Via FuckYeahAds: Condomerie recruited a woman to sit semi-naked in front of a webcam and use Chatroulette. She covered her breasts with a sign that was illegible when she was holding it close to her chest. Once she had got her fellow chatter’s attention, she would move the sign closer to the webcam so that they could read the message: “Bingo! You are now in touch with an HIV infected person. Don’t play Russian roulette in real life.” The sign also included, of course, the condom store’s web address, condomerie.com.
Such a smart, innovative use of the platform—so much so that it seems almost tailor-made for this campaign (and the numerous naked people on ChatRoulette help). But this is a great example of a company being proactive to use a new platform/technology to market their product. And they’re getting great coverage on social media and marketing trade blogs too.
Planet BP: “All the News That’s Fit to Underestimate by 50,000 Barrels”
As usual, Colbert cuts through BP’s PR/spin brilliantly. It’s true that BP is being transparent about these “BP Reporters,” but they are still, emphatically, doing it wrong, so to speak. It’s like “What Not to Do 101” for PR (or, um, the environment).
At least their stupidity has provided us with this awesome clip.
debbiestier: One Fan Per Day
Love this. Patience is a virtue in the high-speed digital space. There’s a lot of noise; it takes time to get traction. And there’s a lot you’ll get wrong before you get right—but given the time to correct, refine, and grow, a digital presence can make a world of difference.
If you are a writer, or an artist of any kind, you MUST read the blog post 1000 True Fans. In fact, if you’re a marketer of any kind, you must read it too.
I first read the post a few years ago, and I’ve since read it over and over and over again, and I’ve recommended it hundreds of times because I find it empowering, and hopeful.
I work with a lot of writers on their digital strategy, and I very often hear that they don’t feel their hard work and engagement online is making a difference. @garyvee would say HAVE PATIENCE. And he’s right. If you’re a writer (and I would encourage you to do ANYTHING else if you can, because it’s really really hard to be successful as a writer), you are building a long-term relationship. It’s not just about THIS book; it’s about your career.
The take-away from the post that I’m always left with, is: ”If you added one fan a day, it would take only three years.” One fan per day just seems so doable, right?
I’ve never taken the 1000 number literally, and in fact he says he has no idea what the actual number of fans needed is:
“…..the actual number may vary depending on the media. Maybe it is 500 True Fans for a painter and 5,000 True Fans for a videomaker. The numbers must surely vary around the world. But in fact the actual number is not critical, because it cannot be determined except by attempting it. Once you are in that mode, the actual number will become evident. That will be the True Fan number that works for you. My formula may be off by an order of magnitude, but even so, its far less than a million.”
But again, the gist for me is ONE FAN PER DAY. LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP.
Now here is something that I hadn’t noticed before in my reading of the post:
“Same is true in book publishing. When you have corporations involved in taking the majority of the revenue for your work, then it takes many times more True Fans to support you. To the degree an author cultivates direct contact with his/her fans, the smaller the number needed.”
I have to think more about that, but it does remind me of a new company I’m intrigued by, The Open Sky Project. Seems to me a company worth an author exploring.
Advertising on the Social Web
I talk often about how important it is to engage with social media as a marketing tactic, and most often I’m referring to using social platforms to communicate with users. I’m a strong believer in the power of communities and word-of-mouth marketing, not least because I’ve seen DailyLit’s userbase grow through these channels and know other people, like June Publishing Point speaker Gail Horwood, EVP of digital at Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, have seen success that way too.
However, recently I heard David Kidder of Clickable speak, and he discussed another important element of social media strategy: social advertising. Here’s some of the statistics he shared (via the Clickable blog):
- Of $22.7 billion total U.S. online ad spend in 2009, 50% went to search advertising and 35% went to display (source)
- From display’s $8 billion in spend, an estimated $800 million went to Facebook and MySpace (source)
- Americans received 1.1 trillion display ads in Q1 2010, a 15% bump versus year-ago, led by Facebook (source)
- Facebook now is the largest publisher of ad impressions (source)
- Time spent each month on search engines: 1 hour (source)
- Time spent each month on social networking sites: 6 hours (source)
Compelling numbers, made even more so when you remember that Facebook ads can be targeted by demographics, location, and more. And given how much time users are spending on social sites vs. search sites, these display ads offer very valuable real estate indeed (and six hours is definitely lowballing it, at least in some demographics.)
Engaging with social media gives you a lot of face time and influence with your customers and targeted potential customers. I’ve said before that it’s critical to think about your social media presence as part of your overall marketing strategy (i.e. don’t just create a Facebook page and wait for something to happen), and it’s worth thinking about how user engagement and social media advertising fit into your plan.
Advertising Winner Doesn’t Go It Alone
AdAge posted the past month’s Top 10 Most-Liked and Most-Recalled Ads. (Open the link in another tab to see the lists I’m talking about—can’t show the content here. Sorry!)
Interesting that the top three “Liked” spots are occupied by ads that cross promote or tap into another brand presence: Target-Lost, Aflac-Toy Story, and McDonald’s-Shrek.
The list of ten most-recalled ads, interestingly enough, doesn’t overlap all that much with the “liked” spots, but note that again, four of the top five spots take advantage of another media presence (three Target-Lost ads and the Pantene-Stacy London spot which, although it doesn’t mention “What Not To Wear” directly, clearly draws on her fame from that show).
I’d say the winner this month is Target—which, if you know me, you know makes me happy. Lurve Target.
But the lesson is just how powerful the result can be if you (cleverly) tap into current trends and popular properties.
And also: how funny are the ad summaries? “Man wrestles with children at summer barbecue, then runs to grill and eats sausage.”
‘Where can I fly for this much money’ by Kayak.com
Brilliant. Start from the customer and work backwards.
Who’s In Charge Here?
Upon hearing news that agency Ogilvy & Mather is prepping to name Lars Bastholm, an insider with digital chops, as the chief creative officer of its New York office, Ad Age asks: Is putting digital experts in the top creative spots the right thing?
I’m not an expert on ad agencies, but haven’t creative directors always needed to have a robust understanding of the media their messages use? Creativity can’t exist in a vacuum, right?
This question reminds me of one of the most (in)famous quotes from last week’s BookExpo America. Speaking on a panel of CEOs discussing the value of a book, Esther Newberg, executive VP of International Creative Management, remarked that one of the nice things about getting old was not having to worry about the resolution of all these arguments—you know, discussions about ebook value, royalties, digital editions, piracy. Shouldn’t those be the very issues that our leaders most aggressively tackle?
Publishing is often referred to as a sinking ship. If that ship is to be righted, we can’t afford to have disengaged people at the helm. As Kassia Kroszer wrote in her recap of the BEA panel, change must begin at home.
My answer to Ad Age’s question, then, is yes. The best leaders are creative thinkers who know their industry inside out—and in media and advertising, that means having serious digital chops.
The emergence of a new media system is typified by a period of transposition, where the behavioural grammar of the previous system remains dominant. The first television shows were radio shows with people talking directly into camera. The first films were stageplays that had been filmed. And the first marketing forays online took what we knew about media and branding from broadcast media and applied it to a whole new space.
But digital is different. Digital is not a channel. It’s a suite of platforms, channels and tactics that will, ultimately subsume its parents entirely. Digital marketing is not simply a new place to disperse persuasive symbols, but the emergence of any entirely new behavioural grammar, as companies and their customer begin to engage with each other in entirely new ways in entirely new spaces, where everyone has an equal voice.
” Faris, ”A decade of digital: 10 things for 2010” (via digital-marketing-diva, alexjcampbell)The End of Search
Well, no, Google isn’t going anywhere. But something I’ve been thinking about a lot recently is how the primacy of Google search as a way of interacting with the web is changing. As the social web matures, we’re discovering and engaging with content that’s brought to us through friends on Facebook, or newsletters from ecommerce sites, or business colleagues on Twitter.
Talks I’ve heard in the past week have shared this spirit. Last week Fred Wilson spoke to the Publishing Point, a book industry group I co-organize, and I was blown away by how much of his web engagement was with crowd- or friend-curated content—boxee, WeAreHunted, etc. These “filters,” which give value and power to certain shares on the web and are absolutely central to what Fred discovers, shares—and buys. (Read my post on Fred’s talk here.)
Similarly, when Susan Lyne, CEO of sample sale site Gilt Group, spoke at MediaBistro Circus, she did so from a somewhat unique perspective: Gilt is by invitation only, so its entire site is hidden from Google. The business, however, is taking off, and one of the ways it’s doing so is by functioning as a filter. The sales are tightly curated by trusted Gilt staff, offering a narrow selection of designer goods. Gilt also takes the time—and expense—to take their own photographs of all the merchandise they sell, which unifies the look of the site and improves the shopping experience immeasurably. And they’ll soon let users select designers, styles, and sizes so Gilt can serve up customized emails to individual users. Putting this kind of curated, personalized content in front of users—who are never more than two clicks away from buying something—is incredibly powerful as a way of giving your brand real value in the eyes of your users: you become a trusted source of recommendations, which is an invaluable thing to be. (I loved hearing Susan speak and think Gilt is doing lots of things brilliantly—I’m working on another post to delve into it more deeply!)
These are just a few of endless examples—Tumblr, Polyvore, and MySpace (yes, there are still millions of users on MySpace—more than Twitter) are just a few more. Millions of users are spending the vast majority of their time online at places like these, not searching on Google. And even when the time comes to make a purchase, it’s often unnecessary to go through Google. It’s worth thinking about that when you evaluate how much time and money you should invest in SEO and SEM.
