Tag Archives: facebook

Get your social media horse out from behind that cart

Posted on by

“Let’s send out direct mail postcards with discount codes to potential customers.”

“Let’s sponsor a conference and have our CEO speak at it.”

“Let’s create a referral program for our current customers to help us generate new business.”

Most savvy marketers could read the three statements above and instantly recognize them all as tactics, not strategies. All of those actions might be a good idea, but it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. Most organizations know they at least need to start with a strategy, a goal, before embarking on a marketing or PR campaign. You don’t just jump to tactics.

Now replace postcards, conference, and referral program in the above statements with Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Still tactics, right? So why are so many erstwhile savvy marketers thinking that these three platforms constitute a social media strategy?

Cart before the horse

A strategy starts with business goals. Are you trying to sell more product? Reduce costs? Attract more members? Repair a damaged brand reputation? Your marketing and social media activities should match up with these business goals. What does success look like and how do you measure it?

After goals are defined, determine who you’re trying to reach, where they are online and what you’re trying to get them to do. If your target audience is not using Twitter, don’t make Twitter the crux of your marketing campaign. You wouldn’t send a direct mail piece about mortgage refinancing to a bunch of apartment renters. So don’t try to reach teens and college students on LinkedIn.

I’ve been talking with too many organizations lately that want to skip right to implementing social media tactics. Maybe it’s because they’re caught up in the hype and buzz surrounding social media or feel that they’re behind the game and need to get moving. Perhaps their competitor has implemented and seen success with social media and they don’t want to be left behind. It still doesn’t mean that skipping the strategy part is okay, though. Even if you see “results”, without a strategy you won’t know what those results are achieving.

Stop. Take a step back. Start with strategy.

Photo via Flickr user Emilio Labrador

Why I was wrong about lifestreaming

Posted on by

I sat staring down the white screen of WordPress death tonight knowing that I was due a blog post but unable to come up with anything (I’m sure no blogger has EVER had that problem before, EVER).

So, in my writer’s-block-induced haze, I sent out the following tweet:

Crowdsourced tweetThe lucky winner? Mark Krynsky (@krynsky) responded first:

Mark Krynsky LifestreamingCrap.

(Although I suppose I should be glad that Arik Hanson didn’t beat him to it, with his “Everything I learned about social media, I learned from Barry Manilow” suggestion.)

Mark was calling on me to refute a post I wrote several weeks ago asking what the big deal was about lifestreaming. That post generated a healthy discussion as readers tried to help me understand what value sites like Tumblr and Posterous added versus a traditional blog and other outlets like Facebook and Twitter. Mark, who authors the LifestreamBlog, left one of many great comments on the post.

I revisited the post and my initial stance. I wrote that original post from the standpoint of genuinely questioning and being curious about the value of lifestreaming, and not necessarily dissing or deriding the practice. A lot of the comments helped clarify my thinking. The most common reason people cited for lifestreaming was that it occupies the space “between Twitter and a blog” and provides an outlet for “off-topic” items that may be out of place on a subject-specific blog. Others use Posterous as a way to clip and save items from the Web, almost like a juiced-up Delicious account.

All are valid reasons, but so far I still haven’t found the time or interest to update (curate?) my own lifestream or really follow anyone else’s.

But, specific to Posterous, which seems to be the most popular lifestreaming tool right now, I will say that I do see the potential from an ease-of-use standpoint. The ability to send in blog posts via e-mail directly to Posterous is very compelling for someone who wants to blog or share information but doesn’t want to deal with a complicated (or even a simple) CMS. And Posterous makes it very easy to record audio clips and send them directly to the site. It’s a way to start creating content with extremely low barriers to entry.

Another interesting “group lifestreaming” experiment took place at Social Media Breakfast Houston. Bryan Person created a Posterous account and had attendees e-mail info and photos. I could see this type of format working for events and conferences as a place to have people collectively contribute content (holy alliteration). The concept is similar to Collecta, a site that pulls in Tweets, photos, and more for specific hashtags.

So, I’m not sure that asking a question can really be “wrong”, but I’ll certainly admit that my eyes have been opened to many more possibilities for lifestreaming. Heck, I may even get around to updating my Posterous account one of these days.

Thanks to Mark and everyone else who participated in my little Twitter/blog/crowdsourcing experiment. For now, writer’s block averted.

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.

“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.

Women “uninfluenced” by social media. Australians are.

Posted on by

Is brand participation in social networking really making a difference with customers? Two studies on consumer reactions to social networking were released on Wednesday that both tried to answer this question.

The first study, from Q Interactive and released at ad:tech Chicago, surveyed 1,000 women and found that they are “overwhelmingly uninfluenced” by a brand’s presence in social media. It found that 54 percent of women are likely to friend or fan a brand via a social network but that 75 percent said social networking sites don’t influence what they buy.

The second study was conducted in Australia and found that conversations on social networks about poor customer experiences are “severely harming” the reputations of organizations who are called out on these sites. The research indicated that 25 percent of respondents boycotted a particular organization after reading a negative review or comment about it on a social networking site, and of that quarter, 42 percent had been previous customers of the particular organization.

At first glance,  the studies appear to be at odds with each other. I realize that it’s a fallacy to make a direct comparison here, but look at the broader picture. In the first example, the women are being asked about the brand’s activity on social networks and whether it influences them. In the second, the respondents are being asked about whether information posted by other users of the network influences them. Big difference.

People trust people more than brands. People will even trust people they don’t know when it comes to online opinions. A negative review or account of a poor customer service experience on Facebook or Twitter will carry more heft than a brand sharing its “story” on a Facebook fan page or campaign microsite.

hearingWhere the two concepts cross is the conclusion in the second part of the Australian study: Of social network users who claimed to have posted a negative review, 60 percent of them would welcome interaction from the organization to address the issue.

I may not be influenced to buy any/more of a product because I follow them on Twitter or are a fan of them and receive their updates on Facebook. But if I notice a friend’s blog post, Yelp review, or tweet about a terrible experience with the company, I’m likely to be turned off and choose to do business elsewhere. I give credence to my friends’ opinions. That’s still a case of being “influenced” by social media networks — just not in the positive way that the first study sought to measure. However, if I refer to that negative review and see that the company in question took the time to craft a thoughtful response and address the issue, I’m likely to give them a shot and may even respect them more for doing so.

Man, woman, American, Australian — it comes down to which side of the conversation is more effective for brands: talking or listening. Taken together, these two studies show that listening is clearly the winner.

Image via Flickr user kpishdadi