Kribaby

Is there more potential for Social Media Marketing?

I spent today reading a PR2.0 post by Brian Solis and following the links through to the Bokardo blog (my first time there) by Joshua Porter where a discussion about social media marketing was well under way.

What is all the fuss about?

Joshua points out that social media amplifies opinions about your products, it doesn't turn bad opinions about your product into good ones.  You can leverage social media to get feedback, listen to the feedback, improve your product and start positive conversations - the key is that you improve your product.  The point, as he puts it is that good results "happen(s) as a result of having a commitment to improvement, not simply because you implement social media tools."

While I agree with all of this, I think that there are still other opportunities for marketing companies to leverage Social Media.  It isn't just to use social media as a feedback tool - that is but one of the many marketing objectives that may cause a company to engage in a social media strategy.

Marketing objectives can range from creating awareness to generating new customers to building loyalty and preference among existing customers.  Social Media has a place in all of these objectives - the problem is finding creative ways to achieve these objectives.

A GREAT example of a Social Media strategy aimed at user acquisition was oovoo and the my oovoo day execution from Crayon.  They asked a number of people who were active in social media and marketing to host discussions on oovoo, and in return donated to The Frozen Pea Fund.  This clever execution created much buzz in the social media sphere, and created both awareness and trial for oovoo.

The point is, that with good executions that leverage social media and the community vs. force themselves, uninvited into the space, companies can use social media for far more than a feedback conversation (not that this use isn't valuable).  Social Media marketing requires creativity and a non-intrusive style of marketing, which is new to organizations who are used to old media.

Anyone know of any other great social media marketing campaigns?

Best Superbowl Ad Recap

Miller wasn't in the superbowl ads (probably since Bud appears to have exclusivity on beer ads for the superbowl), but they found a cleaver way to get in on the superbowl ad action without spending millions of dollars.

My fav quote from this recap "Two very expensive ads for water.  Water don't need to be fancy.  If I want flavored water I suck a lollipop".....

I guess you don't have to pay millions of dollars to get some superbowl ad love.

"Common guys, we got some common sense to deliver".  Well put.

Tips for Yahoo

This guy is my new favorite online personality.  Absolutely ridonculous.

In follow up to the post on Microsoft acquiring Yahoo, here are some great tips.  My Fav - "You got $44 Million Dollars?  Buy a country.  Buy Liberia.  Lets see you try to monetize Liberia!".

High quality here people.

The Case for Online Advertising - Part 2: Measure Shmeasure

I previously posted about the three dirty letters in social media marketing - ROI.

At the CMO Leaderhisp Forum the VP of media sales east at Facebook said:

-- ROI and social nets: “Return on investment” is probably the wrong thing to be looking for. Instead, the acronym should stand for “return on involvement,” Arrix said. The usual standard of audience “reach” is too limited when it comes to social media and “things like click-through rates don’t cut it. Return on ‘involvement’ looks at what users are saying about your brand. For example, are users taking your message and sharing it with their friends? Every client we do business with, we tell them, ‘You have to divorce yourself from what you’ve done before.’”

This is probably a somewhat controversial point of view since marketers don't know how to measure "involvement" or how to turn "involvement" into preference or purchase.  Is there inherent value in "involvement"?  What does that mean?

IMHO, Involvement is a measure much like Awareness.  You get involved with consumers, become a part of their decision set, and when they are looking to make a purchase in your category they think of you.  Furthermore, involvement can be a great way to spread word of mouth - if your message is compelling, interesting and portable.

Whether you agree with "involvement" as a valid metric or not the reality is that marketers probably do need to adjust their measures when looking at online marketing and especially social media.  Typical Reach, Awareness, Recall measures won't likely capture the potential value that developing a relationship can create.  Social Media suffers from some of the same challenges as Word-of-Mouth or PR in this regard.  They key, IMHO is to be flexible on metrics and look for results over time - including more "equity" based metrics - i.e. what qualities are associated with my brand due to my social media/interactive efforts?  Am I creating a more favorable impresion?  Equity metrics move slowly over time and often aren't measured as a part of interactive campaigns. 

Lets face it - Social Media and Interactive are still relatively new mediums.  It took marketers decades of test and learn to deliver significant ROIs on traditional mediums like TV, Print and DTC.  Measuring returns is VITAL to the success of any campaign, the question is are you measuring the right thing?

Click here to see part 1 of this posting.

Social Media "Friending" Etiquette?

Note to Reader: This is a bit of a rant, don't hold it against me but I'm curious what other people think.

I "left" Myspace because of harassment from 1) Random guys (At least a few times a week I got messages telling me I was hot or asking for my number or making dirty suggestions- seriously, does this even work??) and 2) Sleazy marketing companies offering me low credit or the chance to win an ipod.  AKA - Myspace became SPAMSPACE. 

Facebook now appears to be heading down the same road.  I am accosted with 1) App spam and 2) Networking SPAM.  I define networking spam as people who message me because "I noticed you were in the same group as me (generally business related), so we should be friends". 

1) App Spam - this stuff is sent by my friends.  It reminds me of the people who STILL forward me the please to forward an email chain on to get Little Sammy a wheel chair or because Microsoft is tracking the email chain and will pay you $500 if you forward it.  Seriously.  Unless you REALLY think I will like it - STOP SPAMMING ME.

2) Networking Spam - Friend requests sent by people who I don't know who want me to be one of the 1000+ members of their friends group so that they can spam me with stuff I don't care about and look like they are super connected and have lots of friends.  Unless there is really a legitimate reason for the friend request (beyond we are both in the PR 2.0 group - perhaps and we live in the same area, worked in the same place, attend the same conferences) I don't really see the need to be your Facebook Friend.

Perhaps part of the problem is *my idea* of the *rules of engagement* on Facebook.  For me, Facebook is a place to connect with my friends (i.e. people who I have a relationship with, either in real life or on line) or to meet new people who I *genuinely* share an interest with.  If I friended everyone who I had *something* in common with I would have millions of friends, and would probably lose track of what my actual friends are doing (which to me is the point of being on Facebook). 

In my mind "we both joined the same group" isn't a legitimate reason for a Friend request (note the word "FRIEND" request).  To me, Facebook is a place where my friends write random things on my wall, post crazy pictures and I can connect and reconnect with them.  If somebody wants to join my "business network" then request me on linkedin, or "follow-me" on Twitter.

I think that on social networking sites the nomenclature of the request should guide the choice of how to connect:

• Facebook = Friend Request = For Friends
• Linked in = Join My Network = Work Networking
• Twitter = Follow = No relationship required

Don't get me wrong - I'm a friendly person and I love meeting new people and developing relationships (both online and offline). I follow people I don't know (who interest me) on Twitter and I have made a number of friends through these online connections.  I just think that different social media tools should be used differently.  And yes, I know that I don't have to accept anyone as a friend, however as the number of random friend requests increases I'm sure to miss some genuine friend requests.  Also, do I seem anti-social by not accepting?

I'm sure that this is likely to create some controversy (I recently had a heated discussion about this).  Thoughts anyone?  Do I sound crazy here?  Is there social network etiquette?

Microsoftr?????

I posted on the Photrade blog last night (something I should admittedly do more frequently) about the Microsoft acquisition of Yahoo, and therefore Flickr (Flickr is owned by Yahoo).

Based on the history of Microsoft acquisitions, and the performance of their own products (Vista anyone?) it seems unlikely that Microsoft would improve the site.  Will they destroy it? 

Those who remember the Microsoft acquisition of Hotmail remember the numerous issues with reliability, security and overall data integrity that were created after The Big Blue Monster took over.  Another example is Driveoff.com (acquired in 2000), which is now a part of MSN Autos. Maybe Flickr will become part of MSN Photos (Where a GIANT phone ad popped up and accosted my screen)?

Flickr users have shown their creativity with a ton of great images and intense discussion about what this means.  One users asks "So what's next? what's out there like Flickr, better than Flickr, possibly not owned by some major corporation?" Hmmmm.......  Photrade anyone?

Oh yeah, and in case you forgot to celebrate, Vista celebrated its 1 year anniversary on Jan 30th.