Greg Verdino

All marketers really need to know about social media

The problem with paid media isn't the "paid"

This morning I searched Google for blog posts about two seemingly related phrases. 

The first search -- for "earned media" -- delivered nearly 7,000 results and every link on the first page pointed to a marketing blogger writing about the concept of unpaid media mentions, impressions or coverage (with media, in this case, including consumer generated content on social sites and elsewhere.)  Every one of the top 10 results represents a blog post written within the past 30 days, including an Ad Age Digital Next article citing a speech by the well-respected NYC venture capitalist Fred Wilson in which he advises marketers to focus more on earned media than on paid media.  Sage advice, kinda...

My second search -- for the similar phrase "earned attention" -- delivered fewer than 500 results and displayed not a single marketing blog post within the first page of links.  Digging deeper, I did find a post by Max Kalehoff in which he wrote of the central role of "earned attention" in the integrated marketing mix.  He published this particular post in 2007.

"Earned media" even has its own Wikipedia entry.  Alas, "earned attention" doesn't.

Earned media isn't a new concept, of course.  If you need a definition, it refers to any effort by which a marketer gains unpaid publicity through either mainstream outlets like television, radio or print, digital outlets like traditional web publishers, or social media outlets like blogs, communities, forums or podcasts.  These media mentions might be earned through PR or just by doing something that garners positive word-of-mouth -- but the distinguishing characteristic is that your brand appears in the media without your company writing a check to media sellers.  This stands in marked contrast to paid media marketing approaches like advertising, sponsorships and product placements.

Much of the current conversation (7,000 blog posts and one high profile speech by Fred Wilson) ponders whether the rises in social media and consumer-to-consumer influence, along with the corresponding faltering of mass advertising's effectiveness, have ushered in an age where earned media reigns supreme over paid media.

This is a fair question and one worth considering, but it also misses the mark by a mile.  Why?  Because whether you earn your media or buy it, the very concept of media (as we use it in marketing, at least) puts corporations -- rather than consumers -- at the center of the value equation.  Really, the only meaningful distinction between paid media and earned media is whether or not the marketer (or it's agency) is writing a check for the privilege of bleating its message out.  They are different ways of saying what you want to say, but they are both still ways of saying -- when what you really want is to be heard.  You don't just want to get in front of people; you actually want to get their attention.

Soooooo... marketers really need to focus not on earned media but on "earned attention." 

Although it may seem like it, I am not arguing about semantics.  Media conveys -- it delivers impressions, reach and share of voice.  If you said that media (paid, earned or otherwise) provides the means of garnering attention, I probably wouldn't argue (assuming your definition of media was broad enough to include consumer generated content.)  But even a means of gaining attention doesn't guarantee you've actually got someone's attention.

The brutal fact is that, whether your company's message found its way into media by purchase or by persuasion, it has never been easier for consumers to get the content they want without really paying attention to the corporate messages they don't.  We all TiVo past 30-second spots, flip by print ads without a glance and contract an acute case of banner blindness whenever we surf the web.  We also casually skim news stories, picking out the highlights without digesting the details -- or glaze over when the hosts of Good Morning America prattle on about some uninteresting topic or another.  In all of these instances, the media themselves (never mind the companies who have paid or earned their way into those media) have flat-out failed to earn our attention.

Attention is a scarce resource.  Far scarcer these days than media inventory or marketing budgets.  And with scarcity comes value.  Speaking as a consumer (because, of course, we are all consumers before we're marketers): if you want my attention -- even a teeny tiny slice of it, even only for a few moments -- you have got to earn it.  Period.

Does the fact that you have enough money to name a stadium or advertise during prime time get my attention?  If I'm Adweek, yes.  If I'm Joe America, probably not.  Does the fact that your PR person worked hard to get some reporter or another to sit through a briefing that resulted in a newspaper puff piece get my attention?  Not a chance.  So much for earned media.  Right? 

Earned attention isn't about paid vs unpaid.  It isn't even necessarily about where your messages appear or who served as the mouthpiece to deliver those messages.  That debate amounts to little more than sibling rivalry between ad brothers and PR sisters.  In fact, (as a consumer) I probably don't care if you buy advertising or earn coverage to reach me, provided that whatever I see or hear is meaningful and relevant to me. 

And therein lies the bottomline - I don't care...  Not "me" per se -- of course I care (about you, more than about anyone else) but normal people really and truly don't.  They are living busy, complicated lives and your marketing and communications matter very, very little in the grand scheme of things.

You earn attention by making people care -- by giving them a reason to stop what they're doing and take notice.  And you make people care by giving them something they can care about.  This could be a great product, a stand-out customer experience, a noteworthy new approach or something to talk about.  You make people care by making it all about them, by demonstrating that you cared first.

This isn't easy.  In fact, it's damn hard.  Certainly much harder than buying or earning media impressions.  But it's absolutely central to the success of your marketing efforts, because until you've earned your consumers' attention there's little chance they'll reward you with their interest, loyalty and hard earned money.

So -- ummm -- can someone explain to me why nobody seems to be talking about how marketers can earn attention instead of debating the different ways of gaining media placements?

Are you a 'middle finger marketer'?

If there's a corollary to the maxim, "there's no sound sweeter than the sound of your own name," it's probably, "there's no sight sweeter to a brand marketer than the sight of her own logo."

Earlier this week, I was traveling for business and it was the typical airline experience.  Oversold flight, not enough pillows or blankets, insufficient overhead baggage space (probably caused, at least in part, by the fear of mishandled luggage and incremental fees for checked bags) and not even a free package of peanuts for those of us crammed into coach.  But I travel enough so I'm used to it -- what can you do?  In fact, as far as travel days go, this flight was by no means atypical and I might even say the experience was better than others I've suffered through.  You with me?  OK...

So we land and I grab a cab downtown for the first meeting of the trip.  My route took me past one of the city's pro sports stadiums -- and atop the stadium's upper tier, erected in humongous light-up letters, I see the logo of this very same airline.

So I'm thinking, naming rights for a stadium probably costs somewhere in the neighborhood of a zillion dollars, all for the privilege of creating an impression with (or just impressing?) local sports fans and random drivers-by.  How is it possible that the airline can justify an advertising (sorry - sports marketing) spend of this magnitude but can't justify spending that same budget to make the customer experience better?

Seriously -- think about all the things this airline might have done for customers if they hadn't already sunk their money into stadium naming rights.  Lower fares?  Lower (or no) fees for the first checked bag?  A few more pillows?  A coach-class snack?  There are probably a dozen or more ways they might have (even ever so slightly) delivered a superior consumer experience that could get flyers talking in positive ways -- rather than griping about giant logos perched atop the cheap seats.

You've no doubt noticed that I haven't named the airline.  This post isn't even really about the airline.  It's about all of us.  If we work as client-side marketers, we've no doubt been lured at one time or another to invest a six- or seven-figure sum in a splashy sponsorship, flashy web temple or major media event.  If we're agency guys, we've no doubt recommended one (or many) of these things and ensured our clients that there is clear ROI in flushing money down the toilet.

Cuz clearly there's no ROI in spending money on the very people who spend money with you, is there?  (sarcasm intended)

Sorry people, but this is "middle finger marketing."  It's marketing at, rather than marketing for.  It's investing in the promise of new business rather than in the reality of your current clients.  It has more to do with your ego than it does with your customers.  And to your customers, it probably amounts to something akin to a tacit "screw you" -- so don't be surprised when your customers reply with, "no, screw YOU."

Am I saying that all traditional marketing is bad?  Nope.  But I am saying that, as marketers, we all need to make sure we have our priorities straight.  If times are tough for your company, they're just as tough (if not more so) for the people who do business with your company.  Instead of flipping customers the bird, you should be reaching out your hand, patting them on the back and letting them know that you're doing what you can to help

Obama's marketing man spits the truth

As regular readers may recall, I spoke at the American Marketing Association's Mplanet conference.  One of the event's keynoters was Larry Grisolano, a senior member of the marketing team for Barack Obama's presidential campaign.  Given that lots of industry publications and pundits have lauded the Obama campaign as the marketing story of the year, I thought you might be interested in taking a look at the AMA's lengthy video interview with Larry in which he talks about how Team Obama leveraged new marketing channels and engaged young voters, and then goes on to answer some questions submitted by a handful of bloggers. 

AMA Mplanet 2009 - Interview with Larry Grisolano from AMA Mplanet 2009 on Vimeo.

[Feed and email readers, click through to watch the video.]

Blurb & Steve Hall to bring the dead to life

It's an age old ad agency gripe -- you pull all-nighters and sweat blood to come up with that one killer idea.  The big idea that can't lose.  The big idea that the client absolutely has to buy.  Except, in the end, it does lose and the client doesn't buy.  Or maybe the client buys, but by the time it gets to market, your baby has been watered down to the point where it is virtually indistinguishable from the bath water.

Sound familiar?  If you've been in this business for more than a couple of months -- and especially if your business card indicates that you work in the creative department -- chances are you've mourned the death of at least one killer idea that became nothing more than a killed idea.

If so, you might be interested in a sweet, little "Killed Ideas" contest that print-on-demand book publisher Blurb is running through the end of this month. 

Have an idea that you'd like to share?  Visit the Killed Ideas site where you can get the full scoop on how to submit your great ideas -- and by when (the contest closes March 31, 2009.)  From there, contest curator Steve Hall from AdRants will pick the best to appear in a new Blurb book (here's where it ties back to the sponsoring brand, people), Killed Ideas Volume 1.

It's that simple.  So if this sounds like your cup of tea, gather up your best work and give it a shot.  

Brand building during tough times, Amex-style

Regular readers (and raving fans) know that I spoke at the American Marketing Association's MPlanet 2009 conference this week.  I didn't have the chance to catch too many of the sessions, but I did sit in on the keynote by American Express CMO John Hayes. 

At the end of his talk, John laid out a set of guidelines for building your brand during tough economic times.  You might think of them as American Express' own core marketing tenets, but John presented them as part of his advice for marketers looking to thrive amidst uncertainty.

Need some marketing inspiration to keep you pointed in the right direction in 2009?  Maybe you'll find some in John's four principles.

• Establish "customer listening posts" and visit them daily.  Not entirely sure whether John meant that companies should create places where their customers can voice their opinions (e.g., American Express' Members Project community, OPEN Forum), that companies need to tune into online conversations wherever they take place, or (I'm guessing) both.  He did talk about having personally sat down with top tier financial bloggers, which is obviously a sound first step, although the conversations Amex really needs to be listening to no doubt happen outside the personal finance blogosphere.  Interestingly, a Black Cardmember stood up following John's presentation and complained that, even as one of American Express' highest tier customers, he was unable to get satisfactory customer service. John was very gracious and offered to help rectify this Cardmember's issues.

• In tough times, resist the urge to hunker down and stick with the tried and true.  Instead, seek out opportunity and take steps to keep moving forward.

• Innovate constantly. The marketer that stops innovating in tough times is "carving their brand's own tombstone." It strikes me that this point and the previous one are, more or less, the same thing -- so maybe I missed something or took crappy notes (although it looks like other bloggers got more or less the same points.)  Regardless, whether we're talking about one point or two the message is an important one for marketers -- don't use the recession to justify inertia.  Financial uncertainty doesn't negate the fact that the world has changed and that the consumer behaves differently (and expects different things from brands) than they once did.  If anything, financial uncertainty raises the bar.  Consumers are more likely than ever to award their hard earned dollar to those brands that provide the greatest value, build the strongest relationship and connect in the most meaningful way.  Be one of those brands -- but don't think you'll get there by blowing your budget on Super Bowl spots (ummm - what's the value proposition there, again?)

• Be equal parts consumer advocate and visionary. Understand where consumers are now, what their needs and concerns are today, but also be the voice of hope and deliver on the promise of a brighter future.  Clearly, consumer advocacy is an outcome of taking the time to truly understand your customers and their needs.  Companies that aren't doing this already are heading for a world of hurt.  But being a visionary is the difference-maker.  During tough times, there is enough bad news -- the consumer knows and lives that every day.  As a brand marketer though, you can help the consumer see beyond the near term crunch, provide assurances, and demonstrate a real commitment to helping people survive, thrive and come out the other side. In other words, nobody knows better where we are today than the consumer; it is the brand's obligation to help the consumer see where they can be tomorrow.

These concepts are hardly new and some (the last point, most of all) seemed more than a bit like empty marketing boosterism -- but maybe that's exactly what marketers need to hear during a recession.  And I suspect that, when delivered by the CMO of one of the world's preeminent brands, the points hit home for a lot of the people in the audience.

Do John's four points resonate for you?  Comment to let me know what principles are guiding your 2009 marketing plans?

Panasonic CES influencer program in Adweek

Adweek's Brian Morrissey gave Panasonic, crayon, our CES guests and me some nice press today, in an article that looks at brands tapping web influencers as brand ambassadors and content creators. 

From the piece:

Among the hundreds of journalists at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week there are five people producing reams of copy, photos and video about the show, new product demos and press conferences. Unlike the reporters, though, they are popular bloggers in Las Vegas courtesy of Panasonic.

The Panasonic program is one of several undertaken by brands carving out a new take on the old notion of advertorial. Rather than relying on magazines, they are contracting with influential bloggers who bring with them their own powerful distribution networks. Rather than a long-form narrative, content is fit for the Web via blog posts, Twitter updates and  YouTube videos. And the key differentiator: instead of dictating the content to lead to a sale, brands typically keep their distance to maintain credibility.

Panasonic wanted to build cachet among Internet influencers for its array of tech products. As part of its "Living in High Definition" push, Panasonic new media consultancy crayon recruited five bloggers to travel to CES on Panasonic's dime. Panasonic footed the bill for their travel and passes to the event while also loaning them digital video and still cameras. The bloggers, which include popular Internet figures Chris Brogan and Steve Garfield, will also meet with Panasonic executives and preview products. The catch: Panasonic has no say on what their guests post, according to Greg Verdino, chief strategy officer at crayon.

"There's not a direct quid pro quo," said Verdino, who also blogged and Twittered about CES for Panasonic. "When you give people equipment and they love it, just like any other consumer they'll evangelize it. We're not looking for them to hit message points and in effect shill."

Brian also writes about recent outreach programs managed by Izea, and a small business blogger initiative from American Express and Digitas.  It's good to see blogger relations get some good coverage, although Brian does clump all of these initiatives under the banner "Advertorial 2.0." 

I don't know that Brian intends the term to be negative and, for me, well done influencer junkets bear more resemblance to the traditional press junkets that are sometimes planned to spark mainstream media coverage, than they do to paid advertorials (which are simply ads designed to be viewed as legitimate third party content.)  UK blogger Robin Grant sees a similar distinction and has an interesting conversation taking place on his company's blog about this very topic.

But hey, it was my program so I'd love to hear what you think. 

How do you feel about blogger programs like the ones in the Adweek piece?  What works for you and what doesn't?  What would you do differently?

Want '09 predictions? How about 50 of them?

Yep, it's that time of year again -- time for the marketing bloggerati to polish up their crystal balls and make some bold statements about what you can expect in the coming year.  And you, faithful readers, scour the web looking for even just a few useful nuggets from your favorite bloggers and industry pundits.

Well, this year Peter Kim has done everyone the favor of gathering 2009 predictions from some of the sharpest minds in marketing and social media, and pulling them together in a single eBook that contains 50 or so clear-eyed, thought provoking ideas about what the next 12 months hold for media, marketing and the web.

As one of the contributors, I've had the opportunity to read everyone's predictions and can say for sure that you'll want to download a copy right away.  Lots and lots of good stuff -- from a great cross-section of the blogging community, representing a variety of different points of view.

If you want a flavor for what the eBook has to offer, check out these thought starters from Pete's 14 Nostadami (Pete himself contributes an intro and some takeaways rather than his own predictions.)

• "Although it is now cheaper to launch an initiative leveraging Web 2.0 technology - it requires qualified and passionate people to make them successful." - David Armano
• "You may not always start the year as a leader, but you can certainly finish it that way." - Rohit Bhargava
• "Intimacy touches emotion; emotion powers conversation." - Pete Blackshaw
• "Doors are going to close all over the social web. Why? Because the money didn't come the way people thought it would." - Chris Brogan
• "The tipping point has not only *not* been reached, but could still tilt *away* from Social Media." - Todd Defren
• "There's a lot of fixing that needs to be done." - Jason Falls
• "Dwindling budgets suddenly make low-cost social media look like the pretty girl at the ball." - Ann Handley
• "We're going to develop a set of better metrics to help guide, direct and validate 'commitment'." - Joseph Jaffe
• "The movement is rooted in a desire to have quality, not quantity, as people cocoon in the face of the economic crisis." - Charlene Li
• "After a pre-qualifying wrestling match..." - Ben McConnell
• "These will be cumulative events and interactions that will build brand loyalty for the companies that pay attention to them." - Scott Monty
• "The recession will force revenue results out of social technologies." - Jeremiah Owyang
• "Companies that focus on earning love will thrive during hard times, and kick ass when good times return." - Andy Sernovitz
• "Suddenly, being Facebook friends with your mom will seem less ridiculous than following 4,000 strangers on Twitter." - Greg Verdino

But these 14 soundbites only hint at the smart ideas contained in the full eBook -- so be sure to download the complete thang.

As for me, I'll most likely expand on some of my own predictions right here on my blog over the coming few weeks.  In the meantime, I'm sure Pete and the other authors would love to hear your feedback.  Feel free to drop a comment here or any any of the contributors' own blogs.

Silly games: dispelling 3 in-game marketing myths

Over the past couple of weeks I participated in two AMA webinars that aimed to help marketers come to grips with life after analog and (not coincidentally) promote the AMA's upcoming M.Planet 2009, where I'll be delivering a Digital Marketing Lab session entitled "Gaming, Virtual Worlds & Life After Second Life."

I had 10 minutes to spit the truth (as my buddy Ludacris might say) so rather than try to boil the virtual ocean, I decided to focus specifically on three gaming and virtual world myths that I still hear bandied about by marketing executives -- and sometimes by the biz dev teams at the gaming companies themselves.  If I did nothing more than help the 500 or so attendees see the realities behind the myths, then my work here is done. :-)

What myths did I tackle?  Check out my slides below - for a change, I think they're actually somewhat self-explanatory although when I delivered my presentation I also talked through plenty of actual examples.

Gaming Myths for Marketers

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: gregverdino secondlife)

[Feed and email readers should click through to view the embedded slides.]

So what gaming and virtual world marketing myths would you like to dispel?  What sage advice would you give marketers about getting in the (erm) game?

Twitter is my news feed

Even a few years ago, I got most of my marketing and business news from email newsletters and print publications.  After that, blogs became my preferred news source -- more perspectives, written by people living the news from the front lines (rather than by journalists commenting from the sidelines), served up in near real time by Google Reader.

But today, I get most of my business news and discover new marketing facts, ideas and opinions on Twitter. 

If you're a marketer and still wondering how to justify spending time on Twitter -- and building relationships with your peers and/or social media insiders isn't important enough to you (?!?!?!) -- you might consider that Twitter helps you keep your ear to the ground and serves up lots of information that you can use to do your job better tomorrow than you do it today.

In a distinctly Jaffe-inspired cavalcade of links, here are just a few of the things I heard first (and in some cases, heard only) from my Twitter network.

• The rise of social media and the democratization of content creation means, among other things, that everyone (no matter how small) can use the web to create and grow their own personal brand.  Lots of companies don't like this but, according to Forrester's Jeremiah Owyang, they had better get used to it. 
• Of course, companies can and should be tapping into the same social media tools to build their own brands too, assuming they can get it right.  Despite corporate America's efforts to establish some consistent blogging standards and best practices, most consumers quite simply don't trust corporate blogs.  To me, this says more about the general trustworthiness of the typical company than it does about the potential value blogging brings to the marketing mix.  Hopefully the folks who make corporate communications decisions will see it the same way.
• Now, if all this talk of blogging still confuses you, there's good news (or bad news, depending on your perspective) - you're not alone.  Most marketers are still social media beginners and have plenty to learn about how to participate in the conversation and how to measure the ROI of doing so.
• On the other hand, you shouldn't let the (perceived) lack of ROI keep you from trying your hand at social media marketing -- or at marketing through any of the other emerging channels we have at your disposal today.  One pizza chain has generated $1 million in mobile web sales in the past six months alone, and new data shows that even virtual world storefronts can be company revenue drivers.  Take that, haters.
• But even this doesn't mean that all is well in  Next Big Thingsylvania.  For example, even in Europe, 2008 wasn't the Year of Mobile and we still have a long way to go before mobile marketing hits it's stride.  Add this challenge to the list of stumbling blocks: when most people say "mobile marketing" what they really mean is "mobile advertising."  And that's a ship that will sink well before it sets sail (file under: square peg, round hole.)
• Wanna know what else doesn't work?  Viral marketing. Well, it works -- or at least it can -- but (repeat after me people) viral isn't a marketing strategy; it's one possible outcome of an otherwise sound campaign that's actually so good that people want to spread the word.  Viral is about people talking to people, and you can't cook it up in a Madison Avenue conference room.
• And speaking of things that don't work, Robert Scoble isn't a fan of Twitter's direct messaging functionality.  For those of you not on Twitter, direct messaging allows one user to send a private tweet to another user.  Scoble dislikes this piece of the service so much that he'd like to see Twitter do away with it altogether.  He's in the minority from what I can tell, but I kinda agree with him.
• So if direct messages don't work, how do you attract attention from a big time social media guru?  David Armano (a not-so-shabby social media guru himself, although you wouldn't know it from his mountain man beard and straw hat) thinks a new service called Bubble Comment might do the trick.  Bubble Comment let's you record and post a video message that will pop up, bubble like, on top of any web page.  It's freaky but fun -- it just might work...  Although I'm not sure what, exactly, has happened to Armano.  He used to be a nice Italian boy from Long Island.

So hey Twitterinos, what interesting, fun and useful facts did you learn from your Twitter friends this week?