The Guelph Chamber of Commerce recently ran a survey of community small business owners to gain a sense of interest for a proposed all-day information-exchange event to be titled "Guelph Leadership in Information Technology and the New Economy".
The key insight I had in reviewing desired breakout session topics was that almost every respondent requested a session on either Search Engine Optimization, or on leveraging social media. Business people want to know more about social media, and they want more traffic to their websites – but the structure and process to accomplish this remains (perhaps understandably) mysterious.
So, when I partnered with Cam Guthrie of HJM Insurance to present a free seminar on “Marketing with Social Media” as a value-add to his clients, we had strong hopes for a big turnout. And, as it turns out, the initial response has been so strong that we’ve had to change venues from the HJM Insurance boardroom (capacity 40) to the Lakeside Church (7654 Conservation Road in Guelph, Ontario), which holds well over 250 people (the seminar runs from 7:00pm-8:30pm if you are interested – everyone is welcome).
I’m not suggesting that we’ll get 250 bodies in the door, but I am intrigued by the power of a buzzword: “social media” is what everyone is talking about, but few have a sense of how to leverage it for business applications.
The key message that I hope people will take away from the seminar is to not get worried or scared by “social media”. In fact, it is entirely likely that many small- to mid-sized businesses in Guelph would not gain much benefit from social media engagement – at least not unless they really dive in. The fact remains however that people are concerned that they are somehow missing out on something big - and they are pretty motivated to learn more… which brings me to the other thing that intrigues me here: the common desire for education.
The very nature of social media is that it is people interacting with other people. A seminar (or a classroom) is just an internet forum staged live – people exchanging ideas with other people in real time. If you tack the word “free” onto a buzzword that generates motivation and mix it into a public, interactive forum, you draw a crowd quickly.
What is my point? This is all about nurturing dialogue between people – the best marketing efforts are about establishing and nurturing human relationships – without that, you have nothing. That is why this seminar is “free” (and there will be more to come). Cam Guthrie and I both believe that the best “business model” is to be honest, transparent, and informative…
“Sociable”, I guess you could say….
Sociable Communications was a strategic planning, communications and media production agency based in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. The business was renamed Kazolu in 2015 - please visit www.Kazolu.com.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Communications Strategy: Get the basics right before going social.
Why would anyone consider social media for business without a clearly defined communications strategy? People are scrambling just to keep up with day-to-day stuff, let alone making the time to nail down the fundamentals of strategic communications planning, which leads me to ask the same question of media or public relations engagement too – why consider anything without a clearly defined communications strategy? And yet, with an existing palette of misguided non-strategic marketing approaches that shift with each fiscal year (or with each revolving-door Marketing Manager), so many businesses now believe they must get into social media too.
If this sounds familiar, first ask what your company’s communications goals are. Who are you trying to reach? Why? Do you have your goals written in a formal document that has been viewed and approved by all stakeholders? If not, go and do that. If yes, then ask how social media engagement will align with those goals. Why do it? Who are you speaking to? What are you going to say? Do you have anything relevant or compelling that will spark and sustain a dialogue? If yes to all of these, then write a plan. Then write a policy. Then do it, and keep on doing it because nothing looks worse than a corporate blog or twitter account with two postings. This isn’t a quarterly campaign – you basically just posted a new hotline to the company decision makers – you’d better answer the phone over the long-term.
Social media is just another tool in the marketer’s box, but it can deliver some communications opportunities to a business that other media and PR vehicles can’t. However, social media is fundamentally just a messaging distribution mechanism – though with the opportunity for consumer reciprocity. Do you publish a newsletter? E-mail blasts? If so, you should create a blog too and repost the information – the text has already been created for the newsletter. Not everyone will see your newsletter, and not everyone will see your blog – but it’s one more way to reach out. Face it, not many people heard your radio ad either – you need to take advantage of every possible communications vehicle. The blogged newsletter will also allows a mediated opportunity for people to comment on your “newsletter” postings – think of it as letters to the editor, but you are the editor. And if you care to listen, you may find that you gain significant consumer insights.
If you don’t want your business or brand to be conversational, then don’t consider social media – but if you see value in customer loyalty, extending your messaging reach, and enhancing your brand’s personality, then you may want to consider it.
However, if after reading this you are still unsure about your communications strategy, then do your company a favour: set a chunk of time aside, ensure that all relevant stakeholders on your team join you, and get to the core of your brand’s essence. Ensure that everyone turns off email, Facebook and Twitter accounts and Blackberries. Reach consensus on a brand strategy. Then write a marketing & communications strategic plan. Then ask which communications vehicles will most efficiently deliver your integrated brand message. Then do it. You will likely be surprised at how much money you wasted in earlier plans – but you may at least stop the bleeding now. You will also be surprised to find that your brand health will improve measurably. Basic stuff, but who has time to focus on the fundamentals these days?
If this sounds familiar, first ask what your company’s communications goals are. Who are you trying to reach? Why? Do you have your goals written in a formal document that has been viewed and approved by all stakeholders? If not, go and do that. If yes, then ask how social media engagement will align with those goals. Why do it? Who are you speaking to? What are you going to say? Do you have anything relevant or compelling that will spark and sustain a dialogue? If yes to all of these, then write a plan. Then write a policy. Then do it, and keep on doing it because nothing looks worse than a corporate blog or twitter account with two postings. This isn’t a quarterly campaign – you basically just posted a new hotline to the company decision makers – you’d better answer the phone over the long-term.
Social media is just another tool in the marketer’s box, but it can deliver some communications opportunities to a business that other media and PR vehicles can’t. However, social media is fundamentally just a messaging distribution mechanism – though with the opportunity for consumer reciprocity. Do you publish a newsletter? E-mail blasts? If so, you should create a blog too and repost the information – the text has already been created for the newsletter. Not everyone will see your newsletter, and not everyone will see your blog – but it’s one more way to reach out. Face it, not many people heard your radio ad either – you need to take advantage of every possible communications vehicle. The blogged newsletter will also allows a mediated opportunity for people to comment on your “newsletter” postings – think of it as letters to the editor, but you are the editor. And if you care to listen, you may find that you gain significant consumer insights.
If you don’t want your business or brand to be conversational, then don’t consider social media – but if you see value in customer loyalty, extending your messaging reach, and enhancing your brand’s personality, then you may want to consider it.
However, if after reading this you are still unsure about your communications strategy, then do your company a favour: set a chunk of time aside, ensure that all relevant stakeholders on your team join you, and get to the core of your brand’s essence. Ensure that everyone turns off email, Facebook and Twitter accounts and Blackberries. Reach consensus on a brand strategy. Then write a marketing & communications strategic plan. Then ask which communications vehicles will most efficiently deliver your integrated brand message. Then do it. You will likely be surprised at how much money you wasted in earlier plans – but you may at least stop the bleeding now. You will also be surprised to find that your brand health will improve measurably. Basic stuff, but who has time to focus on the fundamentals these days?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Advertising in the Fifties - 'Mad Men' Ain't just Blowin' Smoke
Did advertisers in the Fifties even think about consumer demographics? This ad proves they did not – I mean, The Flintstones was a kid’s cartoon, wasn’t it?
Are kids supposed to care that “Winston tastes good like a cigarette should”? You can picture the scene in ‘Mad Men’ (or on 50s Madison Avenue in reality) – the advertising weasels barking “kids are as good a customer as any! At worst, we’ll put it in their head that Winston is the way to go! At best, we get ‘em smoking Winston right now. Pack a day!!”
Of course, Camel Cigarettes had a cartoon as its mascot (remember “Joe Camel”?). Camel Cigarettes also went one better than Winston in the 50s, discounting the pesky health concerns of smoking with the tagline “More Doctors smoke Camel than any other cigarette”.
Awesome. And, as far as functional benefits, they go right to telling us “how good-tasting and mild a cigarette can be”. Even Barney Rubble gets into the features and benefits of Winston saying that “Winston’s got that flavour blend that makes the big flavour distance, up-front where it counts.” I guess the filter (what’s in back) was the hurdle to get around in those days... they probably hadn’t yet figured out how to get fibreglass tasty. That, and the health concerns….
Awesome. And to think – you can’t even name a Canadian arts or music festival after du Maurier anymore. You can’t even get into a website for Winston cigarettes today without a rather involved login process requiring third-party age verification (https://winston.tobaccopleasure.com/modules/security/Login.aspx?brand=WIN). Googling “Winston cigarettes” doesn’t even lead you to any specific corporate messaging at all until you are dozens of results into the list.
Of course, this isn’t a bad thing for the general public, but it does open some interesting challenges to advertising edgy (or deadly) products. So what’s a poor advertiser to do when their product is addictive and deadly? That’s right! Black Market! It surely isn’t a coincidence that heroin and cocaine are two of the leading revenue-generating consumer products in North America, is it? Prohibition did wonders for alcohol manufacturers in the Thirties, didn’t it? I suspect that with widespread consolidation in their industry, tobacco manufacturers are likely thrilled to save the advertising spend (Winston and Camel are now both owned by R.J. Reynolds) and put it right back to the bottom line. They still have plenty of consumers, regardless of no media messaging.
And the ‘Madison Avenue’ geniuses? What are they left to do without those lucrative contracts? C’mon…. have you seen mainstream beer advertising lately? If only they could get away with Dora the Explorer in a bikini pounding a six-pack of Schlitz while Boots the Monkey holds the beer bong, they’d be all over it. It’s only an inch away from sodapop, isn’t it?
Are kids supposed to care that “Winston tastes good like a cigarette should”? You can picture the scene in ‘Mad Men’ (or on 50s Madison Avenue in reality) – the advertising weasels barking “kids are as good a customer as any! At worst, we’ll put it in their head that Winston is the way to go! At best, we get ‘em smoking Winston right now. Pack a day!!”
Of course, Camel Cigarettes had a cartoon as its mascot (remember “Joe Camel”?). Camel Cigarettes also went one better than Winston in the 50s, discounting the pesky health concerns of smoking with the tagline “More Doctors smoke Camel than any other cigarette”.
Awesome. And, as far as functional benefits, they go right to telling us “how good-tasting and mild a cigarette can be”. Even Barney Rubble gets into the features and benefits of Winston saying that “Winston’s got that flavour blend that makes the big flavour distance, up-front where it counts.” I guess the filter (what’s in back) was the hurdle to get around in those days... they probably hadn’t yet figured out how to get fibreglass tasty. That, and the health concerns….
Awesome. And to think – you can’t even name a Canadian arts or music festival after du Maurier anymore. You can’t even get into a website for Winston cigarettes today without a rather involved login process requiring third-party age verification (https://winston.tobaccopleasure.com/modules/security/Login.aspx?brand=WIN). Googling “Winston cigarettes” doesn’t even lead you to any specific corporate messaging at all until you are dozens of results into the list.
Of course, this isn’t a bad thing for the general public, but it does open some interesting challenges to advertising edgy (or deadly) products. So what’s a poor advertiser to do when their product is addictive and deadly? That’s right! Black Market! It surely isn’t a coincidence that heroin and cocaine are two of the leading revenue-generating consumer products in North America, is it? Prohibition did wonders for alcohol manufacturers in the Thirties, didn’t it? I suspect that with widespread consolidation in their industry, tobacco manufacturers are likely thrilled to save the advertising spend (Winston and Camel are now both owned by R.J. Reynolds) and put it right back to the bottom line. They still have plenty of consumers, regardless of no media messaging.
And the ‘Madison Avenue’ geniuses? What are they left to do without those lucrative contracts? C’mon…. have you seen mainstream beer advertising lately? If only they could get away with Dora the Explorer in a bikini pounding a six-pack of Schlitz while Boots the Monkey holds the beer bong, they’d be all over it. It’s only an inch away from sodapop, isn’t it?
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Social Media is the NEW PUNK ROCK!
Yeah, this one speaks to me in a BIG way. A video by Engage ORM, an Australian agency - defining the spirit of punk DIY as the missing link to social media communication and messaging distribution networks that run parallel to the mainstream (if not completely counter to the mainstream). The key is that the spirit of social media, like the sprit of DIY punk, is about reaching out to an audience with compelling, relevant, timely messaging.... and #%*% you if you don't like it! Fantastic analogy.
Ad Agencies and Social Media
Yesterday's Advertising Age article (http://adage.com/agencynews/article?article_id=137724) seems to confirm my recent suspicion that many marketing/advertising/creative agencies simply don't "get" how a social media plan will work alongside a traditional marketing/media/public relations plan. I don't think this is too great a problem right now for most agencies, since most clients' marketing plans follow a fiscal year budget plan, but when the fiscal years run out, a lot of agencies are going to be srambling to meet or address new client demands for a social media component in their marketing strategy. As the article states, it's not surprising that digital agencies currently have the edge over traditional agencies, but I am surprised that the old guard isn't falling all over themselves to get educated immediately. Third-party agency engagement, anyone? Easier than learning (or hiring)..... which suits me fine if they want to hire me to manage this element, but if it were me, I'd prefer to keep this competency (and my clients' work) in-house.
I have recently taken great interest in following tweets with searchable, identifiable corporate names - it's kind of my new hobby, and I am always surprised at how often a consumer with hundreds of followers will post a "complaint" that goes fully unanswered by the corporation (to say nothing of answering brand-supportive tweets). This is where public relations can intersect with marketing messaging, and it is fairly simple to manage - with the right tools and skill-sets. I wonder if these corporate managers have considered the idea that this is akin to a DJ slamming their brand over the microphone through a mega-wattt PA in a crowded nightclub, with 800 clubgoers listening - "don't drink the crappy martinis - the Gin 'n' Tonics are waaay better" - except that in the case of a Tweet, the "brand owner" has the opportunity to reply. To my thinking, no reply equates acceptance of the comment as is - throwing in the proverbial towel. At worst, it shows that the company simply doesn't care about consumer views.
But hey, they are still racking up GRPs with the latest billboard and online campaign!! Great reach and frequency with a targeted demographic!! Great work!! "We're a 'Build Phase' brand - to hell with Grass Roots!" And yet, people (corporations and the agencies they hire) are wondering why brand equity continues to erode.... yikes.
I have recently taken great interest in following tweets with searchable, identifiable corporate names - it's kind of my new hobby, and I am always surprised at how often a consumer with hundreds of followers will post a "complaint" that goes fully unanswered by the corporation (to say nothing of answering brand-supportive tweets). This is where public relations can intersect with marketing messaging, and it is fairly simple to manage - with the right tools and skill-sets. I wonder if these corporate managers have considered the idea that this is akin to a DJ slamming their brand over the microphone through a mega-wattt PA in a crowded nightclub, with 800 clubgoers listening - "don't drink the crappy martinis - the Gin 'n' Tonics are waaay better" - except that in the case of a Tweet, the "brand owner" has the opportunity to reply. To my thinking, no reply equates acceptance of the comment as is - throwing in the proverbial towel. At worst, it shows that the company simply doesn't care about consumer views.
But hey, they are still racking up GRPs with the latest billboard and online campaign!! Great reach and frequency with a targeted demographic!! Great work!! "We're a 'Build Phase' brand - to hell with Grass Roots!" And yet, people (corporations and the agencies they hire) are wondering why brand equity continues to erode.... yikes.
Friday, June 12, 2009
The “Make It Seven” Soundtrack
At the start of this week, I posted a song/video to YouTube as a bit of an experiment. The song was written with a band I play with called The GMOs. I often joke that some guys play “beer league hockey”, while The GMOs are a “beer league band”. We wrote the song on Thursday night in support of the “Make It Seven” campaign (www.makeitseven.ca) that is working to bring a seventh NHL franchise to Canada. I recorded the song in my basement studio on Monday morning, and posted a PowerPoint slideshow video to YouTube later that afternoon. By Tuesday afternoon, it seemed to be everywhere.
I must admit that I saw this song/video as a potential experiment in content distribution via social media. The message is extremely relevant to many, and the launch was very timely since a major court decision was scheduled for Tuesday to determine the fate of the campaign. My theory with social media (or any media, for that matter) is that relevancy of the message is critical – without a strong and relevant story, nobody will engage the communication, let alone internalize it.
The “Make It Seven” experiment proved to be far more successful than I ever could have anticipated. The song/video was posted directly to the official “Make It Seven” website (www.makeitseven.ca) and the “Make It Seven” Facebook fan site on Tuesday morning (as opposed to posting a YouTube link). Communication blasts immediately went out to all site members (155,000 at makeitseven.ca, and 23,000 on Facebook). While these sites surely received the bulk of views, YouTube continued to click past 10,000 views by Friday morning as the various video links were tweeted and re-tweeted dozens of times, and the song was discussed in numerous sports blogs. By Wednesday it was being called the “official campaign song”.
However, what I find really interesting is the fact that the message carried over to conventional media as well. There have been at least three print stories specifically about the song with more to come – we are only four days out from the posting, after all. The band members were also involved with four radio interviews, and the video, rough as it is, was even played on television news programs. And the biggest kicker – the band is now booked to perform at a downtown Hamilton “Bring NHL to Hamilton” rally on Friday, June 19th, which is planned to be “National Make It Seven Day” across the country. The crowd is expected to reach well over 5000 people. I definitely didn’t see that one coming.
I expected that the reach of this song would be limited to friends of friends who are hockey fans – and that alone would have been “successful” in my mind in terms of shared relevant content. I think the song it alright, and the audio recording stands up well, but the video is extremely amateurish. The fact that this has gone far, far beyond friends of friends suggests that its amateurishness may in fact be its appeal in this context. At the very least, this message hit the right note at the right time, and brought a little more focus and discussion to the core “Make It Seven” campaign. It is just one small piece of the overall picture, but it seems to provide a “soundtrack” to the effort, and music can strike emotional chords that many other communications don’t always hit.
At the end of the day, a strong message and a strong story will transcend any one medium. The immediacy of social media as a medium for message distribution is critical, but like ripples in a pond, the dropped pebble of social media can have a distant reach if the waters are clear. I don’t think this story is finished yet….
I must admit that I saw this song/video as a potential experiment in content distribution via social media. The message is extremely relevant to many, and the launch was very timely since a major court decision was scheduled for Tuesday to determine the fate of the campaign. My theory with social media (or any media, for that matter) is that relevancy of the message is critical – without a strong and relevant story, nobody will engage the communication, let alone internalize it.
The “Make It Seven” experiment proved to be far more successful than I ever could have anticipated. The song/video was posted directly to the official “Make It Seven” website (www.makeitseven.ca) and the “Make It Seven” Facebook fan site on Tuesday morning (as opposed to posting a YouTube link). Communication blasts immediately went out to all site members (155,000 at makeitseven.ca, and 23,000 on Facebook). While these sites surely received the bulk of views, YouTube continued to click past 10,000 views by Friday morning as the various video links were tweeted and re-tweeted dozens of times, and the song was discussed in numerous sports blogs. By Wednesday it was being called the “official campaign song”.
However, what I find really interesting is the fact that the message carried over to conventional media as well. There have been at least three print stories specifically about the song with more to come – we are only four days out from the posting, after all. The band members were also involved with four radio interviews, and the video, rough as it is, was even played on television news programs. And the biggest kicker – the band is now booked to perform at a downtown Hamilton “Bring NHL to Hamilton” rally on Friday, June 19th, which is planned to be “National Make It Seven Day” across the country. The crowd is expected to reach well over 5000 people. I definitely didn’t see that one coming.
I expected that the reach of this song would be limited to friends of friends who are hockey fans – and that alone would have been “successful” in my mind in terms of shared relevant content. I think the song it alright, and the audio recording stands up well, but the video is extremely amateurish. The fact that this has gone far, far beyond friends of friends suggests that its amateurishness may in fact be its appeal in this context. At the very least, this message hit the right note at the right time, and brought a little more focus and discussion to the core “Make It Seven” campaign. It is just one small piece of the overall picture, but it seems to provide a “soundtrack” to the effort, and music can strike emotional chords that many other communications don’t always hit.
At the end of the day, a strong message and a strong story will transcend any one medium. The immediacy of social media as a medium for message distribution is critical, but like ripples in a pond, the dropped pebble of social media can have a distant reach if the waters are clear. I don’t think this story is finished yet….
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Lorax - Environmental Awareness supports Sustainable Business Practises
Dr. Seuss's classic story "The Lorax" is a well-known treatise on the effects of negative industrial environmental practises, and has inspired many excellent initiatives http://lorax.conservation.org/, http://www.loraxsociety.com/.
As I read "The Lorax" to my daughter last night (re-printed with recycled paper and vegetable inks of course), it hit me like a Super-Axe-Hacker that the subtext in the great Doctor's tale could be about sustainable business practises. As the Once-ler killed off the Truffula trees, he ravaged the local environment - perhaps irreparably (though that remains to be seen.... was there ever a sequel?).
However, as you may remember, the story ends with the promise that the Truffula trees can be re-established, if only the boy takes the last Truffula seed and cultivates a new forest.
"Plant a new Truffula. Treat it with care.
Give it clean water. And feed it fresh air.
Grow a forest. Protect it from axes that hack.
The suggestion is that the forest will live again, the animals will return, and everything will be fine again (which begs the question of why the hell the Once-ler didn't do the same thing years ago).
The sub-text that interests me is the fact that the Once-ler grew his "thneed" business at a rampant, unsustainable rate. The business depended entirely on the wild Truffula trees. He didn't diversify, investigate sustainable business growth strategies, nor did he investigate alternate production materials. He didn't even think to replant what he hacked down. He kept growing his business (under the burden of high debt, no doubt), until the primary component of thneed production was exhausted. He had no fallback - which killed the business (to say nothing of the forest and the environment).
The Once-ler wasn't just a bad person and a bad environmentalist - he was a horrible business person too. This is the part of the story that really interests me - and there are plenty of real-world examples of this kind of shoddy business practice (most of pre-Glastnost Soviet Union comes to mind...).
The Once-ler was a slave to immediate consumer demand, but he had no long-term vision, no strategic plan, and no apparent marketing plan. Crazy stuff. The story doesn't even mention the competitive textile magnate that likely planted a Truffula forest in China to fill the gap in thneed production when the Once-ler's business crashed... but I digress.
I love apparently simple parables like these. There can be so many layers - and so many lessons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)