davidpoulos.com

Category: Social Media

  • Is Traditional Media Dead?

    Is Traditional Media Dead?

    Podcast: Play in new window | Download

    Subscribe: RSS

    With the addition of cable television, streaming video services, internet radio, podcasts, social media streaming platforms, Periscope, and a whole host of other choices, the media landscape for marketers has become crowded, fragmented and multi-fold – which is the good news! You now have a plethora of choices when making media selections that allow you to not only narrowly target your exact audience, but also get near instant feedback in terms of engagement and viewership in real time, and enrich your data stream for further refinement of your selections based on actual purchase or engagement levels. Miraculous!

    So where does that leave Network television and terrestrial radio? Right there in the fight, according to special guest media expert Karl Minacapelli of CK Westbury Media in Towson, MD.

    Learn about how:

    • TV can narrow cast to your audience
    • Radio can do real time feedback on day part and web engagement
    • Cable can be a bargain if you want to laser focus your buy
    • Radio can be a bargain if you want to own the category

    The best 30-minute education on media buying available, right here from the doctor and his colleagues!

  • Can We Finally Dispense With The “Digital” In Digital Marketing?

    Can We Finally Dispense With The “Digital” In Digital Marketing?

    It’s 2017, and so much in marketing practice has changed since we opened our doors in 1997. The range of disciplines has widened beyond print, radio, TV, Outdoor, PR, product placement, sampling, and direct mail. Now the list should include e-mail, SEO and Search, web optimization, social media platforms without number, mobile, YouTube and related channels, Netflix, Amazon, and a host of integration and planning options to tie all of that internet activity together and use customer information to market products and services more effectively, more selectively, more tightly targeted, more high-impact.

     

    There is very little left in marketing today that is not fully digital or directly stems from a digital source. Even the old stalwarts, like outdoor and newspaper, have gone fully digital. Digital signage has replaced movie lobby cards and wall posters in retail. Digital billboards aren’t yet ubiquitous, but will be soon, once the larger screen costs come down and the weatherproofing is perfected. Print? Ha! The files are digital in origin, the plates if used for large runs are digital, the output printer for smaller runs and standard substrates are digital, large format banners, billboards, fabrics and textiles, construction wrapping, you name it, all digital.

     

    Images originate in digital form almost exclusively, and they travel digitally as well. They are taken with a digital camera, edited in a digital editing platform, transmitted digitally to the destination for use digitally or for output to paper on a digital printer or press. Video is shot on digital recorders, digitally edited, transmitted digitally, for display, rebroadcast, download and “sharing” on digital media platforms – ones and zeros from end to end.

     

    E-mail has in part replaced direct mail and originates digitally, is delivered digitally, is consumed digitally, is acted upon (clicks or form completions, electronic purchase) digitally. Even in direct mail, the letters are written and edited digitally, often the order form is merely a link or PURL to drive traffic to the web to interact with (remember struggling to fit all the response form info on a single two-sided page?).  With no Internet, (digital) there would be no “search” to optimize, so everything to do with the internet is digital. Cookies, remarketing, banner ads and display campaigns, Google AdWords, all digital.

     

    Television and radio are completely digital, nearly end to end, with the exception of the voice over (recorded digitally), and the actors (recorded digitally and edited with CGI). Often the product itself in TV ads is digitally generated, which gives producers and directors more flexibility to execute, saves time and money creating physical mock-ups, and eliminates things like prototyping and food stylists.

     

    Promotional branded products? Sure, designed digitally using a CAD program, can even be printed digitally using a 3D printer, but if not, the molds are rendered digitally, using a computer to guide the cutting head with digital precision through the metal, and the resulting molded product is branded using a digital ink jet printer.

     

    In-store display for retail? Sure. The boxes and stands are digitally printed, and often include a video screen for displaying digital video talking about the product, some with interactive capability, also digitally voiced and activated. PR is nearly completely digital, as releases and announcements are written and originate digitally, with interviews recorded on a digital recorder. Placements are made in digital media, transmitted and read in digital form, even the story ideas and go-to experts for articles, blogs, and newspapers are communicated electronically in digital form.

     

    So at this point it seems clear, nearly everything to do with marketing is digital. So why, in position descriptions, media requests, consulting reports, research requests, management recommendations, internal and external memos and announcements and the like, do we insist on specifying “digital marketing”? It’s redundant at this point in history, and will likely take a while to drop from use entirely, but to my way of thinking, we no longer need it – it’s just marketing. We can assume that it’s digital, since there’s very little that isn’t. Art has given way to science, “feel” has been usurped by a mass of data (digital), and insight comes not from knowing how your friends and neighbors react to a product, but to scientifically-derived and researched customer insights and virtual focus groups. Tactile has been replaced by visual, and customer experiences have less to do with brick and mortar, with lighting, displays, music, and paint schemes, and more to do with how many clicks to reach the product you desire, and how easy it is too find the shopping cart, to complete the credit card form, to calculate your postage and shipping rates, to understand the return and personal information use policy.

     

    Time to drop the digital and get on with the mission – reaching customers and prospect in a timely fashion, with the right message, at the right time, and making it easy to buy from you.

  • Marketing Automation Can Go Too Far

    Marketing Automation Can Go Too Far

    With as many digital marketing programs, apps, platforms and dashboards as are currently available to the modern marketer, clearly marketing automation is an idea whose time has come. But at what point does all that automation start to mask, hide, obfuscate and cloak the real goal of the marketer – to persuade, influence, elicit emotion and garner a specific reaction by connecting in some emotional way with the individuals who make up the target market. If the machines are deciding the timing, tone, quality, frequency, subject matter and even copy point priority, is there really a relationship being created there?

    While I’m still emotionally a bit of a luddite when it comes to technology, I understand it’s uses and marvel at its potential to make our lives easier, and more productive, alleviating the drudgery of some of the more mundane daily tasks and delegating the type of “step, repeat” activities that make up our daily existence to simple machines. However, there are limits to the level and type of task I’m willing to relinquish to the machines. The little voice in the back of my head that warns “If it can do this, what else could it do if I don’t keep control over it” is running that script more frequently when I take a few moments to fill the que of my social media automation platform. It speeds up knowing that the machine will be totally in charge of what people see, when they see it, how often they see it. Relin       quishing that level of control is a little scary.

    Now, take that a step further. The next generation of software is likely to have wider permissions within your physical and online universe. It’s possible, given the necessary set up structure, for a similar platform to deliver a message to a given recipient, with the ability to search their hard drive and cloud account, dredge up bits of information gauge their reactions to online posts by others, collect viewing habits for photos and videos, and be able to piece these disparate pieces of data together into a coherent letter rife with personal references that only make sense to them. Its invasive, it’s creepy, it gives the recipient a sense of exposure, but if crafted correctly and reigned in appropriately, it would be so personal and so relevant, it would out-pull almost any generic control letter by a factor of 10. Are you scared of the machines yet?

    Currently, the overuse of personalization typically takes the form of using the person’s name or address or other key piece of publicly available information too many times. The only damage there is to the sender, as it pulls back the curtain and exposes the use of data in the letter, destroying the illusion of personal relations and destroying trust. This depresses response, but doesn’t hurt anything. But taken a notch further, say that same letter is riddled with personal information, including images of your home and kids, banking and financial “hints”, information about your mortgage or car loan, the kids’ school names or addresses, extracurricular activities. Looks and sounds personal, right? Now imagine that letter is stolen out of the mailbox, or picked up out of the delivery bin before it even gets to you. The person with ill intent now knows more about you than they could ever discover any other way, and can use that data to do anything they want, unfettered by regulations, legislation, professional ethics or legal restriction.

    Used correctly, personalization and data “injection” can make messages feel relevant, feel familiar, feel comfortable, and lead to a positive response. Used incorrectly, personalization can open the door to abuse, cause damage to both the sender and the recipient, and lead to a range of problems from minor headache to legal action. When employing automation for driving or disseminating marketing messages, best to err on the side of caution and keep your human fingers in the pie at critical points – just to be sure everyone stays on good terms – be careful out there . . .

  • Make It All Consistent – -Brand Consistency Builds Strength, Awareness

    Make It All Consistent – -Brand Consistency Builds Strength, Awareness

    There is a lot of talk and noise in the marketing interwebs regarding brand. At the base end of the spectrum, there are articles on what brand is, how to build a personal brand, and what brand is not. At the upper end, there are published studies on brand engagement and measurement thereof, brand strength and awareness linkages to sales, and other more esoteric subjects. What’s missing is one of the central themes on brand, that it is imperative that brand presentation and implementation must be consistent from instance to instance.

    Consistency is the key to delivering on that brand promise, no matter where it is encountered, and particular care must be taken when the brand is licensed to third-party outlets or producers to maintain the quality and consistency of the brand, to maintain its integrity. The level of importance of consistency cannot be underestimated, to the point where any brand-related engagement of our firm starts with an implementation consistency test, starting with date of first use, and carrying out to current executions. We collect all available examples in every media we can find, lay them all out and physically compare them, to point out lapses in consistency, poor quality control, bad executions on the part of licensees, or off-brand knock-offs.

    consistency quote

    For retailers and product purveyors, this type of exercise can be especially helpful in spotting counterfeit goods. Often, the goods are closer to the real thing in quality and accuracy than the brand usage, which is often either misplaced, mounted upside down, the wrong color, reversed when none is allowed, or even misspelled, sometimes on purpose in an attempt to escape prosecution. Vigilance is key to keeping knock-offs out of the market place and diluting the power of the brand, so performing this exercise semi-annually can help keep the counterfeiters at bay.

    Some brands are fanatics about consistent presentation, and some of that fanaticism is justified, especially for those firms operating globally, with a wide range of distant or disparate locations and decentralized operations. Coke-a-Cola is one who vigilantly protects its brand executions. They have a brand usage manual that runs over 200 pages, and covers every instance of usage you can imagine, from signage, to cups, to promotions on billboards, to television ads and internet posts on social media. This manual is translated into over 35 languages around the world, so there are no excuses by bottlers or licensees from Buford, AL to Bangladesh for misusing the Coke emblem. Coke has it’s own trademarked PMS color, described in the manual using three color selection systems used worldwide, and translated into other color systems like automobile paint and video reference color codes. Talk about thorough!

    That kind of control definitely has advantages, especially when trying to spot fakes in the market place. Even if your usage is not that extensive or far flung, you should still exercise strong controls when the work goes out of house for other purposes, like sponsorship programs, charity visibility, translation into other languages, or implementations in unusual media, like apparel or textiles, or low-res print representations. Coarse screen values, RGB conversion, poor registration or low quality paper all conspire to make a mess of logos and brands in less than professional settings, and some care must be taken to guard against these aberrations. One may not do much damage at all, but over time, they can collectively do damage to the credibility of the brand, and the mistakes tend to end up in some unusual places, and as such, come back to haunt you at inopportune times.

    You’ve worked hard to build a highly believable, credible, expressive and purposeful brand – don’t let poor execution consistency undo all your hard work!

  • Customer Engagement: Make Your Sponsorship Count

    Customer Engagement: Make Your Sponsorship Count

    There are many forms of sponsorship businesses can use to their advantage: from the check written to the local Little League baseball team to help offset the cost of uniforms (with your name on the back), to local sponsorship of a national charity event, to owning a major golf tournament or NASCAR race. Each has its own audience, it’s own impact, and it’s own way of engaging the audience. The trick with all of them is to create a positive, lasting and active emotional connection between your brand and the event.

     

    Brand activation for a sponsorship is one of the toughest marketing challenges most businesses face in their effort to raise awareness and drive recognition that can boost sales over time. The magic is in the matchup of the brand and the sponsored entity. The audience has to intuitively “get it” when they see the sponsor’s name in connection with the event, which means that there needs to be at least some rudimentary logic to the pairing of the two. There are some pairings that appear to be, well, natural in how they are executed, but I’m a firm believer in the tenet that there are no coincidences, and that most simple, natural occurrences are engineered by someone or something, although not necessarily for their own purposes. Auto racing promotions by oil companies, tire companies, engine builders and the like seem like natural extensions. Beer, cigarettes, soft drinks, and other consumer consumables, seem like a bigger stretch, until you consider that the audience for the race is the tightest demographic match to their product buyer possible, based on their own internal research. A huge chunk of race fans enjoy a Coke regularly, and in earlier times, the vast majority of race fans enjoyed a Winston or Marlboro on a very regular basis.

     

    Even those famous pairings required some time and effort to appear natural, and be linked in people’s minds permanently. Not only were there competitors in each category to wrench the spotlight from, but they had to find a way to activate the sponsorship so that all the dollars they spent paid off, by moving the product sales needle in some predictable way. Pennzoil, Valvoline, Quaker State, MobileONE, and a host of other petroleum brands vied for NASCAR sponsorships, but only one would eventually rise to the top of the recognition heap in that particular type of racing. The winning brand crafted a long-term series of ads, promotions and other outreach content that pinpointed and brought to light their involvement with high performance activities. You could put it in your Chevy, but you knew that it was developed for and was used in a race car, making your grocery-getter a little more like the race car you couldn’t have. Aspirational activation is a strong driver of success in sponsorships, and has been used to promote luxury brands and commodity consumables alike for many years with great success.

     

    Athletic endeavor has been fertile ground for this type of approach, because athletes have long been role models of persistence, hard work, grit and perseverance against the odds. Aspirational stories abound about athletes, and since they enjoy extensive media coverage, athletes and their stories are readily available to the public. If consumers aspire to be like the great athletes they watch and read about, then emulating them is a logical step toward making that aspiration a reality. If Tiger Woods wears a Tag Heuer watch, maybe if I buy one I’ll be a little more like him, run in the same company as he does. The athletes’ brand transfers to the product, and in some cases the reverse as well, creating that “natural” pairing. You’d expect the winner of a slew of majors in half that many years, with lifetime earnings in the multi-millions, to wear a pretty high-end watch. If Tiger had a Timex endorsement, it would have created a bit of a disconnect for the audience(s), and that natural feeling would not exist, diminishing the positive effect of both brands, diluting the aspiration, and reducing the effect on sales to the point of being nonexistent.

     

    On a smaller scale, middle market businesses can make sponsorships pay off quite well if they create or find a way to activate that sponsorship emotionally with the audience. The key is still to make it aspirational and activational. The aspiration can often come from the sponsor’s own position in the market. The largest commercial bank in the state sponsoring a business organization designed to build wealth and commercial connections makes perfect sense. Offering unique access or benefits to the members of that group makes it activated and effective. Market awareness, brand recognition don’t do all that much unless the target audience frequently finds itself in a quandary between two entities – the one with the higher recognition has been shown to win more frequently and more consistently, however irrational that choice may be for the consumer.

     

    Being in front of the right target audience for extended periods of time offers the recognition, but with no activation or aspiration, the sponsorship will be less than ideally effective. A male country music artist’s tour sponsored by Prius doesn’t have the same level of activation and almost no aspiration, when compared to Ford trucks. It’s a matter of cultural understanding, and matching the market leader to the aspirations of the audience. Country music fans clearly care about their environment as much as the next fan, but their concern takes a different form than saving gas or reducing pollution.

     

    Big brands should select their sponsorship opportunities carefully, to be sure that the target audience’s aspirations and activations align with their values and cultural norms. Done correctly, your sponsorship can be one of those “natural” pairings that lives in consumer’s minds for a lifetime.

  • Attendee Acquisition Is A Long-Term Investment That Pays Off

    Attendee Acquisition Is A Long-Term Investment That Pays Off

    With the recent rise in attention among marketers to customer engagement, and customer experience, customer journey, call it what you like, event marketing has risen on the marketing totem pole to a higher priority than ever. But with that new status comes a new sense of accountability as well – “If we’re going to host all these people and feed them, educate them, allow them into our world to meet us and each other, I want to see that the expense associated with that activity pays off . . .”

     

    Finding out what that expense is would be a logical first step, and then bench-marking that expense against what competitors are paying might be another. We’re marketers, after all, competitive and curious, and we test and measure everything!

     

    The finding out part is pretty simple. The 2016 Benchmark & Trends in Attendee Acquisition study was released by Lippman Connects, Exhibit Surveys, Inc. and Tradeshow Executive magazine as a joint study. That study shows that the average cost of attendee acquisition marketing is over $300,000 per event, and when you get more granular, the average show with flat or inflating growth spends roughly $32.66 for each attendee they attract. If you’re spending less than that, and your show is still growing year over year, then you have reached a level of marketing efficiency that bests roughly half the shows out there – congratulations. If you’re spending less than that, and your shows are declining, you have a decision to make: Invest more in your marketing efforts, across all channels, unless you have clear evidence of an inefficient or low-performing channel, or continue to contract until you level back out and your attendance flattens, and then re-examine the relevance of your event to the current audience.

     

    Now the value-tracking portion, which is a little tougher. Start with how many visitors you’re attracting for each paid exhibitor. This is a good number to know for marketing purposes, because exhibitors use this to calculate their expense of acquisition for new customers from your show, and use it as a benchmark when making the decision to exhibit in your show. According to the same study, shows studied had 22 attendees per exhibitor and scheduled the floor time for a total of 21 hours or more.

     

    But attendees don’t just sign up for the exhibitors. Some 50+% of show attendees are there as conference enrollees, and the show portion is just gravy. 42% indicated that they were interested in the exhibits. Smart show organizers recognize this, and are attempting to make this portion even larger by enlisting the help of the exhibitors themselves. Pre-show marketing by exhibitors is a staple of attendee attraction, and the more you encourage and enable your exhibitors to market their presence at your show, the more attendees you end up with, at no additional expense. That’s a win for everyone!

     

    One of the key challenges in event marketing is justifying that $32 per head acquisition cost, and more importantly, tying it back to a specific marketing activity. Given that most event marketers use a broad variety of channels to market events, including direct mail, traditional print advertising, where appropriate radio and TV advertising, social media promotions, outdoor, e-mail, and other channels, linking any single activity to an uptick or drop in attendance is difficult at best. Your post-show survey work should shed some light on what the most likely driving force behind registration might have been, but it’s really the integrated effort that drives the boat on this one – each channel supports the others to drive overall awareness and memorability for you events, and what you’re testing in your survey is simply the one channel that most closely came to triggering the registration process.

     

    If you do a lot of digital marketing, and have links sprinkles all over everything that drives traffic to your registration page or an online form, it is very likely that this will appear to be what is driving attendance – but is it? If you put up billboards surrounding the venue at a consumer show, and get a lot of walk-in traffic (non-pre-registered), is the billboard driving attendance, or is it just a reminder of the date? If you ask attendees point blank why they registered, chances are excellent the answer won’t be “I got an e-mail and filled out the registration form.” It will more likely take the form of “I saw that my colleagues were going and wanted to go with them,” or “we go every year to see the new technology, and to reconnect with colleagues in the industry.” Those results are harder to directly link to a single marketing activity, but go directly to awareness of your event, which is driven by all of your integrated efforts combined.

     

    Strong, consistent research can help pin down what efforts are working the hardest, and you can use the data to reallocate resources in your budget to take advantage of certain triggers, and drive incremental growth in the short term. But real, sustainable growth is a long-term commitment of time, effort, and resources to contain and drive momentum year over year, and requires constant testing and reinvestment to show results.

  • Big Data VS Privacy – Who Wins, Marketers or Consumers?

    Big Data VS Privacy – Who Wins, Marketers or Consumers?

    In daily practice, good marketing, at it’s heart, is an attempt to get inside the head of as many people of a certain type as possible, and suggest that they take an action – buy something, become aware of something, donate to something, tell a friend about something. Maybe not the cleanest definition, but its functionally accurate.

    To do the best job we can, we use primary research on behalf of our clients, to learn the thoughts, feelings, emotional triggers and preferences of their customers, so that we can showcase their products, services of ideas in the best possible light, at the best possible time, using the most effective media to deliver that message.

    That research involves asking a lot of direct, probing, emotionally-driven questions of hundreds of people per client, and if you include surveys, that number soars into the hundreds of thousands over the years. Most people enjoy taking our surveys or talking to our staff on the phone, for a couple of reasons. We explain that their individual responses will not be used to sell them anything, ever. We explain that, together with hundreds of other people’s opinion, their opinion will help shape new products and services, and tailor them to their needs and preferences, making them better suited for them. We explain that they have a right to privacy, and that their individual responses will not be connected with their name directly, that their name or other information will not be sold to anyone, ever. With those assurances in place, people feel secure enough to share good, solid accurate insights with us and they help us do a better job. Everybody wins!

    Big Data gathering apparatus, on the other hand, offer no such assurances. Has the clerk at the grocery store register ever asked if you’re OK with them collecting your shopping data? Has the clerk at Target ever asked if you’re comfortable with them collecting data on what you buy, how often and when? Even though it might be buried in their user agreement, the folks at facebook or Snapchat have never made a point to call and ask you if they can share your data with Macy’s, nor has a representative from Google ever called you to ask if they can shadow your search patterns with that ad for that great bag or cool phone cover you found while shopping, and that seems to mysteriously follow you around the Internet for the next few days. You gave them the information freely, but you didn’t think it would affect you directly and immediately.

    There’s nothing inherently wrong with using data that is given voluntarily. The difference between gaining insight from research and using data to help capture the consumer directly is that feeling of invasion of privacy. Its hard to quantify a feeling of invasion, its even hard to describe accurately and reliably, as it differs from person to person. Its sort of like the supreme court’s definition of pornography – you just know it when you see it.

    So where does it cross the line between legitimate research to gain insight, and data manipulation to gain data on an individual basis? In our practice it starts with respondent awareness – we make sure our intentions are well known and easily understood by each respondent, and we record the conversations as a reference, asking them on tape if its OK to ask them questions, understanding that their responses will be used only in aggregate, will be anonymized, and won’t be sold to anyone. That assurance provides them some transparency to the process, and the recording helps us validate that we’ll keep our word.

    Data privacy is a growing issue, and as the data gathering apparatus represented by social media, retailers, payment processors, and marketers grows in size and sophistication, it will be an even larger issue going forward. Add increased use of mobile devices, increased web mobility and app utility, the growing capabilities of nefarious hackers and data thieves, and its easy to see these two elements, privacy and data research, colliding in a cataclysmic revolt every bit as transformative as the French Revolution.

    As marketers, we’re often accused of leading the data parade, and our Orwellian need to keep tabs on what people buy, what they register for, what they watch and what they say to each other is what drives all this privacy invasion and leads to breaches and leaks of personal ID information. This is largely an emotional reaction, unfocused and poorly reasoned. I need only point to the conundrum that when purchasers were asked to fill out an order form and include a credit card number, drop it in an envelope and mail it off to an unknown person, they have no trouble, but when asked to provide that same information over the telephone, have great trepidation about revealing those same 16 digits, and an even higher level of distrust about completing a form with that same information online. Much easier to snag that envelope out of your mailbox than it is to set up the apparatus to capture that info, decode it and decrypt it from a phone call or online.

    Marketers are facing a crisis if faith, of trust, because a few of us have abused consumer trust in the legitimate use of their information to gain market insight. Good marketing is based on research, and good research is based on trust. That pyramid is likely to collapse if data ethics and security are not rigidly observed, safeguards put in place, rules and guidelines observed religiously, and procedures followed closely in our handling of consumer data, no matter how it is obtained – if not, it won’t be much good anymore.

  • Engagement Is Good, Revenue Is Better

    Engagement Is Good, Revenue Is Better

    There is a lot of buzz among marketers about fostering customer engagement, building engagement with apps and websites, creating communities with blogs and social selling. It all sounds great on paper, we should all work together, share your purchases socially, everybody knows everything you do, everyone’s on your side, we’re all a village, cumbaya . . . But when you’re standing in the aisle at Wal-Mart deciding what frozen dinner brand or dog food to buy, I don’t feel that my level of engagement with Purina’s website is the deciding factor. Marketing is about raising awareness in a positive way to influence and drive SALES. I can be as engaged as can be with a brand, but if a similar product is in front of me, and they are largely the same, engagement doesn’t trump quality, availability and price, and the sale will go to the one who fits those three criteria the closest. Even with B2B sales, I’ve been “engaged” with a number of websites and businesses prospecting my business via e-mail and other devices, but haven’t actually bought anything from any of them – I’d score really high on their “engagement scale” algorithm, but they haven’t made a dime off of me, and may never do so.

     

    Brand engagement is a long-term play. It needs to be tied to other awareness vehicles, timed promotions, backup media, and ongoing evolution of product benefit awareness in order to really be effective at driving sales. This is not a new idea, but it’s one which has risen to prominence recently along with the ubiquity of social media platforms, which provide the ability for person-to-person communication in a way heretofore not possible on the current scale. I can now tell thousands of people what I’m doing, what I’m interested in, what I’m buying, what I’m eating, cooking, enjoying, drinking, and more on a moment’s notice in real time. That means that if I’m sharing it with others, it’s boosting their awareness as well as my own for a particular product, service or item. That kind of organic, exponential awareness spread at that speed was unheard of just 15 years ago. Epidemiologists are familiar with the concept, but marketers only recently began to apply it to their efforts – indeed the term “going viral” is borrowed from the disease spread specialists, as information, or awareness, can spread a lightning speed unseen from the outside, like a virus.

     

    Just because I’m aware of a product or service that I’ve engaged with it on the Internet, does not mean that when the time comes I’m actually going to make a purchase. It may increase the odds some, but as we learned with the recent Powerball drawing, odds need to be changed significantly with a supreme effort in order to really affect the outcome. Social media engagement or website engagement is like buying 100 lottery tickets instead of one. It seems like you’ve boosted your chances of winning by 100 fold, but in reality, those other 99 tickets didn’t even move the needle.

     

    By all means, do A/B testing, make adjustments, formulate campaigns that include a mechanism for increasing engagement, but depending upon it to drive significant revenue could be a mistake. The basics of building ongoing awareness through media your audience utilizes, timing your efforts to coincide with that target’s needs or life-stage position, matching your demographics and psychographics and messaging to that of the prospective customer, are still the linchpins of successful marketing efforts, and enhancements and refinements to these, along with some boosts in awareness through effective promotion of specialty offers, benefit driven messaging, and creative imagery, will drive revenue upward on a consistent basis as the brand evolves and the audience grows. If you’ve got all those bases covered effectively, engagement is a nice to have, the icing on the cake, and a good set up for the upsell and cross sell to that customer base, due to the added time allowed for an opportunity to develop.

     

    Unless I miss my guess, the folks dwelling on engagement (which is notoriously hard to measure with any accuracy) don’t have all the basics in place and need a buzz word and a crutch to help them explain why things on the sales side aren’t moving as far or as fast as expected.

     

    Dwell on the basics of marketing, make sure all the right pieces are in place and working together efficiently, and keeping the pipeline full, then worry about engagement.

  • Lies, Damn Lies, And Statistics

    Lies, Damn Lies, And Statistics

    The world of marketing is fraught with data, we’re drowning in it, awash in a sea of numbers, statistics, charts, graphs, analytic dashboards keeping track of minutia that has little bearing on the bigger picture of framing and positioning the thing we’re marketing in it’s best possible light to the best possible audience. What was once about words, pictures, images, headlines, ideas, insights and engagement has been reduced to a series of tactical, digital zig zags, trying to maximize return on a micro level, and hope it scales up and moves the corporate revenue needle.

    Why?

    Do It Yourself

    One of the reasons that data has become so powerful (it always was, we just didn’t think it was cool to talk about it) is that not only is there a lot of it, but it’s easier to obtain and derive, and the costs are much lower, thanks to the Internet. In the bad old days, if you wanted to measure engagement or response, you had sales numbers (conversion), inbound phone call numbers (inquiry, “likes”), or account rep activity (lead gen inbound). Other than those in-house numbers, if you wanted to know more, you needed to dig much deeper, create a research study, engage a firm and have them do what they do and report back.

    Today, all the activity data, engagement activity, views, likes, dwell time, clicks, shares, conversions, and other forms of engagement signal are logged, categorized, organized and reported to you digitally on a minute-by-minute basis in real time, using inexpensive or free software. And it can all be accessed by anyone with a laptop and an Internet connection, anywhere in the world.

    Prove It . . .

    One other reason all this craziness over data is occurring is more corporate and has to do with economics. The marketing department has long been viewed as an expense, occasionally by the more enlightened as an investment, but only recently as having the potential to be a profit center. Marketers have always had the need to justify their existence pressed upon them, and we spend hours writing reports, dissecting response numbers and finding ways to make it look like the things we’re doing contribute directly to the company’s revenue and well-being. On some level, the more data we can present, the more attractive a case we can make for being provided, and spending, more money to do the things we know we need to do, but have to prove it to everyone else.

    In the real world, using data to gauge performance, learning and improving returns, and making decisions based on data is really the main idea – but we’ve been doing that for years. The real trick is to properly select and vet the data you’re looking at and using to make those decisions. Just because a number represents a count of a certain behavior or response doesn’t make it a viable or useful piece of data – it may not scale, it may not apply across platforms or audiences, it may not be sustainable, it may be badly skewed by events you have no control over. But it is data, and therefore useful, right?

    The other pitfall to all this data is that even if it is accurate, correct, vetted and sustainable, you need to find a way to convert that data to insight, and that insight into an action plan. You have to use the data to further the cause. Most data will tell you something on it’s own, but its not enough to go the distance. You need to step back, see the larger picture, put the data in context with other inputs you have proven already, and see if it flies.

    Lies, Lies, All Lies!

    Now we come to the lies part. Numbers and statistics can be manipulated to indicate almost any point of view, the insight comes in the interpretation. Averages tend to dilute or blunt insight, rather than amplify it. Statisticians have all sorts of tricks and formulas to manipulate data so that it can tell virtually any story you want – it’s all in the spin, how it’s presented. Even something as simple as college rankings, a long standing measure of the potential for success in leveraging education and brand to elevate one’s position in life in the long term, can be easily manipulated by marketers to tell a story that promotes the cause. If a college has slipped in the rankings from number three to number seven, is that slide an anomaly, is it due to something short term or environment that will reverse it self when conditions change? Even though that could be seen to represent a significant slide, it’s a virtual certainty that recruiters will be touting it as a “Top 10” college for years to come following the slide, hoping that nobody looks too closely at where within that top ten it falls.

    Use It Right

    The best use of all this data is to gain a clear understanding of the current position and level of success of your marketing efforts, establish a base line, relate it to growth, profitability, revenue growth, reach, market share or other commonly regarded metric, in order to use that baseline as a starting point for improvement going forward. If that happens, justification of added spending will be easily achieved, as activity can now be tied directly to results that impact everyone. Clicks and likes don’t pay the light bill or match the retirement funds, but if you can use data to show how you’re moving the needle, use it to improve performance by looking at the “right” metric, and make good decisions based on a few key data points, then that’s all the data you really need . . .

  • Could Your Business Survive Ten Days With No Internet?

    Could Your Business Survive Ten Days With No Internet?

    As fears go, loss of Internet access is climbing the ladder, and will soon join spiders, tornadoes, public speaking and cancer at the top of the national list. With all the threats presented by the modern world both international and domestic, the loss of the currently ubiquitous Internet is a very real possibility. Cyber Security has gone in just 15 years from a futurist topic on the seminar schedule at small, obscure IT conferences, to a huge industry and a Federal government priority,in an effort to preserve the integrity and functionality of this newly precious resource. Could your business survive the Internet-less apocalypse?

    So many businesses depend so heavily on the Internet for their marketing, either through organic search and SEO of their site, e-mail marketing and customer service, banner advertising, Adwords programs, re-marketing programs, to order-taking and fulfillment operations, that they could not function with no internet capability – web-only based businesses are out of luck from day one! Brick-and-mortar businesses have an advantage here, in that they may still have foot traffic, use traditional media like TV and radio ads, billboards, building signs, direct mail and print ads, to drive shoppers to the store – they would have to use cash to purchase anything if the Internet were “down” or didn’t exist, but they could function moderately well in the local geographic area. What would be most missed is the additional global outlet and customer base that the ‘net allows for.

    Professional services businesses would also function in a remedial way – law firms, accounting firms, consultants, and engineering firms still do much of their marketing and lead generation through traditional means – but would be hampered in providing some of those services in as quick or timely fashion as we’ve become used to – “e-mail me that spreadsheet,” and “give me everything Lexus-Nexus has on . . .” would be things of the past, but those laws are still “on the books” and in the books at most firms, and the search, while laborious and time consuming, could still be performed manually, and those ledgers still record debits and credits just fine, no batteries required.

    The US Postal Service would likely see a huge uptick in business, as e-mail ceases and businesses have to return to writing memos and mailing them, either internally or externally to clients, customers and far flung colleagues. It might make some of those long-winded and knee-jerk missives that show up in your inbox on a daily basis a bit more scarce as well, as business people are forced to craft more thoughtful communication to commit to paper and mail. It would certainly allow for more time to proofread and edit, something most e-mail desperately needs, so not all of this non-Internet fantasy is bad . . .

    Certainly the lack of social media communications platforms would free up more time to be productive, although those businesses that exist or thrive using social media marketing as a reason to live would disappear, they would likely be supplanted by higher attendance at conferences, tradeshows, meetings, seminars, more client contact, which would help out the hotels, airlines, conference venues, as face to face returns to fill the vacuum. Talented writers would have to work for a publication, magazine, newspaper, ad agency, or radio or TV outlet, as blogs would be impossible. Maybe they’d remember how to grow and hold a following, build an audience, and even get paid to write . . .! Editors would suddenly be back in fashion, curating the news and crafting public perception of current events, rather then the gang input, do it yourself, Wikipedia approach to learning about the world around us.

    Take five minutes, and mentally catalog all the things in your business, either marketing or operations, that depend upon the Internet to exist or function. Were a global calamity to occur, could you continue to function as a business without it? Is there a written (and printed out) plan for this eventuality? Keep in mind that we’re not talking about the stone age, electricity still works, computers still function as free standing machines, connect to printers and other computers over local network wires, the phones still work (unless you have VOIP service only), its the global connected-ness, the openness, the instantaneous access to global information that’s gone. If nefarious evil-doers were to knock out large sections of the global ‘net, would your business survive? If your fleet of trucks uses credit cards at the gas pump, your transactions are credit card only (the return of the chick-chuck slider machines would be rapid and expensive), your equipment needs GPS reports to function, your outreach is web-only, your pipeline driven solely by Google Adwords, you might be out of luck quicker than you think . . .

    Should we continue to base our businesses heavily around the Internet’s availability and ubiquity? Probably. Should it be our only way to continue to further drive commerce? Likely not, as you just never know . . .