s your livelihood?

Is he really going to feel comfortable taking a hard tack against the organization that provides his paycheck each week? What happens if Hammond uncovers evidence of cheating, doping or other foul play within the organization? Will readers trust that he’s reporting the full story and not covering up details at the behest of the organization that pays him?

The New York Times piece suggests that readers are smart enough to distinguish between reporting and public relations. I don’t doubt that’s true, but I do wonder if it will mean that Hammond’s “reporting” is slightly less forceful than it would have been at an indpendent news organization. Hammond himself claims he’ll continue to write just as he would if he were a reporter.

It’s one thing for a company to internally produce content (blog posts, news releases, video, podcasts, etc.). Readers know that this content specifically comes from within the organization and can judge for themselves how much “messaging” is included in this content.

But in the case of the LA Kings, that line becomes blurred. Hammond isn’t strictly a corporate communications professional working with the best intrests of the organization in mind, but he’s also not strictly a reporter who doesn’t rely on the organization he covers to pay his bills and feed his family.

What do you think about this hybrid model? Will readers trust it – or even be able to distinguish reporting from PR? Could it work for certain types of organizations but not others?

Let me know your thoughts in the comments – I’m still working this one out…

Locally targeted McDonald’s TV ads turning heads

Posted on by

New York City might only be 120 miles away from Albany, but lifestyle-wise it’s a lot further. Often we Upstaters are saddled with “regional” advertising campaigns directed toward New Yorkers (the city dwellers, not the state residents). I frequently see billboards or TV commercials referencing terms like “The Big Apple” and alluding to New York sports teams (of which many Albany residents are fans, to be fair).

Regional advertising is nothing new, but often campaigns chunk up the country into six or seven large segments and so the ads end up being somewhat general. Major metropolitan areas might get a specific campaign, but for those of us who live in small to medium-sized cities it’s rare to see national brands adapt their campaigns.

Apparently McDonald’s is changing that. I haven’t seen it yet, but according to one of my local Facebook pals there’s a TV spot floating around that’s very specific to the Albany area:

McDonalds Facebook Regional TV ad

From Jen’s comment, this ad is extremely specific to the Capital Region of New York State and only the 800,000 or so people who live here could make any sense of those references. (Yes, our interstate jumps from Exit 2 to Exit 4 and no one seems to know why Exit 3 is missing. And Koscuiszko is a Polish dude who fought in the Revolutionary War and a bridge is named after him.)

Does this represent a new direction for national brands? Based on the Facebook discussion above, it’s certainly getting people’s attention. On one hand, creating these hyperlocal “micro-campaigns” is a way to make consumers from smaller markets like Albany feel as though they’re getting some actual attention from a big brand (which doesn’t happen too often. You should see the group that’s been trying for years to get a Trader Joe’s in the area). It can make it seem like larger “corporate” brands are reaching out to local communities — though the major danger here is appearing disingenuous.

Alternatively, it can make it harder for these brands to unite customers around a shared experience or campaign. Think about the Super Bowl. So much of the discussion and interaction with those brands comes from everyone across the country talking about which ads they liked and didn’t like the next day. Or think of nationwide ad campaigns that have become cultural touchstones (like the Aflac Duck). That shared sense of connection to the brand would be lost if the ad was localized.

Have you seen a large national brand localizing its campaigns so specifically? Did it work or backfire? What do you think are the pros and cons of this type of strategy?

Update:

Watch the video here:

Here’s a link to a news story with some background on the agency that produced the spots and how they were shot.

How I use Google Reader without going insane

Posted on by

It’s a never-ending refrain in the social media world: “There’s just so much content out there!” So many good blogs to read and think about. For a while my Google Reader was getting out of control as I continued to add RSS feeds.

I’ve tried various ways to get a handle on the many blogs I read, but my latest incarnation is to group all my social media/marketing blogs into folders, labeled by the frequency with which I want to read them:

Google Reader Organization

Blogs in my “Check Daily” folder are my top priority. These bloggers typically post regularly and it’s content that I continue to find valuable or thought-provoking. Currently blogs from folks like Amber Naslund, Olivier Blanchard, Dave Fleet and Todd Defren are in this folder.

Next is my “Check Weekly” folder. It consists of interesting blogs that either don’t post as frequently or that I’m not as religious about following. Their posts might not usually be as time-sensitive and I can wait until later in the week to catch up. Or they may tend to be bloggers who write longer posts that take me more than just a few-minute scan in the morning to digest. I try to rotate different bloggers into this folder every so often. Right now people like Tom Martin, Brian Solis, Jason Baer and Mack Collier live here.

My “Twitter Friends and Tweeted Posts” folder is where I put a lot of bloggers I’m friends with whose content I’m likely to see on Twitter long before I get around to checking my reader. Arik Hanson, Lauren Fernandez, David Mullen and Scott Hepburn are all in this folder. Usually I see tweets and retweets to their new posts throughout the day and so I really just use this folder to scan headlines and peek at any posts that I might have missed. For the most part, though, the posts that end up in this folder are ones that I’ve already seen.

The folder I call “Popular and Prolific” features blogs like Chris Brogan, Danny Brown, Copyblogger and HubSpot. These are “big name” blogs that post a lot of content. I don’t necessarily have time to read them every day, but I can count on their content being good and useful and I want it all in one place to go back and access later.

My last folder is the “Check Infrequently” folder. These are blogs that don’t update frequently or that I haven’t found a real connection with yet – but I still want to be alerted when new content is available. I find that I enjoy blogs that are less frequent but more thoughtful. Every once in a while I’ll check this folder to see if Lisa Hoffmann or Shonali Burke have anything new.

To see what posts I like and am sharing, you can check out my Google Reader public share page.

The result of this folder system: It’s still way too much content, but at least now I feel like I can take it in chunks and read a little at a time based on how I’ve prioritized the blogs I’ve subscribed to. Every few weeks I’ll look at the trends and analytics that Google Reader provides and see if there are blogs that I’m consistently reading or not reading and move them to a different folder (or unsubscribe) as a result.

What works for you in organizing your RSS feeds? Do you use a plug-in like Postrank to help you sort through content? Do you find yourself relying less on your feed reader to discover new content? I certainly see plenty of posts shared on Twitter, but I’m in no way ready to give up RSS because I feel like I’d miss too much.

Share your strategy for managing the beast that is your feed reader in the comments.

“Become a Fan” of Facebook brand fatigue

Posted on by

I grabbed a bagel sandwich at Bruegger’s today, which is somewhat of a weekly habit for me. On a large poster in the store depicting their fall sandwiches, I saw it in the lower right corner: Become a fan of Brueggers on Facebook. I’ve seen similar exhortations lately in restaurants, retail stores and on brand Web sites.

Brueggers Facebook Fan PageNow, I had my Blackberry right there with me and could have pulled it out and fanned Brueggers on the spot. But I didn’t. And I spent a good chunk of my lunch thinking about why I had no desire to fan this brand. I eat there regularly, I enjoy their food, the service is good… but frankly, I just didn’t feel like I’d get anything out of becoming a Bruegger’s fan on Facebook.

I’m suffering from Facebook Brand Fatigue. I’ve noticed that my inclination to fan brands has decreased lately, just as more and more bands seem to be coming around to Facebook and creating pages. I’m fans of 22 brands on Facebook, ranging from TV shows to restaurants to beer to my cousin’s Celtic band. In most cases, I’ve hidden fan page updates from my news feed, which pretty much defeats the purpose of being a fan (other than the notion of “tattooing” my profile with cool logos). I mostly use Facebook to keep up with friends and family and it’s hard enough to catch all of their updates, let alone sort through the tons of fan page items flood the stream.

The brands that I enjoy being fans of generally don’t update too much on Facebook (a quick way to ensure I hide them) but offer just enough content to keep me interested or curious. For example, The Big Bang Theory posts a video clip each Monday, which usually gives me a laugh (or 17) but then allows me to go about my Facebook business for the rest of the week without interruption from them.

There are plenty of brands I love and am loyal to, but I feel like I’m burning out on fan pages. What does it really do for me to fan Bruegger’s on Facebook? If I became a fan of every TV show I watched, restaurant I ate in, merchant I bought from or city I visited it would completely overwhelm my Facebook experience.

So, here are my new rules for becoming a fan on Facebook:

  1. I gotta love ya. I mean really, really love ya. I need to be an actual FAN of your brand, not just a customer, user or visitor. I will only fan brands that I am passionate about and would wholeheartedly recommend to my closest friends.
  2. I need to see the value that your page provides. What do you offer me as a fan? How is it different than just visiting your Web site? I will only fan brands that offer me real value that I can’t get elsewhere from them on the Web. Can you give me cool links, exclusive video, or a place to offer my feedback (and get a response)?
  3. I won’t fan sites that post too frequently or auto-post feeds from a blog or Twitter. I don’t want to fan brands only to have to hide them. I will only fan brands that don’t disrupt my Facebook experience by clogging my news feed.

Three simple rules, for starters. What are yours? How do you make the decision what to become a fan of on Facebook? And once you do, how do you interact with those pages? Share your strategy in the comments.

What baby names can teach us about viral marketing

Posted on by

hello-my-name-is_mIf you were born in the 1980s, how many Jennifers and Jasons did you go to school with? A lot, right? And then gradually, those names fell out of favor and were replaced by Ashley, Aidan, Madison, Ethan. Jennifer and Jason don’t even make the top 50 anymore. Other names have been more consistently popular, however. Think Michael, Daniel, Elizabeth.

What’s this got to do with marketing? Well, a new study looked at the speed at which baby names rose to popularity and also how quickly they declined. It turns out names that skyrocket to popularity are also fastest to fall into obscurity. The same behavioral drivers surrounding baby naming can translate into product and brand adoption. According to the study’s authors:

Fads tend to be viewed negatively, the authors point out. “And if people think that sharply increasing [popularity] will be short lived, they may avoid such items to avoid doing something that may later be seen as a flash in the pan.”

The paper points to examples in the music industry of new artists who bolt to the top of sales charts, but realize lower overall sales than those whose popularity grows more slowly. “This seemingly counterintuitive finding has important implications. One is that faster adoption is not only linked to faster abandonment, but may also hurt overall success,” the authors write.

Despite the excitement it generates for a few days, the video your brand launched that “went viral” on YouTube may be entirely forgotten in a few months or weeks and ultimately do nothing for long-term growth. But if you take a slower, measured approach to building a strong community of fans, your brand may remain popular for a lot longer. There’s no viral marketing campaign around Moleskine notebooks, for example, but the brand has built a dedicated group of fans that it continues to nurture and support.

Don’t mistake faddish-popularity as an indicator of long-term brand success. Fads rise to popularity quickly without any real reason – they’re not usually fulfilling a customer need (did anyone need snap-bracelets in elementary school in 1990?).

Instead of focusing on how to get as much buzz for your product or organization as fast as possible, think of how to meticulously build a community. It takes longer and can be more work, but the reward is much greater.

No one wants to be a flash in the pan. Not even Jennifer and Jason.