Category Archive

This recent account of Korn/Ferry’s rebranding efforts - which seem to be thoughtful and totally integrated across internal and external audiences - raises the question of why something so fundamental and logical as internal branding campaigns seem such a tough sell in many companies. Indeed, while many executives embrace the marketing principles behind the idea of promoting and celebrating a distinctive brand identity to customers, they often balk at applying the same logic with their own workforce. Why do we need to talk about our brand with employees? Don’t they already know who we are? Does this really help drive the business? Isn’t this just empty cheerleading? And what is the ROI of any internal brand campaign?

These are all appropriate questions, but they ignore the reality that ensuring employees understand, accept and deliver the brand promise is critical to a company’s success. And this is true whether the company sells directly to consumers or is more of a B2B operation. At the basic level, employees need to know what they must to do to deliver on the brand promise. Even better if they actually want to do their jobs well. On a higher level - perhaps harder to articulate and quantify - employees need to “live” the values and personality inherent in the brand. Ultimately, they have to be advocates of the brand across both personal and professional situations. None of this happens through osmosis or simply reheating marketing materials intended for customers.

All makes sense, right? So why is it so difficult to secure the funds for internal campaigns designed to educate employees about the brand and corporate identity, illustrate the brand attributes through examples or best practices or even celebrate the brand to generate enthusiasm and discretionary effort? It may be that executives are looking at all activities that fall under the umbrella of marketing and advertising - whether internal or external - with a more skeptical and cautious perspective these days. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, given the dubious track record and flawed logic of many marketing mantras (e.g. Super Bowl commercials are worth the cost.) Or it may be that in difficult economic times anything beyond basic communication about the nuts and bolts of the business seems superfluous.

Whatever the reasons, executives who ignore the internal profile and resonance of their brand do so at their own peril. Employees want to know who they work for and what their company stands for - not just how to do their job. And most employees want to feel proud about their company’s distinctive heritage, achievements and/or identity.   

I’ve been on the road most of the past week in  the US and UK and have watched with fascination as the Beijing Olympic Torch relay unfolds. Though the coverage across the various global media channels varied - I got info from everything from the BBC to USA Today to Le Monde - the story was fairly consistent. China’s attempt to burnish it’s reputation as a country and global leader through the Olympics is in shambles - at least so far. By any measure - save perhaps the assessment by the Chinese government officials - the relay has turned into a PR fiasco of historic proportions. After the carefully planned relay devolved into brawling and demonstrations - all captured by the global media TV cameras - Chinese officials tried to control the message by staging surreal non-events - such as the relay in India which banned any spectators and involved the runners going around an enclosed stadium dozens of times. They also added about 15,000 police for good measure. Subsequent stops were similar - heavy-handed security, private events and stitled celebrations with forced smiles all around. Beyond the politics of this development, what are the lessons here for communication professionals? Here are a few suggestions:

• In the digital era where global media -and citizen journalists - provide 24-day massive coverage of most events instantly, the stage-managed style of PR favored by countries like China is becoming more disingenuous and less effective. The only place where China can successfully control their message is in China, due to draconian censorship and state controlled media. China is learning that their propaganda productions don’t work so well in the real world. Welcome to the Web 2.0 world!
• There’s probably a lesson here how powerful the Internet has become as a news source and force for social movement and debate. Based on what I saw the Web served as an important platform in the planning, promotion, discussion and coverage of the torch demonstrations. Conversely, China seems able to control much of the internal national discussion through their tight censorship of the Web - though they are happy to loosen the reins when their citizens jump with nationalist frenzy with cries to boycott Carrefour stores.
• If anybody needed another reminder, companies that align their marketing with famous stars or countries with dubious track records do so at their own peril. Just yesterday Coca-Cola announced it was ”adjusting” its marketing plans for the remainder of the torch relay. Whether any of the countries can benefit from the Olympic Games themselves probably depends on whether China can turn the PR tides and stem the loud global criticism and avoid major boycotts. Either way, I suspect Lenovo will come out as the biggest loser. As a Chinese company, this is their global coming out party. Bad timing.
• Issues blend and overlap into a messy public relations morass where the public dictates the communication agenda, not corporations or governments. China clearly thought it could segment (or ignore) geo-political issues like Darfur, Tibet, tainted medicine and food and the environment and keep these distasteful issues from the Olympic Games. No such luck. Many saw the Games as precisely the right time to lump all these together into a loud proclamation for change by China. It will be interesting  to see whether China will try to defuse any of these issues (probably behind the scenes) or just continue to plow forward.
• Finally, I note that China’s main crisis-management strategy seems to be to paint demonstrators - and the Dalai Lama - as dangerous malcontents with a nefarious agenda. (Strange how Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe did the same thing this week, accusing critics of trying to re-colonialize his country.) In other words, when in trouble go on the attack. The track record of this tactic seems to be very bad, and I doubt it will work this time.

This is PR on a broad world stage. Let’s watch and see what happens. It’s shaping up to be an interesting summer.

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.  

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.  

There is plenty of commentary on Comcast’s recent decision to stop slowing data transfer among users - notably the large files used by folks who use file-sharing applications like BitTorrent. Check out this post for a good summary of the various sides in the polemic. I realize that there was plenty of heat from the FCC on this one, but I see this as yet another example of the immense power of online users - the network or community, in social media speak - and the perils of trying to spar with online consumers. I suspect Comcast’s late conversion to civility and good citizenship has as much to do with their increasingly horrid reputation online (check out the vitriol on this popular site) as their desire to play nice with Kevin Martin at the FCC. Chalk up another win for the consumer.  

The latest PR fiasco for Southwest was noteworthy for its timing. During roughly the same time period, I saw two widely divergent depictions of the airline. By coincidence more than otherwise, I witnessed several examples of SWA being positioned as a legend in the PR industry - savvy, successful and carrying a boatload of wisdom and kudos. One trade group was even positioning them as a savant in the area of social media (for what achivement it wasn’t clear.) A number of conference briefs on my desk featured SWA presentations on topics ranging from their unique, ”fun” culture to their mastery of media relation metrics. And this trend has been going on for years. It’s rare you attend a conference where SWA isn’t featured as a bright light in employee engagement, media relations, marketing or even lobbying.

But this laudatory, almost obsequious stream of industry hype was in sharp contrast to what was actually happening in real life. Not content to demonstrate its reactionary, outrageous tendency to ban passengers showing a little skin (at least three times in the past year by my count), Southwest has now really stepped into the mud with reports that it ignored safety guidlines and flew planes it had not properly inspected (it was subsequently confirmed 6 of the planes had cracks in the fuselage.)

How did SWA’s incredible, leading-edge PR machine respond to these claims? At first, their website and blog (which to me is little more than a light-weight, heavily perfumed platform for their marketing machine) made no mention at all. Never happened. I suppose there was no room with all the employee profiles, leadership pep talks and self-congratulatory features. In the face of the media onslaught over the weekend, SWA belatedly and reluctantly came out with a mix of denials, clarifications and excuses - including blaming the FAA. As the weekend progressed they decided to parade CEO Gary Kelly, who said he would vigorously defend his company’s commitment to safety and that the $10 million fine levied against the airline “felt unfair.”

There are two lessons one can draw from this sorry episode. One is how not to respond to a media crisis…but I’ll leave that to another time. But the more interesting one, to my mind, is how the PR industry tends to operate in a dangerous vacuum. Southwest was never as smart or progressive as they were positioned by an industry only too happy to have a super star at the ready. Industry events and awards have always flirted with irrelevance and a sense of detachment from the business world, but now they risk losing their credibility altogether. Now we’ll have to see what they present at their next conference keynote: How to leverage social media in a crisis, perhaps?

This postby Steve Rubel on the proliferation of SEO consultants with dubious tactics (and intentions) is just the latest cry of alarm about this ugly trend. It should be no surprise, of course, that some will promote/sell ways to jack the system to make organizations (or individuals) look better in search results - either by burying negative on-line mentions, generating a lot of fluff and/or driving the popularity of positive mentions. There is certainly merit in proactively trying to get positive corporate or personal content near the top of the ladder - in fact more companies should be doing this as per of their ongoing PR efforts - but problems occur when this is the only purpose of the SEO efforts. And there is a difference between adjusting copy in a press release to get the right words (or tags) featured in a search and generating empty content or fake traffic just to alter the search returns. As Rubel suggests, SEO rankings should be a by-product of engaging in on-line conversation, not an end in itself.  Hopefully PR and marketing professionals just becoming familiar with social media will steer clear of the snake oil salesmen and focus on doing the right thing - driving credible and transparent conversations.  

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.

OK, this post really isn’t about PR. But it is about how Web 2.0 technology and values are getting traction well beyond the fields of marketing and communications - the ostensible focus of this little blog. Witness the agenda of the upcoming World Economic Forum in Davos, as outlined in this BusinessWeek article: collaborative innovation. Sound familiar? None other than  Wikinomics guru Don Wapscott will regale the world’s intelligentsia and moguls about topics like collaborative marketing and radical transparency. So if the global business elite can discuss this, why is it still so hard to get through the door at your friendly company around the corner?  

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.

This short article in Fact Company provides a concise and cogent explanation of why marketing departments are still reluctant to engage in social media and embrace digital content. The reasons provided also ring true for other corporate departments - whether it’s corporate communications (which could and should leverage a whole arsenal of social media tools and digital content) and even HR (which could provide a boost to training programs through interactive, online technology.) Beyond fear and ignorance, there are many organizations and companies that have a stake in the old system…and are not ready to give up their piece of the spending pie. The lesson here: it will take time to counter the institutional inertia of CMOs and CEOs.

As I continue to meet new folks involved in corporate communications - or just corporate leaders beyond the world of IT - I am struck by the persistent gulf between those aware of social media trends and tools, and those who are not. Of late, I seem to be one of the few in most meetings who is even remotely familiar with popular digital media tools (think Facebook) and often the only one who has even heard of slightly more esoteric developments (think Second Life or Twitter.) This has caused me to question whether the social media movement - despite the hype and fervent following online - remains a niche in the corporate world. And if so, might this really be a fad - as some claim?

The answer, I believe, is no. This is for real. One of the reasons for my confidence in this statement is not what is happening among my peers, but what I see among the younger generations. Gen X/Y and even teenagers have long had an uncanny familiarity and facility with digital content and cell phones - in fact, they are our teachers rather than the reverse - but now there is evidence they are enjoying their own virtual social networks. Witness the boom of interactive websites like Webkinz and Club Penguin - as reported in this article in the NY Times - which go beyond the tricks of traditional websites and include many components similar to Facebook and Second Life. In an ingenious marketing twist, these sites also encourage kids to buy related merchandise in the real world they can activate in the virtual world - notably stuffed animals that come to life as characters on Webkinz. My own daughters enjoy playing with their “pets” and customizing their own virtual rooms on this site, but more importantly, they chat and play games with their friends through the Webkinz network.  More than a game or website, it’s a legitimate social network with a long list of potential activities and applications. If kids are our future, the next generations will likely be firmly rooted in the ethos of social networking and digital media tools.

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.  

I’ve been reading a fair deal lately about the technological savvy - or lack thereof - of the candidates vying for the Republican and Democractic slots in the upcoming president elections. On the one hand, there are kudos being thrown around for the smart websites and blogs of many of the candidates - with some like Ron Paul and Barrack Obama being singled out for astute use of these tools to generate buzz and raise money. But I’ve also read/heard some criticisms about the stunning lack of personal awareness (let alone understanding) of emerging technology by some of these same candidates. (There was an excellent editorial in the Washington Post, but can’t link as it’s subscription-only access.) Apparently some of these folks - notably John McCain and Mitt Romney - are unfamiliar with the basic mechanics and tools of the Web 2.0 environment - including MySpace. Some of this is blamed on the generation gap - after all most of these folks are well past their teen years - but whatever the reason this is cause for concern: it’s not a good scenario when the leadership of the country is woefully out of sync with developments related to the internet and evolving communication patterns. 

These politicians can likely bluff their way by and hire specialists and consultants to brief them and point them in the right direction. What worries me even more is the stubborn gap in the communications field, where I still run into senior practitioners who zealously avoid computers or are years behind in terms of tracking developments on the Web. These are the people who are paid to counsel organizations on how to communicate and market effectively, so their knowledge gaps raise serious quality and credibility problems. Age can forgive some of this lag, but not all of it. Insularity, institutional inertia and the rapid pace of change are other potential reasons. Either way, there is no excuse: no serious communications expert can be out of touch with major Web trends and innovations. This is where that old HR chestnut lifelong learning becomes a reality.   

The latest developments at Facebook - recently captured in this New York Times article - are just the latest and most prominent example of the awkward evolution of the internet. Apparently, Facebook has given in - at least to some extent - to the vociferous critics of its new advertising program, which sends details on personal web surfing to your Facebook “friends.” There will now be an individual opt-out function available to users before any emails are sent to any friends  - though it will have to be repeated every time. But beyond the details of this marketing dust-up, it’s interesting  to note the salience of several recurring themes in the protean Web 2.0 environment:

• It’s easy enough to create a popular website, network or application…but another thing altogether to figure out a way to make money on a sustained basis. Facebook’s introduction of the Beacon advertising tool is an attempt to “monetize” its huge user group. The jury is still out.
• Though evidence suggests peer-to-peer references are paramount in individual purchase decisions, they need to be transparent and credible to have any traction. Facebook’s twisted version of a friendly referral - your friends are alerted if you frequent a website… likely assuming you are tipping them off to a great bargain, yet all it means is that you visited said website - does not pass the sniff test for most users.  
• The will of the community - the millions of users on websites or networks - continues to be a driving force in shaping the rules and format of web properties. It’s clear companies cannot afford to ignore user input or suggestions, but Facebook has shown you can survive with some compromise and without abdicating to user demands. That said, they are playing a dangerous game and could be losing valuable brand equity and buzz with their hard-ball tactics.

 This will be an interesting issue to watch in the months ahead. Web companies and networks would be well advised to play close attention…there may be important clues to where web strategy and etiquette goes from here.   

 UPDATE: As many expected, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has given in to the will of the digital masses and will allow members to permanently shut off Beacon, his controversial new advertising feature. Check out the mea culpa by Zuckerberg on the Facebook blog. See one of several articles on the subject here. Does anybody need further proof of the increasing power of the online customer?

An article in the venerable Globe & Mail provides one of many anecdotes of how companies are struggling to adapt their marketing to social networking - in this case Molson (of beer fame) creating a dubious photo contest on Facebook. Apparently the campaign raised the ire of self-appointed critics by implicitly encouraging drinking. Really?!? There are several lessons here - some old and some new. On the old front, we can see companies are still not completly getting the Web 2.0 environment, so to speak. The Molson marketing folks quoted in the story seem intent on talking ”with” their customers on Facebook, but it’s clear they want to do most of the talking and have spent little or no time listening to their customers. They want to sell beer and came up with this thinly-veiled “cool” contest to generate buzz and make their  product seem hip. Smart companies will one day realize that some (most?) forays into social media should have absolutely no marketing purpose - explicit or otherwise. None. Heresy? Maybe….They can provide info, tools, contests and perks, but not push product or badly disguised advertising (such as user-created videos.) The key to marketing online is to pick the right time and place to market…and to be totally transparent about the purpose and benefits of the program. Too often marketers fail to do this, clumsily creating websites or campaigns on social networks that are totally out of sync with informal rules of engagement and have little chance of attracting a sustained audience.

The new lesson in this story, if I can be a contrarian, is that the marketers didn’t listen to the right audience when they decided to pull the campaign. From what I can determine, the chorus of complaints came from pundits and government officials, not the folks on Facebook. It’s not clear if the students on Facebook - the target audience - had any complaints at all about the campaign. The lesson here: figure out who matters and who you are trying to please. If I were on Facebook, I would think Molson is not only clueless, but timid. 

I don’t want to be too hard on Molson, since there are often no easy answers. But they are more likely to find them by spending more time online - where their customers are - and less time brainstorming over Red Bull.  

Too often during discussions about branding - both internal and external applications - PR or marketing folks forget the most critical requisite for a relevant, sustainable and credible brand. No, it’s not delivering on the brand promise, though that is an essential factor if you hope to survive for more than 10 minutes. And no, it’s not a dazzling logo or award-winning creative, though those can also make an impact. And it’s not consumer insight, though that is a critical ingredient if you hope to be resonant. I would even argue it’s not the specific product or service you are marketing, though that will determine if you have a viable business. Ultimately, it’s about having something that is distinctive to sell… and say. It’s about being memorable, and standing out from the crowd. Word-of-mouth guru Andy Sernovitz makes this case (with bonus laughs) in a recent blog post. I can’t begin to count the awkward discussions I’ve had with executives who ask for my opinion on their hopelessly generic and trite corporate values. You know the kind: customers are king, we love employees, let’s be honest, etc….typically displayed on dusty table tents and fading posters. Even if they are all true, these tenets hardly hardly provide employees with a snapshot of the company’s DNA or unique value proposition. And they are unlikely to foster pride and engagement. The same storm of cliches happens outside the firewall. As Andy points out, far too many ads can be transposed across numerous competitors  - and most customers would be hard pressed to know the difference. In the rush to develop ads, or print a bunch of internal posters, communicators too often skip over the importance of defining what is truly different - and special - about a company or product. What is the company’s essence or cultural DNA? What will make people pay attention? What will make them care? What will make them associate a product or service (or related marketing campaign) with a specific company? What will foster buzz and even passion? If you can’t answer these questions with crystal clear answers, it’s time to go back to the drawing board.  

PR pundit Shel Holtz recently blogged on the ongoing debate of who should ”own” - or manage and lead - social media strategy. The post is a good snapshot of the conflicting arguments on this issue - which is much more than a theoretical polemic, since figuring out who does what is often a huge stumbling block to many organizations considering getting involved in social media. The question comes up in almost every presentation or conversation I have on the topic. For what it’s worth, I agree with two key arguments presented by Holtz:

- Specialized agencies should not own or lead social media projects, since giving up control to external teams - no matter how talented, smart and well-intentioned they are - takes decision-making too far from the critical teams inside the organization

- Social media strategic planning and execution should be directed by a cross-functional team, since various players should have a stake in the program but all have biases and shortcomings that could derail the effort without a broader perspective

The second point is the most important, from my perspective. It’s very tempting to try and leverage social media for narrow, tactical gains that ignore the broader implications and strategic priorities.  Marketing, for example, has plenty of expertise in digital content and online marketing, but they might be too tempted to push the selling envelope. IT is too often focused on its own internal roadmaps and might resist applications and programs that were created outside the firewall. PR might want to reinvent the press release to the detriment of larger branding initiatives or outreach beyond traditional media. In short, the team format is probably required to strike the right balance across diverse (and often competing) priorities and steer the effort in the right direction.

The best examples of companies engaging in social media (e.g. Dell, Procter & Gamble, Nike) seem to share bold, englightened leadership, strong agency support and broad, cross-functional programming. Probably not a coincidence.

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.  

I just returned from presenting at a Conference Board event in Chicago, which was focused on engaging employees in the brand. The workshop I facilitated with my good friend David Kippen at TMP Worldwide was about how to manage a brand in the face of the Web 2.0 revolution. It’s always an interesting gauge to compare notes with peers at an industry conference or event, and this one was no different. Here are some of my main observations:

• At this point virtually all companies or organizations in the session were aware of social media - though some only peripherally - and are thinking about if and how they get involved. From my unscientific poll of attendees, most seem intent on doing something, though what exactly they are not sure. A few had already started down the path of setting up wikis or blogs.
• There appears to be much more focus on how the Web 2.0 tools can be leveraged with (and for) an internal audience. This is great news, given the huge potential to leverage these tools to engage employees in relevant conversation, foster collaboration and leverage internal best practices and ideas.
• The IT and Legal departments are universally seen as the biggest barriers (perceived or real) to getting involved in social media. On the Legal side, the complaint is understandable - though I made a case at the conference that Legal’s resistance is often overstated and it’s not an onerous task to define clear rules of engagement (either for internal or external tools.) Still, there are numerous nervous discussions about worst case scenarios (what if our employees share secrets or badmouth the CEO?) despite the fact this can already happen over the phone, email, etc. The IT criticism is more problematic, and is certainly in line with my own experience and observations. The department that should be leading the charge in exploring and adopting new tools and technology is too often a laggard, stubbornly resisting change of any sort with little or no valid reasoning (is it really valid to suggest it takes several months for a project to get on the “roadmap”?)
• Folks from a wide range of departments - Corporate Communications, HR, Marketing, Internal Communications - were represented at the event and actively involved in the discussions. This is an excellent trend, since in most cases it will take a robust cross-functional effort to devise and implement a social media strategy.
• In some cases, Marketing seems to be leading the corporate charge in social media. On the one hand this is good, since the marketing folks are typically savvy in online trends and technology and certainly know their way around digital content (like videos and websites.) On the other hand, this should raise some red flags, since though smart and well-intentioned, folks in marketing are the most likely to ignore the informal rules of engagement and push the envelope into pushy and ill-advised pitching.

All in all, it was good to see this topic front and center in yet another industry event. Slowly but surely, seems like the PR industry is catching on that this is most definitely not a fad.

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.

I read two articles over the weekend that both relate to challenges of measuring the popularity and impact of marketing activities online.

A recent New York Times report on the annual conference of the Association of National Advertisers - apparently a very big shindig for the ad community in the U.S. - notes that the topic du jour was consumer behavior as the guiding star of effective marketing. There was violent agreement among speakers, apparently, that basing marketing pitches on consumer behaviors - as opposed to attitudes or perceptions - was the right approach. Behaviorial targeting is in, and demographic pitches and opinion surveys are out. Of course, one of the inherent advantages of the Web is the ability to track consumer behavior online in minute detail - all the way down to individual customer purchase history and site visits. So companies left and right are now trying to read the data to make their marketing pitch more immediate and relevant. That’s good news for consumers, I would think. The more you know me the better chance you have of being relevant and credible.

For a different twist on the same topic, check out this post by the Bivings Report on a recent PR conference on measurement. Now I’m the first to admit I am quite cynical about PR conferences in general and read their output with a grain (rock?) of salt the size of a small car - largely for their propensity to solve all the PR world’s problems in 3-step plans or magic bullets…for a small fee. But what caught my eye here is the discussion on how to measure the impact of blogs and other consumer-generated media. The consensus: there is no definitive formula (yet) that will provide hard evidence of impact. But at least they are talking about it. I think Chuck Fitzpatrick of the Bivings Group hits the nail on the head when he says “the whole point of social media is the conversations it creates, which are hard to measure at all.” Bingo! At some point, we need to acknowledge that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to capture the nebulous impact of thousands of online discussions and individual contacts. But hasn’t that always been the case with off-line efforts? How much is it worth for a company employee to defuse a weekend BBQ debate on faulty customer service? Or for service reps to smile at folks when they enter the store? Or to provide exemplary service over the phone? At some point we need to accept on the basis of logic and faith there is a strong relationship between how a company acts with its customers and partners (individually and collectively, online and in person) and the popularity and success of that company. I’ve witnessed some pretty effective tracking that can measure the scope and tonality of online posts, tabulate a company’s outreach efforts and ultimately try to link that back to an increase in brand reputation and product sales. But it’s not a perfect science, and likely never will be. That should not stop companies from doing the right thing - one customer at a time.

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. 

Had a great discussion at work last week about emerging best practices in PR - with a focus on companies that are doing innovative things in the area of social media to drive their marketing efforts. At the top of the list was Nokia. An increasing number of companies (including mine) are using fully-loaded social media news releases - complete with links, bookmarks, tags and options for feedback and questions - but Nokia is leading the way in terms of outreach to influential bloggers. As detailed in this good summary post, Nokia is supporting product launches with targeted outreach to dozens of influential bloggers. Here is a post by Steve Rubel on the program. Not only do they send the bloggers the trial product in advance of launch - in this case the new N90 video phones - but they also set up a dedicated website where the bloggers can access additional information and materials, share comments with peers and engage in dialogue (online or off) with Nokia product reps. Beyond the dialogue on the Nokia blog, of course, these VIP bloggers posted comments on their own blogs. (One was so positive it was misidentified by BusinessWeek as a sponsored corporate blog.) Along the same lines, Nokia also recently launched a moblog (for mobile blogging) inviting users of the new NSeries phone to download their videos.

Consider this an evolved version of the traditional distribution of product samples for beat writers. But beyond using bloggers rather than journalists, the process has the added aspect of conversation and is inherently transparent - beefs and warts are there for all to see and discuss. It’s a courageous approach that is a big step in the right direction. As my good buddy Paul Walker from GCI says, however, Nokia still has room for improvement. Though Nokia seems to have mastered these social product launches, they still need work in fostering a more sustained conversation with consumers - not just the VIP bloggers - beyond the big launches.  Still, some good lessons there for the PR and marketing troops.

Noted blogger/podcaster Shel Holtz has a good post on the latest mess by a PR agency (and client) not being totally transparent about their relationship or agenda. This case involves Burson Marsteller creating an instant organization on behalf of Microsoft - ostensibly to lobby for online freedom and competition - but failing to acknowlege the obvious link. To make matters worse, the folks at BM also aggressively pitched their case to incredulous journalists. Another black eye for PR firms.

As Holtz writes, it’s amazing that companies still use these dubious (and outdated) tactics even though they go squarely against the “no BS” ethos of the Web - where candor and transparency are the price of entry - and the Web is littered with examples of agencies burned by similar scandals. But the lesson here goes beyond PR campaigns, and the miscue does not have to be an egregious cover-up. I’ve seen several examples recently, for example, where corporate campaigns aimed at employees were met with yawns and snickers. Despite plenty of planning and expense, these well crafted messages and materials were essentially dead on arrival. Why? Because they were seen as paint-by-numbers pabulum - neither relevant, forthright or personal. Most people - whether on the Web or in companies - are looking for authenticity and for value. They also want to be a part of deciding what kind of information they receive, and how they get it. Anything that seems artificial, generic or misleading will be challenged or ignored. The sooner PR practicioners learn this lesson the better.

Apologies for the paucity of posts the past week - combination of deluge at work and the distraction of the Austin City Limits festival (very hot…saw Dylan.) But I did find the time to have a good discussion with a colleague who was suggesting that advertising agencies should all become totally media agnostic. It’s not a new concept, but it seems to be gaining momentum. To be relevant and credible, marketing folks need to start with a blank slate and look at the product and target group to confirm their outreach strategy - not the other way around. The reflex action towards broadcast - which still seems prevalent despite evidence that it rarely works - might not be the right answer. (Conversely, the equally knee-jerk idea to just ”go digital” might be just as ill-advised.)

All of this talk made me reflect on the need for communication folks to follow the same mindset and become agnostic with regard to function, role and even channel. Positions that were previously dedicated to a specific audience (journalists), a channel (intranet) or a role (employee relations) are rapidly becoming obsolete. One reason is there is so much overlap across audiences - such as internal and external - and that the “toolkit” of channels is evolving rapidly. Another is that communication teams need to be responsive and dynamic in order to be relevant and effective. Trying to develop and implement a communication plan within the silos of existing labels is self-limiting and bureaucratic, and almost doomed to fail. I suggest the best orientation is to think of communities or networks - which are self-identified and are reached through conversation - rather than more general audiences.  The  strategic imperative is to find the best way to engage those communities in dialogue and provide them with enough valuable information to generate attention and (ideally) support and brand loyalty.  Specialized and niche roles will still exist - not all of us can wax poetic about pertinent government regulations, for example - but they cannot do so in a vacuum…or time-capsule.  Time to update my business card to “conversation architect.”

I just read a post by Steve Rubel suggesting PR and marketing organizations need to actively promote and fill a new role - that of geek marketer. These cross-trained specialists have the rare talent to understand the creative (and financial) demands of marketing but are also well versed on the rapidly evolving technology that most of use barely understand - let alone use. Typically, these folks straddle across departments and are instrumental players in driving digital media programs in their respective organizations. Based on my observations, I agree with Steve. Too often the folks in marketing are either ignorant or afraid of the evolving technology, or they try to jump in without learning the nuances and etiquette of the online world. And that can be ugly. The geeks, for their part, are so far ahead of the curve they seem detached from the realities of the business, and have little patience for communication strategy. (By the way, in my experience the tech geeks and visionaries do not come from IT - which is its own bureaucracy with entrenched rules and inflexible roadmaps.) Rare is the person who has enough knowledge of both sides of this divide to bridge the gap, foster collaboration and drive projects. Think of it as somebody who know how to sell and to measure, but also to listen and develop content and applications that are compelling and user-friendly. The good news is I see things turning around - both in agencies and companies. Though they may not all have a clear line of sight on titles or structure, organizations are reacting to the need for new skills and talent. Though finding elusive geek marketers is a good stop-gap answer, the long-term solution lies in immersing marketing and PR teams in the new technology, and ultimately in updating marcom into a new discpline that inherently includes advanced technology and internet strategies. No more silos. We all have to become geek marketers.  

One of my latest projects at work is helping to define and drive a search strategy for the organization. Given that I was something of a neophyte in this arcane field, it’s been a huge learning curve the past couple of weeks - organic vs. paid, “white hat” vs “black hat”, link farms, spamdexing…it’s a whole new lexicon to a strategy geek like me. I’ve read a bunch of interesting posts from the recent SEO Conference in San Diego, including this one on buying links. The most striking lesson for me is how critical search technology, and related tactics, have become in this Web environment. I sort of knew it was important, but had little understanding of the level of activity (and angst!) below the surface. And the landscape keeps on shifting, as search companies like Google tweak their secret algorithms, SEO consultants hype their evolving models and content continues to proliferate. For PR practitioners, understanding how to make materials “search friendly” has become a prerequisite rather than a nice-to-have skill.  Marketers eager to pump the profile of their websites or videos need to put as much thought into tags and linkage tactics as the actual content. And of course, there is no shortage of folks with dubious credentials eager to sell magic formulas to those seeking an edge. Add this to the long list of topics marcom professionals will need to learn as part of the Web 2.0 curriculum, if they haven’t already.

An article in the latest Fast Company (yes the magazine is still around) profiles a very successful website created by a 17-year old high-school dropout. Her site (check it out here) lets users download colorful MySpace layouts - for free - and also has interactive features sure to appeal to teenage girls. This story appealed to me for two reasons. One, as stated in the article, it is “evidence of the meritocracy of the internet [which] allows even companies run by neophyte entrepreneurs to compete, regardless of funding, location, size or experience….” It’s always good to see great ideas surface and evolve into a business. But even more salient is the fact this site attracts a larger audience than Seventeen, Teen Vogue and CosmoGirl! combined, and it ranks #349 (according to Quantcast) out of more than 20 million websites. That’s higher than numerous prominent, well-funded sites.  

So I asked myself what makes this website so interesting…so sticky. I visited the sites of the magazines listed above to compare and contrast. The differences are not so obvious. Websites like Seventeen and Teen Vogue have all the usual bells and whistles, they look pretty contemporary and appear to have plenty of lures for their teenage readers. But that may be the point. They have a lot of cool stuff and just the right look, but nothing distinctive or unique. Whateverlife has one primary “value proposition” and that’s the free layouts. And the quirky, friendly personality of its owner Ashley oozes from every page. But ultimately the answer probably lies in Ashley’s secret to success: “It’s all about giving girls what they want.” And a teenage girl is much better positioned than the editorial team of a major organization or magazine to know what that is.

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.

My buddies Jim (VM Foundry) and Paul (GCI Digital Media) discovered a cool program by Amex, which is asking card members to identify and rank projects that will ultimately receive funding from the company. Check out the program here. Beyond the slick aesthetics of the site - which includes video segments hosted by web star Amanda Congdon - it’s pretty impressive to see a company like Amex use its marketing muscle on such a progressive concept. This suggests that more companies are catching on to the wisdom of crowds - and the marketing benefits of fostering stronger relationships with their customers. [Full disclosure: both Jim and Paul provide consulting to the company which pays my bills.]

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.

Read a good article in Ad Age that ranks some of the best and worst corporate websites. The article captures the inside-out and narrow perspective that make some corporate sites akin to a beautiful but boring product catalog. Why companies don’t think beyond the purchase activity is beyond me. As most everybody knows by now, consumers will browse using a range of tools (usually starting with Google) to find information and links relevant to their interests. And when they end up on a corporate site, they want more than a dry, mechanical laundry list of products and prices. Yes, that’s an important part of the equation, but there are other activities and tools that companies can use to engage and educate potential buyers and sharpen their interest. How about facilitating a dialogue with consumers, or allowing them to shape or create product ideas themselves? How about a place where they can review peer comments and ratings? How about a place where they can just plain have some fun? With everything that’s happened over the past few years, it’s a wonder that some companies have websites that seem to have changed little since the late 1980’s.