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.

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.  

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.

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.

Neville Hobson has a post that provides a good summary of the evolving methodology for measuring the influence of individuals online. This is a critical issue for public relations practioners and marketers trying to identify and reach those oft-mentioned “influentials.” Seems like the methodology is becoming more sophisticated and going beyond the Technorati/Alexa rankings (which are watched obsessively by some) and raw traffic and subscriber numbers. Edelman has developed a new social media index that captures social networks like Twitter, Linked-In and Facebook and measures the number of friends and updates, among other items, to generate the index. At first glance, I’m nervous about counting “friends” in networks since that gauge is more a reflection of popularity than influence and is highly vulnerable to abuse, but I applaud Edelman for its efforts in this area. And like Neville, I agree with the premise that any true measure of influence has to go beyond blogs to include the social network platforms.

Time just put out their list of the best and worst websites, and it certainly provides plenty of good fodder for discussion. Here are a few of my observations:

• I had never heard of many of the sites on the list - including 4 of the top 5 sites - which is either a testament to my ignorance and/or an indication of the lightning fast pace of innovation and change on the Web
• The top ranked site is weebly.com - which is designed to help non-techies (that’s me) build their own sites
• Many of the top websites are designed to help users navigate the online jungle - finding, using, organizing and sharing content - rather than trying to market or sell
• Many of the sites also provide free support or applications - a healthy continuation of the Web’s collaborative and open-source tradition 
• Both MySpace and Second Life both landed in the Top 5 worst sites. Egads! Seems like the rest of the world is catching up to the reality that MySpace has become overwhelmed by spam and scams, and that Second Life is much better as a concept than a website (am I the only person who can’t transport without crashing?)

Perhaps my biggest reaction to the list is amazement at the collective ingenuity and talent of the site developers. Sure some of these folks may be looking for the next IPO and billion-dollar buyout, but the breadth of new applications and ideas is impressive and suggests that Web 2.0 technology is nowhere near the end of its creative peak.

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?