Category Archive

Chalk up yet another example of the wide reach and lasting impact of the Internet on traditional marketing. This report on the annual advertising purchasing by the major American TV networks has two main headlines: the ratings continue to plummet, and the participants continue to look for alternatives to the typical TV advertising blitz. More marketers are purchasing advertising “bundles” that go beyond the 30-second ad to include other media and placements. The new buzzword is apparently integration - buy a few ads, stream the show on select websites, place the product in the program or script, etc. Just to make things more exciting, the companies and networks are also trying to figure out how to measure the popularity of their programs - and the related advertising - in the new world of streaming (both free and pirated), iPhones and Tivo. Welcome to the brave new world.

One of the most interesting developments of the Web 2.0 revolution is the explosion of freeware on the intranet - free applications, software, games, sites and programs available to all for little more than the time for easy registration of approval of simple legal disclaimers. The latest example - as detailed in this post by Andy Sernovitz - is Adobe’s free web-based version of Photoshop. As Sernovitz mentions, Adobe likely had no short-term economic imperative for introducing this free software - in fact, they could probably make more money by continuing to charge for this essential and popular application. But in the new Web environment - with a proliferation of free applications online, collaborative product development and higher expectations by customers - the old business rules aren’t necessarily the right ones. Customer loyalty and positive word-of-mouth may get more of a boost by opening the door wider, rather than squeezing every opportunity for revenue. Needless to say, this concept is anathema to Wall Street priorities and valuation.

I’ve seen essentially four reactions to this development. Some (including a surprising amount of folks involved in IT) are basically unaware of the trend and have no idea of the incredible range of free online products and services. They’ve never heard of Google Docs, WordPress or even LinkedIn. Others are both cynical and skeptical, and doubt that any smart company would actually provide worthwhile applications online at no cost. “It just doesn’t make any sense” they claim, or go on to suggest the software or applications are probably of dubious quality. Some just seem to be more comfortable with the tried-and-true; they’d rather pay onerous licensing fees and stick to the well known companies rather than take a chance on upstarts. Finally, there is a group (in which I include myself) that is thrilled to find so many free or cheap choices online. It didn’t take long for me to be convinced of the value of this trend - I am using a free platform to publish this blog.

Can this new economic model be sustained? Well, I suppose we can observe Google as an example of success - at least in the short term. They provide a wide menu of services for free and leverage advertising as their main source of income. Presumably, this approach fosters strong brand loyalty and repeat visits to their plethora of products and business explorations. Whatever the rationale or outcome, I am very glad they gave it a try. Call me one of the new breed of customers.

If you needed more evidence that the hard sell on the Web is the wrong approach, check out this article in the Harvard Business Review. (Sorry but you need to buy the article. I found an excerpt in the Dallas Morning News of April 6th.) The article, by Andreas Eisingerich and Tobias Kretschmer, suggests Web retailers are thinking too narrowly - hewing closely to the traditional approach focusing on price and product - and seeing disappointing sales as a result. The suggested prescription to increase sales: try for more engagement rather than more hard selling.

According to the authors, many retailers are unhappy with their online sales and see online customers as disloyal and unwilling to spend. But the article argues these disgruntled web retailers are paying the price for having sites that focus - almost exclusively - on information about products and services for sale. Many marketing managers apparently believe that anything that diverts the consumer from an easy purchase is negative, and should be avoided. This article, along with other studies, suggests just the opposite.

From what I’ve observed - and based on my personal experience - consumers often take a circuitous path to purchase and are sometimes interested in information and services related to the core product that can help them select solutions based on their needs. That’s where contextual information and user rankings and recommendations come in. Though studies repeatedly show that consumers put peer rankings or references at the top of their decision-making criteria, many retailers are still fearful of allowing this user scorecard on their sites. (This may be a naive stance since the reviews exist on other sites anyway.) What consumers are looking for, according to these authors, is information, advice and ideas that help them think of how products can bring add value to their lives. This soft-sell approach in turn wins their loyalty and entices them to buy…sooner or later. All of this describes the concept of consumer engagement: listen to consumers, provide them with valuable information and resources, provide a forum for dialogue and sell them the products and services they want…when they want to buy.  

The research quoted in the article found that only 17 percent of e-commerce managers planned to change their sites to improve sales despite the fact almost 60 percent were disappointed with online sales. Most believed that price was the only (and best) way to attract online customers. That’s a disappointing reflection of the obstinate, insular stance of some marketing leaders. The customers that were polled, meanwhile, said they cared most about the following (in order of importance): personalized shopping; clear categorization; order tracking; in-depth products or service-related information; and, customer engagement through information on related products and services. The authors site Ralph Lauren’s website as an example of a smart, engaging online presence. Not surprisingly, sales for the RL site are strong.

Plenty of good food for thought. Let’s hope marketing executives start paying attention to all these studies and trends.  

Last night I watched the new documentary on the Rolling Stones, Shine a Light, which features concert scenes from a couple of years ago in NYC. What does this have to do with PR? Well, for one thing they proved that stereotypes are shallow and often misleading generalizations; these guys were a bit ragged - which is part of their charm - but they could still easily blow most contemporary bands off the stage. They were powerful, mesmerizing and totally impressive. I asked myself what made them so compelling, and the answer was simple: they are undeniably and unabashedly authentic. Sure Mick plays to the audience, but it appears their love of the music and each other is deep, genuine and contagious. At times, the audience seems almost incidental to their pleasure and communion…and clearly they are not doing this for the money or adulation. I was never bored, often in awe and got chills at some of the most touching, unvarnished moments - such as Keith on his knees, head down, hanging on the neck of his guitar for what seemed like minutes after the last note, apparently not wanting the magical evening to end. Or the bandmates hugging and bowing to the audience after yet another show.

In a sea of hype, invasive marketing, clumsy advertising and superficial celebrities, these guys are the real thing. Love them or hate them, you know who they are and what they stand for. And they clearly do what they do because they still love rock and roll. The lesson here for PR professionals is simple: be authentic and foster real connections with fans (or consumers.) We’ll all be better off for it.  

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (which I can’t link to due to their arcane online search function) provides an interesting analysis of Ford’s recent advertising struggles, and their Sisyphean quest to find a campaign that can revive both their lagging business and their tired brand. The latest candidate: “Ford. Drive One.” Other than the obvious call to action, this is about as memorable - or distinctive - as their last few slogans: “No Boundaries”, “American Innovation” and “Bold Moves.” What are the chances this new campaign will catch on? Not very good, I would suggest. Here’s why.

Absent some smart ads from Volkswagon over the years and perhaps the Zeppelin-fueled Cadillac campaign, automobile advertising is hopelessly formulaic, shallow, dubious and - the worse crime of all - boring. Campaigns are introduced with great fanfare but often dropped several months later, fostering consumer confusion and inattention. The stubborn lack of imagination of typical car marketing - car driving down scenic roads, endless 3/4 shots of the gleaming metal, superficial appeal to stereotypical hooks (macho & flag imagery for trucks, quirky and green for hybrids) - makes it virtually impossible to differentiate what ad is for what car. Witness the recent blizzard of boring ads related to President’s Day in the United States. I was more bored and insulted by the insistence and vapidity of the ads than anything else (perhaps because I’m Canadian and the appeal to Americana had no relevance to me.) Too often the ads are trying hard to convince consumers of the inherent value or the latest model, a brave aspiration but one which has to be based on realistic assumptions of what consumers will believe. And to make matters worse - as the article points out - these global campaigns often have no linkage to local marketing driven by the dealers. So the result is often a confusing stew of loud, repetitive claims (which appear to me like desperate pleas), mechanical minutae, financial incentives and contradictory local campaigns. Yet, despite all evidence to the contrary, many auto companies continue to spend hundreds of millions on these clarion calls in the hopes of rehabilitating their brands and driving sales.    

Like too many other campaigns - for automobiles or otherwise - this latest effort by Ford has little chance of getting their cars under”consideration” by consumers, or providing a cogent, clear image of their brand. To their credit, Ford apparently worked hard with the dealers to ensure they would help reaffirm the campaign and become local advocates. And they obviously did a fair amount of research on the brand positioning of Ford and its peers. But I don’t give the campaign a big chance of getting any traction, let alone changing the minds of consumers. The article claims the inspiration for the campaign was Nike’s legendary “Just do it” tagline, one of the most memorable advertising slogans in history. But there are so many ways Ford cannot hope to replicate the impact of Nike’s efforts. For one thing, Nike can leverage a rich, credible heritage that supports their smart, innovative marketing which conveys a consistent, positive brand experience across advertising, local marketing, online platforms, retail experience and the products themselves. And yes, the product does matter.

Ford’s new CMO apparently wants this latest campaign to help position Ford as the “smart, green, quality and safe” choice. Sound a bit ambitious? Notwithstanding the merit of trying to latch on to themes like safety - which has essentially been owned by Volvo for years - this new brand identity is diffuse and hopelessly aspirational, rather than grounded in Ford’s resonant attibutes and values. In short, it may be too much of a stretch. You’ve got to give the Ford team plenty of credit for trying and they are doing some things right, but I suspect they will be back to the drawing board within a year. I wish them well…nobody said marketing was easy.  

This recent post by Steve Rubel is just the latest account of the blurring of traditional lines between advertising agencies, consulting firms, PR agencies, design shops and virtually any other organization involved in digital media and content. Steve’s post suggests we may have put the old media companies out to pasture too soon, since according to Booz Allen they are gradually beginning to offer some of the services and talents traditionally offered by ad agencies - such as media buying and even “idea generation”…what George Bush might call strategery. Witness another example in my own little world from the past week. Part of my new gig is rebuilding my company’s intranet, so I’m looking for everything from strategic counsel to design help and social media expertise (we’ll be including a blog and collaboration tools.) Where to go for help? Well, it could include one or all of the following: big PR agency, intranet design firm, local production house, social media boutique in a PR agency, local ad agency, event marketing agency, big HR consulting firm, small IT consulting firm, internal communications agency…and assorted freelancers and one-trick ponies. Everybody is encroaching into everybody’s else turf. Of course, not all of these attempts at diversification are credible or robust, but they definitely define a real trend. So… who will I get help from? I’m still not sure, but one thing I’ve learned is that people who have real chops in social media are few and far between, so in that case I’ll go to the team I used in a previous life that has actually built blogs and gone through the online wars. In this fast moving world, there is still no substitute for expertise and experience.

It’s been fascinating to me to watch how the sibling disciplines of marketing, advertising and PR are reacting to the tidal wave of the Web 2.0 revolution. The way I see it, this race to awareness and wisdom has been a bumpy ride with laggards and leaders in all camps. But marketing teams and advertising agencies - despite some celebrated stumbles - seem to be well ahead of the staid PR community. This recent article in BusinessWeek makes a strong case of why, and how, the advertising community has led the way.

The quick reason is easy: fear of extinction. No industry is as threatened by the social media movement as traditional advertising. The slow but inevitable death of one-way messaging means marketing teams and ad firms can no longer dominate the brand message or discussion. In an environment with unlimited choices and massive amounts of information and commentary available to all, information about products is no longer controlled or even generated by the companies or their ad agencies.  Word of mouth is now the most influential marketing force, and overt selling is anathema to the free-flying ethos of many social networks and websites. Over the last few years the smarter ad agencies have accepted this paradigm shift (cliche alert!) and are focusing on engaging in, and shaping, the conversation rather than just pushing their products.

PR is a different story. The two main camps - in my humble opinion - are those in violent denial or others who aren’t even aware enough of these changes to have an opinion. (And no, going to one of those canned industry conferences on the topic does not count as awareness or understanding.)  Perhaps because their demise does not appear so imminent or obvious, many PR professionals are well behind their marketing cousins in terms of understanding the trends and the technology. It’s time they open their blinds and pay attention to what is happening - those who finish last may not get to compete again.

Some have accused me of being too complimentary with Apple, so this post will likely fan those critical flames. So be it. A recent article in BusinessWeek provides an interesting analysis of what makes Apple such a marketing  (and financial) juggernaut. In a nutshell, it’s not just the fabulous, buzz-worthy products - though those certainly are the crown jewels. As BW’s Sohrab Vossoughi argues, Apple is more than just a pretty face - the company has created a seamless and impressive ecosystem that creates strong demand, generates tons of (mostly positive) attention, and generates passion among its legions of fans. The ecosystem features the suite of products, of course, but also numerous innovative accessories, software, services, customer support, a retail experience, employee training, websites, marketing, advertising and even public relations. All of these link together beautifully to create a unique and superior customer experience. Every customer touchpoint is considered and perfected…and fully branded.

No - Apple is not perfect. I’ve written about some of its PR missteps. But the company carries important lessons not just for product designers or business strategists, but for anybody interested in how successful brands can outpace the competition and resonate deeply with customers.

Picked up a post on Mashable that nicely captures choices for the key web trends for the past year. The only big one I would add - though it might seem like stating the obvious - is the increasingly dominant role of Google as an economic, cultural and technological force on the Web. For better or worse, what they decide to do (or buy) has major ripple effects on the vast internet ecosystem. Though some fear this power, I’ve yet to see any negative impact of Google’s domination in my daily interactions on the Web - quite the opposite, in fact - so I’m withholding  my judgement.

Looking beyond the core Web trends into related developments in PR, I guess the most prominent trend is simply that companies are slowly, sometimes reluctantly, adopting some of the tools and ethos of social media in their communication activities: corporate blogs, internal wikis, RSS-enabled intranet portals, islands on Second Life, crowd-sourcing sites, social press releases, Twitter networks…and so on. There’s also been a steady increase of activities that could be considered marketing - or sorry…relationship building as the CMOs would define it. 

I see most if not all of these trends are positive developments. The twin disciplines of PR and marketing (as well as advertising to a lesser extent) have already greatly benefited, I would suggest, from being blown inside-out with the liberating gusts of Web 2.0 ideas and tools. PR, in particular, was (is?) in need of a major overhaul; name another profession with such a dubious reputation, stifling inertia, propensity to flirt with the dark side of ethics and insular thinking. Let the winds of freedom blow…. 

I was glad to hear my friends at GCI had won the huge Dell agency review as part of the winning WPP team. I was glad on a personal level - since I’ve worked with these folks and believe they are peerless in terms of social/digital media chops - but also on a professional level. I think Dell’s bold move to have WPP build a dedicated, integrated agency team is a winning recipe. As outlined by GCI’s Paul Walker in his blog post, there are no agencies that can now bring to bear the wide range of expertise and experience related to digital media. In fact, few can claim good depth and breadth even if they include sister companies and partners. To really do the job right - leveraging all the social media tools and emerging applications to execute a coordinated strategy across retail, marketing, PR and advertising - you need a lot of brainpower and muscle. Dell has become a leader in this area by working hard to develop and implement an integrated digital program across marketing and communications, not just one-off projects. [Full disclosure, I was part of the team at Dell that developed and implemented the social network strategy.] WPP has the people and track record to deliver on this ambitious promise, at least on paper. It will be interesting to see how this account turns out. Either way, this may be the model of the future for agency relationships as companies strive to ride the bumpy digital highway to marketing nirvana.  

This BusinessWeek article is one of many that documents the backlash against Facebook in the wake of its decision to introduce so-called social advertising on the network - personalized ads based not only on individual surfing habits and preferences but also, in theory, on the habits and recommendations of your Facebook “friends.” Author Rob Hof sees the uproar (which he admits could be a vocal minority) as an indictment of the apparent arrogance of the Facebook team,  but I see this incident as just another example of the delicate and dangerous tapdance of companies trying to market - and make money - on the Internet. The informal rules of engagement are sometimes obvious, but too often they are murky and implicit. And as with Facebook, the etiquette of a particular network can evolve as the platform grows. Despite the confusion it remains clear most online users are very protective when it comes to marketing - it’s ok to sell or pitch to them, but you’d better pick the right platform and occasion or there will be hell to pay…and ideally the ad should be personalized… and loaded with incentives. Of course, these same people occasionally cry foul when they realize their personal surfing habits are being mined and sold for marketing purposes. In short, the line in the sand is hard to find. I personally think Facebook is on the right track here - they want to find a way to make money in a way that’s relevant and tactful without alienating their users. We’ll see how it plays out.  

Seems like I am not the only one who rages in frustration at the inertia and inexplicable hubris among some in the PR industry. Check out this post by Brian Solis on his PR 2.0 blog. You’ll get a good laugh from the eulogy for the traditional press release, but more importantly you’ll nod your head in agreement with the argument that the PR agencies - and many of its practitioners - refuse to change their ways despite overwhelming evidence the world has changed. A follow-up post by Solis focuses on clumsy attempts to engage in blogger relations - a process reflecting limited understanding of the fundamental changes driven by social media.

As I’ve noted in previous posts, I’ve seen evidence of both the englightened and the egregious in this area - but unfortunately more of the latter. If I take a litmus test of meetings I’ve attended, articles I’ve read and conferences I’ve participated in, I believe most of the PR industry is still looking for an easy fix and trying to apply social media lipstick (or gloss?) to their old, tired handbook. And the painful thing is that most of the old playbook didn’t work even before social media emerged a couple of years ago. Though folks in PR like to make fun of their distant cousins in advertising and marketing, this is one area where the PR agencies are far behind in relevance and innovation. Some of that might be due to the built-in expertise and capability ad agencies have in Web technology and digital production, but that’s an easy excuse. The real answer lies in leadership, creativity and courage - individually and collectively - or lack thereof. Time for PR to get with the program and join the revolution.

A recent global study by Neilsen suggests that word-of-mouth remains - by far - the most trusted opinion and most effective form of marketing online. See this post on eMarketer on the study.  This adds to the evidence that online consumers trust their peers far more than corporate websites or paid online advertising (which is near the bottom of the list.) A related study by GFK Roper similarly found that consumers rate word-of-mouth recommendations as the most credible source to drive purchase decisions. Many companies already acknowledge this reality and are featuring ratings/reviews and consumer comments in their marketing outreach. But there appears to be plenty of room for companies to more fully engage in broad word-of-mouth campaigns with consumers. Yeah, posting ratings and reviews (particularly if they are positive) is a good step. But fostering that ephemeral buzz from fans - and getting them to spread the word - is the ultimate marketing objective. 

An article in the NY Times about the new Nike campaign on female athletes reminded me of a truism that is too often forgotten in the cacophony of hype about new technology and channels - it’s ultimately the resonance of the campaign message that matters most. From what I have seen, this campaign is everything that has made Nike a paragon of cutting-edge marketing over the past two decades, but it’s the storyline more than the delivery that is most impressive. Nike has consistently taken a brave stance in favor of promoting athletes that are women - rather than women who are athletes. That stark, simple theme stands out in a very crowded marketing environment. And it’s credible because this fits perfectly with the Nike brand identity and is the latest in a series of provocative messages that celebrate individual achievement. I’m certain Nike will use a variety of cool tactics and tools to get the message out and will generate discussion among consumers and critics alike. And yeah, they are likely to sell a lot of products, because that is how they stay in business. But without the core message these tactics would be meaningless. A timely reminder.  

I’m not in the habit of doing promos, but I’ve got to single out the folks at the Strawberryfrog agency - which my advertising pals tell me is both very cool and very hot. But that’s not why I mention them. A couple of weeks ago I read an ad by Strawberryfrog in Fortune that really hit my proverbial sweet spot. It’s perhaps the best description of why most marketing does not work, and how it needs to change. It lays bare the dubious and outdated logic of traditional marketing and provides an excellent, simple roadmap for how to build relationships with customers. I can’t seem to find the copy on their website, so I’ll repeat the text below:

WE’RE STRAWBERRYFROG AND YOU’RE DYING TO HEAR FROM US. That’s the kind of assumption most marketing makes. An assumption that, while engrossed in business, or sports, or the latest Hollywood meltdown, you don’t mind being interrupted, to hear superlative copy about some product or service you weren’t even thinking about a split second earlier. It’s like some random stranger walking up to you and your friends at a party and shouting, “Hey, let me tell you about my awesome new car!” What would you think of that guy?

But there you are. A brand. And you need to communicate with people. People you don’t know. People who haven’t invited you to the party. What to do?

Act like the uninvited guest you are. Earn your keep. Don’t interrupt. Participate. Don’t talk about yourself. Talk about them. Enrich the conversation. Add to the culture. Offer something tangible. Give people a reason to hang with you, get to know you, want to hear what you have to say. And the next time there’ s a party, if you’re really all that interesting, there’s a good chance you’ll be on the guest list.

Print out this copy, stick it on your wall and refer to it whenever you’re tempted to turn on the old marketing noise machine. These red-hued frog guys get it.

In most if not all of the conversations I’ve had or heard about digital media lately, a topic that invariably comes up is who “owns” it in organizations. Or more pointedly, who manages and coordinates the digital programs, who creates the content, who manages the blogs…and who should drive the digital strategy. This prosaic topic may appear trivial, but as any consultant worth his/her salt will tell you process and organization is critical to turning an idea into reality. From what I’ve seen and read, digital media efforts are led by a wide range of usual suspects in major companies - marketing, advertising, corporate communications, IT and sometimes even branding. And this is no surprise, since the elements of Web 2.0 technology cut across all of these departments - relevant to all, but owned by none. The problem with this lack of obvious ownership is that it seriously inhibits coordination and focus - and ultimately effectiveness.

No matter where the digital apostles work in a company or who is the most learned expert or where the blog moderators reside, it’s critical that companies begin to create new structures and processes to help make sense of the Web and drive coherent, integrated programs. It’s also essential to find and leverage the wide range of skills and expertise that are required to design and execute a strong Web 2.0 strategy - including serious technology chops, editorial talent, video production, project management, advertising experience, research, marketing, website design, etc. The list is long. Getting organized can be as easy as forming cross-functional teams that incorporate members from all relevant teams. And it likely means creating  some new senior roles so leaders can direct and track the efforts. Without this grunt work, companies may be relegated to one-off efforts that are often disparate and even contradictory. None of this means organizations need to create a new bureaucracy or be paralyzed by analysis - since glacial consensus-seeking and rigid regulation is anathema to Web 2.0 tactics. Think of it more as providing a basic sense of direction and order…Web-style.  

I just finished an energizing two-day event with my employer which featured most of the leading marketing/communications agencies in the world sharing their insights about how to drive positive word-of-mouth in the digital world. I can’t really get into any details or names to retain the confidentiality of the meeting - which was aimed at the global marketing team - but I thought it would be useful to share some of my observations. [Full disclosure: I helped organize the session.]

First, though there is still great variance between companies and agencies with regard to their awareness and adoption of Web 2.0 technology, there seems to be consensus among marcom professionals that the digital world opens up incredible new possibilities for marketers. Sounds like a truism, but it’s good to see that fewer professionals are fighting the tide and trying to avoid the inevitable reality of change.

Second, companies need to focus on their “happy” customers as much or more than they do on the naysayers and complainers. Too many companies make it difficult to be a fan and fail to fully leverage their greatest potential advocates.

Third, to be successful companies need to integrate word-of-mouth or digital tactics into their broader marketing and advertising programs - which can include traditional paid-media. One-off tricks or disparate, unlinked efforts will not succeed in tangible change in consumer opinions.

Fourth, companies that are serious about jumping into word-of-mouth need to have a global perspective. Customers will obviously have different habits, interests and preferences depending on their location, but it was clear to me that agencies from various parts of the world also bring their distinctive expertise and viewpoints. Just one example - the highly advanced state of mobile marketing on cellphones in parts of Europe and Asia.

Finally, it’s as important as ever to develop relevant metrics and analystics to help define and track success. While many observers acknowledge some of this work requires a leap of faith - trying to find the perfect ROI justification is likely a kiss of death - measurement is critical if these efforts are to gain traction and attract serious marketing funds.  

Judging from what I heard, two other areas that will have a strong impact on future developments in this area include: ubiquitous mobility and evolving search technology.  In both cases, marketers are faced with expanding opportunities (hello iPhone) but also increasing complexity.

All in all, a very interesting and thought-provoking exercise. Things seem just a bit different now that I’m back at my desk - and that’s likely a good thing.

A recent column in Ad Age from an executive recruiter suggests that a majority of marketing and advertising executives still do not have the required chops in online media to adequately do their jobs - and this is offered up as a probable reason for the merry-go-round of CMOs in the corporate world. While some lag in expertise and experience is understandable, given the rapidly evolving media and technology environment, this gap explains some of the painful adjustments and mistakes we’ve seen from the advertising world in recent months. Some agencies seem to think it’s still 1980 (hello pharma companies) and are sticking to their trite, 30-second television model no matter what. Others are dabbling in digital tools with ill-advised and clumsy forays in online marketing. A few, thankfully, have accepted the dramatic shift in communication habits and are making important changes to their brand management strategies. Let’s check back in 6 months to see what progress had been made - particularly in the leadership ranks.

Nielsen - one of the leading measurement services used to track online reach and impact - has introduced new metrics that omit the long-time yardstick of page views. Instead, they will put more weight on the total time spent on specific sites and pages, which provides a more robust and accurate gauge of overall traffic and popularity. Much of the reasoning behind the change is to account for changing technology - such as videostreaming and widgets - that reduce the need to change pages to view new content and make it a much less relevant measure of stickiness. The emergence of software like Ajax - which allows content to be updated in real-time on the same page - also reduces the need to click through several pages.  All of this is good news since it suggests that the rating companies and content providers alike are striving to find the most relevant tools to measure reach and impact…and therefore potential value and cost. Remember the early days of the internet when all the talk was about hits?

Of all the hype and coverage surrounding the iPhone - which I confess seems like an amazing device that I will likely try to purchase when the costs come down - the most interesting story is perhaps the marketing and PR model driven by Apple to make this story so prominent. A number of posts like this one have praised the iPhone launch as the model of a perfect product introduction. One could certainly make a strong case for that, but the true lessons may be in the tactics that Apple uses - time and again - to whip up the frenzy among journalists and fans alike. First, notice the blend of traditional - ultra-cool advertising across the usual channels - with the emphasis on Web tools like blogs and Apple “friends”. Replays of Steve Jobs initial announcement at the Mac conference were widely available on the Web for all to see, and much of the analysis and speculation about the iPhone in recent months has been in blogs and high-traffic web sites. Just recently, Apple distributed a very slick video on how to use the iPhone. I watched it, and I know many of my co-workers and friends did, even though none of us has an iPhone or plans to buy one during the initial sale. Why? Because the video is vintage Apple - smart, cool, well produced and (like their products) very intuitive. We also watched it because it came highly recommended from friends and strangers alike - in my case, via a Twitter update. Another notable tactic is the absolute control Apple seems to have over the process. Major announcements are made at select conferences - including those “owned” by Mac. Leaks and updates are released at the whim of the company. Improvements are announced to generate or sustain maximum media coverage. Certainly, the product at the heart of all this seems to be a legitimate game-changer, and the massive Apple fan base online helps to put wind beneath all these marketing activities. But the ultimate lesson here is there is plenty of leeway for new marketing models in this Web 2.0 environment. Apple has developed its own distinctive approach, and it obviously seems to be working.

It’s been a truism of late that both advertising and public relation agencies are dragging their feet with regard to accepting (and adopting) Web 2.0 media tools. A quick look at recent award programs, however, suggest the much derided ad companies may not be the laggards. At the recent Golden Lion awards at Cannes - the Academy Awards of the global advertising industry - the grand prize winner was a viral video produced for Dove by Ogilvy & Mather. The ad gained it’s claim to fame on YouTube and not in a traditional television campaign. And it was really viral - I had at least three friends send it to me via email and it was on numerous Web lists. See this post for details.  Compare that to the recent IABC Silver Anvil awards - ostensibly the best of the best of public relations - where many winning campaigns tilted towards the tried and true, and only one specifically mentioned a blog. I’m fairly confident that there were some Web 2.0 applications used in some of these campaigns, but the fact none were highlighted and that no categories reflect the new trends - no awards for corporate blogs?? - says enough. And an award for digital media (e.g. intranets) does not cut it. Seems like I’m not the only one who noticed the timewarp - see this post by Shel Holtz. It will be interesting to see if - and how fast - this trend evolves in the coming years.

Prominent blogger Jeff Jarvis has a comprehensive post that nicely summarizes the latest online polemic about the evolving rules of the game for bloggers. This particular discussion was sparked by a recent Microsoft campaign that featured personal comments (plugs?) by some high-profile bloggers in banner ads which appeared on their sites. The key issue, cogently detailed by Jarvis, is whether these bloggers should have accepted to be directly involved in the ads and whether they are being transparent with their readers about their involvement in the campaign (the bloggers are apparently getting paid on the basis of page views for the banners.) There are two fascinating aspects to this case. One is the wide-ranging and robust discussion on the topic, which illustrates the “self regulating” tendencies of the Web and the moderating power of the diverse online community. Somehow, norms and informal rules are proposed, refined and publicized - though it’s often a rather messy and tumultuous process. Such is the price for virtual democracy. The other is the focus on integrity of the bloggers. To Jarvis and many others, the “old school” values of editorial integrity and transparency remain paramount on the Web, even as the lines between marketing, news and entertainment blur. It will be interesting to watch how this issue fares as the Web continues to grow and evolve. 

The recent initiatives by CBS are a good microcosm of how companies far and wide are struggling to find the right approach to Web 2.0 technology. Or more pointedly, they confirm that nobody knows the right answer, though there are plenty of hints for pundits and futurists to dissect. Unlike the other major networks, CBS is driving an aggressive acquisition strategy designed (apparently) to push its syndicated programming to as many sites as possible. Income will be generated by ad revenue sold around the content. That stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by NBC and News Corp, who are apparently building their own Web-video supersite, which will feature exclusive programming. The CBS approach is nicely described by BusinessWeek media critic Jon Fine as “ubituity trumping pay-per-download.” Will it work? I consider myself an average online user, and it makes sense to me. The only reason I would go to a specific site to view (and pay for) programming in a world of YouTubes and MySpace is if the programming was incredible - a la HBO. Otherwise, why bother? (Bud TV anyone?) But we’ll have to see - there is evidence of success, and failures, on both sides of the equation.

This strategic battle among media giants parallels the conundrum all organizations face in the face of the Web 2.0 revolution. Do you build your own property or do you establish a foothold on existing sites? (This is sort of a digital twist on the “build it and they will come” vs “go to where your customers are” argument?) Do you try to control or limit content or do you open the doors wide and encourage it to spread? How close can you come to traditional marketing in the face of a ”no hard sell” attitude of the online community? How much do you involve viewers in the creation or mashing of content? Do you focus on driving brand awareness and positive share of voice or digging for sales leads? And how the heck do measure success in this protean environment?

The answer to these questions - unfortunately or fortunately depending on your threshold for excitement - is that there is no clear answer. Each organization needs to figure out the best approach based on their customer profile, brand image, business priorities and technical sophistication. One thing that is fairly certain, however, is that the old rules of communication no longer apply.