I’m more of a walking man than a wax man. How about you?

I was traveling last week (hence the dearth of posts) and had the chance to read a good article in OMMA: Bottom’s Up. The article discusses the Maker’s Mark ambassador program.

A particular paragraph stood out to me as exemplifying a key differentiator of this program:

“This self-selections process [for brand advocates] seems to have built an influential base, whose value isn’t based on how much bourbon they buy, but how they identify with the company [my emphasis].”

At first I thought – is that really that big of a change?

We all have relatives who cling fiercely to their own proclivities. We know Aunt Sarah only puts Bombay Sapphire in her martinis. But Aunt Sarah was never much of a brand ambassador. Knowledge of her preference rarely goes beyond the family dinner table (and rarer still beyond her death-clutch of the martini glass).

Aunt Sarah isn’t much of a brand ambassador. But the Maker’s Mark program goes beyond loyalty – it’s about advocacy. They not only want consumers to buy Maker’s Mark – the company is giving ambassadors a reason to tell their friends to buy it as well.

Great, But Not For Me

While the article stirred up admiration for a great program, I was also surprised that it roused some personal brand loyalty and advocacy as well.

You see, for years now, I’ve been a member of Johnnie Walker’s Striding Man Society. I don’t know why or how I started, but I’ve been receiving their emails for several years.

The really odd thing is that I don’t drink Johnnie Walker all that much. I make Jack Daniel’s-esque paychecks, after all. (However, JW samples will be accepted by mail or in person. Just sayin’.)

But I’ve become adhered to the brand and I have some ideas why. Here’s what the Striding Man Society does right:

• Exclusivity: Anyone can sign up to join, but the emails always feel kind of exclusive. Design heavy in black, white, and gold give off a luxurious feel and events are often limited to only Striding Man Society members.
• Active: Speaking of events, there are enough to feel special, but not too many to where you feel like it’s another cattle-call (I’d guess maybe 2 per year in major cities). I’ve been to a couple events and they are a blast. Educational, slick, professional, and usually free. No complaints about any of that.
• Aspirational: Sure the website and emails celebrate each label, but they’ve done a good job of positioning the Blue Label as the all-star. I can’t afford it now, but you can be damned sure that my father-in-law will some day receive an engraved bottle for Christmas. And that act will make me feel like a true success. That’s good marketing.
• Classy Benefits: Check out the CTAs in the buttons on their “Labels” page. Even the more plebeian Red Label has a clearly defined benefit (versatility), while other labels highlight complexity, intensity, luxury, rarity and balance. It’s subtle, but ubiquitous: each label gives the buyer a reason for purchase, something to justify the cost.

Loyalty Is Just Step One

Brand loyalty is often a lifetime association. So, done correctly, it can easily mean millions for the company that does it right. (After all, how much has Aunt Sarah spent on Bombay gin, right? ‘Nuff said.)

The Striding Man Society isn’t perfect (please don’t rely on visuals in email – with images disabled, your emails are useless), but it has fostered some type of adherence, even in this brand propagandist.

More than loyalty, though, it and Maker’s Mark are really shooting for brand advocacy. Loyalty is just about your personal brand choices; advocacy indicates loyalty pushed to others in your personal circle. This is truly powerful stuff (and totally apropos in a social media world).

I tell my friends about JW articles in the email newsletters. I bring them with me to JW events. I forward on opportunities for customized labels. In other words, I take this out of just loyalty (my personal buying habits) and into the social space of advocacy (influencing others).

In a way, Johnnie Walker is like my Chicago Cubs. While I can’t always afford to get inside the friendly confines of Wrigley Field (or that smooth, squared bottle), I still cheer just as loud. Here’s to more strides in brand advocacy and more success all around.

Tweet This Post!

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider signing up for free updates via email or RSS. Also, please share this post on your favorite social media site.

(Image courtesy of nasrulekram via Flickr)

A Brief Intro…

I started this three-part series with a discussion of “the new creativity” and asked if the freemium business model would be better for video content sites like Hulu. Then, I outlined 7 ways Hulu could benefit from a freemium model.

And finally, after all of this persuasive writing, I’d like to examine how a few boneheaded marketers will probably f*ck up the whole “free video content” thing for everyone.

Intrigued? I thought so. Let’s get into it.

They’ll Never Pay For It. Until They Do.

In my last post, I outlined a plan where Hulu could profit by packaging some already- (or mostly-) existing assets into an awesome premium package some viewers would gladly pay for.

Hulu would be happy because they’d be making money. Their free audience would be happy because they’d still get great shows for zilch. And their premium audience would be happy because they’d get a bunch of perks and cool stuff for a nominal fee.

You’d think everyone would be happy, right?

Peter Verna, senior analyst with eMarketer is pessimistic that these perks could be bundled together into a premium package. He was quoted in a November OMMA article, “Trim Marks“:

“It’s fair to say that consumers are generally not willing to pay directly for online video…

I also think that if Hulu and YouTube are going to start charging for some of their content, they should limit it to feature films. Virtually everything else they offer seems to work better in an ad-supported context, with the caveat that user-generated clips are challenging to monetize through any model.”

True, most of the examples in “Trim Marks” were from digital studios creating original content. But comments like Verna’s certainly apply to sites like Hulu and the lessons ought to be applied to any website specializing in video content. The history of online video over the past 10 years or so would support his notion that people generally won’t pay for online content.

My point is that premium customers aren’t paying for online video. They’re paying for more flexibility. They’re paying for the ability to suggest shows or brag to their friends. They are paying for a better user experience.

A Lonely Voice Crying Out From The Wilderness

Of course, not all agencies are going to challenge their clients to try new business models. Many are happy to pretend the world isn’t changing.

In that same OMMA article, John McCarus, VP and director of brand content at Third Act, said “We have made an investment in this and we are doing everything we can to connect the stars in the content-creation community with clients that understand the space and have an appetite.”

OK, that’s McCarus’ idea, but will this sit well with content creators? Isn’t this the definition of selling out? If online trust is built through honesty, sincerity, and reputation, I don’t see how this will work long-term. Sure, one-offs will flock to it, but creators looking to connect will likely shy away from this business model.

But the suits go ever further! Studios need to “make room for advertisers to play an active role in the shape of a show,” says Alan Schulman, executive creative director for The Digital Innovations Group.

Are you friggin’ kidding me? So instead of advertising against content, they will dictate the content as well?

Schulman pushes it even further: studios “should expand their base of business from pure narrative storytelling to weaving other types of narratives like brand-centric edutainment into their offerings.”

Edutainment? Yeah, nothing says viral video success like “edutainment.” This is a guy with his finger on the pulse on the YouTube generation alright </sarcasm>.

Let me be clear: These are really, really bad ideas. It’s wedging the old model (selling ads next to content) into a new form (online) while diluting the content that attracted your viewers in the first place (edutainment).

This is a recipe for failure.

Smart Video Advertising

If you’re going to sell ads, you need to be smart about it. Here are a few hints about video ads you should know if you plan to be in this business 2 years from now:

1. Ads need to be contextual. Since there is no AdWords for video, this means a lot of work either tagging or actually selecting the ads that run against your content.
2. Users will not pay for content. As I mentioned in my last post, they will pay for a package of perks. They will also (for now) tolerate a pre-roll ad. But dictating the content? Good luck!
3. Any product placement should be handled subtly. Yes, it was Nestea that was spilled on and gave magical powers to the keyboard in CTRL. But no one needed to shove it in our faces or “educate” us about how great a sponsor was. Just make it work.

In short, if you want to create business advocates – and you should – you must think of their needs first.

And that has been the point of this blog series. It began with a discussion of which business model is best for online video consumers. Then there were suggestions for Hulu to improve their user experience. And finally a warning against putting your desires before the customer.

Tweet This Post!

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider signing up for free updates via email or RSS. Otherwise, I hope you share it on digg, StumbleUpon, or the other social media tools found below.

(Image courtesy of Charlottedallot via Flickr)

If you’re a marketer in love with the status quo, you should quit right now.

This isn’t a post about the fast pace of change or an “X is dead” post; rather, it’s an “I friggin’ love our business and evolution of marketing” post. Yeah, I said friggin’.

Fundamental business models are changing – you can see it everyday. We hear news all the time about another sacred cow being slaughtered (newspapers – Moo!).

But not everyone is losing money. Why?

Innovative businesses are using what Joseph Jaffe dubbed “the new creativity” to reach and connect with a new generation of consumers. It’s simple to understand, an art to produce, a feat when accomplished, and willfully ignored by most businesspeople.

This Blog Post Brought To You By…

In the old days, businesses bankrolled the creative process (“Welcome to Guiding Light, brought to you by Dove Soap”). Businesses placed their ads against creative work to cover the cost. Those 2 minute bathroom commercial breaks are the reason you could watch “Everybody Loves Raymond” for free (lucky you).

Other models came about, notably the subscription model, which offered the convenience of delivery by trading money up front and in advance.

The early days of the internet brought us contextual ads. Glory upon glory, we could now (sorta) sync up ads with the actual content. Sure, it’s awkward when McDonald’s ads show up against stories about childhood obesity, but whatevs.

Web 2.0 botched it all up though. People ignored or rebelled against ads in their social spaces. Impressions plummeted in value. The general public (hell, you and me) got used to free content online and no RIAA or anyone else would tell them different.

What Is The New Creativity?

Last week, I serendipitously caught up with back episodes of The Beancast and saw a new study released by eMarketer.

In episode #76 of The Beancast, Joseph Jaffe described “The New Creativity:”

“I don’t know how much originality is in the idea itself, but it’s in the execution where you see the real beauty of it. And ultimately that control and that power – and to what degree it becomes a meme and to what degree it lives on and gets a life of its own and gets embraced by the consumer – is ultimately in the hands of the consumer.

And maybe that can become the new definition of creativity.” (minutes 37-38)

The old creativity required advertisers and marketers to create something interesting enough (or loud enough) that would effectively interrupt the user’s day so that they’d pay attention to it. It’s a one-way street. And kinda inherently douche-y.

But the new creativity is a little different. Advertisers and marketers are encouraged to tell a compelling enough story to entice the user to tell their friends about your product. Plus, the marketer often gets the benefit of instant feedback from the user about their pitch/story/content.

It looks roughly like this terrible sketch:

As you can plainly see, the old way involved a lot of yelling marketers and irritated consumers. (See those lines coming off the consumer? In the biz, we call those “irritation lines.” They’re usually accompanied by a “Grrrr!” sound.) With the new creativity, communication goes both ways between a marketer and consumer, and between a consumer and their friends. (Many thanks to Jonny, our 5-year-old neighbor for contributing this work of art.)

The Results

We see this everywhere.

We can see evidence of this in the obsession with (and success of) social media marketing, the decline of direct marketing, the spread of viral – it’s everything we used to do, but now the more profitable interaction is between friends (rather than between marketer and user).

The tools – and it’s important to remember that these shiny objects like Twitter, Flickr, delicious, etc – are just that: tools. Now, they can amplify each person’s voice. Blogs allow a personal publishing platform never conceived of in all human history. Influencers arise, the same way they do in your social circles. The only difference is that the bullhorn these influencers use is a hell of lot bigger.

And when the important (read: profitable) interaction is between friends, the old business models don’t work as well. Would you mindlessly slap an ad on the Starbucks table while sharing a cup of joe with a friend? Would you insist that friends “subscribe” to your future conversations?

Of course not. It’s weird. It’s anti-social. And it’s not working. (Cue marketer panic from recent years.)

That’s why marketers in love with the status quo should quit right now. If you’re not ready for it, the new creativity will punch you in the face.

Um, So Like…What Do We Do?

So while some Luddites continue to completely block content with a firewall and a few lucky ones have made a subscription model profitable (I’m looking at you, WSJ), most are waking up to the new world.

It’s time we look at another business model. Tout de suite.

But I’m going to make you wait for it (it’s OK, it’ll build tension and that’s fun). Later this week, I will suggest a business model that is showing great potential to marketers…especially those embracing new social networking tools (that’s the eMarketer study I mentioned). Plus, I will apply this to a business desperately in need of a new path. Hopefully that application – the execution of an idea that gives power to the consumer – will be enlightening.

Please come back for that post (subscribing is uber-easy). And please leave comments below about the new creativity. Is it bitchin’ or bogus?

Tweet This Post!

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider signing up for free updates via email or RSS. Otherwise, I hope you share it on digg, StumbleUpon, or the other social media tools found below. You can also show some love by buying stuff from the nice people advertising to the right.

(Image courtesy of THRILLHO via Flickr)

I was recently published in Alberta Venture, discussing how brands could tap into the recession zeitgeist.

It was a fun piece to write; it allowed me to review what brands were doing right – and wrong – to gain market share during the economic downturn. The gist of the article is:

There is nothing inherently wrong with tweaking your brand to reflect the recession. But like most things, it’s the execution that matters…

“Dirt cheap” isn’t a long-term strategy; aspirational partner is. Ensure that brand tweaks make consumers feel like savvy shoppers, not scroungy skinflints.

I feel that recent campaigns by McDonald’s missed the mark, but laud Target’s “Brand New Day” campaign as an insightful way to make thrift a fun part of life.

Apple, A Luxury Experience

A good friend and former work colleague, Kristian Perry – also a great filmmaker, writer, and animator – emailed his response, and I was struck by what he had to say about Apple in particular:

In the computer world, I understand that there is a cry for Apple to make a cheaper notebook computer — their cheapest one retails for about $1,000, but I think this would be a mistake.  Apple’s real selling point is that you are not buying a computer, but an experience.

If they sold a cheaper machine, they might have to cut corners, and then you might see more breaks in the facade of the “Apple Lifestyle”.  So unless they can maintain the quality of experience that comes with them being a computer luxury brand, they would be making a real mistake to sell a “cheap” model.

I think Kristian is totally correct. Not just about faulty products, but a cheapened experience; brands can harm themselves by falling into the “discount trap,” especially during tough economic times.

A Lesson From Politics

It reminds me of an important lesson I learned during my time in politics. We were sending emails and soliciting donations for our cause. I noticed that when we emphasized the smallest donation, our overall yield was far lower than when we placed higher donation values above the fold.

Why was this happening? Didn’t people want to know the value option – that we would take whatever we could get?

It turns out that they didn’t want a value. Even in a pinched economy, our donors weren’t giving away money to a worthy cause – they were investing in us, our candidate, or our mission.

When an ideal translates into tangible money, people don’t want to toss pennies, they’d rather palm you $100 you can really use.

The Discount Spiral

I’m not saying value or discounts are all bad; sometimes they can be very effective (Target is a perfect example). But if they’re done all the time and that’s the only message you really have – you’re killing your long-term strategy.

Think about the last time you were in the grocery store: they probably had signage alerting you to their “discount price.” But we all know their “regular price” was inflated and is never actually charged. Everything is discount all the time! So really, nothing is truly discounted, ever.

And if you’re only talking about value and discounts, it makes your brand sound cheap. Whole Foods has experienced a stock dip just like other grocery brands, but two things separate them: their dip hasn’t been as low as other retailers and they are far better positioned for post-recession spending (when consumers emphasize quality or variety over discounts).

What Do You Think?

Am I off the mark? Despite the recession, I believe you shouldn’t hurt your long-term strategy for short-term gains. And all of you are thinking “No shit.” But then why do many – dare I say “most” – brands ignore this advice?

Maybe it’s a panic for good results each quarter. Maybe it’s because CMOs have an average tenure of less than two years – the shortest time of the C-level suite.

Why do you think long-term strategy is losing out to fire sales? Why has your brand succumbed or how have you resisted the discount temptation? The community would love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.

Tweet This Post!

P.S.: Read the full Alberta Venture piece and check out Kristian’s great work.

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider signing up for free updates via email or RSS. Otherwise, I hope you share it on digg, StumbleUpon, or the other social media tools found below. You can also show some love by buying stuff from the nice people advertising to the right.

(Image courtesy of Jenny Downing via Flickr)

I’m trying a new format for my book reviews. Instead of a measured, logical summary and analysis, I’m just going to cut straight to the meat of it – here’s why I think you should buy this book (or why you might want to skip it).

I recently finished David Meerman Scott’s new book, World Wide Rave. I am a big fan of Scott’s work – he’s an innovator who has the guts to practice what he preaches. (He quit a high-paying job to write books like these, for instance.) You can check out his website at WebInkNow.com or check his Twitter stream at @dmscott.

So here are 5 reasons why I think you should buy his book (and 2 reasons why you might not want to).

[Sidenote: I read this thanks to Amazon's Kindle for iPhone WhisperSync. Hence, page numbers are between 1-2928. Sorry. You can use my citations to give a rough idea of where to find particular sections though.]

Get It

1. He hits on ideas central to social media marketing (and marketing in the future)

Scott emphasizes again and again that we need to think in terms of what we’re giving to the community, not in old media terminology. He most succinctly put it as such:

“You’ve got to think in terms of spreading ideas, not generating leads. A World Wide Rave gets the word out to thousands or even millions of potential customers. But only if you make your content easy to find and consume” (pg. 959).

Tenets like this seem really easy, but they are still a major sticking point for marketers in firm companies. Scott makes it simple to focus on what really matters in a web 2.0 world.

2. He translates theory into language your boss can understand.

Or rather, he confronts your boss’ out-moded ideas of how we gauge marketing success. His discussions about the old rules of measurement – tracking “leads” and “press clips,” especially – reveal exactly why these markers don’t make sense in social media marketing (pg. 1080).

And Scott speaks frankly. ROI obsession is causing your marketing to get boring. Like, soul-crushingly, lawyer-infused, uber-numbingly boooooring. And then he tells you why (pg. 1117 onward). (Try highlighting these sections before gifting this book to your boss or corporate overseer.)

3. Even n00bs can get it.

Scott speaks to the 90% who are still figuring out their online marketing, much less social media marketing strategy. That can be a tad frustrating for the other 10% of us, but hey, if we’re meant to be advocates, we need to get off the high horse.

It’s good that Scott covers the basics. No matter how new you are to social media marketing, I’m confident you will not get lost in this book. Heck, he even takes a moment to define social media – something that often gets skipped in even the more basic books (pg. 1261, the “Let’s Be Honest” section).

4. He makes the case for true content marketing

Content marketing, as I understand it, just means that you garner trust due to the content you put out. It’s not direct marketing; you generally build up trust until someone thinks of you when they have a need in your specialty.

Content marketing has its advocates, notably Joe Pulizzi from Junta42 and (to a slightly lesser degree) Rick Liebling from eyecube. But it’s pretty rare for a marketer to call this out in such detail. He says:

“A good journalist [someone you could hire for your content marketing] can create interesting stories about how an organization solves customer problems and can then deliver those stories in a variety of ways…Consumers will love it. How refreshing to read, listen to, and watch these products of journalistic expertise instead of the usual come-ons that typical corporations produce [read: marketing schlock]” (pg 2258).

5. He’s fun to read and that’s rare

Have you ever taken a business book on your summer vacation? Here’s how it normally goes: You have the best of intentions, so you drag this tome out to the beach with you. Before you know it, you’ve dozed off before finishing the preface and your snooze in the sand results in a bright red burn and your vacation is ruined.

That’s how it usually works for me, at least.

I’m not saying it’s a laugh riot, but this book is engaging. It moves. It has a sense of purpose. It’s got a lot of examples interspersed with the philosophy. And that’s miles better than most of the other books out there. And I’ve got the burns to prove it.

Skip It

Nothing is perfect in this world, so here are 2 valid reasons for skipping this book.

1. Lack of evidence

I don’t expect every marketing book to be chock full of research, graphs, and charts like Groundswell was (despite how much I love that book!). But, a little supporting evidence wouldn’t hurt, ya know?

And it’s not like Scott doesn’t provide a lot of citations – he does. But I feel like his most salient points are where he drops the ball in this regard.

Take for instance his argument about social media restrictions for employees. He builds up a case where those who have restricted open access for their employees in the past have been haunted by this decision. He provides a reasonable hypothesis of trends relating to computers, then the internet, culminating in social media. He provides all of the theoretical proof you could want.

But his thesis falls short without real-world evidence. Has Microsoft or Starbucks done this? What were the specific ramifications for Business X when they restricted employee access? Which companies have avoided this fate? I admit I was left wanting in just a few instances like these in the book.

2. Same ‘ol, same ‘ol

I was disappointed at a few parts in the book when examples were trotted out that I’d heard about months (nay, years) ago. It seemed tired. It seemed like something I’d read before. Seriously, I’ve heard that MailerMailer story 500 hundred times before.

But! (And this is a significant “but.”) The reason I’m sick of examples like MailerMailer is because I’m such a fan of Scott’s work. So really, this is hardly his fault. He’s trying to reach a new audience with this book and it’s likely they’ve never heard most/all of these stories before.

It’s only because I have read all of his white papers and many of his blog posts that things like “Where the hell is Matt?” seem trite. If you haven’t, then it’s new to you.

Final Verdict

This time, I leave the final verdict in your hands. In other reviews, I have ended the post with a pithy thought and recommendation. But that kind of post is boring, to be honest.

This time, I’d like to hear from you. Would you buy David’s book from this post? Or, if you have read it, what did you think? Would you recommend it to others? (Better yet, if you read his blog and white papers but haven’t bought the book – will you?)

I enjoyed the book and believe I’m a better marketer for reading it. Plus, because Scott practices what he preaches, he gave away the book during the first five days of publication and I essentially read it for free (Thanks, David!). So, while I have no real obligation, if it made me a better marketer, as a gentlemen I damn well better talk about it, right?

So, what do you think? Would you read World Wide Rave? Or did you read it? What did you think?

P.S.: If you enjoyed this review, you might also like my recent review of Paul Gillin’s Secrets of Social Media Marketing; Goldstein, Martin, and Cialdini’s Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways To Be Persuasive; and my list of the top 5 gift books for marketers.

Tweet This Post!

*

If you enjoyed this post, consider signing up for free updates via email or RSS. Otherwise, I hope you share it on digg, StumbleUpon, or the other social media tools found below.