maggie+media

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.”

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.

Twitter Frequency

I’ve been thinking about publishers (and other folks who market things) on Twitter lately, and I’m clearly not the only one. Follow the Reader just explored which publishers have the best Twitter feeds, and Publishers Weekly compiled a list of “Who’s Got Pull in the Publishing Twitterverse.” Both are worth reading.

Publishers using Twitter was on my mind because my feed had become clogged with SO MANY PROMOTIONAL TWEETS that had CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE THIS and were usually REALLY LONG with #somerandomhashtag. The source? A small number of publishers’ and imprints’ Twitter accounts (hence the caps book titles), as well as other businesses I’m a fan of. I followed them because as book marketing person—and someone who has worked with many of the publishers in question—I wanted to keep up to date on what they were doing. But these tweets weren’t particularly helpful or engaging; they were tons and tons of ADS pure and simple, blared at me without restraint. (And no, I’m not going to single out particular feeds here.) Don’t get me wrong—tweets that are self-promotional are fine, and can be really useful for your followers (they followed you for a reason!), but not when they’re overwhelming.

Twitter serves as a great platform for promotion, but not when it’s used only or primarily as a broadcasting platform: what makes Twitter so powerful is the opportunity for engagement and sharing. It’s a challenge to balance the two, and it’s certainly something I struggle with running the DailyLit Twitter account—which I’m always trying to improve.

Most importantly, though, I’ve been reminded just how important relevancy and frequency are on Twitter. Even if your tweets are fantastic, if they’re clogging someone’s stream (or released all at once) they’ll be annoying; the opposite—bad but sparse tweets—isn’t any better. We should approach Twitter as thoughtfully as any other ad platform. Just because there are only 140 characters doesn’t mean we don’t need to think carefully about what we’re putting out there.

What are your key words for best Twitter practice?

Social Media By the Numbers

My friend Mike recently posted this on his blog:

Social Media Heroics

Even if you’re a small business, there’s some great insight to be gained from Marla Erwin, Interactive Art Director for Whole Foods Market. Marla was instrumental in creating Whole Foods’ acclaimed social media program and the results have been phenomenal! For example, in the first year, Twitter.com/Wholefoods gained a million Twitter followers. It has now surpassed 1.75 million people. (Social Media Examiner)

(Emphasis NOT mine.) I love how the number of followers somehow makes the account a success. (Was it ever on the suggested user list? We know that skews things but translates little in terms of quality.) So beautifully misleading about what is truly important.

Just as importantly, there is no actual data in this article. Sure, it’s impossible to be wrong if there is nothing to judge, and that’s nice for the writer’s job security… but I fear how many small businessmen read fluff like this and then waste time joining Twitter with no plan in place.

I’m reposting his thoughts because I couldn’t agree with them more. It’s so easy to simply pointing to follower/fan numbers and equate large followings with success. But while numbers and metrics are important, they desperately need context to have meaning. Otherwise, as Mike points out, you have small business owners (and large businesses!) jumping on the Twitter bandwagon without any plan or goals.

I’m reminded vividly of South Park’s recent Facebook episode that sharply parodies the obsession with numbers—and the tendency for uninformed social media users to treat online interaction as a platform for broadcasting rather than conversing.

That’s the wrong attitude. There are lots of right ways to think about using social media, and one of the best I’ve come across recently is this Mashable interview with Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh. The full interview is worth a read, but here’s the money quote for my purposes—the perfect contrast to going about social media strictly by the numbers. Figuring out the ROI is a little more difficult when you take this more holistic approach, but what is the ROI when all you point to is a number of Twitter followers? (And by the way, Hsieh has a book deal for a title called Delivering Happiness.)

Mashable: How do you decide what to tweet? Does the potential for happiness the tweet could bring impact your decision-making?

I tweet at least once a day and my goal is to have each of my tweets fall into one or more of these 4 categories (ICEE): Inspire, Connect, Entertain, or Educate — all of which I believe are somehow related to happiness. I get a lot of requests from people (including many Zappos employees) to send out a tweet promoting them or something they’re doing, which I generally turn down because it doesn’t fall into one of the ICEE categories.

Also, I wrote a blog post awhile back [about this subject] titled, “How Twitter Can Make You a Better (And Happier) Person.”

Mashable: From the research you have explored, what are some of the key elements to happiness, and in what ways do you think people can engage on sites like Twitter and Facebook to enhance those?

I think the ICEE philosophy works in both directions:

Inspire and Be Inspired: You can inspire others through tweets (for example, a great quote or a link to an inspiring article), and you can be inspired by following people that are trying to do the same thing (for example, @theseantourage, @gretchenrubin, @workhappynow on Twitter).

Connect and Be Connected: In addition to connecting yourself with other people, you can also connect people with each other. We have about 500 Zappos employees on Twitter, and we’ve aggregated all their tweets together.

It’s a great way for to help build the company culture and for employees to connect with each other.

Entertain and Be Entertained: I love reading tweets that make me laugh or smile. It’s actually pretty challenging for me to try to come up with funny tweets, and I’m surprised that some of my tweets get retweeted as much as they do and others don’t at all, so I view it as a fun game trying to figure out and predict what people will find funny. This tweet I sent [recently] is one of the most retweeted tweets I’ve ever gotten:

“Instead of getting an iPad, I now use my iPhone with a giant magnifying glass attached to my face.”

I think it’s gotten over 300 retweets.

Educate and Be Educated: Most of the articles and blog posts I read I discover through Twitter. If there’s a really interesting article or blog post, then I’ll tweet it out, especially if it’s on the topic of happiness.

SXSWi: A Brave New Future for Book Publishing

(And yes, I realize I am late to the party with this—but what can I say? There was basketball to be watched this week/weekend!)

This panel was the one to which I was most looking forward to. Obviously it’s the most directly relevant to what I do at DailyLit, but as the follow-up to last year’s infamous “New Think for Old Publishers” fiasco, expectations were high.

The panelists—Kassia Kroszer (aka Booksquare), Tor.com’s Pablo Defendini, HarperStudio’s Debbie Stier, Vook’s Matt Cavnar—and moderator Kevin Smokler (Booktour.com) began by touching on the euphemisms used to describe book publishing (“in transition,” anyone?). But then they looked to what’s next. Or, rather, what’s now. The book industry was developed in and for a world that no longer exists. $24.95 hardcovers don’t work in 2010. To the future!

Lots of interesting ideas were tossed around:

• The bookstore of the future: coffee bar, list of staff recommendations, and an Espresso Book Machine?
• Apple’s iPad might be an entry point for casual readers to embrace ebooks (which the Kindle hasn’t done)
• Democratization of content production means everyone is a competitor to legacy publishers—but also potentially a collaborator.

But the main thing I took away from the conversation was the thinking that the book is no longer the end-product. Rather, the author’s brand, her platform, is the “mothership,” the ink-and-paper book being just one offshoot from it. Authors need to bring or build their own followings or tribes a la Seth Godin and Gary Vaynerchuk, and if they can’t publishers should show them how to build one (as HarperStudio does—one of the many reasons they were held up as exemplary publishers).

There seems to be lots of grumbling about the intrusion of this “brand” thinking into publishing, but it seems to me it’s always been there. What are (was) Dickens and John Grisham if not successful “motherships” that spin off books, speaking engagements, plays/movies?

Similarly, what are imprints and publishers if not brands, known for particular kinds of fiction? That’s they—and the industry—perceive of them, anyway, if not exactly readers. Indeed, I think imprints need to more strongly brand their works if they are to thrive in this new, largely vertically-oriented economy (and I’m certainly not the first to say so).

If this all sounds like stuff you’ve heard before, you’re right—there wasn’t anything earth-shattering pronouncements. Instead, this felt like a window into the steady, continual innovation in our industry. In my mind, we’re right on the edge of major change, and these panelists are the ones standing at the precipice and figuring out where to go next, so we aren’t all pushed over the cliff. And with the next year sure to bring continuing economic pressure, publisher innovation, and the rise of the iPad, I’m already looking forward to SXSWi’s publishing panel 2011.

For more: Read Booksquare’s excellent summary of thoughts and themes at SXSW, and GalleyCat’s collection of all the #futurebook tweets.

Another SXSW post to come on Community Management.