Archive for May, 2009


Tonight, the Twitter Era became official

May 18th

1 comment

It’s nearly 1 a.m. and I am glued to my computer watching the Twitter “tweets” from folks in California experiencing a 5.0 earthquake. By chance, I was online and saw a message come through that an earthquake was rattling Central L.A. I searched for the keyword and watched a steady stream of communication come through that expressed many human emotions — fear, relief and humor.

This is a significant event for two reasons. First, this is the first natural disaster since Twitter reached a critical mass of users in the last few months. Without the numbers supporting it, it could not have been an effective “personal broadcast channel.” I witnessed the power of in-the-moment communication through thousands of perspectives.

Second, because of the platform’s immediacy, eyewitness accounts of the quake were streaming out of the city before the traditional media could catch up. In fact, 12 minutes after the news was streaming out of L.A. on Twitter, there was still no post on the CNN website.

Yes, most of the communication I’m seeing is garbage … one fellow posted, “If Twitter is the future of news, and it’s 20,000 stories in 5 minutes saying “there was totally just an earthquake” … we’re in trouble.”

And there is a lot of humor, too. (“To minimize loss and damage in a quake, try not to own things.”) … probably because the natural disaster apparently is not too serious this time.

But woven through the OMG’s and LMAO’s was a compelling thread of humanity and an entirely new way to experience a current event. The next time there is a terrorist attack or crisis, many will “tune in” to Twitter for their news.

Twitter grew up tonight.

,

Corporate social media guidelines emerge

May 15th

1 comment

One of the hottest topics in social media right now is how to handle these rapidly emerging communications platforms in the context of a public company and corporate responsibility.
This is the Wild West of Internet communications and it’s getting wilder by the minute as people stream onto social media platforms and, inevitably figure out how to abuse it.
All communications, everywhere, all the time presents a nightmare scenario for corporate communications professionals. Where does the line cross between free speech and corporate responsibility? Between open community and terms of employment? How does a large company possibly monitor hundreds of thousands messages that may represent a permanent communication record?
In a recent article, I forecast that companies would have to provide strict guidelines and hierarchical lines of communication in this new era, just as it had in the old. Some readers disagreed, and the results remain to be seen, but in the last week, I’ve read about the first public revelations on internal guidelines that explicitly prohibit employees from engaging in online communications that could denigrate the reputation of the company. Some forbid employees from even revealing who they work for, in some social media situations.
Predictably, the first hard guidelines are coming from news organizations, where the lines between reporting and personal commentary cannot be blurred.
This week the Wall Street Journal posted ground rules for its employees on how to use Twitter and other social media platforms. The rules include:
  • Sharing your personal opinions, as well as expressing partisan political views, whether on Dow Jones sites or on the larger Web, could open us to criticism that we have biases and could make a reporter ineligible to cover topics in the future for Dow Jones.
  • Consult your editor before “connecting” to or “friending” any reporting contacts.
  • Let our coverage speak for itself, and don’t detail how an article was reported, written or edited.
  • Don’t disparage the work of colleagues or competitors.
  • Business and pleasure should not be mixed on services like Twitter … if you are in doubt about the appropriateness of a Tweet or posting, discuss it with your editor before sending.
The New York Times internal guidelines caution:
“… personal blogs and “tweets” represent you to the outside world just as much as an 800-word article does. If you have or are getting a Facebook page, leave blank the section that asks about your political views.”
“Anything you post online can and might be publicly disseminated, and can be twisted to be used against you by those who wish you or The Times ill.”
“Just remember that we are always under scrutiny by magnifying glass and that the possibilities of digital distortion are virtually unlimited, so always ask yourself, could this be deliberately misconstrued or misunderstood by somebody who wants to make me look bad?
And the BBC took a similar approach when it said its employees:
  • Should not engage in activities on the Internet which might bring the BBC into disrepute.
  • Should not post derogatory or offensive comments on the Internet.
  • Should be mindful of the information they disclose on social networking sites. Where they associate themselves with the Corporation (through providing work details or joining a BBC network) they should act in a manner which does not bring the BBC into disrepute.
  • Cannot indicate where they are employed on their personal blogs.

Companies are not democracies and they have the right to employ people who do not want to cause them harm. Although the media companies were among the first to deploy strict guidelines on personal use of social media, the desire to maintain an untarnished reputation is no less important for other companies and we certainly see this practice become prevalent.

Missing from any of these published policies i– consequences. How far will companies go to reach into the public domain of free speech to protect their reputations? And what about disgruntled employees who have an axe to grind against an employer? Another prediction: Companies will begin offering monetary pay-outs to employees they dismiss, with the legal condition that they engage in no public communication to disparage the company.

I think we will soon see the first examples of companies punshing employees who violate these guidelines, setting the stage for new court cases examining the rights to free speech and the role of social media in our world.

,

More marketing for less: Profile customers

May 14th

2 comments

Here’s a simple but important tip for getting more for your marketing money: profile your best customers.
The term “profiling” has negative connotations from a social perspective but for your business, it’s one of the most effective tools for determining where and how to conduct your business. If you have a grasp on what type of people are most likely to purchase your products or services, you can seek out the location and the marketing plans that give you the best opportunity to reach those people.
The number of ways to sort your customers is endless and really depends on the needs of your business. Here are just a few of the ways you can segment your most profitable customers:
1) What do your best customers have in common?
  • Are they in a common industry?
  • Do they seem to have the same role at their company?
  • Do they face a similar problems or challenges?
  • Similar buying patterns?
  • How do they use your product?
  • Do they belong to similar clubs or charities?
  • Do they have the same interests, attitudes and habits?
2) How did you attract your top customers?
  • Website?
  • Advertising?
  • Conference?
  • Networking?
  • Cold calls?
You may be surprised at the results! Once you’ve divided customers into sub-segments, consider the implications for your marketing strategy:
  • Are your initiatives aligned with the profile of your best customers?
  • If your customers strongly share certain characterstics, how can you adjust your message and channel to better appeal to these folks?
  • If one marketing channel seems to be working better than others, do more of it and cut the rest.
If your business is down due to the recession, this might be the perfect time to step back and do some introspection on your sales and marketing strategy. While there are many sophisticated techniques, databases and CRM software applications aimed at helping you organize this information, even a small business on a budget can do effective customer profiling with little expense.
Here’s one simple analytical method available to almost everyone. Most small businesses use Microsoft Outlook to organize emails, contacts and calendars. In the “business” edition, it’s possible to set up searchable, custom fields to collect detailed information. If your profiling needs are simple, you can even search words you’ve added to the “notes” section of the basic Outlook edition. Start logging the source of new customers in their profile (like “cold call” or “website”). You can then enter these terms in the search function and, with the push of a button, generate a list of customers who share these characteristics.
, , , ,

For a moment, Barbie was a hooker

May 13th

No comments

Fred Held, who has been a marketing executive with Mattel, McDonald’s and Burger King, responded to an article I featured on my website and had some great stories of his own. I was so fortunate to meet up with Fred and he agreed to let me share his insights:

Why negative advertising does not work:
“I worked with Ogilvy & Mather when I was at Mattel and their CEO explained the problem with negative advertising. First, most people do not pay attention to advertising and may end up thinking it is your competitor who is doing the negative advertising. Secondly, people want to hear the benefits of your product or service, not the shortcomings of your competitor. Lastly, having an advertising war sends the wrong message. You do not seem to be a friendly, consumer-centric company.”

Don’t skimp on something critical to your brand image!
“Many years ago Mattel was entering the European market with Barbie. Being the frugal marketing executive, I had a friend do French translations for the commercial and packaging. We were introducing bendable leg Barbie at the time. Unfortunately, the literal translation for “bendable leg Barbie” is French slang for a woman of the night. For a time, Barbie actually became a French hooker. We had to yank everything from the shelves and repackage!

“Always have an in-country translation. I was launching Mon Chi Chi (a cute stuffed monkey). In French that translated to “taking a piss” and in Spanish it was slang for breasts. It became Mon Ki Ki — perfectly acceptable in both countries.”

Consumer behavior is generational
“When launching (a toy called) Intellivision in Germany, we had a great deal of resistance. German consumers thought wood veneer was junky. They would rather have all plastic, real wood, or metal — but no veneer. Needless to say we had a very difficult time penetrating the German retailer. Luck is on the side of those with great product — kids could give a sh*t about wood veneer — they wanted to play the video games. Once the commercials started, the retailers re-ordered big time. The lesson here is design a world wide product if you are going global. The three easiest countries to do this are Germany, Japan and Switzerland. The US is one of the worst.”

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
, ,
«12345»...Last »