Aug/104
Why You SHOULD Use the “Focus Group of One”
Oftentimes we’re told not to use the “focus group of one”, namely ourselves, when we’re brainstorming creative ideas. But to be blunt, I ask: Why not?
Social media marketing, unlike mass media, is based on the pillars of relationship building and a few-to-many model. That said, if you fall within the target audience, it shouldn’t be hard to understand that if you find something interesting, at least a good portion of the target audience will as well. I bring this up because not long ago, I contributed some thoughts to Griffin Farley’s Propagation Planning Brief (basically, the creative brief for the social age). One of the questions we listed was: “Why would someone want to pass something like this to others?”
I think in the case of social media, and propagation planning, using the “focus group of one” is vital, and recommended, in determining the viability of an activation program. It’s no secret that when you come up with an idea, it sounds great. It’s your idea; so, of course it’s great. But I think “Is this a good idea?” and “Would I pass this along to my friends?” are two very different questions, and are the necessary stress tests that an idea should go through. Good ideas are a dime a dozen. But not all good ideas are ones you would necessarily rush to tell your friends and family about; and ultimately that’s the goal.
If social marketing is about humanizing a brand and developing relationships on a micro-level, then we should be including ideas that individuals, marketers or otherwise, stress tested themselves. Ultimately, we’re all still just people. And we all equally find cool stuff to be…well, cool, regardless of what hats we wear from 9-5pm.
So, the next time you’re brainstorming, champion the idea that you think your group of friends would be interested in seeing; because odds are, you aren’t the only one who would rush to show them.
Jul/104
The Ubiquity of the Social Web, and the Questionable Sustainability of its Agencies
Let me preface this by saying I don’t write these posts simply to be contrarian. I just think that some perspective is in order.
I’ve said this before. My larger interest is in technology and how brands can connect with people through things that whirl and buzz. Taking a step beyond that is my interest in integrated advertising. So, count me as a member of the school of thought that no one medium can do the job of every other. That goes for social as well.
Too many social marketers believe that social will eventually take over the world. And for all intents and purposes, I agree. I agree that applications and experiences that are socially enabled and contextually aware is the future. The Internet of Things and the true semantic web are years away. But I do believe they’re on the horizon. Experiences that change and mold to fit who we are as individuals is the Holy Grail of advertising. Think of the scene in Minority Report where Tom Cruise’s character enters Gap. We’re already seeing it with Facebook’s Open Graph and the rise of hyperlocal information.
The use of technology and the internet has become so commonplace that anyone can do it.
Social and contextual advertising will, in my belief, reach a level of ubiquity that pervades every facet of advertising. And with that ubiquity, comes widespread learning and understanding. In an age where the internet has become inescapable, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who, at this point, has never at least Googled, or checked email. Using the internet is no longer a luxury of the technologically savvy. It’s a place anyone can access, and the cost of entry is as little as a standard cell phone.
That said, social marketing is not rocket science.
Too many self-proclaimed social experts feel the need to justify their jobs, pointing down at digital and traditional advertisers/marketers, claiming they don’t get social and that they’re doing it all wrong. But it begs the question: Why do you think social is so far outside of their scope of understanding? Social is human. And last time I checked, humans ran all the other agencies in this industry.
Advertising—good advertising—is based on understanding human behavior. It’s about either tapping into, or in some cases, creating culture. So, while I admit that most advertisers are accustomed to talking at consumers, it’s a time tested truth that they are no stranger to indoctrinating thoughts, ideas, and beliefs into the minds of the masses. They simply have to learn how to do it in new ways. And as was the case with the widespread adoption of the internet, it’s only a matter of time.
“The Last Advertising Agency on Earth” video suggests that remaining relevant requires agencies to understand that times are a-changing and we need to change with them. Most agencies know this now, and are taking the necessary steps to stay connected.
It’s grossly naive to believe digital and traditional agencies don’t get it and never will. Sure they’ll stumble. But haven’t the social agencies stumbled as well in proving sales-driven ROI? An agency is only as good as the “agents” it hires. And if the BDA’s hire people who “get” social, what makes them any less capable of kicking our collective asses? Not only do they have the client roster, but they have the funds, execution/production resources, and greater leverage for true campaign integration.
Digital agencies doubted traditional agencies the same way. But then what do you say about agencies like SapientNitro? And even then, I think the argument isn’t the same as the one social agencies make. Digital and Traditional advertising are two very different disciplines, and require vastly divergent skill sets. We, on the other hand, sit in a place that is primarily based on common sense rhetoric. As a colleague of mine says, we do a lot of talking.
Few social agencies can execute, let alone on the scale and with the refinement of a digital agency. Honestly, any programmer/designer team worth their salt can create custom tabs in Facebook. And even the strategy that leads a good social program can be developed by a digital agency that has at least one person who understands the best practices.
Understanding social, and properly executing against it, is not something reserved to the “great thinkers” of a space that is barely 10 years old. It simply necessitates that you behave more like an individual, and less like a brand hocking your wares. The foundations of good account planning and strategy were carried over from the other disciplines. But polished execution, I’m sorry to say, is something most social agencies just can’t do because they don’t have the production resources and expertise.
That said, thinking “socially” isn’t necessarily hard, it just requires you to think differently; but it doesn’t require an entirely new skill set. So, who’s more likely to emerge when the dust has settled? Social agencies who do a lot of talking about Facebook and Twitter, but lack the skills to execute against programs larger than a custom tab; or digital agencies who have the expertise to develop deeply engrossing experiences, but need to brush up on the (very elementary) do’s and don’ts of social marketing?
Here’s a hint: Social agencies; hire some digital creatives.
Apr/100
We Aren’t What We Do. We Should Do What We Are.
At the PSFK Conference 2010, Erik Proulx, creator, executive producer, and writer of the short film Lemonade, as well as the founder of Please Feed the Animals, spoke in front of the large crowd at the Museum of Jewish Heritage. It goes without saying that all of the speakers were inspiring, forcing ideas to spark off in my mind. But after hearing Proulx speak, and watching Lemonade during the lunch break (also available on DVD and through Hulu), a swirl of emotions stirred inside me.
He didn’t speak about a new technological advancement; or acknowledge some growing trend that marketers should heed. He spoke about something so basic in nature, that I think its simplicity has been lost: doing what you love. The film Lemonade is a nice accompaniment to Proulx’s Please Feed the Animals website; a blog for members of the advertising community who have lost their job to vent and look for a new one at the on-site job board.
The film highlights a number of former advertising executives who lost their jobs over the last year or so, and the moment of clarity they had afterwards that convinced them to uncover and take up the things they forgot they loved.
The title of this post is a quote that Proulx shared during his presentation and was something that really stuck with me. I look at my friends and family members’ lives and I wonder if they’re really doing what it is they love. My father wanted to be a marine biologist when he was younger. He affirms to me that he enjoys his job enough, but is “enough” adequate? I think of one of my best friends, who went from dreams about being a music producer to pulling all-nighters at a local Trader Joe’s. I’ve been fortunate enough to land a job, doing more or less exactly what I wanted to do with my life. I couldn’t be happier to be honest.
I wanted to promote Lemonade because it reminded me of something that I think people tend to forget, or think of lightly: do what you love. It wasn’t long ago that Greg (Verdino) told me that he actually wanted to work in the music business. There’s nothing wrong with doing what you’re good at (he happens to be good at marketing), but I challenge him to pick music back up again. Even if it’s something he only does on the weekend. In fact, I challenge you all to do the same.
Dig deep down inside yourself. Write down all the things that make you happy. All the things you’re passionate about. And find a way to fit it into your life. One of the women in the film, Michelle Pfennighaus, made the apt point that you don’t have to quit your job to make a profound change in your life. Whether it’s home-brewing coffee, practicing yoga, or painting, take a step back and do something for yourself. Find out whatever it is that makes you smile, and hold on to it; because it’s easy to lose yourself.
Mar/102
The Ubiquity of Facebook and Twitter
This post is more so a raw and unrefined observation/opinion of mine, rather than a picking apart of the two services. For some time I’ve wanted to write a blog post about how Facebook has become the new mass media, or how Twitter has seemingly morphed to a medium, but I think it’s probably even smarter to discuss the ubiquity of these two services as it encompasses both topics.
I think it goes without saying that Facebook and Twitter are huge. Taking a quick glance at their usage statistics, you’ll see they’ve grown into behemoths in the social space.
As a disclaimer, I’m well aware that Twitter’s advertised user base of 75 million is grossly inflated, being as only 21% of its users are actually active, according to a brand new study by Barracuda Networks. But that’s neither here nor there, and doesn’t change the point of my argument.
When you get a new client and they want to go social, what’s the first thing you think of? Odds are, most of you raised your hand for Facebook. I’ll give it to you that Twitter isn’t for everyone, but let’s focus on Facebook for right now, a name that has basically become everyday diction for us. Do you realize that we all seem to immediately snap to Facebook? As if you’re retarded if you’re not on it.
I’m not saying that it’s not without good reason. It’s a stellar social network. It’s got everything from profiles, to photos and videos, to status updates, to corporate fan pages and groups. And it’s only getting better. The mobile site is brilliantly designed, and has grown to become the most visited mobile social network . So, I’m not here to say shame on you for looking to Facebook, but I do want to challenge you with the question: Why? Is it because all your other clients ended up with a Facebook Fan Page? Do you have a genuine argument as to why it’s the first thing that comes to mind, or is it because that’s just “what we do” nowadays?
Twitter, on the other hand, has reached a status that to me is quite different from Facebook. Because of the nature of the two services, I feel that Twitter took a different path, one towards channelization. Facebook is a social networking site. Twitter is a medium. I could be getting ahead of myself here, but the fashion in which Twitter has grown and is used, has led me to believe that we could be thinking about it all wrong. I don’t think Twitter is a social networking platform anymore; it’s transformed (not transcended) into something instrumental.
I think on some level it’s become as ordinary and unremarkable as the telephone, or email. We talk about not focusing on the tools, and I wholeheartedly agree. But isn’t that argument used to make the point of putting strategy ahead of tactics. What if Twitter really is just a tool. A tool like my iPhone, or my Samsung/TiVo combo. What is Twitter used for? Communication. It’s only a communication, and sometimes entertainment, tool; no different from the telephone or television. And the way we’ve instructed clients to use it, reflects that.
We measure our clients’ customer relationships in Facebook fans. We measure their “address book” in Twitter followers.
Sure it’s because of their mammoth size, but does anyone else realize that we’ve turned these two sites into the “Break Glass In Case of Emergency” social media services. They’ve become ubiquitous with the term Social Media. When you explain your job to your relatives, what do you say? I’d be surprised if neither Facebook nor Twitter came out of your mouth. When did “social media” become synonymous with these two sites/services/tools?
It’s a hackneyed term, and the vast majority of us don’t deserve the title, but why aren’t we called Digital Anthropologist or Ethnographers? Regardless of how many people may hate the usage of that title (and rightfully so), those same people (I’d hope) also understand that at the end of the day our job is about human beings connecting with human beings. Aren’t we all just digital social workers, hopefully making some kind of difference in peoples’ lives through smiles, laughter, or tears?
When did Facebook and Twitter become the masters of the universe, which have come to define our professional existences? And when did we become tools ourselves?
Aug/091
Have Marketers Lost Their Individuality?
I was going to write a post about an important tip if you’re building an iPhone application, but I think I’ll hold that off for a later date. Instead, let me share something that has certainly come to bother me: becoming a standardized marketer. And it’s not for all of the reasons you may think.
If you’ve read my About Me page, you can see that I’m not a fan of the self-righteous, and am afraid of it happening to myself. But that’s not where it ends. Some time ago, I came across a website many of you may be familiar with: Things Marketing People Love. I thought the site was so funny, I emailed the creator, Heron Preston, thanking him for it.
The reason why it’s so amusing is because just about everything in it is true, and that’s because (I’d imagine) all of the submissions are from marketing people themselves. Marketers do love “the elephant in the room,” “taking a stab at it,” saying “divide and conquer,” “fleshing out ideas,” “brain dumps,” “ending emails with ‘thoughts?’,” and “getting your ducks in a row.” So much, in fact, that it annoys me that I have to call myself one. Are we really so predictable? How can we guide others’ behavior when it’s so easy to anticipate our own?
I stand by the notion that no idea’s original. But I do believe you can be different; and that’s what I want for myself.
Over the past 2+ years I must have heard just about every phrase and seen every behavior that TMPL lists off. That we can be read like a book so easily makes me uncomfortable. It makes me feel like we’re not being ourselves; like we’ve just become a collection of plaid shirts and catchphrases. Many of us have been trained to speak the lingo. Are there any of us out there who refuse to assimilate in an attempt hold onto that shred of their individuality that made them unique; that person who existed before they got into this business?
That’s one thing that terrifies me: losing myself. If you have to ask the question “why do you think that?”, then it’s probably too late for you. You’ve already been borgified.
TMPL is a testament to the fact that as much as we like to believe we’re masters of the universe, anticipating consumer behavior, and packaging “individuality” as a false purchasing pretense, we ourselves have lost our own individuality. We’re no better than the markets we segment in our strategic plans; perhaps even more predictable.
We like to believe that the way we dress and act in the office is so different from past business generations. But if we’re all doing it, how different are we from each other? If you’ve already lost yourself, was it really worth it, and what are you going to do to take your life back?